Drunk driving should be legal.

Much obliged FourTrouble, as always. The Burden of the Opposition: To be clear readers my burden in this debate is not to argue that "these are good laws" which currently govern drunk driving. Quite to the contrary my only burden, as the opposition, is to discredit the proposition position: that drunk driving should be purely legal. Any position which contradicts the legality of drunk driving or conditionalizes it, in any way, is valid. You're probably thinking, "what does Yraelz mean by conditionalizing the legality?" Let me offer a simple yet effectively topical analogy. In the United States driving is neither legal nor illegal. Consider the statement, "driving is legal in the United States", is this a true statement? Broadly speaking it's neither true nor false; driving is absolutely not legal if you are 12 years old. Driving is not legal while under the influence, and driving is not legal without a licence. But driving is legal with a licence, and it is legal insofar as certain conditions are met (i.e. speed, direction, signaling, intoxication, etc...). Which is to say that the legality of driving is a purely conditional proposition; thus, if I can effectively prove that drunk driving should be conditionalized, and not purely legal, then I will have won this debate. To be perfectly fair to my opponent, I will offer one final caveat. In the United States if something were to suddenly become legal, that would generally mean that it was legal with regard to previous conditional legal realities. For instance if McLarens became street legal tomorrow it would still be true that driving under the influence would be illegal, and it would also be true that driving as a 12 year old would not be legal. And yet this would be considered, via normal means, the complete legalization of McClarens. By contrast McClarens could become conditionally legalized in the United States, for instance they could become street legal but only for professional formula one drivers. This later case, quite obviously, would not be considered "the legalization of McClarens", instead it would be a conditional legalization. Now let's address a few specific points that FourTrouble has discussed.The Subjectivity of Blood Alcohol Content (BAC):I will simply state the following points. FourTrouble is aware that I am a chemist pursuing my PhD at this current point in time. I believe he will take my statements at face value, though I will discuss the quantitation (if needed) in future rounds.1. I absolutely agree that BAC is subjective and qualitative from the individuals perspective. Individuals will attain a tolerance based on consumption and a variety of personal factors. Individuals are also very poor at predicting their BAC. 2. However, BAC is extremely quantitative when using instrumentation. Breathalyzers do not have a significant error associated with them. Additionally individual can, and do, purchase personal use breathalyzers. There are other methods for quantitatively determining BAC.3. The kicker: Most everyone reading this will agree with the anecdotal statement that alcohol has varying effects on different people. This is a statement that is independently true of concentration. For instance if we take 10 random people from the population and get each of them to a BAC of 0.08% they will all be effected differently, to some degree. The reason that they'll be effected differently has to do with neuro-inhibition processes associated with consumption of ethanol. Put succinctly, ethanol with disrupt balances between a series of neuro-inhibitors and excitatory transmitters in the human brain. How the human brain reacts to this disruption is generally dependent on the initial chemical environment of the brain and hormonal factors. For many, or even most people, the effects of alcohol (especially after the brain becomes decent at reacting to this disruption: a.k.a tolerance) are quite moderate, but for some the inhibitory effects are substantial. And for those select people the inhibitory effects may significantly decrease functionality typically required for driving, such as: reaction time, depth perception, and visual comprehension. This of course is why drunk driving remains a leading cause of death within the United States. The Case: A Conditional Legalization of Drunk Driving:It is already true that U.S. citizens must pass a driving test to gain their licence. I will simply suggest that they must also pass a drunk driving test to gain their drunk driving licence. The test is simple. Requisite BAC can be accurately estimated based on the body mass of any individual; actual BAC can be verified using multiple quantitative techniques. For the drunk driving test individuals of legal driving age will be required to consume the amount of alcohol required to reach a BAC of 0.08. After a period of time each applicant will then take a computerized simulated driving test (a.k.a a video game) to determine if they deserve a drunk driving licence. The test will focus on basic hand eye coordination, reaction time to realistic driving situations, and ability to comprehend severe driving conditions. And lets just be clear here. I'm not saying that drunk driving should be legal. I'm not arguing that the legality of drunk driving is not true legality based on already existent conditionals. I'm literally stating that drunk driving should conditionally be legal for individuals who can pass a basic simulation. Wrecking FourTrouble's Case:There are only a few things here I need to discuss and only the first one of them is a new topic. 1. Due to the nature of alcohol, that of an inhibitor, it is not always clear to people how they are individually effected. I'll propose that many drunk driving accidents are caused by people who thought they were perfectly capable driving under the influence but it turned out that they were significantly effected. Moreover I agree with FourTrouble: in many instances drunk driving laws do little if nothing to dissuade potentially risky drivers. Thus the advent of a conditional drunk driving test is supremely useful. It offers the individual a quantitative measure of their capacity to drive under the influence. For responsible citizens this test serves as an educational indicator of what they should and should not do while under the influence. Additionally, from an empirical standpoint individuals are much much much more likely to follow laws when the difference is a simple test (read: getting a licence vs. underage drivers). 2. FourTrouble argues, "There are tons of drunk drivers who drive safely"; I absolutely agree. But there are many who don't drive safely and are potentially unaware of the gravity of their choices. FourTrouble argues, "drunk drivers who haven't harmed anyone are fundamentally innocent"; I also agree. This is why a drunk driving test is so very important. It allows the driver to know their capacity as a drunk driver which moves the moral responsibility of these situations into their court. By analogy, if you were told to press a button while blindfolded you would not be morally culpable for the outcome. But if your blindfold were to be removed and you realized that there was a 25% of killing four people you become morally culpable for pressing the button. At this point I absolutely address FourTrouble's case, "drunk driving laws are underinclusive: they don't punish the problem". The drunk driving test not only identifies the problem, but it then offers a precise venue for punishing that problem. Meanwhile the majority of people, who are fully capable of driving while under the influence, are not adversely effected.Honestly I'm too drunk to continue debating. I'll have to rest my case until the next round.