With a few caveats, I agree: I believe that drunk drivers should not (in the typical case) lose their driving privileges when convicted of driving while intoxi

With a few caveats, I agree: I believe that drunk drivers should not (in the typical case) lose their driving privileges when convicted of driving while intoxicated. After all, they're not bad drivers (when sober), they're bad drinkers. That is to say they have demonstrated that not only are they unable to behave responsibly after using alcohol, but also that they are unable or unwilling to anticipate and plan for this inability before using. Instead there should exist the concept of a "drinking license" that can be revoked if an inability to act responsibly with respect to alcohol is demonstrated. (We already have regulations and penalties to keep alcohol out of the hands of certain classes of people in the US, but currently we use an age threshold instead of a more sensible set of criteria -- it's far from airtight but is a decent balance of effectiveness versus intrusiveness). "Acting responsibly" could include anything from "not committing a crime under the influence" to "not endangering one's health" to "not becoming dependent on welfare". In principle this could be extended to other recreational drugs, beginning with cannabis and possibly extending to harder drugs. (This is all basically stolen/borrowed from here: http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/a-serious-drug-legalization-talk/ http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/a-serious-drug-...) Unfortunately some degree of damage to society will happen before it can be demonstrated before a judge that a person is acting irresponsibly, and even what's broadly agreed upon as "responsible use" of recreational drugs would cause some damage to the physical and mental health of some individuals. So some level of "sin tax" is probably still justified.