Of course you are taking a convoluted subject and reducing it to something that sounds absurd. Two points. We have removed ourselves from the rights and responsibilities of guiding and affecting the conduct of people in our communities… We no longer have freedom of association… or disassociating as the case may be. A town drunk use to be dealt with in various ways by all members of the community through denial of service and general rejection and by certain others with a helping hand and guidance. Today that responsibility has been removed from the community and given to the government… Not a particularly libertarian point of view.
What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.
The point that directly addresses this case is that we have also turned over to the government the right to prejudge people and fine, incarcerate and with asset forfeiture confiscated property before a person actually harms anyone else.
While you may see this instance as ludicrous… it only reinforces the government’s right to pre-emptively inject itself in anyone’s life for any reason that it sees justified. We see it with people leaving there children in the back yard to play, children setting up a lemonade stand… No one is harms, no one is hurt but we how far are we to allow the government to pre-emptively arrest someone… lots of people have firearms and every loaded gun has a potential victim… How far do you want your government to go to ‘protect’ you?