system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV the legal idea of "drunk people can't consent" and DUI laws are not logically consistent with each other

These are two basic laws that most developed societies have and I honestly don't see how they're logically consistent with one another.

DUI laws: this one is pretty universal. If you are over what your country considers an acceptable blood alcohol level (in some countries above absolute 0) then you are considered too drunk to drive. If you *choose* to drive regardless and get caught, you will get fined and/or imprisoned. 

This one seems sensible as we want to encourage safety on the road. With this law, the logic is that no matter how drunk you are (above your country's limit) you are responsible for your own decisions. You chose to drive, face the consequences. For anyone who doubts this, try getting getting caught drunk-driving and using the excuse "sorry officer, I was so drunk I had no idea what I was doing."

Not only would this not work, it would actually look *worse* for you. 

Drunk people can't consent: this doesn't exist in some countries and doesn't ever have a defined amount or limit. In fact, many people point to the statement that "drunk people can't consent" as being absolute, meaning that any amount of alcohol invalidates consent.

This logic is the direct opposite of the above law's logic and it asserts that there is a point (sometimes beleives to be anything above absolute zero) where you are no longer responsible for your own decisions. Even if you say explicitly that you want to have sex at the time, you can later say that you were too drunk to actually consent and accuse the other party of rape. 

Please note that I'm not discussing rape where force was involved, where there was no clear consent, or where there was actually a "no". All of those would be considered rape regardless of alcohol, so they are not relevant to the discussion. I'm specifically talking about where being drunk is why the sex is considered to be rape.

If we imagine this situation as an example:

A person can get blind drunk, drive home with someone else, and then consent to sex.

That person could theoretically be found guilty of drunk driving, but also found to be too drunk to consent to sex. Why would our standards for one action be different to that of another? Its logically inconsistent IMO.
gpt
>Drunk people can't consent: this doesn't exist in some countries and doesn't ever have a defined amount or limit. In fact, many people point to the statement that "drunk people can't consent" as being absolute, meaning that any amount of alcohol invalidates consent.

This isn't the legal (or most people's) interpretation. Clear, voluntary, enthusiastic consent can still be given by somebody who has been drinking. Someone who is incapacitated obviously can't consent. But there's some gray area there because whether or not somebody counts as incapacitated is hard to establish after the fact and how much alcohol it takes to be incapacitated is different for every person. 

Now you can stretch definitions a little and say that this is consistent with DUI laws because obviously an incapacitated person would not be able to start up a car in the first place. 

But ultimately, the question is pointless. The point of the law is not to be a perfectly consistent logical system, the point of the law is to prevent harm. Not everything needs to be logically consistent if having different definitions for different situations serves the goal of reducing harm. The law is not value-neutral, but rather has a goal informed by an ethical/moral understanding. It's pretty obvious why the bar for "you made a decision that endangered people" and the bar for "you were taken advantage of" are different if you make this consideration.