These legal fictions include (1) the highly suspect empirical assumption of risk that permits the attribution of culpability to drinking drivers, (2) the fictitious logic underlying the use of published blood alcohol concentration as proof of drunk driving, and (3) the potential fiction of a rebuttable presumption that alcohol use is the cause of injury or death in alcohol-related accidents. It is argued that because legal countermeasures to drunk driving are premised on faulty logic, inaccuracies, and inadequate empirical proof, resources are wastefully spent on the prosecution, punishment, and treatment of many drinking drivers who neither deserve nor profit from such responses. Such responses serve no valid retributive, deterrent, or rehabilitative end. They can be rationalized only by appeals to declaratory or educative aims that may be better served through mechanisms other than the criminal law. 90 references.