The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Montana v. Egelhoff (1996) will likely have a profound effect on the debate surrounding the intoxication defense. The Court upheld a Montana statute that holds intoxicated offenders fully responsible for the consequences of acts they commit while intoxicated. Part II of this paper reviews the history of the intoxication defense in America, describing the social, cultural, and scientific trends that shaped the course of the doctrine. Part III surveys the laws of the partial-responsibility States, and Part IV distinguishes the intoxication defense from other criminal defenses. Part V examines the Montana statute reviewed in Montana v. Egelhoff, and Part VI offers a policy rationale for a full-responsibility doctrine. The final section argues that the ultimate policy decision regarding the proper extent of responsibility for intoxicated offenders should rest not with the courts but with the people and their elected representatives. Increasingly, however, States are realizing that the law's sympathy and protection belong not with an individual who consumes an excessive amount of intoxicants and kills or seriously harms persons while intoxicated, but rather with the victims of such acts. 282 footnotes and an appended review of the court rules governing intoxication evidence in various States