THE CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF AN INTOXICATED OFFENDER IS EXAMINED. SPECIAL ATTENTION IS GIVEN TO TRADITIONAL PHILOSOPHIES THAT FORM THE BASES OF WESTERN CRIMINAL SYSTEMS AND THE EXEMPLIFICATION OF THOSE PHILOSOPHIES IN THE CONCEPTUAL CRIMINAL FRAMEWORK. EXPLICIT LAWS TREATING INTOXICATED OFFENDERS AS CRIMINALS ARE REVIEWED. HISTORICAL DECISIONS AND CURRENT LEGISLATION ARE SUMMARIZED. AMONG THE SUBJECTS EXAMINED UNDER CURRENT LEGISLATION ARE 'MENS REA,' THE DEGREE OF DRUNKENNESS, EXCULPATION, INVOLITION, AND JURY INSTRUCTION. A SET OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS EXCERPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TYPOLOGY DISCUSSED TO PROVIDE THE COMMONSENSE BASIS OF INTOXICATION LAW. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND CALIFORNIA AND THE MODEL PENAL CODE ARE INCLUDED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DIFFERENCES IN THREE SEPARATE APPROACHES TO THE LAW OF INTOXICATION AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. THE STUDY POINTS OUT THE BROAD AND OFTEN CONTRADICTORY BODY OF CONVENTIONAL AND LEGAL WISDOM ABOUT INTOXICATION AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND IT EMPHASIZES THE SOCIAL PHENOMENA THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE THINKING OF JUDGES, LEGISLATORS, AND SCHOLARS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LAW. A SECTION IS GIVEN TO PHILOSOPHICAL, SOCIAL, AND LEGAL CONTROVERSIES THAT HAVE EMERGED AND THE REASONS FOR THEIR EMERGENCE. ANOTHER SEGMENT DESCRIBES THE SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL POINTS AT ISSUE AND CONSIDERS THE ALTERNATIVE REFORMULATIONS MOST PREVALENT IN THE LITERATURE. FINALLY, AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO SUGGEST WHICH REFORMS WOULD BE MOST PHILOSOPHICALLY CONSISTENT, SOCIALLY BENEFICIAL, AND LEGALLY EFFICACIOUS. THE STUDY CONCLUDES THAT THE TREATMENT OF DRUNKENNESS IN THE CRIMINAL LAW IS IN REALITY CONTROLLED BY THE WEIGHT OF PERCEIVED PUBLIC OPINION, AND THAT IT IS THE RELATIVE INTRACTABILITY OF PUBLIC OPINION WHICH LIES BEHIND THE JUDICIAL RELIANCE ON LEGAL PRECEDENTS. EVEN THE PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE REFLECT INTERPRETATIONS DRAWN FROM MEDICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE IN VIEW OF REFORMIST POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS. NOTES ARE PROVIDED. (MFE)