Editing Intoxication defense (section)

==Voluntary and involuntary consumption==
A distinction may be made based on whether the defendant chose to become intoxicated, and is thus responsible for their diminished control or not. As an example, in the [[Dutch courage]] defense (see the [[Intoxication_in_English_law#Dutch_courage|Gallagher case in English law on intoxication]]), the accused hates his spouse but fears to take action. The accused therefore buys a bottle of [[brandy]] and a sharp knife. In the morning, the bottle is empty and the knife is in the spouse's heart. Because the accused had a plan and [[Liquid courage|weakening the inhibitions by drunkenness]] was a part of that plan, an intoxication defense is not feasible.<ref>{{cite web|title=A-G for N. Ireland v. Gallagher [1963] AC 349|url=http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Intoxication.php|website=E-law cases|publisher=e-lawresources.co.uk|access-date=19 November 2016}}</ref> But if, at a party, a bowl of fruit punch is "spiked" by someone who secretly adds [[gin]], the resulting drunkenness is not voluntary and might be considered a possible defense. A sharper distinction is drawn in [[Sharia|Islamic law]], where involuntary intoxication may remove criminal if not financial responsibility, while voluntary intoxication has no effect and the accused is treated as if sober.<ref name="Islamic Law">{{cite web|last1=Javed|first1=Azhar|title=Intoxication & Self-defence: A Comparative Study of Principles of English Law and Shari'ah.|url=http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/526/1/uk_bl_ethos_416550.pdf|website=White Rose eTheses Online|publisher=University of Leeds|access-date=19 November 2016|pages=241–242}}</ref>

===Foreseeability test===
The presence or absence of liability may hang on a foreseeability test. The fact that the consumption of alcohol or the ingestion of drugs may cause a loss of control is well known. Thus, anyone who knowingly consumes is, at the very least, [[recklessness (law)|reckless]] as to the possibility of losing control. If they did not wish to lose control, they would not consume, so loss of control must be within the scope of their intention by continuing to consume. But, loss of control is not instantaneous and without symptoms. The issue of involuntary consumption is therefore contentious. In most legal systems, involuntary loss of control is limited to cases where there is no real loss of control with noticeable symptoms. Thus, for example, in many states, the blood alcohol level for the commission of the offence of [[driving under the influence]] is set sufficiently low that people might exceed the limit without realising that they had consumed enough alcohol to do so. Leaving aside the issue that, in some states, this is a [[strict liability]] offense excluding drunkenness as a defense, there is usually a requirement that the person who "spiked" the drinks be prosecuted in place of the driver. This reflects the fact that the commission of a crime has been procured by the actions of secretly adding the alcohol and the practical fact that without this rule, too many accused who are only marginally over the limit, might be encouraged to blame others for their intoxication. 

In the US, the [[Model Penal Code]] also includes the possibility of "pathological intoxication" whereby a medical condition that allows a small amount of alcohol to cause disproportionate intoxication that the drinker could not foresee.<ref>{{cite web|title=Criminal Law: Intoxication|url=https://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/Intoxication.asp|website=National Paralegal College|access-date=19 November 2016}}</ref>

More generally, the defense would be denied to people experiencing symptoms of intoxication who continued to consume the spiked drink because they ought to have known what was happening to them. Equally, if no further consumption occurred but they ought to have recognized that they were affected by an unknown substance, beginning an activity such as driving would not fall within the defense. In other words, the policy underpinning the operation of the law favors the protection of the public as against the interests of an individual who recklessly or with wilful blindness exposes the public to danger.