As lawmakers deliberate on the amendment to the Criminal Law that criminalizes drunk driving, there are complaints about it being unnecessarily harsh.

Drunk driving does not necessarily result in accidents and serious harm, some claim. Sensitivity to alcohol varies among individuals and some people are capable of maintaining a clear state of mind even after heavy drinking, they say. Some even argue that our culture's traditional obsession with alcoholic drinks deserves respect.

But all such excuses do not suffice to justify opposition to making drunk driving a crime.

Indeed, not every case of drunk driving ends in an accident. Alcohol is a popular presence at Chinese dinner tables and the same amount of alcohol can have a different affect on different people.

However, criminalizing drunk driving is based on a clear and present danger to society, one whose potential harm far outweighs all the above considerations.

Drunk driving, not driving under the influence, is a proven cause of traffic accidents on our roads. Given its potential harm to both the drivers, passengers and others on the road, there is a widely shared consensus that this risky behavior should be prohibited.

Yet fines, and even police custody, have proved unable to deter alcohol-happy drivers from hitting the road after drinking. Imposing criminal liability is almost the last resort to scare such drivers away from the traffic.

Drunk driving does absolutely no good and is harmful and threatening to all parties involved. Making it taboo, by means of criminal penalties, is the only sensible answer to the pervasive phenomenon.

And it has nothing to do with respect for the nation's addiction to alcohol, because it does not criminalize drinking.