well you haven't actually violated property rights until you run into something/someone
and you have not signed a contract with the state saying "i will not drink drive on the roads"
so whats the problem/violation? i assume thats the gist of his argument.
edit: the argument is that as your blood alcohol content rises your propensity to cause/be involved in an incident rises, so driving with a blood alcohol content over an arbitrary threshold is a crime. that's like saying being black is criminal because black people have a higher propensity to commit crimes. in both cases no violation or interference has occurred, and yet it is a crime.