I still think that the issue here is performance, and that maybe blood alcohol limits shouldn't be used as an indicator. I think we would both agree that a person will perform better sober than they will under the influence, all other things being equal. But I also think that there are many things that effect performance, and so I wish performance was the focus instead of blood alcohol levels.

If someone is an extremely poor driver and has a death-causing accident while sober, they are not treated nearly the same way as someone who is at say 0.8% blood alcohol level. But if they are a very poor driver, I think it is just as bad.

Personally, I don't like being around a lot of drinking because I don't drink. When folks get too intoxicated, they irritate the piss out of me. I can't stand liquid courage, false pretense and all the other behaviors that come along with alcoholism and heavy drinking. But I think it's a moral issue, and that it probably shouldn't be illegal, all by itself.

I think that the ways a person acts should be what they are judged by, and not their mental state, even if that mental state is caused by the injestion of alcohol. If they assault someone or cause an accident from incompetence, that's the real harm they've caused and that's what I would focus on. That's just my opinion, and my voice. I can sure see the other side too, and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a performance-based enforcement model worldn't work well at all. But I say watch the behavior and not the blood alcohol level.