It depends upon what you mean by 100% sober.
There is a subjectivity to this, which I don’t pretend doesn’t exist. We have somewhat arbitrarily decided on .08 blood alcohol in California, for example. Now you might go .09 or something and I still wouldn’t consider you drunk. But you do have to have some sort of standard.
I’d hope it would be a reasonable one. What is the alternative?
It would be anyone could take anything at any time and we could all just deal with the wreckage.
So somewhere betwen 100% sober all the time and everyone staggering around out of their minds, hopefully, we find a reasonable and workable level.
It takes effort and intelligence, we can’t just wish the problem away.
These pre-crime fishing expeditions are completely arbitrary and nothing but a scam for revenue. Some people are barely walking at 0.03 while others can do heavy work all day at 0.20. Many illegal drugs are less impairing than average people who blow a 0.08. And many legal Rx drugs are WAY more impairing than someone blowing a 0.08. Also, we have no breathalyzer for the countless impairing Rx pills even though MILLIONS of people legally use them.
The 100% pure and fair “alternative” is to ONLY prosecute people for real crimes that actually harmed someone. NOT this “pre crime” or “potential crime” warrior nonsense whose mission is expandable to infinity.
IF you are driving wrecklessly and breaking rules, you get pulled over (none of this “checkpoint” BS). IF you kill someone and are found to be intoxicated, you go to jail. If you steal, you go to jail. If you burn down your neighbor’s house, you go to jail. We shouldn’t be creating a network of spies arresting people for things that “might” someday harm someone. With that thinking, there is no limit to expansion of the nanny/surveillance state.
Such thinking has led to such insanity as seizing cash indefinitely until YOU can prove it’s not drug money. It has led to the acceptance of no-knock warrants, SWAT teams everywhere and countless innocent people being killed.