“Is 0.03 BAC enforcement excessive and confiscatory?
Is 0.08 BAC enforcement excessive and confiscatory?”
Yes and yes.
“How about limits on the quantity of purchase of alcohol, hours of purchase of alcohol, and age limitation on alcohol?”
If the local governments do it, they certainly have the authority, and if I don’t like their rules, I don’t have to live there. There shouldn’t be any federal laws on the matter though, or backdoor attempts using threat of withholding federal highway money.
“Do you have a problem with employer prohibition of tobacco use (even during an employee’s off hours, outside of work)?”
That’s tricky, because I don’t like it, but it’s probably a free association issue. The employer should have great leeway to employ or not employ whomever he likes.
“How about smoking bans in parks, cars with children, depictions of tobacco use in movies/old cartoons/magazine advertising?”
I’m comfortable with local governments trying these things, and seeing how they shake out at the ballot box, or in court, even though I don’t like them. Banning advertisements is a clear 1st amendment violation though, so no, that is not okay.
“Tobacco and alcohol are “legal” but sale, production, transport, and conditions on where it may be used are heavily regulated and becoming more so every year. Dopers ain’t gonna abide by that.”
So what? Neither do alcohol or tobacco users, when the regulations become too onerous. People always find ways to flaunt regulations when they can’t tolerate them, but we have no problem dealing with that through civil enforcement, or criminal penalties if the civil ones don’t work.
Vancouver lets you smoke. So does Amsterdam. And Colorado.
No further need to bitch about legalizing it nationally if that's your barometer.