"Some people who have been up for two hours, had three cups of coffee, and think there ready to go, are still more hazardous than some people at .12 BAC."
This is a very good example of how .08 affects all people equally under the law. SOME doesn't cut it when you speak about 'blind justice" right?
"When government tries to legislate character, they've crossed the line!"
That is a fair statement. But see they have to protect my rights as much as they protect everyone else's. This demands a balance be struck. The elctoral college reflects a balance of two opposing views that both bring valid arguments to the table.
This is why I find .08 a valid balance. It is a line of seperation that applies to all people equally, social drinkers can have a few and still drive in the proper timeframe and other drivers can be protected as well as they can be without removing the ability of others ti drink and drive responsibly.
Actions which unreasonably endanger other people are mala in se (bad in and of themselves); actions that don't endanger or harm other people are mala prohibitum (bad merely in that they are prohibited).
If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed an act that was mala in se, then it is just and proper that such a person should be punished.
Driving on public rights of way with a BAC of 0.15 unreasonably endangers other people; I don't think there is anyone who can drive safely at that level of intoxication. Thus, if someone is found to have been driving with such a BAC, that pretty well proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they were unreasonably endangering other people. On the other hand, even if some people would not capable capable of driving effectively at a 0.08, others would. Thus, a BAC of 0.08 in and of itself does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person's actions posed an unreasonable risk to others.
If someone blows a 0.07 three hours after a crash, that would tend to provide substantial evidence that their BAC was much higher at the time of the crash, and (absent some substantial rebuttal evidence) tend to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their actions endangered others. But if someone boards his car with a 0.080 and does not show any outward signs of difficulty driving, the 0.080 would not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person's actions unreasonably endangered anyone.