Setting the limit to .08 along with additional education has indeed helped saved lives. The costs should be on the backs of the offenders. AN individual did the damage to their own reputation with their own choice.
You can claim nothing supports the move. History disagrees with you.
"The Boston University study compared the first five states to lower their BAC limit to .08 (California, Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont) with five nearby states that retained the .10 limit. The results of this study suggest .08 laws, particularly in combination with administrative license revocation, reduce the proportion of fatal crashes involving drivers and fatally injured drivers at blood alcohol levels of .08 and higher by 16% and those at BAC of .15 and greater by 18%."
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Archive/Limit.08/PresInit/science.html
"at blood alcohol levels of .08 and higher"
You don't tell me what happened between .08 and .10. How many arrests? vs. How many accidents involving .08 to .10.
What you are showing me is the impact of fear, not the impact of arresting marginal drinkers.