Under my standards, YES. Under yours (and the ones in place right now), NO.
Keep in mind that the primary objection to laws against drunk driving is that they are completely arbitrary and subjective -- not in even in the way that a speed limit is arbitrary and subjective, but because the level of blood-alcohol content at which a person becomes impaired will vary widely. One person at 0.04% may be far more impaired than another at 0.12%, and yet the latter person is considered "legally drunk" but the former is not.
This was really borne out to me in my driver's ed class in high school, when they showed a video that illustrated the effect of alcohol on a driver's motor skills, judgment, etc. They had four drivers drive through a course laid out in a big parking area, marked off by traffic cones. Each driver was given a score that was based on how many cones they knocked over on the course. First they drove through it completely sober, then after two beers, after four beers, etc.
The video told a compelling story about the impact of alcohol on a driver's abilities. By the time they drove through the course for the last time, every driver was knocking over cones all over the place. But one of the drivers actually got a better score after two beers than he did when he was completely sober.
By golly, you're absolutely right! We should make or break national laws based on the anecdotal evidence of a single driver in a single experiment as recorded by a single movie.
Forget the dozens of studies and all the drunk-driver-killed bodies on the pavement.
Forget the clear correlation between lower accident and death rates and enforcement of 0.08% BAC laws.
None of that really matters, because one guy drove better in one experiment after he'd downed two beers.
LOL...
But isn't your example of reckless driving basically a subjective standard, too?
One person at 0.04% may be far more impaired than another at 0.12%, and yet the latter person is considered "legally drunk" but the former is not.
Maybe so, but when making policy, we have to draw lines. It is far too costly to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a person's actions have presented a risk of danger to others. Some people are going to get a raw deal based on where that line is drawn, but we can't exist any other way. For instance, AJ Foyt may be perfectly capable of driving his car 125 miles per hour down the expressway without being a danger to others, but the law applies to him just like it does everyone else.
For driving drunk, we've chosen, for better or for worse, .08. There might be some people who are perfectly capable of driving a car without impairment when they have blood alcohol levels above .08. But those people have to accept that regardless of their abilities, society has made a policy choice based on the characteristics of society as a whole.