Objective analysis of the statistics indicate that there are somewhere between 500 and 3,000 fatalities of innocent victims annually in traffic accidents caused by drunk drivers.
In a nation of nearly 300 million people, with 40,000 traffic deaths per year, there are nearly 2 million people arrested annually for suspicion of DWI.
Is that justified, or is it a witch hunt?
It's justified. There's a lot of intoxicated drivers out there. The fact that they've been lucky so far doesn't mean they should still be out there driving.
Look at how many posters here will admit they drove drunk, and are grateful they never hit anyone. That gives credibility to the argument that DWI often goes undetected. But undetected DWI is not safe DWI.
if your only issue is with the level of the BAC - then argue that point. even with a BAC at .10 or .12, you would still need some form of pro-active policing to catch people driving at that higher level. otherwise, what you are basically saying is that the only function for the police here is to clean up in the aftermath of DUI related accidents - the innocent driver is already dead or maimed for life.
are you in favor of any deterrent measures at all? DUI is not like speeding - you can't aim a radar gun at a car and determine if the driver is DUI, to develop the probable cause to stop them. what's available? checkpoints. OK, you don't like those. how about we have task forces of unmarked cars that follow people as they leave local bars to observe their driving habits. can we do that, or does the right to privacy extend to not having a cop observe me as I drive? after all, I might be innocent, why are they following me?