The concern isn’t that all laws against drunk driving are unconstitutional - just the particular case raised by jtgain. Plus, the fact that drunk driving is a serious issue doesn’t mean it’s immune from basic constitutional principles which restrain the government.
On your first point, I think you are naive. But otherwise we appear to be in complete agreement - that a constitution which prevented the enactment and enforcement of reasonable and effective drink driving laws would be flawed.
on the first point - do you see anything in this thread that suggests jtgain or anyone else has a problem with the impaired offence? The concern raised and discussed has been the .08 offence.
“reasonable and effective” - that’s the sticking point - what you might find reasonable and effective, another person may not - but I don’t think that means that the constitutional protections are flawed.
Reported.