I guess the argument is we shouldn't be endangering people who desperately need to be able to drive "erratically" for good reasons, in order to protect drunk-d

I guess the argument is we shouldn't be endangering people who desperately need to be able to drive "erratically" for good reasons, in order to protect drunk-drivers from themselves. I suppose have some sympathy with that argument, which is why I said a minimum of 1:1 (a lower bound on the ratio). Drunk drivers kill innocent people as well of course.