Lets put a little different spin on this as a mental exercise

The drunk driver typically has no 'intent' to harm, or put at risk the community he or she visits or lives in.  Of course, this does not relieve that driver of the responsibility of actions or consequence however.

But the different levels of tolerance DO make a difference, and one person can be 'unsafe' at levels far lower than the set level, while others at much higher levels.  Wouldn't it be far more prudent to properly assign responsibility for property damage and death as the deterrent?  It COULD be quite severe, yet appropriate.

Alternately,

Apply an equal amount of concern (that exists for drunk driving) for another at risk activity in our midst. The practice of Islam.

Given the self-admitted 5-7% (other estimates are 10-15%) worldwide of practicing Muslims who are radical enough to PURPOSEFULLY inflict harm, it seems a large Muslim community like Dearborn in our midst should pose a concern.  Especially given their purposeful attacks already happening to Christian groups which happened during previous Arab festivals.  Add to this an estimate that 80% of Mosques in the US are led by radical clerics.

It is not an impossibility that violence will erupt from that part of the state, and it will be with clear and violent ends, not merely an accident because someone drank beyond their ability to manage a motor vehicle.