There's likely to be gray area, because it's all a matter of subjectivity. The bartender bears some legal responsibility not to knowingly serve someone who is already too drunk. That responsibility is justifiable, because, again, there is inherent harm involved - even if there's wiggle room because of the subjective nature of the bartender's judgment. Can we debate reasonably about that? Of course. The same thing with BAC. It is merely a proxy for impairment, and is also subjective. But the underlying issue - driving while impaired, is inherently harmful. Can we debate reasonably about where the line should be drawn? Of course.The law you cite treats impairment as an on/off switch rather than the gradual it is in real life. Judgement and inhibition are affected immediately. Many believe drunk/impaired is promoted by alcohol sales based on time that encourages speedy consumption to get another before time expires…
I get your points. Good discussion because it made me realize inconsistencies in the law. The 3pm deadline for alcohol sales also promotes drinking more before you cannot.