I bet if you asked 9/11 victims whether they want the PATRIOT act, they'd agree as well. That doesn't mean it's a good reason to support it, or that their feelings should be given more weight than anyone else's.
how? by pointing out that their opinions don't get an automatic free pass because they were victims?
>while attempting to defend the right to drive drunk. Congratulations.
Congratulations on generalizing everyone who's against such measures as "defend the right to drive drunk". That's exactly the same argument as surveillance supporters, who claim that if you're against surveillance you must be a terrorist/pedophile/criminal and/or support them.
You can be against drunk driving, but be skeptical or against this specific implementation of anti-drunk driving measures. As it stands right now, you haven't provided any justification for why it's warranted and is worth the costs, aside from "ask [drunk driving victims] if they agree".