So will total prohibition. Neither is acceptable. Drunk driving is deadly, but this is a step too far when even the government admits a limit this low this is de facto prohibition. Unless we also want to outlaw other distractions, like screens, radios, cupholders, pets, and passengers, we're just choosing what rights we're OK with giving up.
If you frame it as a rights issue, then there should be no limits whatsoever, and all you could do is punish the large number of additional people having accidents caused by their drink driving.
Any sort of punitive preventative measures will inevitably impact on people's absolute right to do what they want.
This is the sort of issue where absolute libertarianism falls foul of common sense and the wishes of the majority of people to prevent as many deaths of innocent people as possible. (If drunk drivers only killed themselves, I don't think people would care as much.)