But i didn't have the same POTENTIAL to run over an old lady today as a DUI driver (this is supported by facts gathered over the years).
That was my point, it's the mere fact that a DUI driver has a greater potential to harm someone then someone who is sober, so just that potential alone is the crime.
So you enjoy living in a fantasy land where "what could have happened" actually means more than "what actually did happen"? If a drunk driver kills someone then by all means throw the book at them. Their actions did affect someone else and should be punished accordingly. But punishing someone for the mere possibility of something happening, particularly when different people are affected very differently, is akin to prosecuting thought crimes. And that's ignoring that statistically the HUGE majority of drunk driving accidents happen at much higher BAC levels than at or around the wholly arbitrary .08 level.
Gotta love reading someone trying to justify a "potential" as a crime, particularly in a supposedly free country.