I'm assuming this is due to translation, surely this is hyperbolic and not serious. I don't think this is a bad law, people should be sober when piloting a drone, but how in any way is a drone comparable to the danger posed by a drunk driver?
The automatic drones are the ones I'm afraid of most, due to the posts I've seen on groups I'm a member of. They take no skill to fly, so people fly them without understanding. I've seen people disable the sensors and flying them a few centimeters from people's faces, where a slight gust of wind will mean permanent disfigurement. I've seen people fly them close to trees, next to wires over people, and a thousand other dangerous situations.
Whenever I see that a law forbids me from flying and taking photos, I initially curse the lawmakers and then realize that the same law protects me from the thousands of irresponsible drone owners, and I feel a bit better.
So, while drunk droning may be a safety hazard, it’s vastly less risky than drunk driving.
Like those found in many Japanese cities?
Just as being drunk in public is already a finable offence I think, as is causing disagreements on the public space.
With how many drones have been sold worldwide, if drones where even vaguely as dangerous as cars per hour we could easily find hundreds of deaths. So, even hypothetically cars are at minimum hundreds of times more dangerous.
Edit: clarified
Fortunately the law is still acknowledging that drunk cycling is much less bad than drunk driving (and often the only practical alternative besides sobriety), so you'd have to go pretty wild to ever get more than maybe a fine. Unfortunately, this view is increasingly under pressure from the kind of "enemy of the good" perfectionists who always ignore the big picture.
At 0.10% the accident rate is approximately 5x baseline.