I doubt this mandate will survive the court of public opinion once this becomes adequately known.
Why is that?
My guess it's mostly because police officers are over represented in drunk driving themselves?
Everyone likes to go out and eat and drink, and at least here in the US driving cars is just as much a way of life and thus a practical right as it is a legal privilege. Dining venues and residences generally are not in walking distance, and thus necessitates driving a car.
Drunk driving laws exist to police the particularly egregious offenders who end up causing or could cause harm, but the police know that if they try enforcing those laws on everyone they will quickly lose support from the people they need to protect and end up unable to enforce any law.
That's why police don't arrest restaurant goers and also why I suspect this mandate will immediately die once it becomes widely known.
My (European) opinion is the the best option here is really to provide public infrastructure (night buses etc) that enable the drunks to get home without driving.
However, the police will set up a "sobriety check" road stop, after warning you in the local newspaper where the checks will be! These road stops are usually off highway exit ramps far from any bars. So, yeah, too many cops drink and drive, I'm guessing.
The article does a decent job of showing how "Fact Checkers" failed to spread knowledge, probably due to individual biases and a lack of diligence.