I missed the part of the SC rule that had the drunk flying at home
call a friend over to his house
and that friend has to eject the drunk pilot from his house.

... nope, I just dont see anywhere in the New9 that mentions EJECTION from the location.
What I do see in the New9 is a restriction on flying,
not on standing there drunk without a plane at ~flying location~ (club/park/home).

Its about the liability and determination.
When we say a CD has to make sure everyone is obeying the 8hr rule,
he can ask each pilot to attest they have not drank or pilled in 8hrs... the liability of the CD on drugs ands there and the liability of the pilot is now used: If the pilot falsifies an answer that the CD would have excluded him, it is the pilots liability.

How can we put the onus of responsibility on the CD to use his own determination on impairedness,
without giving him the method & policy to make that determination. The CD gets it from both ends, het gets blamed for negligence / incompetence if he doesnt catch every drunk, and then even Muncie can stap back and say the CD was supposed to stop that drunk before he killed the bus full of nuns with his PF.


Besides,
this really is a backup plan that should be using Pilots responsibility to assist SO/CD responsibility:
It is up to each pilot to obey the 8hr rule to prevent them from flying unsafely or recklessly,
but the SO/CD can ground a guy for flying like crap regardless of drugs...
you no safee, you no flyee

The New9 is taking the liability off of the pilot and dumping it on the CD.
However, due to the sweet way AMA is setup,
local clubs can still keep a 8hr rule on their books in addition to the New9,
as well as CDs putting one in the even sanction, just mention 8HR while describing the event and folks that wont sign the 8hr sheet dont fly.