My first thought, when reading this thread. Are the posters as absolute/definitive, about the first precept (not to kill) ? Candlelights kills moth/mosquito/flees, you know...
Looking inwards, my next thought is that my view on precepts, is that I think of them as training steps. Things I have decided to be better at, or as a pointer in a direction I want to go; not how fast or how, just be better over time.
My next thought is, I have seen many versions of the precepts; to name one example, I've seen the first precept as "I take the precept not to kill", and "I take the precept to refrain from harming living beings". In the same way, you can find several versions on the 5'th precept, but commonly they all point roughly in the same direction. I think the important thing here is to look in the direction they point, and then relate to that, rather then splitting hair on the words.
I end up with thinking, that (at my place on my path), the right thing is to follow the middle way. To exemplify, with a fictive example around the OP's question.
Say a person is used to have 3-4 drinks each Friday and on social events. At first, the mere reflection on this, is actually a step on the training path, as now one would reflect on it in between, the middle way between not caring about it and don't drink at all. Next one might say "I can get by with 1-2 drinks", again middle way between do-nothing and don't drink. Remember, if you follow the middle way for some time, it becomes the one extreme.
To try to summarize.. I see the precepts as subjects, that you make a *personal* decisions to train, to keep getting *better* at. How one should train is a individual choice, and can not be generalized. I.e. there is only one that can answer your question, and I don't think it gets easy'er for you to find your answer, by seeking others answers on the subject. You might end up with a "democratic" reasoned opinion, "posters mainly says, and that makes sense" (would that be your answer ?).
I hope my view has no influence on your view ;)
Knowing about dhamma, does not imply knowing dhamma