Well, it is definitely good that a DUI is taken seriously. And maybe it is necessary for alcohol to have specific laws against it in order to make that dissuasion effective. I can, however, understand the position that the current punishments are unnecessarily harsh. What would probably be nice, is if we had data to back up which approaches are effective.

> I imagine it's more about avoiding the ticket & punishment rather than avoiding endangering lives on the road.

I wonder about that.

We always hear the trope about the drunk driver usually not dying because they're "relaxed," but being relaxed isn't going to do jack when you smash into an overpass at highway speeds or dump your car over a cliff.

Keep telling everyone that drunk driving is dangerous and they're easily going to infer that it's dangerous for themselves. And then which is more of a deterrent, a nasty fine, or death?

Drunk people are notoriously bad at judging their impairment. The threat of DUI has an deterrent effect on people who believe they could drive safely but are still concerned about a life altering criminal punishment. This is rational given that you are much more likely to get a DUI than kill yourself or someone else. There are ~10k alcohol related auto fatalities/year and approximately 1.5 million DUI arrests.

> Drunk people are notoriously bad at judging their impairment.

They are notoriously bad at executive function generally; deterrents aren't aimed at them.

The deterrent effect of DUI laws isn't on drunk people, it's on people who would otherwise choose to drink when they would then have to drive.

That is a good point, but I think it is both.