I have looked at the reasons, and you are correct that a lot of people are making a lot of money from it. But for every dollar gain someone makes from it, it costs someone else a pain of a dollar. So, as a response to that, I say triple the costs, make the same money from one third of the offenders. Make it uneconomical to do it. Cigarettes are a prime example of social and economic views changing.

What hurts the social aspects are the number of celebrities, lawmakers, (look at how many people in office have done it), and everything is ‘over drinks’. Many lawmakers are guilty, maybe never caught or convicted, so they push-back on laws that would be dimly viewed by their colleagues. It will never change until public acceptance of it changes. People look at it as ‘partying’ and not as being the ‘town drunk.’ There is the real problem. When the public ostracizes people who commit DUI then it will change (and won’t even need to rely on law enforcement). In your position, I fully understand becoming numb. Drunks are killing children, would we become numb and accepting it if they were just sexually molesting them instead? Which is worse? I think you see my point, DUI is still a faux pas to the public.