How about we put it this way. Think of all of the different laws we have. Almost all of them would not be required if people could handle a basic set of ideals. But they couldn't so a law and punishment was written to stop them from happening. Should people be responsible enough to go out and have a drink or two without getting too drunk to be able to drive? Sure. Could alcohol serving establishments sell a lot more drinks if they didn't have to worry about over-serving people who drove home? Where is the personal responsibility on both sides, right? People were dying in large numbers because people were to irresponsible to not kill each other. But neither people, nor bars, could handle that, so hence the laws surrounding DUI. It is the same thing here, except in much larger numbers. The incentive is to put people into dangerous situations for establishments, and for people to think they can handle this and not endanger people while going out in public. But 200,000 + dead people is a great statement that both parties are wrong, and that the government should step in to minimize social damage. We do this all of the time in the US on a much smaller scale.