No we should not. I can't see how you're even attempting to argue this with me, because you're not basically arguing that all the lives were saved because of every other law you'd nullify if given a chance.......
Ok, the other victimless crime laws you rail against saved hundreds of thousands of lives. You win
I'm saying you can't attribute a drop on DUI deaths, over a 32 year span, solely to the passage of drunk driving laws.
Other factors are involved:
Mandatory seat belt laws
A rise in the minimum drinking age (used to be 18, or even 16 in some states iirc).
Cars have increasingly effective passive and active safety features.
Anti drinking and driving education starts in grade school afaik, and supported by PSAs on radio and TV.
Oh, and fewer kids are driving, and I suspect that's the demographic most subject to DUI fatalities.
Case in point:
http://www.rmiia.org/auto/teens/Teen_Driving_Statistics.asp
A total of 3,023 teenagers ages 13-19 died in motor vehicle crashes in 2011. This is 65 percent fewer than in 1975 and 3 percent fewer than in 2010.
You can't award drunk driving laws the prize for causing the decline in teenage driver deaths. It is a combination of factors that caused the decrease.