"What are the visible issues here?"
Well...
A woman needs to drink alcohol to cope with life. This likely indicates wider issues in her life and can cause her physical and mental health difficulties in the present and future. Recognising that and addressing it sooner rather than later can minimise the harm to her mental and physical health and help her improve her life.
It's illegal to be intoxicated in charge of a child under 7. The op mentions multiple children, with the eldest being under 10, so the likelihood is that at least one child is 7 or younger.
It's been conclusively demonstrated that parental addiction and harmful use of alcohol/substances causes harm to children. The longer it goes unaddressed, the more substantial the damage. A harmful pattern of behaviour like the OP describes, needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
You say you wouldn't not wear a seatbelt, because it's illegal. Would you break the law by being in charge of a child under 7 while intoxicated? Because that's just as illegal as not wearing a seatbelt. If you wouldn't do it, what makes it acceptable for someone else to do it?
You said you lock your door so that strangers can't walk into your home. Presumably, because you risk assessed that scenario and decided locking the door was a reasonable precaution. The risks to children in both the short and long term are well-researched and clear, and social work, the justice system and professionals involved in the education and support of children have been pretty unanimous in indicating that a) an intoxicated adult having sole responsibility for a young child is a bad idea, and b) parental harmful alcohol misuse or dependency cause harm to children. Would you get drunk in the park and assume young children can be relied upon to get themselves and you safely home? Would you drink enough alcohol to impair your judgement (because that's the volume the OP describes) and trust yourself to get your children safely home, knowing that if something bad happens, it's on you? Would you choose not to address something known to have lasting consequences for your children? If you wouldn't, why is it acceptable for someone else to?