WASHINGTON � President Clinton signed a law on Monday imposing a stricter national standard for drunken driving with the potential to save 500 lives a year.
The law would penalize states that do not meet the new limits by taking away millions of dollars in federal highway funds.

"How often do we get a chance to begin a good morning and a good week by saving 500 lives a year?" Clinton said during an upbeat, sunny ceremony in the White House Rose Garden shortly after he signed the law in the Oval Office.

He said the "law is reasonable" and that lowering the limit will make Americans take greater care when they drink alcohol in any amounts and they intend to drive.

Clinton said credit for the law goes largely to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization for the pressure it exerted for the legislation, overcoming opposition from lobbyists for the alcohol industry.

The group's national president, Millie Webb, 28 years ago in Franklin, Tenn., lost her 4 1/2-year-old daughter and 19-month-old nephew in a car wreck caused by a drunk driver. Webb was burned over 75 percent of her body and suffered a broken neck. Seven months pregnant, her unborn child survived the crash but was born legally blind.

"Every 33 minutes, a person is killed in a drunk driving crash," Webb said in introducing Clinton at the event. "It is still the most frequently committed violent crime in our nation, but those deaths, all of these deaths, are completely preventable."

Under legislation approved earlier this month by Congress as part of national transportation funding, states would be required to adopt a .08 blood-alcohol level as the legal threshold for drunken driving by 2007 at the latest.

Eighteen states and Washington D.C. already set a blood-alcohol level of .08 as the standard for drunken driving, but 31 states have a blood-alcohol limit of .10. In Massachusetts, a level of .08 is considered evidence but not proof of drunkenness.

The new law penalizes states that do not implement the .08 standard by 2004, cutting off 2 percent of their federal highway funding, with the penalty climbing to 8 percent by 2007. States that adopt the standard by 2007 would get back any lost highway funds.

Research cited by Mothers Against Drunk Driving shows an estimated 500 highway deaths could be prevented annually if all states enacted the .08 standard.

Though deaths related to drunken driving have been decreasing in recent years, it is still the greatest factor in motor vehicle deaths and injuries. In 1999 alone, 15,786 Americans were killed in alcohol-related crashes, including more than 2,200 children.

"There are still too many drunk drivers and there still will be too many after this law" takes effect, Clinton said.

The Mothers Against Drunk Driving said virtually everyone is dangerously impaired at a .08 blood-alcohol level no matter how many drinks it takes an individual to reach this level.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a 170-pound man can consume approximately four drinks in an hour on an empty stomach before reaching a .08 level. A 137-pound woman could drink three drinks in one hour on an empty stomach before reaching .08.

In my opinion they should just lower the limit to trace amounts. If it can be detected, then it's too much. You don't go lifting weights under the influence of alchohol, why should you get behind the wheel under the influence?

The guy is out walking the streets right now.

Do you know I still see this guy around. He never looks me in the eyes.

This happened in 1988.

Under what authority does the federal governement make thislaw? Is it specified in the Constitution somewhere that the national government controls driving and highways? No!

This is a states' rights issue! Individual states should control the DWI threshold, not Washington DC. So to get around that little problem, the US governement will take away highway funding to any stsate that doesn't comply.

Typical federal bullshit. And most of you are applauding. Way to go!

Matt

What the feds are doing isn't making a law. They are telling the states they will withhold federal highway dollars if they don't lower their limit.

Hell I agree with you when it comes to certain laws that are on the books. I have outright refused to enforce certain laws I felt were unconstitutional. My personnel file will show the administrative actions taken against me from written reprimands up to suspensions that cost me money.

I know about the highway funds deal. That's how the federal government enforces the 21 drinking age also.

Another piece of shit that doesn't work.

A few years back, Louisiana lowered the drinking age to 19. Ever seen some of their roads?

There are a lot of things the govt does that don't make sense. Raising the drinking age to 21 didn't stop underage people from drinking, it didn't me.

What are we as citizens going to do? Just live with it, or try to make some changes?

You'll find I'm full of opinions, and at times a lot of other stuff. At least we can disagree in a respectful manner here. I actually enjoy this, but I think we've beat this topic to death. Let me know when you need another good debate.