By
Eric Swedlund
Arizona Daily Wildcat
PHOENIX - Tougher standards against drunk driving and extreme drunk driving got another push from state lawmakers yesterday.
The Senate Judiciary committee voted 4-2, with two members not voting, in favor of SB 1089, which would lower the DUI level to a 0.08 percent blood alcohol concentration. The committee also approved, by a vote of 6-2, SB 1137, which would lower the limit for extreme DUI to 0.15.
Senate bill 1089 passed the Government Committee Monday, while a House of Representatives companion to the extreme DUI bill - House bill 2006 - passed the Transportation Committee 10-0 last Monday.
Sen. Andy Nichols, D-Tucson, sponsored SB 1089 because, he said, studies have shown a significant increase in the fatality rate of accidents when the driver has a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.08.
"This bill is long overdue," Nichols said. "It should pass on its merits."
The federal government last year adopted a national 0.08 BAC standard and set forth sanctions against states that do not abide by the mandate.
Beginning in fiscal year 2004, states that have not met the federal standards will lose federal highway funds.
The sanctions begin at $6.8 million for the first year and rise incrementally until 2007, when the sanctions will stand at $27 million. States that do not enact the federal DUI standards stand to lose a total of $68 million.
Nichols acknowledged the bill is driven in part by the federal mandate, but added that the Senate could feel secure in supporting the measure independently of the federal government.
Nichols said 19 states have already adopted the 0.08 BAC limit, and he predicts within two years that number will at least double.
An amendment attached to SB 1089 delays the implementation of the new standard until July 1, 2002.
Sens. Tom Smith, R-Phoenix, and Peter Rios, D-Hayden, were the dissenting votes on each bill.
"I resent like heck the federal government telling us what to do about anything," Smith said. "I know they hold the hammer, but I hope that situation might change."
Rios, who also voted Monday against the bill in the Government Committee, said the measure would add substantial costs to cities, counties, jails and courts.
"The federal government is holding a hammer over our heads, and that is the reason a lot of people are voting for it now," Rios said. "Passing this kind of legislation specifically because we want additional federal money is not the right way."
Philip MacDonnell, an attorney representing the Arizona Wholesale Beer and Liquor Association, told the committee that in past years, bills that would have lowered DUI limits have failed every time on their merits.
"There is no correlation between 0.08 and accidents. We need to focus our efforts on the people causing the deaths, not the social drinker," MacDonnell said. "The system isn't ready to accept that many more criminals."
Steve Tyrrell, representing Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said the bill will save lives and make highways safer, but the 0.08 BAC threshold is high enough that the social drinker will not be affected.
"This isn't going to harm the social drinker," he said. "To get to 0.08, someone has to drink a lot."
David Alexander, an attorney opposing both bills, argued before the committee that lowering the DUI limits would worsen the problem of an increasing criminalization of segments of the population, without offering a solution.
"The further criminalization of society has hidden social costs that are enormous," Alexander said.
Dr. Leland Fairbanks, a Tempe physician, said dealing with DUI problems requires "education plus teeth."
"We need strategic embarrassment," Fairbanks said.
Eric Swedlund can be reached at Eric.Swedlund@wildcat.arizona.edu.
