"It would be atrocious," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said about a potential rollback of the measure he sponsored. "We have laws that are in place because it's good for the majority. The object is to save lives." Lautenberg also has sponsored legislation raising the drinking age and banning smoking on airplanes.

Of the 12 states that have yet to adopt the federal 0.08 guideline, Colorado, Nevada and West Virginia are considered the least likely to do so this year, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The other nine are: Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Wisconsin.

Indiana adopted the 0.08 standard in 2001 after years of debate and failed attempts to get the bill out of committee.

State Rep. Sheila Klinker, D-Lafayette, said some legislators reluctantly approved the bill because they felt the threat of losing federal funds was heavyhanded. She believes changing the law was the right decision regardless of the federal funding issue.

"It's lowered the alcohol intake for a lot of people. I think it has saved lives," she said.

States that fail to toughen their drunken driving standards by Sept. 30 could get their highway money back as long they pass 0.08 legislation by Oct. 1, 2007, but the money would have to be spent on highway safety -- not construction -- according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Alcohol-related highway deaths increased in 2002 for the third straight year after a decade of decline, according to the NHTSA. Of the 42,850 people killed on highways in 2002, 17,970, or 42 percent, died in alcohol-related crashes.

MADD contends that national adoption of a 0.08 standard would save 500 lives a year.

Critics dismiss that projection as an unreliable guess. A 1999 report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, concluded that 0.08 laws by themselves do not reduce alcohol-related crashes but can save lives in conjunction with other drunken driving measures, such as license revocation.

Opponents also don't like what they view as strong-arm tactics by Congress, which has gone after states' pocketbooks because the Constitution bars the federal government from imposing a national standard. The money the federal government would be withholding comes from gasoline taxes each state generates every time someone fills up at the pump.

Much like the 1984 law Congress passed threatening states with the loss of highway aid if they did not raise the drinking age to 21, the 0.08 legislation has prompted fierce debate over what House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has dubbed "blackmail." The 12 states collectively would lose nearly $70 million.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia already had 0.08 laws that complied with the federal standard when it passed Congress in 2000. Since then, 20 states have adopted it, many of them grudgingly.

"There is some level of resentment on the part of the states because of the federal stick rather than the federal carrot," said Jeanne Mejeur, research manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. "But I think most of them see this as a public policy debate: Is this good or not?"

Cost of prosecution

For some states, implementing 0.08 could cost more than the loss of federal aid.

Tom Rukavina, a Minnesota state lawmaker estimates it would cost taxpayers about $50 million a year in court costs alone to prosecute the 4,500 to 5,000 additional drunken driving cases the tougher standard would generate. By contrast, Minnesota would lose about $24.4 million annually in highway aid.

"It's $50 million to save $25 (million). Who the hell would do that?" said Rukavina, who also opposes 0.08 on the grounds that it would remove judges' ability to decide cases on an individual basis.

Dan Towery, a member of MADD Greater Lafayette, has an answer for legislators who, like Rukavina, resist the change.

"All I can say is look at the alcohol-related crashes in Minnesota and the cost of those," he said.

Towery's daughter was killed in a drunken driving crash in 1999.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration estimates that the monetary cost to society of each traffic fatality is about $1 million. Indiana had 337 alcohol-related fatalities in 2001 for a total economic cost to society of $337 million. That doesn't include crippling injuries, costs for which are nearly as high, according to the NHTSA.

Minnesota had 226 alcohol-related traffic deaths in 2001 for a total economic cost of $226 million.

"Let's plug that into the equation," Towery said.

Backers of the higher standard are concerned the liquor lobby and supporters of states' rights will try to repeal the measure during negotiations over the six-year highway reauthorization program Congress is considering this year. They are particularly worried given that alcohol-related highway deaths increased in 2002 for the third straight year after a decade of decline.

"This is where science tells us we need to be. It's a long overdue standard that will save lives," said Stephanie Manning, director of federal relations with MADD. "It's going to be difficult for the liquor industry and the hospitality industry to garner much support."

A spokeswoman for Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the Finance Committee's senior Democrat, said he had thought last fall about trying to remove the provision but does not expect to propose such a step this year, given the difficulty of repealing existing law.

John Doyle with the American Beverage Institute said bars and restaurants would not suffer greatly under a national 0.08 standard. But he said the standard would ruin the lives of people hauled off to jail and required to pay thousands in fines and legal fees even if they were in complete control of their faculties. Under the law, anyone registering 0.08 or above would be deemed legally drunk, regardless of their performance in a sobriety test.

"It's not saving lives, but it is wrecking lives on the other side," Doyle said. "It's a mistake."

Contributing: Joe Gerrety/