STATES ARE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF SETTING DRUNK DRIVING LIMIT

HOW drunk is too drunk to drive?

Most states say anyone with a blood alcohol reading of 0.10 percent is
liable for driving under the influence; California and 15 other states
set the level at 0.08 percent.

President Clinton wants to force all states to adopt the lower limit,
or lose federal highway funds. The proposal failed in Congress last
year. In time for the holiday party season, Clinton brought it up
again in his weekly radio speech.

The number of alcohol-related accidents is now at the lowest level in
24 years, thanks to effective campaigns against drunk driving and the
popularization of the ``designated driver.''

Still, alcohol is a factor in 37 percent of fatal crashes, causing
more than 16,000 deaths in 1997. That includes 129 on New Year's Eve.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving argues that lowering the legal limit to
0.08 in all states would save 600 lives a year.

When California switched in 1990, drunk driving arrests and
alcohol-related fatalities declined. Apparently, social drinkers
decide to switch to coffee one drink sooner.

On the flip side of the argument, eight of 10 states with the lowest
rate of alcohol-related crash deaths use the 0.10 limit. The average
drunk driver is quite drunk, with a blood alcohol level of 0.14 percent.

As sober editorialists, we support this state's 0.08 limit -- and the
right of other states to decide what laws will work best to keep their
residents safe. There is no logical reason -- other than letting
politicians come out against drunk driving -- for setting an
impaired-driver limit at the federal level.

Note that Clinton also wants to pass a federal law to increase
penalties for violence against or in the presence of children. That
lets him be against hurting kids, few of whom are victims in federal
jurisdiction.

The president should mind his own federal business: When he's fixed
Social Security and Saddam Hussein, then he can turn his mind to
writing state laws.