ANOTHER ROUND ON BOOZE LOBBIES

WASHINGTON -- With more than 40% of traffic fatalities in the U.S.
traceable to alcohol, you'd think that setting a national standard for
drunken driving would be a no-brainer.

Who could object? Everyone knows of some tragedy caused by a drunk at the
wheel. Beer and liquor companies preach the "responsible drinking" sermon
and police departments everywhere press for "zero tolerance" among young
drivers.

A measure to equalize standards across the country won quick approval in
the U.S. Senate recently. Backed by the White House, its move through the
House and into law seemed assured. But it never even got to a vote.

How this seemingly popular proposal died is a lesson in American politics -
and the strange bedfellows that lie together when cash, votes and local
customs are involved.

The drunk-driving bill was killed by Republicans pressured by the booze
industry, by Democrats fearful of offending blue collar supporters, both
urban and rural, and by states-righters who object to any sort of federal
intervention.

Project backers sought to impose a level of .08 grams of alcohol per
decilitre of blood - the same as in Alberta - as the standard. States that
failed to set the level would lose up to 10% of the federal highway funds,
which could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Nearly one-third of America's 50 states already set the .08% level as the
"per se" threshold. That means, with .08% blood alcohol concentrations, a
person can be convicted of drunk driving on the test alone; evidence of
dangerous or erratic driving is not necessary. Most of the remaining states
use a level of .10% limit.

Translated into real life, the lower level could be reached by a 77-kg man
consuming five drinks in two hours or by a 54-kg woman downing two glasses
of wine in the same period.

Studies suggest that more than 500 lives would be saved each year by
reducing the threshold. But other studies show the average BAC level among
fatally injured drunk drivers is .18% - more than twice the proposed .08%
limit.

While the pros and cons of reduction were being argued in public and on
Internet web sites, the real drive to kill the bill was hardly visible to
the public.

Distillers, breweries and the hospitality industry, all vehemently opposed
to the lower-booze threshold, are huge contributors to lawmakers' campaign
war chests. In this election year, donors had only to hint that funds might
not be forthcoming for the Republican majority - which receives most of the
cash - to get the message. GOP leadership, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich,
decided the bill should never leave committee.

Backers hoped for a last-ditch fight on the House floor. But minority whip
David Bonior stifled that move. Bonior's Detroit constituency is filled
with Joe Lunchbucket types who regularly quaff a few brews after a tough
day on the production line. Michigan stands to collect millions for roads
from the highway fund.

Then there were Democrats like Wisconsin's David Obey who feared the lower
standard would frighten voters away from bars where, traditionally, they do
their socializing.

The Wisconsin custom, as in other rural states, is for folks to meet
friends and family in taverns. "Urban snobs may not like it," said Obey,
"but that's the way it is."

Finally, there were the states-righters who charged a national standard
would be "federal blackmail."

With this coalition working together, the bill didn't have a chance. In
American politics, it doesn't matter how important the legislation. Nothing
wins unless the member of Congress sees a real benefit for himself or
herself.