Casinos’ sincerity questioned in war against drunken driving

John Wilen

Tuesday, March 16, 1999 | 11:24 a.m.

Proponents of tougher drunken driving laws are wary of a bill introduced in the Nevada Legislature Monday that would lower the legal blood alcohol limit for driving from 0.10 percent to 0.08 percent only in cases of injury or property damage.

They are also not convinced of the sincerity of the Nevada Resort Association, which has announced it will not fight attempts to toughen drunken driving laws despite its past position that a lower legal blood alcohol limit would hurt the resort industry.

In fact, anti-drunken driving groups say they are losing heart that Nevada lawmakers will ever lower the blood alcohol limit without being forced to do so by the federal government.

"If we could get federal legislation on that, that would solve our problem here in Nevada," said Sandy Heverly, executive director of Stop DUI in Clark County. "Frankly, we feel that will be the only way that Nevada will ever see 0.08."

The Assembly bill introduced Monday by Mark Manendo, D-Las Vegas, would define a driver with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent as drunk if that driver caused injury or property damage. Drivers with blood alcohol levels between 0.08 and 0.10 who do not cause injury or property damage would not be charged with drunken driving.

The bill would also increase fines for a first-time DUI charge from $200 to $500, and for a second-time DUI charge from $500 to $750. The bill would require a minimum sentence of 10 days in jail for a second offense within a seven year period, with a maximum sentence of six months in jail, a $1,000 fine and 200 hours of community service. Judges would not be able to reduce community service for extenuating circumstances.

Manendo says he changed his bill from an across-the-board reduction to 0.08 percent to give it a greater chance of passage. In the last Legislative session, a 0.08 percent bill introduced by Manendo died in The Assembly Ways and Means Committee.

But anti-DUI groups are not thrilled with the watered-down language.

"Anything less than (an overall reduction to 0.08 percent) does not have a proven track record in other states, and the proven track record is saving lives," said Laurel Stadler, Nevada chapter director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. "In my opinion, there is no bill."

If Manendo's bill passes, Nevada will be the only state with such a limited 0.08 percent DUI bill, said Bob Shearouse, director of public policy for MADD.

"This would be a case of first impressions," said Shearouse.

While expressing disappointment that the bill is less tough than originally envisioned, Heverly said it was a good start.

"We were under the impression it would be introduced in its original form," said Heverly. "However, this would be a start, this would be a beginning."

For her part, Heverly welcomed the NRA's decision not to oppose attempts to lower the legal limit. The NRA is a trade association representing Nevada's casinos before Congress and the Nevada Legislature. Last week, Jim Mulhall, director of government relations for the NRA, told the Sun the association had changed its position.

"We are neutral on that issue," said Mulhall.

"They won't?" exclaimed Heverly when told of the NRA decision. "That's exciting news."

However, she said, it remains to be seen how genuine the NRA's change of heart is.

"I think the answer will come when we see the reception that the committees give it," said Heverly. "If they're genuine ... I think that gives us a much better chance of passage."

Stadler doubts whether the NRA is indeed genuine.

"The position they take in public and the position they take one-on-one with legislators is often different," said Stadler.

Mulhall could not be reached for further comment.

Heverly noted that the NRA opposed an identical bill in the last Legislative session.

In a January interview, NRA Washington lobbyist Wayne Mehl said the association decided not to oppose attempts to lower the legal blood alcohol limit at the federal level in part because the organization simply has bigger fish to fry.

"We don't want to be perceived as part of the problem," said Mehl in January.

The NRA and other hospitality industry trade associations have long argued against a lower DUI limit, saying it will not save lives but will cost jobs. Opponents also argue that an across-the-board DUI reduction to 0.08 percent will cost the state $600,000 annually in additional enforcement costs.

Anti-drunken driving groups argue that a lower blood alcohol limit will save lives, making any financial costs worth their price. And they dispute industry contentions that a lower limit will cost Nevada jobs, noting that a reduction in the legal limit from 0.15 percent to 0.10 percent in the 1970s did not affect the economy.

The two sides typically argue their positions this way: the hospitality industry says a 120-pound woman who has two glasses of wine over two hours could be arrested for drunken driving under a 0.08 blood alcohol limit. Anti-DUI groups counter that an average male would have to drink five drinks on an empty stomach in one hour to be considered drunk under the law.

Though the NRA has decided to remain neutral in the dispute this year, the Nevada Restaurant and Hotel-Motel Associations have made formal decisions to oppose attempts to lower the DUI limit.

While the NRA's change of heart and Manendo's revised law have improved chances at the state level for the passage of at least a partial 0.08 percent DUI law this year, chances for an across-the-board reduction are much greater at the federal level or by other extra-legislative means, proponents say.

"It could be at the federal level, or it could be by referendum," said Stadler.

Two bills that would withhold federal highway money from states that refuse to lower the legal blood alcohol limit to 0.08 percent have been introduced in the Senate. One is a stand-alone bill sponsored by Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Mike DeWine, R-Ohio. The other, an identical bill, was introduced as part of an overall crime bill package by the Senate Democratic leadership.

MADD's federal government liaison, Tom Howarth, said he plans to meet with several House members later this week about introducing similar legislation in that body.

The Clinton administration has given its support to the measures.

Last year, identical legislation passed the Senate 62 to 32, only to die in the House.

"I feel very confident that had there been a vote on the House side, that we would have won it," said Howarth.

As for the timing, Howarth said it is possible a measure forcing states to lower the DUI limit will pass this year. But because impeachment hearings forced a late start to Congress' legislative schedule this year, the DUI measure is more likely to pass next year, said Howarth.

Back in Nevada, Heverly remains a fountain of optimism. She believes the federal government will force Nevada's hand, and notes that past DUI legislation -- including measures forcing states to adhere to a 0.10 percent blood alcohol limit, to adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward minors caught driving with any amount of alcohol in their systems, and to use chemical testing systems to check for drunken driving -- were all imposed on the states by Washington.

"Other DUI legislation has also required compliance by a certain amount of time or you lose federal highway money," said Heverly.

But Heverly's optimism may be stretched to the limit with her hope that the NRA will not stop at flip-flopping in its opposition to a lower DUI limit, but will actively support the lower blood alcohol cause.

"If they testify, I hope they testify in favor of it," said Heverly.