Proponents of tougher drunken-driving laws criticized a House panel yesterday for again killing legislation that would have toughened standards for driving while intoxicated in Maryland, but vowed to continue their fight.

"We'll never stop," said Susan Laine of Mothers Against Drunk Driving of Maryland. "It's the kind of thing that will pass. It's just a matter of when the timing is right."

Del. Sharon M. Grosfeld, a Montgomery County Democrat and a chief advocate of the bill, said she was disappointed -- and troubled -- by the attitude the vote conveys. "The message is that it's OK to get behind the wheel to drive impaired," she said.

Friday night, the House Judiciary Committee voted 12-7 against reducing the blood-alcohol level for DWI from 0.10 to 0.08. That means the state will lose an estimated $2.5 million a year in federal transportation funds it could have received had the General Assembly adopted new standards.

Last year, the panel blocked a similar proposal by a single vote.

MADD and the Glendening administration strongly supported the bill. The state police, local law enforcement agencies and insurance companies also testified in favor of the 0.08 standard, contending that it has saved lives in the 16 states that have adopted it.

Analyzing effects of the 0.08 standard in other states, experts estimate that the bill, sponsored by Del. Dereck E. Davis, a Prince George's County Democrat, would prevent at least 23 highway deaths and hundreds of injuries in Maryland each year. "To me that is critical justification to pass any legislation," said Grosfeld. "That's what our jobs are as legislators."

Opponents in the tavern and restaurant industries argued vigorously that the bill would needlessly ensnare social drinkers rather than the chronic drunks who they say cause most alcohol-related accidents. But supporters noted that a 170-pound man would have to consume four 12-ounce beers in an hour on an empty stomach to reach the 0.08 level.

The defeat was especially disappointing for proponents because it came after an election that brought a massive turnover in the membership of the Judiciary Committee. Half of the members were newly elected.

Advocates hoped the new members would see the issue differently, but proponents lost ground as several freshmen who had been regarded as "swing" votes opposed the bill.

The decisive margin indicated the panel could be an obstacle to such legislation until the next legislative election in 2002.

Eight Democratic committee members voted against the measure, as did four Republicans. Supporting the measure were five Democrats and two Republicans.

Russell Butler, a MADD lobbyist, vowed to bring the bill back every year until it passes.

"With that committee being half new delegates, we just really need to do more work on educating them -- not only in what is going on in this state but in every state," Butler said. "The experts have indicated that there will be countless lives saved by adopting the [.08] standard."

The vote came one day after Dr. Barry Levine, state toxicologist, told the committee that scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports lowering the level to 0.08. But several members said his appearance hurt the bill's chances because they found Levine's answers equivocal on the question of whether any driver with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 was intoxicated instead of impaired.

"At the hearing, he refused to provide scientific evidence to support the bill," said Del. Dana L. Dembrow, a Montgomery County Democrat who led opposition to the legislation. "Specifically, he said 0.08 is impaired."

Maryland law allows motorists with blood-alcohol levels of 0.07 to 0.09 to be charged with the lesser offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Under a law passed last year, the federal government began offering financial incentives for states to adopt the 0.08 standard. Supporters of the MADD-backed bill had hoped that the prospect of added federal money, which could have been applied to a variety of transportation projects, would give the legislation added appeal.

Pub Date: 3/21/99