A slight change could have big effect

We've supported the .08 blood-alcohol law, which goes into effect today, because there are far too many drunk drivers on Nevada's roads.

It will help get convictions in some cases that might have been borderline before, keeping those people from getting behind the wheel. The law, which lowers the limit from .10, should also serve as a deterrent to at least a few -- persuading them to have one fewer drink or, better yet, from driving in Nevada at all if they've been drinking.

We do want to point out that we've long been opposed to the way the law has been forced on states by the federal government. If Nevada's legislators hadn't approved the lower limit, the federal Highway Administration would have withheld transportation dollars -- up to $11.4 million by 2007 -- as punishment for not going along with the federal standard.

It's the worst kind of governmental extortion, although certainly not unusual. We would have preferred the case for a lower DUI standard to stand on its own.

Nevada's past opposition to lowering the limit was driven by the casino and restaurant industry, a position that drew criticism for hypocrisy because of the practice of giving away free drinks to gamblers.

But drinking alcohol is still an individual choice, and deciding not to drink and drive is an individual responsibility. Casinos, restaurants and bars must now step up to their own responsibilities to not serve intoxicated patrons and make sure those who've had too much to drink have a safe way home.

The change from .08 to .10 is slight, but the effect could be great -- to one family, on behalf of one loved one who returns home safely. Ultimately, it was the right thing to do.