The bill to lower the blood-alcohol limit in Iowa from .10 to .08 has cleared the Iowa House and has been sent to the Senate for eventual debate.

There really should not be any debate at all. There should have been no need for debate in the House either. This change should have been made a long time ago.

Some legislators have said the only reason a bill like this is up at all is because federal road funds will be cut if the change is not passed by Oct. 1. It’s sad that the government had to resort to “blackmail” to get states to enact such a change.

Why should there be any debate about lowering the blood-alcohol level? Is there, as letter writers to the Des Moines Register ask, a “drunk lobby?” What good is there in letting people drive around with a substantial amount of alcohol in their system?

Consider Kristin Reha of Norwalk, interviewed in a Register story on Monday. Eleven years ago, her brother was killed by a drunk driver who had a blood-alcohol level of .08 four hours after the accident. On second thought, I take back some wording there, specifically the word “drunk,” because as Reha said, “He wasn’t considered legally drunk in the court’s eyes.”

“He was acquitted of the crime because it was .08,” she said.

Or consider Juli Ann Farrell, a Hudson student who was killed six years ago by a driver with a blood-alcohol level of .087. According to the state, that driver was not drunk. Despite whatever senses may have been impaired by that .087, that driver was cleared to drive, because the limit is .10, and below that the law says you’re not drunk.

Ironically, the House bill passed to lower the level also lowers the penalty for first-time offenders. Currently, first-time offenders have their license suspended for six months. After 30 days, a first-time offender can get a temporary work license if an ignition interlock device is installed, which prevents the car from starting if the driver’s breath has a blood-alcohol concentration that’s too high.

The new bill, however, lets some first-time offenders off the hook. Instead of a waiting period, those who tested between .08 and .10 can apply for a work permit immediately, as long as they were not responsible for an accident causing personal injury or property damage. In addition, no ignition interlock device has to be installed.

I am not exactly thrilled to report that this amendment came from my local representative, Lance Horbach of Tama, who got the amendment passed and still voted against the final bill, one of 15 to do so. Three abstained or did not vote, including House Speaker Christopher Rants, who has asserted that, if not for the threat of withheld road funds, this bill would not even have been considered.

Even when lowering the limit, there is no reason the state should do anything to help those who drove while legally drunk. It’s not the state’s responsibility to ease up on someone who broke the law. The Legislature should borrow a quote from “Spider-Man” when people complain about having their license taken away: “I fail to see where that’s my problem.”

What about the bars that complain of lost revenue? This is the simplest question to answer. Corporations are nearly universally reviled if they lobby against plans that hurt their bottom line in any manner, whether it’s dealing with wages or pollution. There isn’t a reason anyone should see bars as any different.

According to the National Commission Against Drunk Driving, a 170-pound man will still be below .08 after four drinks of .54 ounces of alcohol each in an hour, and a 135-pound woman will reach .075 after three drinks. That should be plenty. If you plan on drinking more than that, having a designated driver is the prudent thing to do anyway.

When the Senate debates this bill that should need no debate at all, the senators should heed the advice of Rep. Clel Baudler of Greenfield, a retired state trooper. He said that lawmakers should think about the victims of those who drive drunk. That thought, really, should be all they need.

Many Iowans blatantly ignore the speed limit, run past stop signs and through red lights, and talk on their cell phones — and that’s while they’re sober. Working to take intoxication out of the equation will help prevent worse consequences than already happen.

Jeff Morrison is a junior in journalism and mass communication and political science from Traer. He is the wire editor of the Daily.