Succumbing to pressure from the federal government and anti-drunken driving groups, South Carolina last week joined the majority of states across the country that consider drivers drunk if their blood-alcohol levels are 0.08 percent or higher.

But will the new law really make a difference in reducing drunken driving deaths?

Anti-drunken driving groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving say 0.08 percent legislation saves lives by reducing drunken driving. But groups that represent restaurants and the beverage industry point to other studies that say 0.08 percent made no difference.

Before the law went into effect Tuesday, South Carolina was one of the few remaining holdout states with blood-alcohol limits set at 0.10 percent. The higher rate meant S.C. drivers could drink more than people in other states and still not be considered drunk.

But with South Carolina leading the nation in drunken-driving deaths and the federal government threatening to withhold highway money, lawmakers changed their minds earlier this year and lowered the rate.

One of the biggest advocates for such legislation is MADD, which points to a 1999 Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation study that suggests 0.08 percent laws were associated with an 8 percent drop in fatal crashes between 1982 and 1997.

The study estimated that 274 lives were saved by the lower blood-alcohol laws in 1997. The study also suggested that if all 50 states (rather than 15 states at the time) had such laws in place in 1997, an additional 590 lives could have been saved.

Donna Carter, chairwoman of MADD South Carolina, said the group believes the law will reduce the number of deaths in the state because people will be more careful about how much they drink before they drive.

Sid Gaulden, spokesman for the S.C. Department of Public Safety, said he also believes the new laws will save lives.

"Folks who go out and have a few drinks and get behind the wheel will no doubt think twice about having that extra drink before getting behind the wheel and driving," Gaulden said. "We are hopeful that it will bring about some more personal responsibility on the part of motorists in South Carolina."

Some research, however, shows lowering blood-alcohol levels to 0.08 percent doesn't reduce traffic deaths. For one, federal statistics show that nationally, alcohol-related traffic deaths have been steadily rising since 1999, despite the growing number of states that have enacted 0.08 percent legislation.

A 1999 study conducted by the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill showed that when North Carolina reduced its limit in 1993, it didn't have any clear effect on alcohol-related crashes.

Kristen Eastlick, spokeswoman for American Beverage Licensees, said she's concerned that by lowering the limit, it makes it harder for people to enjoy a casual drink, when many of the people involved in serious wrecks have consumed much more.

"This is more of the triumph of politics over common sense," Eastlick said. "It only results in the harassment of responsible adults, not the unreachable few that aren't responding to public appeal."

Eastlick said, "By changing the number, it doesn't mean you're affecting the problem. It's not about people having a beer at a ballgame or going out sharing a bottle of wine at a restaurant. It's the people who are abusing alcohol that are the real problem."

Carter and Gaulden said they agree there always will be people who abuse alcohol and ignore the law. But Carter said she believes those people make up the minority of drivers.

"You've got a certain group of people who, no matter what the law is, will break the law. That's why you have people who commit murders," she said. "But our entire state is not swamped with people like that. We do have people who are concerned about highway safety."