Disclosing a DUI

[premed5]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I know this topic has been discussed at some length previously, but everybody's story is slightly different. I received a DUI five years ago, when I was 21, for a blood alcohol level of .093. I was comming home from a birthday party and was pulled over for gliding into the begining of the shoulder of the road twice while I tried to reach for my cell phone in my pocket. It was late on a Saturday night and police were waiting to catch someone. Ironically, I was not then, nor have I ever been a heavy drinker. I do take full responsiblility for my poor judgement, but feel it unfair for this one mistake to dictate the rest of my life. I haven't been cited for as much as a traffic ticket since, and there is definitely no evidence of a pattern of similar behavior. I know that I will have to disclose this information when I apply to medical schools. My question is how and when to disclose? Furthermore, does anyone have experience with specific schools that have either been sympathetic or completely dismissive of applicants in similar situations? I am just looking for a chance to prove myself and move forward towards my dream of becoming a doctor.

premed5

 

[fobw]

What exactly is on your record? If you got a deferred prosecution, you don't have a record to disclose. If you got a felony conviction, then yeah you need to disclose. Isn't there a section for this on AMCAS?

 

[njbmd]

I know this topic has been discussed at some length previously, but everybody's story is slightly different. I received a DUI five years ago, when I was 21, for a blood alcohol level of .093. I was comming home from a birthday party and was pulled over for gliding into the begining of the shoulder of the road twice while I tried to reach for my cell phone in my pocket. It was late on a Saturday night and police were waiting to catch someone. Ironically, I was not then, nor have I ever been a heavy drinker. I do take full responsiblility for my poor judgement, but feel it unfair for this one mistake to dictate the rest of my life. I haven't been cited for as much as a traffic ticket since, and there is definitely no evidence of a pattern of similar behavior. I know that I will have to disclose this information when I apply to medical schools. My question is how and when to disclose? Furthermore, does anyone have experience with specific schools that have either been sympathetic or completely dismissive of applicants in similar situations? I am just looking for a chance to prove myself and move forward towards my dream of becoming a doctor.

premed5

You have to disclose when asked (AMCAS likely) and every time you are asked. I would strongly caution you about using statements like "police were waiting to catch someone" and "I have never been a heavy drinker" as those are excuses. As you stated, you used poor judgement period. These types of statement tend to indicate that you have not come to terms with what you have done.

You might call the schools that interest you and find out the implications of your poor judgement before you spend application money. Some schools may be more forgiving than others but I doubt if any are "sympathetic" or "completely dismissive" of DUI.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

No need to be such a jerk to the OP. Less than 10 years ago, .093 would not have been a crime at all (.1 was the legal limit) and is only a crime because the [somwhat arbitrary] limits were lowered from .1 to .08. It's quite possible that sometime in your life you drove with a .093, as it used to be legal, so no need to get on the OP's case.

But, OP, I think that you should offer up as little detail as possible, because no good will come of it. If asked, just state the facts "I was cited and convicted for DUI because I was driving with a BAC of .093" Were I on your ADCOM and/or conducting your interview, I would have sympathy for your situation, but there are others (apparently) that are more tea-toddlerish (sp?) and base their ethics on the letter of the law.

But, to answer your question, you will have to disclose the info on your initial application. Here is the way TMDSAS (TX application service -- I'm sure AMCAS is similar) words it:

Are you currently under charge or have you ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, other than minor traffic violations, or have you ever received a felony or misdemeanor deferred adjudication? An applicant need not disclose information about a juvenile or criminal record that has been sealed for expunged. Failure to disclose information that is not in fact expunged or sealed may result in the applicant being denied admission.

I wouldn't play games with the "minor traffic violation" part, since I think that few people consider DUI to be a minor traffic violation.

Best of luck to you, OP

 

[premed5]

It happened in Illinois, where your first time is considered a misdemeanor. The end result was a negotiated plea of guilty. My insurance didn't even go up. While I know AMCAS only asks for felony convictions, I am under the impression that any medical school serious about a student's candidacy will perform a background check around the time of conditional exceptance. I've even heard that students may be expelled if such information is not disclosed and uncovered later. I know it will also come up during my residency applications and licensing.
As for some other comments, after reading my first statement I do reallize that I came off as making excuses, this was not my intent. I do realize it was a mistake and I place the blame squarely on my shoulders. I guess the police comment I made came out wrong. I was just trying to imply that I was not driving like someone under the influence. I just wanted to stress that I am not some careless, irresponsible person that frequently makes these kinds of mistakes. I guess there's no way of really doing this in a few sentences on an anonymous forum. Regardless, I know that doesn't matter, it was my mistake, I paid the punishment, I have learned from it and I feel now that I am much more mature than I was five years ago. I know I'll never make that mistake again, and I've tried to take any positive that I can out of imy experience by educating my family and friends to ensure they don't make the same mistake.
Again, my main quesiton though is how and when to disclose? Should I write an addendum in my supplementary applications? How long should it be? What exactly should be in it, besides the obvious facts of the incident and my attempts to illustrate how this was completely out of character? Furthermore, do I need to focus on building up my character during my applications or is it sufficient to explain this as one isolated youthful indescretion? Any help would be appreciated. I feel embarassed to bring this up to my pre-med advisor. I appreciate the anonymity this forum provides and you've all been great for answering my questions.

Thanks

premed5

 

[premed5]

Sorry, I didn't see the last comment. I don't know that AMCAS has similar language or not. I've begun filling it out and the only question I came across was about felony convictions. Regardless, should I include some written explanation?

premed5

 

[Kateb4]

You should not mention that your blood alcohol was .093 when you talk about it. Many many serious accidents have been caused by lower levels, and they honestly won't care that you were close. You don't want to seem like your are trivializing the situation or the serious problem of drunk driving.

Of course if it is required, present all of the info, however if the application doesn't require the info, then I wouldn't mention it directly. You can make a general blanket statement like "I have made some mistakes in my past" on your PS but I wouldn't come out and directly offer something that may be this damaging. If the adcom asks you directly what the mistakes were in your interview, then figure out a way to mention it. But do not try to downplay it or make excuses. Accept the mistake, and make it a learning experience, talk about the tragedy of drunk driving today and maybe look into some current legislation that has been put in force to try to correct the situation. For example, there was recently a crash near me where a 23 year old driver with a blood alcohol level of .124 hit a utility pole killing 5 teenage passengers in her car. The city is proposing new legislature to take away the licence of any underage person who is found to have been drinking.

Also, in IL, .08 has been the legal limit for 10 years, and we were the 15th state to lower the limit, so this is not a new thing. These numbers are not arbitrary, there have been studies done that show that by the time a driver reaches the level of .08 that they are 11 times more likely to be killed in a single vehicle crash as a non-drinking driver (from IL sec of state website). Most people here take this very seriously, and as medical professionals who may have to treat the victims one day, we all should. If you can show them that you are in fact a responsible mature adult now, they should not hold this entirely against you.

 

[QofQuimica]

Sorry, I didn't see the last comment. I don't know that AMCAS has similar language or not. I've begun filling it out and the only question I came across was about felony convictions. Regardless, should I include some written explanation?

premed5

If I were you, I would only disclose the DUI if it is required. In other words, if you are asked for felony convictions, and you pled guilty to a DUI misdemeanor, then you are not required to disclose it. In that case, keep your trap shut. Don't go making unnecessary problems for yourself by telling them more than they asked to know. If they run a background check on you to make sure you have no felony convictions, you're fine. You have a misdemeanor, not a felony, on your record. On the other hand, if you are asked to disclose all arrests, or all misdemeanors (like in the question jota posted), or all problems with drugs, then you will have to disclose your DUI. In that case, I would definitely include an explanation of the circumstances. But more more importantly, you should emphasize what you have learned from the experience, that you are now involved with educating others about the dangers of DUI, how the experience will improve your empathy for patients (many of whom will have drug, tobacco, and alcohol problems), etc. In the immortal words of my eleventh grade history teacher, make the length of your explanation like a miniskirt: long enough to cover the subject, and short enough to be interesting. 😉

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Also, in IL, .08 has been the legal limit for 10 years, and we were the 15th state to lower the limit, so this is not a new thing. These numbers are not arbitrary, there have been studies done that show that by the time a driver reaches the level of .08 that they are 11 times more likely to be killed in a single vehicle crash as a non-drinking driver (from IL sec of state website). Most people here take this very seriously, and as medical professionals who may have to treat the victims one day, we all should. If you can show them that you are in fact a responsible mature adult now, they should not hold this entirely against you.

My point is that it is a number written on a piece of paper. Are you going to tell me that someone with a .079 BAC is not dangerous at all, while someone with a .080 is all of the sudden 11X more likely to be killed, etc (as you wrote above?)

Life is not all black and white, like the letter of this law apparently has you believing -- it is made up of shades of grey (actually shades of colors.) But, back to the topic at hand.....

I agree with Q -- if AMCAS only asks for felonies, don't mention this. If any secondary/supplemental applications ask for misdemeanors, then you will have to disclose, but when it pops up on a background check, it will pop up as a misdemeanor conviction, and you did as you were told -- disclosed your felony convictions (i.e. none) when asked. You should not have a problem. Best of luck to you.

 

[Kateb4]

My point is that it is a number written on a piece of paper. Are you going to tell me that someone with a .079 BAC is not dangerous at all, while someone with a .080 is all of the sudden 11X more likely to be killed, etc (as you wrote above?)

Life is not all black and white, like the letter of this law apparently has you believing -- it is made up of shades of grey (actually shades of colors.) But, back to the topic at hand.....

QUOTE]

No, I don't believe that any BAC is safe for driving, but your post made it seem like you feel that the law and the lowering of the BAC tolerance is random and unsubstantiated. The study actually goes on to show that .06 BAC has twice the likelihood of a fatality in a single car crash, etc.

To say that .079 is not dangerous is like saying that 99 mg of a drug is not effective but 100mg is. Even if a person is pulled over and is found to have a BAC of .079 a police office still has the authority to administer a sobriety test and determine if the person is impaired, and arrest him if he deems that he is in fact under the influence. It may be an arbitrary number as you say, but that's how life is, they get as accurate as they can. Are you going to prescribe your patient 99mg of a drug when the tablets are only available in 100mg?

Aside from that, the OP was not even close, so I don't see how this is an issue. The fact is that he/she made a poor judgment, and if it is something that the adcom is aware of, they will take his mistake into account as a measure of decision making ability. Sorry.

 

[notdeadyet]

My point is that it is a number written on a piece of paper. Are you going to tell me that someone with a .079 BAC is not dangerous at all, while someone with a .080 is all of the sudden 11X more likely to be killed, etc (as you wrote above?)

No, someone with 0.079 BAC is probably somewhere around 10.8X or so more likely to be killed.

This is why lots of folks feel the whole BAC level is pretty much garbage. If you have anything to drink, you should not drive. Basing your "ethics on the letter of the law" is when you start asking the question, "am I too drunk to drive home?" based on mental gymnastics of your BAC.

Life is not all black and white, like the letter of this law apparently has you believing -- it is made up of shades of grey (actually shades of colors.)

For many of us, what's black and white is this: if you drink, don't drive. For many folks, the idea that there is a level of intoxication that is acceptable for operating a motor vehicle at high speeds is absolutely ridiculous.

Don't drink and drive. Any amount. Done, confusion solved. You'll probably find, jota, that folks who work in ERs, counsel teens, or have lost loved ones to drunk driving have little patience for folks splitting hairs to determine how drunk you can be and still drive. Anything more than zero is a public health comprimise.

 

[notdeadyet]

And premed5, my sympathies. While I disagree with drunk driving (of any kind), everyone makes mistakes. I'm not guilty of DUI, but I was guilty of plenty else when younger and have just been fortunate enough not to get caught.

If schools don't ask, you are not required to tell. I would no more draw attention to a bad legal mark on my record any more than I would draw attention to a bad grade. If you're asked, be honest and be forthright. You've obviously learned from your mistake and have a good sense of accountability. Just keep that in mind and behave accordingly when you have to reveal it.

Best of luck. Many folks with DUI's and the like have become doctors. Your application process may be harder than other folks, but it ain't a showstopper.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

No, I don't believe that any BAC is safe for driving, but your post made it seem like you feel that the law and the lowering of the BAC tolerance is random and unsubstantiated. The study actually goes on to show that .06 BAC has twice the likelihood of a fatality in a single car crash, etc.

Post the link to the study, and I'll read it, but there are many studies that make points on either side. Indeed, if you look at the drunk driving fatalities since the national .08 limit was passed (in 2000, which is less than 10 years ago by my math,) drunk driving fatalities have actually INCREASED! Not a study, but a mainstream news article (and the best I could come up with on short notice):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171383,00.html

The best conclusion that I can draw (which sort of jives with what notdeadyet is saying) is that there is not as much a correlation between BAC (at these levels) and drunk driving fatalities as some lobbying groups (like MADD) will have you believe.

Aside from that, the OP was not even close, so I don't see how this is an issue. The fact is that he/she made a poor judgment, and if it is something that the adcom is aware of, they will take his mistake into account as a measure of decision making ability. Sorry.

.093 is close to .08 by my math (16% difference.) Depending upon how that number was measured, it may have been well within the margin of error of some equipment (IIRC, Breathalyzers have an error of approx. 15% if administered 100% correctly, and in many cases, they are not administered properly. Blood alcohol tests are far more accurate, however.)

No, someone with 0.079 BAC is probably somewhere around 10.8X or so more likely to be killed.

This is why lots of folks feel the whole BAC level is pretty much garbage. If you have anything to drink, you should not drive. Basing your "ethics on the letter of the law" is when you start asking the question, "am I too drunk to drive home?" based on mental gymnastics of your BAC.

For many of us, what's black and white is this: if you drink, don't drive. For many folks, the idea that there is a level of intoxication that is acceptable for operating a motor vehicle at high speeds is absolutely ridiculous.

Don't drink and drive. Any amount. Done, confusion solved. You'll probably find, jota, that folks who work in ERs, counsel teens, or have lost loved ones to drunk driving have little patience for folks splitting hairs to determine how drunk you can be and still drive. Anything more than zero is a public health comprimise.

I'm not defending anyone who has gotten in an accident or caused harm to someone by using poor judgement by drinking and driving while intoxicated. Under your standard, if I have a glass of wine with dinner, I can't drive period, and that's ridiculous. The OP caused no harm to anyone, and njbmd (and now you two) fell on him/her like a ton of bricks. I was just pointing out that I thought that the OP got a raw deal, and maybe others would too. Apparently, I am in the minority. The take home message for you, OP is probably this: Even among so-called educated people, there are lots of people with strong, dogmatic opinions about various things, and a DUI conviction for a .093 seems to be one of them. I would keep your conviction a secret as much as you can. If they don't ask, don't tell. Unless you straight-up lie (i.e. don't disclose when explicitly asked as would be the case with the wording of the snippet of the TMDSAS application that I posted above) I doubt they'll pull your acceptance because it shows up on a background check.

 

[AGDJenni]

Don't do drugs, emkaay.....Drugs are bad, emkaay....

 

[scpod]

Furthermore, does anyone have experience with specific schools that have either been sympathetic or completely dismissive of applicants in similar situations? I am just looking for a chance to prove myself and move forward towards my dream of becoming a doctor.

premed5

I know that the school I attend now asks if you have ever been convicted of anything other than a parking ticket on their secondary. Most of the places I applied to asked that. My school required a rather extensive background check as well. It WILL be uncovered. I also know that there are people in my class with previous DUI convictions. Most schools realize that people make mistakes from time to time. It is not an automatic decline because you may have a DUI. However, you may very well see yourself kicked out of school if you get one after you matriculate.

 

[notdeadyet]

I'm not defending anyone who has gotten in an accident or caused harm to someone by using poor judgement by drinking and driving while intoxicated. Under your standard, if I have a glass of wine with dinner, I can't drive period, and that's ridiculous.

Can you have two glasses? How about three glasses? Then we get into your territory of "well, gosh it's all so fuzzy what constitutes 'drunk'". And drunk driving really isn't a problem unless there's an accident. That doesn't work.

The OP caused no harm to anyone, and njbmd (and now you two) fell on him/her like a ton of bricks.

Actually, pretty much everyone (including the OP) is in agreement that it was poor judgement and that drunk driving is bad. You're batting on a team of one, jota.

 

[notdeadyet]

The take home message for you, OP is probably this: Even among so-called educated people, there are lots of people with strong, dogmatic opinions about various things, and a DUI conviction for a .093 seems to be one of them.

How drunk do you think someone needs to be before drunk driving is considered wrong in your opinion? Is it 0.1 or 0.2 or what? Just curious if you feel that all drunk driving is okay, or only some levels of drunk driving.

Any extending that logic, if it's safe to drive with four beers under your belt (which is under the current legal limit), would you scrub in for a surgery after four beers? And if you're too drunk to weild a scalpel, aren't you too drunk to drive a car?

Anyway, you might (or might not) find your tune changes a bit after your Emergency Medicine rotation in medical school. I don't know anyone who has a "victimless crime" mentality of drunk driving after they work in an ED for a while and see the carnage it causes. But hey, to each their own.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Can you have two glasses? How about three glasses? Then we get into your territory of "well, gosh it's all so fuzzy what constitutes 'drunk'". And drunk driving really isn't a problem unless there's an accident. That doesn't work.

It does work. Freedom to choose has a price. Sometimes people are harmed by bad choices made by others, but this isn't typically the case. I feel that I am responsible to decide if I need to call a cab or not. Most are. Some aren't. I believe that we live in a society where the freedom to make choices is more important than the few who are harmed by people who choose poorly. Those that choose poorly and injure people should be punished. Those that choose responsibly shouldn't.

Actually, pretty much everyone (including the OP) is in agreement that it was poor judgement and that drunk driving is bad. You're batting on a team of one, jota.

Ooooh, and you're batting on a team of three. Big whoop. What's next? Want to compare penis sizes?

How drunk do you think someone needs to be before drunk driving is considered wrong in your opinion? Is it 0.1 or 0.2 or what? Just curious if you feel that all drunk driving is okay, or only some levels of drunk driving.

The VAST majority of accidents are caused by people with a .15 or above (I can easily find a cite -- one better than the foxnews link that I posted before for that statistic.) Therefore, lowering the legal limit from .1 to .08 accomplished nothing (the analogy used in the foxnews link I posted was that it was like lowering the speed limit from 65 to 60 to catch people doing 100) so that's a practical start. I am not opposed to having legal limits (As you are implying above) I just saw no reason (and no valid studies to substantiate thus) the lowering of the legal limit from .1 to .08. So, to strictly answer your question, then, I believe that one is too impaired to drive if their BAC is around .15%, but to add some margin for error, I was happy with the former .1% legal limit.

Any extending that logic, if it's safe to drive with four beers under your belt (which is under the current legal limit), would you scrub in for a surgery after four beers? And if you're too drunk to weild a scalpel, aren't you too drunk to drive a car?

4 beers in what amount of time? How big of a person are you? As you surely know from your basic Chemistry, concentration depends upon both solute and solvent. 4 beers over the course of an evening/dinner is perfectly reasonable, IMHO.

I think comparing driving a car to performing surgery is an insult to surgeons everywhere. Anyone can get a driver's license, but it takes lots of training to be able to perform surgery. Therefore, your argument that anyone who can't perform surgery shouldn't drive a car is simply a reductio ad absurdum -- using your logic, 99.9% of citizens shouldn't be driving cars, because they can't perform surgery.

Anyway, you might (or might not) find your tune changes a bit after your Emergency Medicine rotation in medical school. I don't know anyone who has a "victimless crime" mentality of drunk driving after they work in an ED for a while and see the carnage it causes. But hey, to each their own.

How presumptuous of you to tell me what I will think (especially after a rotation that you haven't even completed yourself.) I never said that drunk driving was a victimless crime, and, FYI, I HAVE worked in an ED.

 

[notdeadyet]

I feel that I am responsible to decide if I need to call a cab or not. Most are. Some aren't.

True. So we have laws to penalize those that don't know whether or not they are fit to drive home by having BAC limits. Those that are responsible are not penalized (as they are not driving drunk). We're in agreement.

Ooooh, and you're batting on a team of three. Big whoop. What's next? Want to compare penis sizes?

Yikes. I hope not. I'm just responding to your comment that "everyone" is ganging up on the OP, when in fact everybody else agrees with the guy. No biggie.

I am not opposed to having legal limits (As you are implying above) I just saw no reason (and no valid studies to substantiate thus) the lowering of the legal limit from .1 to .08.

Nope, no implication there. I'm just trying to find if feel there should be BAC levels. You make a couple references to not supporting folks who cause accidents while driving drunk; just not sure if you feel driving drunk is okay, but if you're so drunk you cause an accident, it's not.

So, to strictly answer your question, then, I believe that one is too impaired to drive if their BAC is around .15%,

If I'm not mistaken, that's an average sized man drinking about eight beers over one hour. To each their own.

4 beers over the course of an evening/dinner is perfectly reasonable, IMHO.

.08% is actually an average sized male drinking five beers over the course of one hour (if you want to get technical). I wouldn't let my wife get in that guy's car, but again, to each their own.

How presumptuous of you to tell me what I will think (especially after a rotation that you haven't even completed yourself.)

I thought it was soft enough when I said " you might (or might not)", my apologies if I hurt your feelings. It wasn't my intent. And good stuff on the ED volunteering. I'd be curious to see the reaction if you mentioned to an attending your feeling that 0.15% is okay for getting behind the wheel. Not sure where you're at, but I think docs around here would be suprised. We get enough DUI carnage at 2am. I can only imagine the scene if folks were allowed to drive with almost double under their belt.

But like you say, freedom of choice. We just choose to disagree.

 

[notdeadyet]

Here's a fun site. It will calculate whether or not you're legal after having a few drinks. I think most (but not all) folks will be actually suprised by how many drinks you are able to have and still be considered safe to drive by the law.

 

[notdeadyet]

OP- Looks like a split decision. But I think that while everyone is entitled to their opinion, it's safe to assume that most folks in medicine will feel that drunk driving laws are too lax, if anything.

Like I said before, I think you're taking the right tack with honesty and acknowledging your mistake. Play it like that with the adcoms, and you'll be fine. Best of luck.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

notdeadyet: if, for some reason, medical school does not work out for you (I'm not wishing ill on you, just playing "what if") you would make a GREAT politician, because you LOVE to distort facts.

What I wrote (direct quote from my post):

to strictly answer your question, then, I believe that one is too impaired to drive if their BAC is around .15%, but to add some margin for error, I was happy with the former .1% legal limit.

What you said I wrote (direct quote from your post):

I'd be curious to see the reaction if you mentioned to an attending your feeling that 0.15% is okay for getting behind the wheel.

I don't mind debating something intelligently, but purposely distorting what the other party writes (i.e. I say I think that .15 is bad, you say that I said that .15 is OK) is classless. This isn't the first time you have done it during the course of this discussion, but it's the most flagrant. There is no point in continuing this debate (not to mention the fact that we have thoroughly hijacked the OP's thread.)

 

[notdeadyet]

I don't mind debating something intelligently, but purposely distorting what the other party writes (i.e. I say I think that .15 is bad, you say that I said that .15 is OK) is classless.

Sorry, I asked "How drunk do you think someone needs to be before drunk driving is considered wrong?" and you gave the answer that someone is too drunk to drive at 0.15% and you were happy with the former 0.1% due to margin of error. Apparently I misunderstood you. My apologies.

Like i said, we just agree to disagree on how drunk someone can safely operate a car. No one's insulting anyone's mother here. No biggie...

 

[Haemulon]

I actually agree with points from both of your sides. In reality, the .08 designation really is arbitrary to a large extent. For instance, why did they make the decision to have it as .08 instead of .079, or perhaps .082? Basically ... its just a nicer, more round number. But why not .07 or .09? You could plot curves or statistical inference and then apply some artificial criterion as to what point of the BAC curve the associated increased risk of accident is or is not acceptable, but even that is somewhat arbitrary.

On the other hand, it is true that any amount of alcohol puts you in a higher risk category. So there is certainly a case to me made that no alcohol all before driving is acceptable. I can agree with that argument and support it. But I can also see the perspective of the other argument that an experienced drinker having a couple of beers with dinner is not impaired in a meaningful or relevant sense with respect to any significant danger of automobile accident. Alcohol effects people in varying degrees. For instance, a 200 pound guy might have maybe 5 bears over a couple of hours and feel no effects at all whereas a petite woman that doesn't usually drink may have 1 or 2 and actually get buzzed. It just depends on blood volume, metabolism, sex (yes, there is a sex factor that relates to the concentrations of certain enzymes), nationality/genetics (there are certain genetic factors that predispose one to alcohol sensitivities / allergies, which may amplify effects) and experience/tolerance. So why should the buzzed and impaired alcohol-sensitive woman be legal to drive and the .082 BAC 200 pound man with no noticeable effects get locked up?

The answer is that there has to be some kind of standard. Some kind of law/guide to go by. Even though the number may be somewhat arbitrary, there has to be something. That is also why Officers can use their own judgement in enforcement and why there are field sobriety tests to evaluate drivers as well.

Drinking and driving is a huge problem. And it should always be discouraged. I think that I do agree with jota_jota in some ways as well though, in that I think we should not get too bent out of shape when the circumstances do not warrant it. What we all really want is to keep people off of the road that are a hazard to themselves, and more importantly, a hazard to others.

Is it ever a good idea to have any drinks and drive? No.

Are there some situations where having a few drinks and driving is, while perhaps bad judgement, is not the worst thing in the world? Yes, probably. It is still not a good idea of course, but driving 1 mile home from Applebee's on some back roads through your neighborhood after 2 beers with dinner hardly warrants the same social condemnation as getting plastered and driving through someone's living room at 2 am after blacking out.

Bottom line: Use common sense and try not to judge others too harshly, because we all makes mistakes or get caught up in unfavorable circumstances (or just have rotten luck). And for Pete's sake get a DD or call a cab to avoid putting yourself and others at risk, even if you only are having a "couple of drinks". Better to be safe then to be discussing these issues with your defense attorney. It's just not worth it.

Even though I agree with a number of jota's points, it's always going to be a really tough sell to be on the defensive side of arguing for driving under the influence. Too many people have been hurt or have lost loved ones due to this and emotions run very high about this topic. There is just no way to publically defend taking the extra risk at the expense of others. Its kinda like trying to argue that smoking a little/occassionaly is not harmfull, only smoking regularly. Sure, if you only have a few cigarettes from time to time it probably won't really harm you, but that hardly makes it a safe practice (and it is still an increased risk). Although I do enjoy a good cigar from time to time 😉

 

[Pdiddy310]

If I were you, I would only disclose the DUI if it is required. In other words, if you are asked for felony convictions, and you pled guilty to a DUI misdemeanor, then you are not required to disclose it. In that case, keep your trap shut. Don't go making unnecessary problems for yourself by telling them more than they asked to know. If they run a background check on you to make sure you have no felony convictions, you're fine. You have a misdemeanor, not a felony, on your record. On the other hand, if you are asked to disclose all arrests, or all misdemeanors (like in the question jota posted), or all problems with drugs, then you will have to disclose your DUI. In that case, I would definitely include an explanation of the circumstances. But more more importantly, you should emphasize what you have learned from the experience, that you are now involved with educating others about the dangers of DUI, how the experience will improve your empathy for patients (many of whom will have drug, tobacco, and alcohol problems), etc. In the immortal words of my eleventh grade history teacher, make the length of your explanation like a miniskirt: long enough to cover the subject, and short enough to be interesting. 😉

Well said Q. 👍