Dwi

[scotchtape]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I got busted for a DWI on 1/1 with a BAC of .08. I am over the age of 21. The state that I got busted in calls this a traffic violation, not a misdeamenor or felony. I am going to go to court next week and probably will get fines and get my license revoked for a few months. I have already been accepted to 3 schools and have submitted my acceptance checks too. Now do I have to tell these schools? What should I do? Should I wait till after I start school? Or if its not a misdeamenor do I have to tell at all? It only goes on my driving record, not criminal record. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks. I definetly learned my lesson.

 

[avinash]

I got busted for a DWI on 1/1 with a BAC of .08. I am over the age of 21. The state that I got busted in calls this a traffic violation, not a misdeamenor or felony. I am going to go to court next week and probably will get fines and get my license revoked for a few months. I have already been accepted to 3 schools and have submitted my acceptance checks too. Now do I have to tell these schools? What should I do? Should I wait till after I start school? Or if its not a misdeamenor do I have to tell at all? It only goes on my driving record, not criminal record. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks. I definetly learned my lesson.

ouch. i dont know... ask your advisor. I have no clue what to say sorrry, im sure someone has some good advice

best of luck

 

[Psycho Doctor]

yikes, that really sucks, man. 🙁 Sorry I have no idea. Check with the conditions of acceptance at the schools you were accepted at. Do not play games with it though; if it says to report it, report it. And yea check with your med school advisor. Good luck.

 

[MedDreamer]

I got busted for a DWI on 1/1 with a BAC of .08. I am over the age of 21. The state that I got busted in calls this a traffic violation, not a misdeamenor or felony. I am going to go to court next week and probably will get fines and get my license revoked for a few months. I have already been accepted to 3 schools and have submitted my acceptance checks too. Now do I have to tell these schools? What should I do? Should I wait till after I start school? Or if its not a misdeamenor do I have to tell at all? It only goes on my driving record, not criminal record. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks. I definetly learned my lesson.

I would think that if there's nothing criminal about it (no mug shots, no criminal record or anything) then maybe it's not that important. It is probablt just like having a ticket that you get fined (speeding and so forth). I don't think anyone would tell Med schools if they've had speeding tickets before.

But maybe it depends on which school you got accepted to, so check out the rules in their state and if it's like yours then maybe it's not so important to tell them.

 

[scotchtape]

yeah, i was arrested. No mug shots or fingerprints though.

 

[evajaclynn]

If the schools you were accepted to don't ask you to report traffic violations (and I doubt that they would) than I wouldn't tell them about your DWI. If they do ask, then you should tell them. If found out later, it could be a very big deal. Good luck - I know how much this sucks.l

 

[scotchtape]

Can someone check their acceptance letters to see if they ask you to report things like this? or anything that can help? (the one where they tell you maintain good grades and such) I don't have my letters with me (they are at school). Thanks a lot guys. I expected to get flamed. You guys rock.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Can someone check their acceptance letters to see if they ask you to report things like this? or anything that can help? (the one where they tell you maintain good grades and such) I don't have my letters with me (they are at school). Thanks a lot guys. I expected to get flamed. You guys rock.

if i had an acceptance letter, i'd check...so sorry i can't help you 🙁

rough new years Eve, huh? or a little too much fun? 👍

 

[jmv1083]

You could probably send your schools letters informing them that you were convicted for a "traffic violation" and not specify what it was (assuming that DUI is, in fact, a traffic violation and not a criminal charge in your state)...I'd be surprised if anyone bothered to follow up on that.

 

[DrWorkNeverDone]

You could probably send your schools letters informing them that you were convicted for a "traffic violation" and not specify what it was (assuming that DUI is, in fact, a traffic violation and not a criminal charge in your state)...I'd be surprised if anyone bothered to follow up on that.

I agree, don't be too specific just leave it general. Let them ask the questions. I have never heard of anyone being rejected though because they had traffic violations...Good luck!

 

[bigdan]

Scotch-

My heart goes out to you. Thank God you get a violation only.

I got several acceptances. Nothing says to report any criminal activity; Univ of Rochester has a whole background check package, but that's the only one. I suppose that you should notify any school that asks you about a traffic violation on the original application. If I were you I'd keep my mouth shut. Who the hell would notify a school about a non-descript traffic violation?

Good luck!

dc

 

[Haybrant]

You could probably send your schools letters informing them that you were convicted for a "traffic violation" and not specify what it was (assuming that DUI is, in fact, a traffic violation and not a criminal charge in your state)...I'd be surprised if anyone bothered to follow up on that.

i wouldnt do this if they dont ask for it b.c they'll turn around and say whats the offense; by all means a DUI is a serious lapse of judgement regardless of what the state defines it as; the consequences are the same in say alabamba as they are anywhere in the world... (what state still classifies a DUI as a traffic issue?!).

i had a few drinks but sobered up before i drove tho i was worried about the same thing; Sorry to hear it happened, but at the same time it should happen if it's something you do often and esp. if you are above .08.

 

[stinkycheese]

I'm surprised that people are feeling so sorry for, and supportive towards, a drunk driver. It doesn't "suck" for him, man - it sucks for the rest of us on the road who he could have killed. It's too bad this wasn't a criminal charge. Drunk driving is definitely not on par with a regular "traffic violation".

 

[MWillie]

I'm surprised that people are feeling so sorry for, and supportive towards, a drunk driver. It doesn't "suck" for him, man - it sucks for the rest of us on the road who he could have killed. It's too bad this wasn't a criminal charge. Drunk driving is definitely not on par with a regular "traffic violation".

My neighbor was killed by a drunk driver.
😡

 

[JonnyG]

I'm surprised that people are feeling so sorry for, and supportive towards, a drunk driver. It doesn't "suck" for him, man - it sucks for the rest of us on the road who he could have killed. It's too bad this wasn't a criminal charge. Drunk driving is definitely not on par with a regular "traffic violation".

I agree YOU deserve no sympathy. And you should be worried cause this calls your judgement into question and medical schools concern themselves with that.

 

[Doc 2b]

I'm surprised that people are feeling so sorry for, and supportive towards, a drunk driver. It doesn't "suck" for him, man - it sucks for the rest of us on the road who he could have killed. It's too bad this wasn't a criminal charge. Drunk driving is definitely not on par with a regular "traffic violation".

I agree stinky, the rest of you guys talk like this was just a public intoxication or something. This is the future of medicine? I hope they pull your acceptances for it!

 

[bigbassinbob]

I agree stinky, the rest of you guys talk like this was just a public intoxication or something. This is the future of medicine? I hope they pull your acceptances for it!

You know what? You suck. People make mistakes, and they shouldn't have to spend the rest of their life paying for them, especially for an offense as minor as a DWI. The president and the vice-president of our country have a combined 3 DWIs between them. That's right, 3!!! It doesn't exactly disqualify you from being a successful person, nor does it make you a horrible person (no matter how much you dislike George Bush). People who are killed by drunk drivers are most likely killed by people who have driven drunk for the 4th, 5th, or 6th time. In NC, 8% of the population has been convicted of a DWI. The things you hear on the news, like a 2 year old girl was killed by a drunk driver, warp your minds into thinking that a person should be executed for such an offense. The truth is, 15 years ago, almost everybody drove drunk, and it was considered as minor as a speeding ticket. They have recently cracked down on it, and most states now consider it a misdemeanor with the 3rd or 4th offense being considered a felony, and rightfully so. But you're trying to say this person shouldn't be able to become a doctor for driving with a BAC of .08???!!! That's not even dangerous, as some states still consider the legal limit as .10. Most drunk drivers have a BAC of over .20. I myself was convicted of a DWI in high school, at the age of 17. I flipped over and totalled my car in a ditch on the side of the road. My BAC was .11. This was, no doubt, a serious lapse in judgement, and I spent a lot of time suffering the consequences. But you cannot tell me that I havn't learned from that incident or that I should be banished from a career in medicine because of it. I see my conviction as a turning point in my life -- a point where I told myself I needed to make some major changes. Like I said before, PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES, and I believe everyone should be allowed a second chance.

 

[medstyle]

agreed. everyone makes a mistake, just learn from it. If it happens again, then you're slime. But yeah, we all think we're invincible when we're young.

You know what? You suck. People make mistakes, and they shouldn't have to spend the rest of their life paying for them, especially for an offense as minor as a DWI. The president and the vice-president of our country have a combined 3 DWIs between them. That's right, 3!!! It doesn't exactly disqualify you from being a successful person, nor does it make you a horrible person (no matter how much you dislike George Bush). People who are killed by drunk drivers are most likely killed by people who have driven drunk for the 4th, 5th, or 6th time. In NC, 8% of the population has been convicted of a DWI. The things you hear on the news, like a 2 year old girl was killed by a drunk driver, warp your minds into thinking that a person should be executed for such an offense. The truth is, 15 years ago, almost everybody drove drunk, and it was considered as minor as a speeding ticket. They have recently cracked down on it, and most states now consider it a misdemeanor with the 3rd or 4th offense being considered a felony, and rightfully so. But you're trying to say this person shouldn't be able to become a doctor for driving with a BAC of .08???!!! That's not even dangerous, as some states still consider the legal limit as .10. Most drunk drivers have a BAC of over .20. I myself was convicted of a DWI in high school, at the age of 17. I flipped over and totalled my car in a ditch on the side of the road. My BAC was .11. This was, no doubt, a serious lapse in judgement, and I spent a lot of time suffering the consequences. But you cannot tell me that I havn't learned from that incident or that I should be banished from a career in medicine because of it. I see my conviction as a turning point in my life -- a point where I told myself I needed to make some major changes. Like I said before, PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES, and I believe everyone should be allowed a second chance.

 

[PhotoMD]

Second chances are fine, mistakes are fine. I bet you would not have learned if you hadn't totalled your car, and that you would have repeated your offense if your first offense hadn't resulted in catastrophe. I can't believe your defense of drunk driving is that the president does it and that a large quantity of north carolinans have done it. The truth is, if you drive drunk and you "succeed," i.e. you don't kill or hurt somebody or yourself, there is no reason why you can't do it again. And getting caught once doesn't mean it was the first time the offense was committed.

There is no defense for drunken driving, and it ought to be a misdemeanor if it is not currently. Which state is it that it is a mere traffic violation? If you think the offense doesn't matter, then I am sure medical schools agree with you, and informing them of the act will not change their decision, because it wouldn't reflect poorly on you.

Of course, since it is a traffic violation, the original poster will not send the information, but I'll be damned if it should be condoned.

 

[stinkycheese]

People make mistakes,

Agreed

and they shouldn't have to spend the rest of their life paying for them,

Agreed.

especially for an offense as minor as a DWI.

This is where we diverge. I don't think it's a minor offense. I think it's a common one, but that's not the same as minor. It is a sad fact that we live in a country where many people drive drunk, but as a physician-to-be, there are standards for public health and safety that we should all be upholding. Do we have to be perfect? Absolutely not. That's not even possible. But I also feel like someone intelligent enough to get into medical school, who has been accepted to multiple schools and is planning on beginning his training within the year, shouldn't need to get caught before learning that drunk driving is bad.

Additionally, the disturbing part of this thread, for me anyway, was this sense of, "hey, don't worry bro, that totally blows that you got busted, but it ain't no big deal, homie!" [back slaps and high fives all around]

I think it is lovely that SDN'ers were supportive of each other in a thread, but I think the topic of drunk driving should be taken a little more seriously than it has been taken in this thread. We'll jump all over each other for poor grammar or which school is better, but not this? I don't think the OP should have been lynched, and I have tried to keep my words tactful in this thread because of the sensitive subject matter. But I do wish the tone of the replies were less, "the frat house will help you out of this one" and more, "that was an awful thing to do. here is the information you need. be more responsible, and good luck."

I myself was convicted of a DWI in high school, at the age of 17. I flipped over and totalled my car in a ditch on the side of the road. My BAC was .11. This was, no doubt, a serious lapse in judgement, and I spent a lot of time suffering the consequences. But you cannot tell me that I havn't learned from that incident or that I should be banished from a career in medicine because of it. I see my conviction as a turning point in my life -- a point where I told myself I needed to make some major changes. Like I said before, PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES, and I believe everyone should be allowed a second chance.

I see your situation as slightly different from the OP's. First of all, you were not a legal adult. Secondly, you used this experience to make some major changes, in your words. That's lovely. But the OP is an adult who has already been accepted to med school. How much more time does he need to learn right from wrong?

Stinkster

 

[medstyle]

all i know is...anytime you break any rule, there can be serious consequences. But if nothing happened...well, i think a second chance is not too much to ask.

Speeding kills too. But everyone does it. But if you hit someone and kill them while you're speeding...its manslaughter. So we could either charge everyone with manslaughter just for speeding, or hope they learn a lesson.

If anything, this guy is less likely to drive drunk, because the experience is real to him now. If it happens again, well, then stronger action ought to be taken.

People make mistakes. There are few people in this world who have not. Some of the mistakes could have really messed up someone's life...but if they didn't they didn't. Thats life. No one deserves to be written off for life because of their mistake, especially if no one got hurt.

This has nothing to do with how good a doctor he will be. Doctor's need to be competent and capable, not perfect. they should try to be perfect, but they shouldn't be condemned because they are not.

 

[Rendar5]

not really arguing with any points, but your analogy doesn't work with facts
safest driving speeds are generally above the speed limit, most dangerous driving speeds are 5 mph lower than speed limit. If everyone speeds, it is much safer and less likely to kill someone if you speed too. Now excessive speeding, that is something else (30mph over the speed limit). That's also in the dangerous area. The main rule about speed is to go the same speed as traffic is, and that reduces the chances of an accident.

all i know is...anytime you break any rule, there can be serious consequences. But if nothing happened...well, i think a second chance is not too much to ask.

Speeding kills too. But everyone does it. But if you hit someone and kill them while you're speeding...its manslaughter. So we could either charge everyone with manslaughter just for speeding, or hope they learn a lesson.

If anything, this guy is less likely to drive drunk, because the experience is real to him now. If it happens again, well, then stronger action ought to be taken.

People make mistakes. There are few people in this world who have not. Some of the mistakes could have really messed up someone's life...but if they didn't they didn't. Thats life. No one deserves to be written off for life because of their mistake, especially if no one got hurt.

This has nothing to do with how good a doctor he will be. Doctor's need to be competent and capable, not perfect. they should try to be perfect, but they shouldn't be condemned because they are not.

 

[stinkycheese]

Speeding kills too. But everyone does it. But if you hit someone and kill them while you're speeding...its manslaughter. So we could either charge everyone with manslaughter just for speeding, or hope they learn a lesson.

I really don't know what your point is here. Let's call a spade a spade. A drunk driver should be charged with drunk driving. Someone speeding should be charged with speeding. Someone who kills someone with a car should be charged with manslaughter. Where in this train of thought do you disagree?

 

[Haybrant]

People who are killed by drunk drivers are most likely killed by people who have driven drunk for the 4th, 5th, or 6th time.

most likely?! no dude, it takes one time and that's it. You're not likely caught your first time drunk driving either; its prob the 4th, 5th, or 6th time that the law catches up. You think the dude that was caught didnt think at all about the consequences before jumping into the car? A second chance, perhaps. But a defense like the shoddy one you just gave, no.

 

[Haybrant]

Speeding kills too. But everyone does it. But if you hit someone and kill them while you're speeding...its manslaughter. So we could either charge everyone with manslaughter just for speeding, or hope they learn a lesson.

umm, this doesnt make any sense; If you are speeding you give the person a speeding ticket; if they are >20 mph over the limit i think its a felony or a point or somethin. That person speeds multiple times you take their lisence away. On the other hand, if you are driving drunk you get your lisence taken away immediately, and it should be. tho not completely the same, you might as well be driving blind....

 

[MWillie]

People who are killed by drunk drivers are most likely killed by people who have driven drunk for the 4th, 5th, or 6th time.

And that makes it doing once or twice okay? Sounds like you've been hitting the chronic much too often. I'd like to see you tell that crap to someone whose lost a loved one to a drunk driver. Stop trying to justify unacceptable behavior. You're lucky you didn't kill someone on your highschool rampage, enjoy your second chance.

 

[flash]

I would not tell them unless they ask or you have some indication that they will ask/do background check.

 

[logos]

I got busted for a DWI on 1/1 with a BAC of .08. I am over the age of 21. The state that I got busted in calls this a traffic violation, not a misdeamenor or felony. I am going to go to court next week and probably will get fines and get my license revoked for a few months. I have already been accepted to 3 schools and have submitted my acceptance checks too. Now do I have to tell these schools? What should I do? Should I wait till after I start school? Or if its not a misdeamenor do I have to tell at all? It only goes on my driving record, not criminal record. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks. I definetly learned my lesson.

That sucks dude...isnt 0.08 the minimum in most states? You'll have to check to see if each school requires reporting it, but I seriously doubt that they will. If you already have a lawer, the reassurance might be worth the extra $$ to consult them on what, if anything, to tell the medschools.

 

[chopper]

I really don't know what your point is here. Let's call a spade a spade. A drunk driver should be charged with drunk driving. Someone speeding should be charged with speeding. Someone who kills someone with a car should be charged with manslaughter. Where in this train of thought do you disagree?

Yeah, but how do you define a 'drunk driver'? As pointed out, many states mimimums are .10 (used to be all of them?). So in another state, he wouldn't have been a drunk driver?

As mentioned by other people with the speeding analogy, there are gradations in how one is prosecuted when speeding. A few miles over the limit, ticket and fine. >20, reckless driving. More - I'm sure at some point they arrest you on the spot.

Why not the same with alcohol and driving. So many of the cases of someone killing others come from a VERY intoxicated person who already has their liscence revoked after multiple drunk driving offenses. It doesn't make a difference what you do to them - other than locking them up - they will drink and drive. So while the 'MADD' mindset is to continually lower the minimum, all this does is criminalize those are mildly to not at all impaired with a violation that destroys their future.

Once again, I don't want to defend drunk drivers. But I also think that we need to be smart about drunk driving in our country if our goal is really to minimize the worst of the threats to innocent people. And I'm so sick of the 'MADD' crowd holding states hostage for federal funding of roads until they do as THEY think is appropriate. Wouldn't something like this be more smart:
.06-.08: Warning or small fine.
.08 - .10 (or .12) - ticket similar to a speeding ticket
.12-.15 - DWI similar to what we have now
.15-.20 - arrest, misdeameanor with mandatory jail time
>.20 - felony, off the road and a considerable jail time for even first offense
Multiple offenses would obviously be ratcheted up to keep one in jail for a long period of time

The actual numbers and such are not perfect, but the theory I think is a way to deal with this that would 1) get the really bad drivers off the road and into jail, because ANY limits are totally lost on them, they will drive regardless and 2) not ruin the future of someone who is borderline impaired, and give them some incentive not to drink and drive in the future.

-chop

 

[DrKT2009]

I got busted for a DWI on 1/1 with a BAC of .08. I am over the age of 21. The state that I got busted in calls this a traffic violation, not a misdeamenor or felony. I am going to go to court next week and probably will get fines and get my license revoked for a few months. I have already been accepted to 3 schools and have submitted my acceptance checks too. Now do I have to tell these schools? What should I do? Should I wait till after I start school? Or if its not a misdeamenor do I have to tell at all? It only goes on my driving record, not criminal record. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks. I definetly learned my lesson.

Go ahead and tell them -- before your court date. I knew someone that had gotten in the same situation and had already been accepted to the school of his choice. He wasn't speeding or anything, but he didn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign and was at a 0.08. The judge (feeling no sympathy) made him stay a night in jail so that he would learn his lesson along with paying fines and getting his license taken away. However, the person did not tell the school until much later (2-3 months later). They took away his acceptance. I wouldn't play around with it. You don't want them to think you are any less responsible then you were by driving while intoxicated. Tell them ASAP because they could take your acceptance away because you hid it from them. I wouldn't think they will mind as much if you let them know that it won't happen again and as long as you let them know - pronto. Good luck

 

[dopaminophile]

I have to agree with all of the anti-drunk votes out there. By getting a DWI this person demonstrated willful lack of forsight, responsibility, and any regard for others' safety. It blows my mind that DWIs are just moving violations in some of these analogies and especially in that state law. The difference between speeding and driving drunk is that a DWI started WAY back when that person was planning the night. Either he/she was so wantonly neglectful to plan such a critical part of the evening or they just aren't smart enough to think that far ahead and they made the same neglectful decision later on in the night when they bought the first drink or got into the car. Most (not all) speeding tickets aren't a real threat to the public. All CNS depression is a threat to others when that person is behind the wheel. Worse, in the case of alcohol and other drugs, the CNS depression is wanton.

Interns, residents, and no doubt med students face the problem that that must be on call frequently. This means that they can't drink while on call, on duty, or 8 hours before either. What assurance do I have as your patient that you're not drunk while cutting a hole in my neck if you can't even make the decision to not drive?

Finally, the whole problem with a graduated system as you were talking about, chopper, is that alcohol impairs reasoning and decision-making abilities. We've all thought, "just one more won't hurt." People will unquestionably think, "bah... I can drink some, it'll just be a moving violation." Then they fail to plan ahead, drink more than expected, and kill me while driving home. Nearly 20,000 people a year are killed by drunk drivers who made a wantonly neglectful decision to get behind the wheel. Lets not make that decision more wrong sometimes than others. Lets say resoundingly, "this is not okay, even a little bit."

My personal feeling is that the irresponsibility and neglect are SO gratuitous that any DWI ought to be an attempted murder charge and any fatal DWI ought to be 1st degree murder. I base this on the fact that there had to be planning and a decision to be irresponsible either when they got in the car to go to the bar, when they took the first drink, or when they got in the car to drive after even one drink. Rarely are the consequences of those decisions as universally known as with drunk driving. Certainly whoever makes that decision shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine.

cheers,

dope

 

[Rendar5]

People should at least be making a distinction between driving after a couple beers and driving after you get buzzed or drunk. 2 beers isn't drunk, though it should be illegal cause your abilities are still slightly impaired. driving after a couple beers is stupid, but a bit of perspective, please.

I have to agree with all of the anti-drunk votes out there. By getting a DWI this person demonstrated willful lack of forsight, responsibility, and any regard for others' safety. It blows my mind that DWIs are just moving violations in some of these analogies and especially in that state law. The difference between speeding and driving drunk is that a DWI started WAY back when that person was planning the night. Either he/she was so wantonly neglectful to plan such a critical part of the evening or they just aren't smart enough to think that far ahead and they made the same neglectful decision later on in the night when they bought the first drink or got into the car. Most (not all) speeding tickets aren't a real threat to the public. All CNS depression is a threat to others when that person is behind the wheel. Worse, in the case of alcohol and other drugs, the CNS depression is wanton.

Interns, residents, and no doubt med students face the problem that that must be on call frequently. This means that they can't drink while on call, on duty, or 8 hours before either. What assurance do I have as your patient that you're not drunk while cutting a hole in my neck if you can't even make the decision to not drive?

Finally, the whole problem with a graduated system as you were talking about, chopper, is that alcohol impairs reasoning and decision-making abilities. We've all thought, "just one more won't hurt." People will unquestionably think, "bah... I can drink some, it'll just be a moving violation." Then they fail to plan ahead, drink more than expected, and kill me while driving home. Nearly 20,000 people a year are killed by drunk drivers who made a wantonly neglectful decision to get behind the wheel. Lets not make that decision more wrong sometimes than others. Lets say resoundingly, "this is not okay, even a little bit."

My personal feeling is that the irresponsibility and neglect are SO gratuitous that any DWI ought to be an attempted murder charge and any fatal DWI ought to be 1st degree murder. I base this on the fact that there had to be planning and a decision to be irresponsible either when they got in the car to go to the bar, when they took the first drink, or when they got in the car to drive after even one drink. Rarely are the consequences of those decisions as universally known as with drunk driving. Certainly whoever makes that decision shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine.

cheers,

dope

 

[chopper]

I have to agree with all of the anti-drunk votes out there. By getting a DWI this person demonstrated willful lack of forsight, responsibility, and any regard for others' safety. It blows my mind that DWIs are just moving violations in some of these analogies and especially in that state law. The difference between speeding and driving drunk is that a DWI started WAY back when that person was planning the night. Either he/she was so wantonly neglectful to plan such a critical part of the evening or they just aren't smart enough to think that far ahead and they made the same neglectful decision later on in the night when they bought the first drink or got into the car. Most (not all) speeding tickets aren't a real threat to the public. All CNS depression is a threat to others when that person is behind the wheel. Worse, in the case of alcohol and other drugs, the CNS depression is wanton.

Interns, residents, and no doubt med students face the problem that that must be on call frequently. This means that they can't drink while on call, on duty, or 8 hours before either. What assurance do I have as your patient that you're not drunk while cutting a hole in my neck if you can't even make the decision to not drive?

Finally, the whole problem with a graduated system as you were talking about, chopper, is that alcohol impairs reasoning and decision-making abilities. We've all thought, "just one more won't hurt." People will unquestionably think, "bah... I can drink some, it'll just be a moving violation." Then they fail to plan ahead, drink more than expected, and kill me while driving home. Nearly 20,000 people a year are killed by drunk drivers who made a wantonly neglectful decision to get behind the wheel. Lets not make that decision more wrong sometimes than others. Lets say resoundingly, "this is not okay, even a little bit."

My personal feeling is that the irresponsibility and neglect are SO gratuitous that any DWI ought to be an attempted murder charge and any fatal DWI ought to be 1st degree murder. I base this on the fact that there had to be planning and a decision to be irresponsible either when they got in the car to go to the bar, when they took the first drink, or when they got in the car to drive after even one drink. Rarely are the consequences of those decisions as universally known as with drunk driving. Certainly whoever makes that decision shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine.

cheers,

dope

Wow, first degree murder. That's a bit of a stretch. Why don't we just not have 2nd degree murder or manslaughter entirely? Everything is first degree murder.

I wasn't just talking about making the gradations less on the bottom end - I was talking about making the restrictions MUCH more severe for the chronic or extremely impaired driver as well. And if you noticed, the 'parking ticket' like infractions would start with someone who is legally SOBER in all 50 states right now.

You seem very black/white in your argument, polarizing this issue to the extreme. I'm sure if we got 10 people all with a different 'pet peeve' that they wanted polarized, we could find a way to make just about everyone out there an attempted first degree murderer. Cell phone talkers on phones: It's been shown that they are as 'impaired' as a borderline drunk drivers: attempted MURDERERS (btw - illegal in many countries, and I think this should be regulated here too). People who eat while driving: attempted MURDERS. Smokers: attempted MURDERERS. come on.

example: The mother of three in the minivan, with 3 fighting kids in the back (who she is turning around to yell at constantly) who was up all night with a sick child, talking on her cell phone and speeding to get to day care. Eating her breakfast on the run so she can make her MADD meeting. You thingk SHE's not impaired as someone with a .081? You don't think THESE impair her ability to drive safely? While I think she is knowingly putting at risk innocent pedestirans and motorists - I don't think she's an attempted MURDERER.

I don't want to get on the defending drunk driving side. I don't condone it, and I try not to drink anything when I drive. I think in a perfect world, it would be great to not have impaired drivers of any sort on the road. I just think this extreme view is a bit unrealistic, and is in fact counterproductive. Go after the worst of the worst with harshest penalties, without ruining the life of the person who made a bad mistake early on, luckily did not hurt someone, and can now move on to a productive member of society.

Hey - I am at .081. I wait 10 minutes to leave the party to get to .075. I'm an upstanding citizen. I only wait 5 minutes and get to .08. I'm an attempted murderer. please

 

[dopaminophile]

People should at least be making a distinction between driving after a couple beers and driving after you get buzzed or drunk. 2 beers isn't drunk, though it should be illegal cause your abilities are still slightly impaired. driving after a couple beers is stupid, but a bit of perspective, please.

I disagree. I make no distinction between the decision to drink 2 beers and the decision to get hammered when it comes to driving afterward. If you have "just a few" then your CNS is just a little depressed. Well, if that contributes to me dying, then it should be murder just the same. If you fail to kill me, it should still be attempted murder.

Going out and driving while "abilities are slightly impaired," regardless of to what degree, is grossly negligent.

That being said, I like going out and having a few. Sometimes, I go out to have a few and then have a few too many. Either way, I make arrangements for me to get home when I decide to have any. That way, I don't have to decide after my decision-making capabilities are impaired, even a little.

dope

 

[Rendar5]

I disagree. I make no distinction between the decision to drink 2 beers and the decision to get hammered when it comes to driving afterward. If you have "just a few" then your CNS is just a little depressed. Well, if that contributes to me dying, then it should be murder just the same. If you fail to kill me, it should still be attempted murder.

Going out and driving while "abilities are slightly impaired," regardless of to what degree, is grossly negligent.

That being said, I like going out and having a few. Sometimes, I go out to have a few and then have a few too many. Either way, I make arrangements for me to get home when I decide to have any. That way, I don't have to decide after my decision-making capabilities are impaired, even a little.

dope

I never said it wasn't negligent to drive while there's still a bit of alcohol in your system. But it is complete asininity to take two completely different states of ability and treat them with the exact same consequences. Hell, why don't we just making every traffic violation attempted murder because it has the potential to kill people. let's make going over the speed limit attempted murder and let's make goingunder the speed limit attempted murder and let's make rolling stops attempted murder because all those things also contribute to driving deaths. and no, those are not the same thing as drinking and driving. but neither are driving while not buzzed but still have had 2 beers and driving while actually buzzed or drunk. driving with a .08 is not the same thing as driving with >.12.

And driving with a .08 BAC should still damn well better be illegal. It is stupid and grossly negligent. But it should not ever be treated the same as real drunk driving because the impairment just is not there at a similar level.

EDIT: yes, and if anyone is killed by a driver w/ a .08 BAC, it is murder. and if they hit but don't kill it could be considered attempted murder based on the circumstances. but that is entirely outside the domain of this argument since that obviously would also refer to a huge range of traffic violations. And that has nothing to do with the extra charges that would go with drunk driving cases regardless of whether or not an accident happens.

 

[Dr. Wexler]

I never said it wasn't negligent to drive while there's still a bit of alcohol in your system. But it is complete asininity to take two completely different states of ability and treat them with the exact same consequences. Hell, why don't we just making every traffic violation attempted murder because it has the potential to kill people.

Agreed.

Besides, there are a lot of things that can impair your ability to drive. Being tired. Being on certain medications. Being upset. Should there be a specific law for all of these? Certainly they are all negligent.

Are some people still safe drivers while they are technically DUI? Yes. Are some people unsafe drivers when they are legally sober? Yes.

DUI laws are a good thing, but not perfect. Anyone who says 1 beer+ a car accident = attempted murder, also needs to include all the above impairments. Don't forget adjusting the radio or talking on your cell phone (whether legal or not in your state).

 

[ShyRem]

I don't know where this turned into bashing the OP. However, being married to a cop (and my own 10 years of paramedic experience), I can tell you that statistics say anyone who has been CAUGHT DWI has driven drunk AT LEAST FIVE TIMES IN THE PAST without being caught. Also, the recidivism rate for DWI is well over 85%. While I professionally treat everyone the same, drunk drivers definitely don't get enough of a legal punishment, at least in Colorado, and some small part of me deep in the pit of my stomach that I rarely acknowledge secretly hopes they get hit by a drunk driver someday to get a taste of the devastation they unleash upon society. (Sorry, kind of like an eye for an eye thing, I spose.)

To the OP: if you have been only arrested, you have NOT been convicted of ANYTHING yet. I would recommend NOT saying anything to the med schools unless or until a conviction has been processed. People have and do get arrested for things they are innocent of, and this should definitely not be held against you. It is possible that you could defer this conviction and have it completely wiped off your record in six months. It is also possible to plea it down to a reckless driving. I also know of lots of agencies where if the court date isn't one of the police officer's regular working days, they won't show and the charge will be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

It's also possible to have the book thrown at you. Good luck to you. Perhaps you could have a friend anonymously call the med schools you've been accepted at to gently inquire as to their policy of you divulging or withholding such information.

 

[Reckoning]

I got busted for a DWI on 1/1 with a BAC of .08. I am over the age of 21. The state that I got busted in calls this a traffic violation, not a misdeamenor or felony. I am going to go to court next week and probably will get fines and get my license revoked for a few months. I have already been accepted to 3 schools and have submitted my acceptance checks too. Now do I have to tell these schools? What should I do? Should I wait till after I start school? Or if its not a misdeamenor do I have to tell at all? It only goes on my driving record, not criminal record. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks. I definetly learned my lesson.

Scotchtape, get in front of this one. Demonstrate that you are a straightforward and upstanding citizen that takes this infraction very seriously. Tell the adcoms exactly what happened. I would think you would need to write a very thoughtful letter about your concerns about losing your seat and how you understand why that this is potentially grounds for having that seat revoked. I hope the experience scares the $hit out of you (for your and other's safety) but that you keep your seat for med school. Good luck.

 

[chopper]

.

Going out and driving while "abilities are slightly impaired," regardless of to what degree, is grossly negligent.

dope

With your logic, and without any exaggeration, I can say that every driver in America is now an attempted murderer.

has anyone driven while:
'a bit tired'?
'eating fast food'?
'distracted by others in car'?
'talking on phone'?
'without proper eye correction'?
'speeding'?
'under-speeding'?
'hands not at 10 and 2'?
'too old'?
'too young'?
'car not properly maintained'?
'smoking in car'?
etc . . . etc . . . etc. . .

 

[dopaminophile]

Wow, first degree murder. That's a bit of a stretch. Why don't we just not have 2nd degree murder or manslaughter entirely? Everything is first degree murder.

I wasn't just talking about making the gradations less on the bottom end - I was talking about making the restrictions MUCH more severe for the chronic or extremely impaired driver as well. And if you noticed, the 'parking ticket' like infractions would start with someone who is legally SOBER in all 50 states right now.

You seem very black/white in your argument, polarizing this issue to the extreme. I'm sure if we got 10 people all with a different 'pet peeve' that they wanted polarized, we could find a way to make just about everyone out there an attempted first degree murderer. Cell phone talkers on phones: It's been shown that they are as 'impaired' as a borderline drunk drivers: attempted MURDERERS (btw - illegal in many countries, and I think this should be regulated here too). People who eat while driving: attempted MURDERS. Smokers: attempted MURDERERS. come on.

example: The mother of three in the minivan, with 3 fighting kids in the back (who she is turning around to yell at constantly) who was up all night with a sick child, talking on her cell phone and speeding to get to day care. Eating her breakfast on the run so she can make her MADD meeting. You thingk SHE's not impaired as someone with a .081? You don't think THESE impair her ability to drive safely? While I think she is knowingly putting at risk innocent pedestirans and motorists - I don't think she's an attempted MURDERER.

I don't want to get on the defending drunk driving side. I don't condone it, and I try not to drink anything when I drive. I think in a perfect world, it would be great to not have impaired drivers of any sort on the road. I just think this extreme view is a bit unrealistic, and is in fact counterproductive. Go after the worst of the worst with harshest penalties, without ruining the life of the person who made a bad mistake early on, luckily did not hurt someone, and can now move on to a productive member of society.

Hey - I am at .081. I wait 10 minutes to leave the party to get to .075. I'm an upstanding citizen. I only wait 5 minutes and get to .08. I'm an attempted murderer. please

The distinction between drunk driving and a distracted driver is twofold.

First, 2/5 of all deaths on the road are caused by drunk drivers. Everybody knows that you could kill people if you go out and drive drunk. Most everybody knows someone that has been killed by a drunk driver. Therefore, when the decision is made to not make plans for a safe return home, the driver is willfully making a decision to put mine and everyone else's lives on the line. If you point a gun in somebody's general direction and shoot a couple of rounds off, you may not be intending to kill them, but you should be tried for attempted murder anyway. A distracted driver, while still often irresponsible, is a natural consequence of being human. People get distracted. Things happen. If we want roads, we'll inevitably have distractions. Inviting unnecessary disaster when the consequences of drunk driving couldn't possibly be more clear, is abhorrent.

Secondly, as I tried to state before, a drunk driver makes a number of informed decisions to take the more dangerous route. When they don't plan their night, they are at the least negligent. When they take the first drink knowing that they don't have any other way home is a conscious decision to put others at risk. When they get in the driver's seat, they are pulling the trigger on the gun in my opinion.

I think it should be attempted murder when you get in that seat because you have the two components of an attempted murder. You know you're putting someone at a greatly elevated risk (note: "elevated" I'm aware we put others at risk in everything we do.) You're doing it willfully, consciously, and fully aware of the potential consequences of your actions.

I get first-degree murder as an extension of that. As I understand it, first-degree murder is that which is planned out ahead of time. I've already made my case for why DWIs are the consequence of a decision made far ahead of time. A person picking up their first drink without a way to get home knows that they're toying with other peoples' lives. If that toying results in a deadly consequence, I feel it was planned out.

I'm not sure how I can make the case for not having gradation in the punishment any more. All I can maybe clarify is that crime comes in the decision to be irresponsible, not the drunkenness itself. I don't care if you're .081 or .075 or .222. Either way you're making the criminal decision to toy with my life if you get behind the wheel. That, to me, is just how far away you're standing from the person at whom you're shooting.

I, actually, couldn't agree more that people need to see beyond the black and white in most issues. There are exceptions, however. I think that in this case, because of the demonstrated risk that drunk driving is to the public and because there are several very clear decisions to be criminal by a drunk driver, this issue couldn't be more clear to me. It really is as black and white to me as shooting randomly in the general direction of another person. It's just a rediculous to have any tolerance for this.

-dope-

 

[chopper]

OP - sorry to hijack the thread. I think a couple of the posters above have given you excellent advice. Please take your lucky brush (that you didn't hurt someone) to heart and make the best of it.

Dope - I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. I think my view is that we should try, as a society, to minimize the number of deaths due to drunk driving. I think we can do this by 1)hammering HARD anyone who is very impaired or a chronic drunk driver with harsh prison time (and I agree with attempted murder in this case). 2) providing a realistic, workable deterrent to those who are in danger of becoming the above. And yes, on a graded scale.

Looking at society as a whole, would we be better to put 'in the system' everyone who ever drove with any level of alcohol in thier system? Think about the number of people that would now be criminals - the cost to jail them, the cost against society that MOST of them would have provided had they not been put in the system. OR would we be better to try and minimize the number of drunk driving deaths by analyzing where the majority of those deaths are coming from, attacking that issue, and providing harsh 'negative incentives' to those who may have had a 'lucky brush' - allowing them to go on to be productive members of society.

Sounds to me like you are 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'

Drive safe!
-chopper

 

[dopaminophile]

yes, and if anyone is killed by a driver w/ a .08 BAC, it is murder. and if they hit but don't kill it could be considered attempted murder based on the circumstances.

See... this seems to me like saying that anybody who is unsuccessful in actually shooting, or shooting at and actually hitting somebody is not attempting murder. My feeling is that if you go out and drive around knowing that you're willfully putting everyone else on the road at greatly elevated risk, you're actively attempting to kill them regardless of whether you succeed in hitting anything or not.

Now, that being said, I was nosing around some web-sites on murder and the like and I've found that I haven't addressed the issue of intent. If I were to go out and get hammered and in my drunken stupidity decide to drive to my girlfriend's house, then kill someone on the way there, did I really intend to kill that person? To be honest I haven't come down on that yet and it could be the unravelling of my argument. I'll ponder it.

-dope-

 

[JonnyG]

With all the talk about laws and this being a future doctor site, i thought I would bring up a interesting PA law. A man lost his drivers license for at least 2 years (might be indefintely) because he told his doctor he drinks beer everyday. The doctor was required to report the potential impairment to the DMV. The man is appealing on the grounds that he did not drive drunk, but he has lost in court.

PA spends so much money busting people who drink (minors with the LCE) and there are police departments complaining that they have no money for check points.

 

[Haybrant]

With your logic, and without any exaggeration, I can say that every driver in America is now an attempted murderer.

has anyone driven while:
'a bit tired'?
'eating fast food'?
'distracted by others in car'?
'talking on phone'?
'without proper eye correction'?
'speeding'?
'under-speeding'?
'hands not at 10 and 2'?
'too old'?
'too young'?
'car not properly maintained'?
'smoking in car'?
etc . . . etc . . . etc. . .

no, driving drunk is similar to driving blind

 

[stinkycheese]

Yeah, but how do you define a 'drunk driver'? As pointed out, many states mimimums are .10 (used to be all of them?). So in another state, he wouldn't have been a drunk driver?

In another state, he probably would have been charged with driving under the influence instead of while intoxicated.

As mentioned by other people with the speeding analogy, there are gradations in how one is prosecuted when speeding. A few miles over the limit, ticket and fine. >20, reckless driving. More - I'm sure at some point they arrest you on the spot.

Why not the same with alcohol and driving. So many of the cases of someone killing others come from a VERY intoxicated person who already has their liscence revoked after multiple drunk driving offenses. It doesn't make a difference what you do to them - other than locking them up - they will drink and drive. So while the 'MADD' mindset is to continually lower the minimum, all this does is criminalize those are mildly to not at all impaired with a violation that destroys their future.

I see your point, but I'm not ready to call the impairment caused by a BAC = .08 mild. Isn't that equivalent to four drinks, without giving them time to clear from your system? So it's like slamming four beers in an hour and then getting behind the wheel. Call me crazy, but that seems pretty foolish to me. No matter how impaired you think you are or aren't (and most drunks would rate themselves as less impaired than they actually are), it's dumb to get behind the wheel.

Hey, I once made a very poor judgment about driving after drinking. I didn't realize how hard I had been hit by the three drinks I had with dinner (I was low on sleep), and I got behind the wheel. I started to realize while I was pulling out onto the road that I probably shouldn't be driving. But I couldn't pull over -- busy street. So I was as careful as I possibly could be, and drove until I got to a safe place to pull over (about half a mile). I recognized the danger, and got one of my friends to drive instead. I am still disappointed in myself for doing that, but I have to wonder - if you're impaired enough to overlook that feeling of "I shouldn't be driving", then aren't you impaired enough to drive stupidly without realizing that, either? The few times I have driven after having anything at all to drink, I have been hypervigilant on the road, trying to compensate for how those two drinks may be affecting me, or whatever. People who get pulled over for drunk driving are generally speeding, swerving, running stop signs, etc... not being too vigilant. My point is that if you're too impaired to realize that you need to be extra cautious, then you're impaired enough to be dangerous on the road.

 

[Rendar5]

grr...unless I used a bad BAC calculator, I was off (since generally 2 beers reaches the legal limit of DWAI), and it's actually about 3-4 drinks. so to me, that's buzzed state and the OP is a ****in ***** for driving while buzzed. so sorry if I was "defending" 0.8 too much. I still think that a graded scale of punishment is needed, though. and lighter stages of drinking should never be treated as heavier stages.

 

[chopper]

oh, I agree that my numbers might be off. I guess I just put that there because that's the current limit below which you are not intoxicated. I was just trying to give an example of a graded system. And the more I read, the more I think that .08 is still a pretty 'impaired' rate.

And I didn't realize there was a difference btwn DUI and DWI, thought they were just two names for the same thing. I guess that in and of itself is some kind of gradation.

 

[scotchtape]

Ok, thanks to everyone for their comments. I feel like I should clarify some things. I had 3 drinks after midnight (none before).I am a very light guy. I believe the statistic about multiple driving drunk incidents before being caught. I however had never driven after drinking before. We were under the impression that we could just crash at our friend's house. However, we had to leave since his parents were coming over unexpectedly and we figured we could go to another friend's house close by. The state was NJ. There is no distinction between DWI and DUI in NJ. I am from Pennsylvania. Lawyers in NJ have adviced me that it is not a criminal offense and I don't need to say yes when asked the question "have you ever been convicted of a crime."
I am not saying that I agree with this at all. I am ashamed and I will never ever do such a thing again. It was a lack of judgement and ridiculously dumb. I have gotten comments to hire a lawyer and fight the charge. I do not want to do this, as I personally feel I should be punished and punished more severely if this were to happen again. Currently, my license will get suspended for a few months and I will have heavy fines. If anyone can glance at NJ's laws, let me know how you would interpret them? I keep getting some lawyer's site which I feel is very misleading.
I am grateful of everyone's opinion, however if you were in my shoes what would you do?
I just reviewed acceptance information online from a medical school, they claim that I must inform them of any civil or criminal proceedings. The lawyer who I spoke to, claimed that I did not need to inform the schools because it was neither.

Thanks again everyone.

 

[stinkycheese]

I am glad to hear that you are properly ashamed of yourself and I hope this is a learning experience for you.

It is easy for me to say this since I'm not the one who will be dealing with the consequences, but if I were you, I would be mighty careful about not telling the schools. Just because the state of NJ does not, for some asinine reason, consider getting arrested for drunk driving to be a criminal offense, does not mean that a school feels differently about it. Will this come up on background checks? How will a school react to knowing that you withheld this information? A med school has the right to revoke your acceptance for any reason, whether your state considers it criminal activity or not. I would anonymously call the school and ask what to do. I would not give my name or AMCAS under any circumstances, but would ask them for information on whether this was required information even though it is not a criminal offense. Call from a private number so they don't know who you are. And go from there.

 

[JonnyG]

To the OP because you are a PA resident you are subject to PA laws when it comes to driving violations. NJ has an agreement with PA to tell them of your conviction for underage drinking and DWI. You will lose your license for both offenses and it is listed on your driving record as REMOVAL OF LICENSE for DWI. There is an audit trail, even if the DWI is lower PA will suspend your license and still leave the mark on your driving record.