I can’t begin to count the times I’ve heard that same statement from people I’ve arrested for driving under the influence (DUI).

Driving under the influence is commonly referred to as “drunk driving,” but you don’t have to be drunk to be arrested for it.

There is a common misconception that if you're not “drunk,” you're OK to drive. Officer Bruce Mulligan once told me, “The word ‘drunk’ has probably killed more people than any modern war.”

The problem with the word is in its definition. Being drunk to some may mean you're unable to stand or even talk sensibly. What is difficult for many people to understand is the concept of being under the influence versus being drunk.

Some people are drunk when they are arrested for DUI, but a majority of those arrested are under the influence of alcohol. In both cases the violation is the same, driving under the influence.

Simply put, being under the influence means that you do not have the same mental capacity or motor control skills that someone who has not been drinking would have. As such, the person who is under the influence causes an unacceptable hazard to the motoring public.

How many drinks is under the influence? One, two, three ... height, weight, metabolism as well as the size of the drink is a factor. The law states that if your blood alcohol concentration is .08 percent or higher then you are definitely under the influence. You may be arrested at a .05 percent, up to .07 percent, depending on the nature and circumstances.

How do you avoid being arrested for DUI? Don’t drink any alcohol before driving.

A good plan before going out, such as the Designated Driver plan, will not only spare you from being arrested, but can save your life or the life of another.

Don’t let pride cloud your judgment and make you another statistic. If you find yourself in a situation, call a friend, call a taxi or make other arrangements to ensure that you don’t drive.

Officer Mike Humble works for the California Highway Patrol's Clear Lake office.

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

Comments

Add New Search

lenny - sobriety check points Registered | 02-09-2008 11:52:11 ok, then help me out here. As individuals leave the various bars and restaurants obviously having consumed drinks and now get into and onto their various modes of transportation... isn't it a given that these individuals are driving "under the influence"? How about the fundraisers...wine and chocolate to name only one! I suspect few have designated drivers! The number of individuals, on the road driving that qualify for "under the influence", I suspect is VERY high if breathalyzer tests were performed on each one! Statistically 50% of drivers will be involved in an alcohol related traffic collision in his or her lifetime. Sobriety check points is also a controversial item. Our constitution protects people from being stopped without a search warrant or "probable cause". Challenged in the State of Michigan, the court found check points to be in violation of our fourth amendment rights. However with our Supreme court the decision was split (welcome to a Republican appointed court!), with Chief Justice Rehnquist arguing that the end justifies the means, and violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety check points were effective and necessary. Of course the major lobbying organization was MADD. Chief Justice Brennan was not happy! Next, back to the beginning of this letter. Set up a check point outside a restaurant or a bar and target a specific group that you know have been drinking! Lets see what the court does with that one

pearlady - drunk IP:67.72.98.xxx | 02-09-2008 23:15:51 I noticed that even Officer Humble neglected to mention that there are more ways to be under the influence other than alcohol. Even overlooking the obvious of illegal drug use and driving, there are pleanty of over the counter and prescription medications that can, and often times cause harm. Setting a checkpoint at a restaurant that offers alcohol would be like frisking patrons leaving K-Mart because firearms are also sold there.

angisangels Registered | 02-10-2008 04:46:54 driving is not a right and if the police force can safe one life by arresting people who are driving impaired from drugs or alcohol than we are all better off. People in this country only care about themselves and not the other people that are killed from foolish drivers. it is not necessary to drink and drive not even one drink and officer humble was trying to help so many of you that think you can have a few and drive home. Well if you don't kill anyone you will get arrested, loose your license, and pay a dear price some thing like $3000 plus you have to carry a SR 22 for so many years. People don't realize they are impaired so be informed so that you don't have to pay the price plus starting in July if you kill someone while driving under the influnence it is murder and the consequences have been increased dramictally. Stop worry about the constitution and start worring about how safe your kids are when they are not at home.

Raphael - why Author | 02-10-2008 05:19:15 is drinking necessary in the first place? Individuals who cannot have fun without drinking and/or getting drunk are already mentally and psychologically impaired. If your life is so f-cked up that you need to rely on some substance to "relax" or be "happy", CHANGE YOUR LIFE! But that would take courage... I don't think the Constitution was meant for people whose behavior is destructive and detrimental to others to hide behind...an individual's freedom stops where another individual's freedom begins, and sober drivers (and passengers, including children) should not be subjected to the dangers created by anyone driving under the influence of alcohol.

lenny - sobriety check points Registered | 02-10-2008 12:46:23 The Bill of Rights refers to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, the fourth of which states that: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Thus the Constitution protects people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least “probable cause” that they have committed a crime. and yes,angisangels I do care when my rights are slowly chipped away. I question this as everyone should! Just as our Supreme court did! Dissenting justices emphasized that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," dissenting Justice Brennan insisted. The court was split in their vote. Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." 3 And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights, justices argued. And while the U.S. Supreme Court has made the DUI exemption to the Constitution, eleven states have found that sobriety checkpoints violate their own state constitutions and have outlawed them! In these states, individuals have more protections against unreasonable search and police sobriety roadblocks are prohibited. California is not one of them. But then again I'm also pissed about have to wear a helmet on my motorcycle!!

Raphael - an individual Author | 02-11-2008 03:26:59 who claims the "right" to drive drunk or just "under the influence", thus confusing irresponsibility with freedom as so many immature people do, is taking away the rights of all other motorists on the road: a right to be free from the unnecessary danger created by drivers who are under the influence. The fact that the US supreme Court was split means the Constitution can be interpreted in different ways, and is not written in stone. But let's make driving under the influence a serious crime then, and the maiming or killing of another person while driving under the influence attempted murder or murder, until people learn that having "rights" means having an EQUAL amount of RESPONSIBILITY, that having rights doesn't mean infringing on the rights of others, it doesn't mean acting like irresponsible and selfish brats.

lenny - an individual Registered | 02-11-2008 21:14:27 who claims the "right" to own a gun or just "go shooting for fun", thus confusing irresponsibility with freedom as so many immature people do, is taking away the rights of all other innocent people: a right to be free from the unnecessary danger created by people who use them. The fact that the US supreme Court was split means the Constitution can be interpreted in different ways, and is not written in stone. But let's make owning a gun a serious crime then, and the maiming or killing of another person while using that weapon attempted murder or murder, until people learn that having "rights" means having an EQUAL amount of RESPONSIBILITY, that having rights doesn't mean infringing on the rights of others, it doesn't mean acting like irresponsible and selfish brats, like needing to own a gun! get it now? insert any subject matter you would like, it all comes out the same! Another and different right give to us, granted, but that too can and will disappear without work at maintaining our rights and freedom. Which, yes creates sacrifice both for the common good and not!

Raphael - If people Author | 02-12-2008 04:25:12 carried their weapons every day and shot them on their way to the office or to the mall like drunken cowboys in Abilene, yes that would be a serious problem, as stray bullets would be flying everywhere. By the way it is a mixture of booze and guns that causes most accidents, once again. Cars become lethal weapons when operated by people under the influence, there is no getting around it. Either drink or drive but no one has the right to do both and put others at risk...it is morally wrong, among other things. I am far from being a "conservative", but I believe in the kind of social behavior that takes the rights and safety of others into consideration, not the "I will do whatever I please as long as I don't get caught or as long as it is legal, even if it hurts or offends others". People who are caught driving under the influence or drunk could be made, by law, to visit the nearest morgue where mangled bodies are kept that are the outcome of the latest collision by a drunk driver. Shock therapy can work wonders. They published very graphic and bloody photographs of such accidents somewhere in Europe and had them plastered all along freeways a few years ago, to awaken drivers to the outcome of irresponsible behavior.

dagreat - Ends Justify the Means? IP:70.41.218.xxx | 02-22-2008 11:27:32 Raphael, To play devil’s advocate, look at those states that allow students of higher education to carry weapons on campus. How many school shootings have occurred at these campuses since this law was enacted? No matter what the topic is, there is always going to be someone upsetting someone else. One lasting truth is our Constitution. Illegal wire taps, searches without probably cause, an open ended under the influence law… where does it stop? How far are we from a McCarthy’s list repeat? What rights will we suppress or terminate next?

Raphael - Teaching freedom Author | 02-23-2008 02:00:24 without teaching people, from the youngest age, responsibility, does not work well, as irresponsible people confuse "rights" with doing anything they please, like toddlers. The ambition of ALL governments is to grow like a cancer and take over the people, that's why a representative republic with a balance of power was originally created here, at least that's what we are taught. How do our politicians and Presidents get around it? By letting social (and international) problems grow to the point where government appears to need to intervene and offer its "solutions", which translate, ALWAYS, into a reduction of our individual freedoms (and of course it is always for our own good, like cameras everywhere, etc). But driving drunk is neither a right nor does it have anything to do with freedom. It is stupid, irresponsible and criminal in its tragic consequences. If social responsibility was taught and practiced more widely, there would probably be less laws, and less of a need for coercive government (social responsibility would also mean, by the way, for the industrial and corporate world to no longer trash the earth...unfortunately, the Republican idea of freedom is to let the vultures-the multinationals, big oil, etc-prey on the little people and on the environment).

Only registered users can write comments!