Dear Anita -
You are too gracious thank me for pointing you in the right direction, towards the right continent may be more like it.
Among attorneys, it's said that the first rule of statutory construction is "to read," while the second rule is "read on." Well silly me for not bothering to look up the Delaware statute, which you did.
And heads up people, because this applies to most of us, in one degree or another. It turns out I missed the fine print, under most state statute's it appears to be okay to drive using controlled substances, so long as, you (1) are using them in the manner in which they are prescribed, and (b) are not "under the influence of any drug."
Delaware Statute § 4177. Driving a vehicle while under the influence or with a prohibited alcohol or drug content; evidence; arrests; and penalties [Effective until July 1, 2012]:
(a) No person shall drive a vehicle:
(1) When the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(2) When the person is under the influence of any drug;
(3) When the person is under the influence of a combination of alcohol and any drug;
* * *
(b) In a prosecution for a violation of subsection (a) of this section:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)b. of this section, the fact that any person charged with violating this section is, or has been, legally entitled to use alcohol or a drug shall not constitute a defense.
* * *
b. No person shall be guilty under paragraph (a)(6) of this section when the person has used or consumed the drug or drugs detected according to the directions and terms of a lawfully obtained prescription for such drug or drugs.
c. Nothing in this subsection nor any other provision of this chapter shall be deemed to preclude prosecution under paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section. [Emphasis added.]
In other words, in a prosecution under (a)(2) [driving under influence of drugs] or (a)(3)[influence and drugs and alcohol] an Rx is no defense if you are driving "while under the influence," which is defined in paragraph (c)(5):
"While under the influence" shall mean that the person is, because of alcohol or drugs or a combination of both, less able than the person would ordinarily have been, either mentally or physically, to exercise clear judgment, sufficient physical control, or due care in the driving of a vehicle.
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title21/...09/index.shtml
Which, it turns out, is nothing but a round about way of saying the same thing that
Section 23152 (a) of the California Vehicle Code expresses in a single sentence:
It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23152.htm
That is not to say however that all states
necessarily treat this the same, see, e.g,
Arizona Statute § 28-1381:
A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstances:
1. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/01381.htm
Q: Is "impaired to the slightest degree" the same thing as when "because of alcohol or drugs or a combination of both, less able than the person would ordinarily have been, either mentally or physically, to exercise clear judgment, sufficient physical control, or due care in the driving of a vehicle"?
A: That would be up to the cases of the appellate courts of the two states, but at first blush they look a lot alike.
But then contrast that with the standard for alcohol as set forth, for instance, in
Arizona Statute § 28-1381(G):
In a trial, action or proceeding for a violation of this section or section 28-1383 other than a trial, action or proceeding involving driving or being in actual physical control of a commercial vehicle, the defendant's alcohol concentration within two hours of the time of driving or being in actual physical control as shown by analysis of the defendant's blood, breath or other bodily substance gives rise to the following presumptions:
1. If there was at that time 0.05 or less alcohol concentration in the defendant's blood, breath or other bodily substance, it may be presumed that the defendant was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor. [Emphasis added.]
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/01381.htm
In other words, with a prescribed drug, an almost existential question is asked: after taking this drug, is the driver really and truly as good a driver - in every conceivable way - as s/he would have been without the medication. But when it comes to just a couple of beers, you're fine!
Little wonder then that the Anheuser-Busch Foundation sponsored the publication of the National District Attorneys Association's "
Drug Toxicology for Persecutors: Targeting Hardcore Impaired Drivers."
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/drug_toxicol...ecutors_04.pdf
Mike