<p>The blood alcohol limit for adult of drinking age in every state in the US is .08%. One has to be quite small (around 120 pounds or less) to get that alcohol level by drinking a couple of drinks in an hour, and people that small who drink two drinks in an hour ** are significantly impaired **and should not be driving. If counting to two is too difficult once this small person drinks at all, she shouldn’t drive to the place where alcohol is being served.</p>
<p>MomofWildChild, I’m sorry to hear you and your friends have driven drunk (buzzed, whatever you want to call it, but over .08 is impaired and dangerous). You seem to think else has too. You are wrong. Everyone else does not drive drunk. Many people, myself included, have never driven drunk.</p>
<p>Some info on how some colleges regard drunk driving:</p>
<p>“DUI and College Applications
Individuals who have been convicted of an underage DUI must list it on their college applications. This can, but does not necessarily, bar the student from being accepted, though it does have other implications. Colleges and universities may accept the prospective student under certain circumstances that do not apply to students without a conviction. However, those convicted of an underage DUI who have not listed it on their application are subject to immediate dismissal from the institution if it is discovered.
Additionally, many of the students who are convicted of underage drinking (non-DUI) on a college campus often face only college or university-related punishment. Students who have previously been convicted of an alcohol-related offense will face not only their school’s penalties, but will be referred to the local police where they will face the legal consequences for underage drinking as well. In many states, students majoring in education or pre-law that are convicted of underage drinking will not be permitted to continue working toward their degree, and must pursue another course of study…”</p>
<p>More info about how having a DUI can have lifelong repercussions:</p>
<p>“For persons already employed and those seeking work, being arrested on drunk driving charges can lead to career havoc.
Pre-employment criminal background checks, once given primarily to traveling salespersons and truck drivers, are now being conducted on those applying for work which may not require much or any on-the-job driving. With increasing frequency, employers are looking to see if job seekers have DUI convictions. DUI arrests and convictions can also have consequences when seeking acceptance into college or the military or admission into professions having licensing requirements.
For job seekers and also for those who have held their positions for some time, DUI convictions can lead to serious hardships in the workplace. Florida has tough DUI laws. If pleading no contest or guilty to DUI charges, or when found guilty after a trial, DUI defendants receive permanent blemishes on criminal records, even when no jail time is imposed. Unlike findings of guilt administered in many other types of criminal offenses, DUI convictions can never be sealed. That’s why it’s wise to consult with a criminal defense attorney about legal strategies which may lead to the avoidance of a DUI conviction.
EMPLOYERS FEAR DUI CONVICTIONS Fearing expensive jury awards, insurance companies often advise business clients to verify that prospective and current employees have never been convicted of DUI. People with career goals are mistaken when not appreciating the seriousness of DUI arrests. When learning a job applicant has been convicted of DUI, an employer often excludes the candidate from further consideration.”
[DUI</a> ARRESTS CAN RUIN CAREERS,](<a href=“http://www.browardbar.org/articles/22.html]DUI”>http://www.browardbar.org/articles/22.html)</p>
<p>I weigh less than 120 and I have had 2 beers in an hour on occasion. The effect can vary depending on a number of factors. Many adults have not been in this situation, but many have. I have been in the business world long enough to know the realities- not to mention my familiarity with the social life of young (and older) adults. I’m not saying it’s OK, but most people in that situation are going to drive themselves home.</p>
<p>P.S. I have also violated traffic laws (speeding) and have gotten tickets. My bad.</p>
<p>I have a different way of thinking than Momofwildchild(last para, post 56).
I don’t think minimizing the legal consequences should be the the priority- or at least not a high priority. I think quite the opposite. Finding all the facts, being proactive on home punishments, possibly kid counseling, possibly Al-Anon for the reasons NSM explained, the kid paying the financial costs, are all higher priorities than minimizing the legal consequences as I see them. I don’t think those beliefs indicate that I think I am perfect.
MOWC makes a bold statement when she hints those that think differently than her on this issue think of themselves and their kids as perfect. Her statement has an emotional impact to be sure, but there is no basis for her conclusion. We’ve all heard someone say “I don’t have to drink to have fun.” A common phrase used by a person that chooses not to drink to put a drinking person in the awkward position of feeling they have to justify why they drink. It implies the person has a problem because they can not have fun sober. Actually the truth is probably that they can have fun both ways. Choosing to drink does not prove one must get drunk to have fun. Choosing to <em>pay the fine when one does the crime</em> does not indicate that a person thinks of himself as perfect.
I wonder if implementing a higher priority on minimizing consequences in this case would truly teach the child better about actions/consequences or would it make it easier to choose wrong behaviors again in the future? No one here has suggested that a broken taillight citation should be treated as seriously as a DUI conviction. But some here are indicating a DUI conviction should not be treated as lightly as a taillight citation.</p>
<p>"MOWC makes a bold statement when she hints those that think differently than her on this issue think of themselves and their kids as perfect. :</p>
<p>It’s also a wrong statement. For example, I’ve repeatedly stated on CC that my older son seriously abused alcohol as a college student and for at least a couple of years afterward. When H and I learned about this, we took it very seriously, including offering to send S into treatment, something S refused to do.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, by the time that we learned of his problems, he was out of college and living thousands of miles from us, so there wasn’t much we could do about it except let him know we were concerned, offer to send him to treatment, and refuse to help him buy another car after he wrecked his (and given his habits, we assumed the wreck may have been alcohol-related). </p>
<p>The OP is in a better situation than we were because the son is still living with the OP and dependent on the OP’s financial and other support. If the son does have a serious problem with alcohol or if the S is headed toward that, this may be the OP’s best chance of successfully intervening.</p>
<p>younghoss posted exactly what I expected based on past discussions. (reference is not to NorthstarMom)
I am not a big drinker, by the way. I am a competitive athlete, but I know how social and business situations work. I don’t have to drink to have fun, but sometimes I CHOOSE to drink. I enjoy it on occasion.
As a lawyer (and a parent), I DO believe in minimizing the legal consequences of this particular offense. If there are circumstances warranting more serious treatment or a repeat DUI, or, God forbid, an accident or injury, my views would be different. We do NOT know that the OP’s son “seriously abuses alcohol”. All we know is that there is a DUI arrest- NOT a conviction.</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang, the allowable Blood-Alcohol level is LOWER for people under 21 in Massachusetts. I’m not sure exactly what it is, but I’m pretty sure that in MA if you blow ANYTHING above .01 and you are under 21, you are automatically charged with DUI. Just like those under 18 can’t drive between midnight at 5 am, the rules are different regarding DUI for minors in some states. I don’t know about California.</p>
<p>You know what disgusts me about this thread - comments like this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A DUI is a very serious offense. Innocent people can and have been killed by idiots driving drunk - even if they just had two beers. MOWC - for you to make minimize and make excuses for this behavior is digusting</p>
<p>berryberry- Innocent people have been killed by people doing all sorts of things. I am not making excuses for anyone. We simply don’t know the facts. We have no idea if anyone was in danger. Being over the legal limit and endangering others are not necessarily the same thing. Get over yourself.</p>
<p>Innocent people have been killed by idiots speeding and texting while driving as well, but you don’t see anyone crucifying kids who get speeding tickets or texting tickets (in some states). The fact is, this kid may have blown a .05 or a .25, we don’t know. What is disgusting is the rush to crucify this kid without knowing all of the details of his situation.</p>
<p>"Innocent people have been killed by idiots speeding and texting while driving as well, but you don’t see anyone crucifying kids who get speeding tickets or texting tickets (in some states). "</p>
<p>The only reason people aren’t crucifying them here is that no one has posted about such an incident involving their kid.</p>
<p>There are lots of people concerned about speeding and driving while texting and who also believe that the book should be thrown at people who risk lives like that. For example:</p>
<p>"According to a NYT story from the weekend, Americans are nearly unanimous in feeling that sending text messages while driving should be illegal. According to the story and accompanying poll, ninety-seven percent support the prohibition of texting while driving.</p>
<p>But a more provocative question, it seems: what should be the punishment for such infraction? On that question, the nation seems a bit more divided. According to the poll, about half feel that the crime should be punished at least as harshly as drunk driving.</p>
<p>“Someone who is texting creates just as much of a danger as someone behind the wheel who is inebriated,” said Michael Brooks, 38, from Limerick, Pa., to the NYT…"</p>
<p>Hmmm -when you say "I missed the part where we were told that this kid has an alcohol abuse problem and was driving drunk and endangering the world! "</p>
<p>you are making excuses. Drunk driving endangers others.</p>
<p>When you say “Was it 2 beers or was he weaving all over the road? We don’t know.” </p>
<p>You are making excuses as it really doesn’t matter if its two beers. a 6 pack or more. Two beers is enough to make some people drunk. Anyone who is over the legal limit is endangering others</p>
<p>When you say "there is a difference between going the wrong way on the interstate and perhaps being stopped for a taillight problem and the officer deciding to do a BA level test. "</p>
<p>you are making excuses. It doesn’t matter how someone is caught - if they are driving impaired, they are a danger to themselves and others</p>
<p>No idea if anyone was in danger?</p>
<p>you need to get a clue. Anytime anyone who is impaired gets behind the wheel of a car - they put anyone they come upon on the road in danger. There is a reason why there is a legal limit. </p>
<p>Its obvious from your comments on this thread you see no problem going out and having a few or more drinks and getting behind the wheel of a car - after all you “know how business and social situations work”. And from your comments, it is easy to jump to a conclusion that you have driven yourself home while legally impaired on more than one occassion.</p>
<p>You do realize you are putting yourself and others in danger each time you do so. And you want me to get over myself? Please.</p>
<p>Northstarmom pretty much addressed the first part of your premise. As to the second part - no one is crucfying the OP’s kid. Rather they are noting the serious nature of driving under the influence</p>
<p>berryberry- Where did you get your law degree? Oh, that’s right. You don’t have one. So-stop assuming facts not revealed to us and stop twisting what I have said.<br>
I DO see a problem with driving under the influence. I also see a difference between what might have been a very technical DUI (we simply don’t know the extent of the OP’s son’s impairment) and driving drunk. I disagree that anyone over the legal limit is endangering others. They are breaking the law- and that is a problem. They MAY be endangering themselves and others.<br>
Again- get over yourself. Or stop typing until you can contribute something based on actual facts.</p>
<p>I generally don’t get involved with these types of threads, as I have no relationship to the experience of DUI, neither being related to a victim or an accused.</p>
<p>However, I see a thread that is not serving its OP very well at all. With that I’ll dispense my thoughts on the matter.</p>
<p>1) This is a criminal proceding that the OP’s son is facing. One should never face the prospect of losing one’s liberty (even though it is uncommon with 1st time offenders) without the advice and presence of a lawyer.</p>
<p>2) The OP cited not being able to afford an attorney. Don’t know the specifics, but when one prioritizes spending money on liberty vs. education, liberty should take precedence. </p>
<p>3) We heard the penny-wise pound-foolish thought brought up here. If nothing else, listen to this. Not arguing that it is right to knock down charges, but the reality is that for most 1st time offenders, a DUI will often be knocked down considerably. The savings in automobile insurance over the next few years will probably cover much if not all of the attorney’s fees. Your son will be paying for his offense. The question is how much and to whom?</p>
<p>4) Ultimately, this whole proceeding (the DUI) needs to be thought of as equality before the law. Yes, people without attorneys or people with public defenders fare far worse in criminal proceedings than those who can hire the best of attorneys. And in the Darwinian sense her, you need to buy your son as much equality as you can. Ugly argument morally, but if your son wants to live the principles of a classeless society, he had better be ready to play the game without the opportunities a clean (no DUI convictions) record will get him because without an attorney, he may very well be restricted from several future potential occupations. Not fair, but once you separate the legal game against the soulless state from how you treat individuals, you can live knowing that you treat individuals as they should while you give an imperfect legal system the level of attention it deserves based upon its lack of fairness.</p>
<p>"The OP cited not being able to afford an attorney. Don’t know the specifics, but when one prioritizes spending money on liberty vs. education, liberty should take precedence. "</p>
<p>You may need to use whatever funds you were planning to use for your son’s college education. I agree that having a lawyer represent your son for the DUI is a priority. Your son also should be responsible for paying this, even if it means he has to pay you back over several years while attending community college if you no longer can afford a 4-year college for him.</p>
<p>MOWC - one does not need a law degree to weigh in here or know the true facts with respect to DUIs</p>
<p>While you may not think anyone driving over the legal limit is not endagering anyone, you are dead wrong. There is a reason why we have a legal limit for DUI’s. You may think you and others can handle being a little over the limit - but when over the limit, no matter if its a little or a lot over the limit, one’s driving skills are impaired. That is the fact - plain and simple no matter how much you protest and pretend otherwise</p>
<p>The OP did not ask for advice about how to handle the son. The OP asked for advice about how to handle the college applications. Many posters answered that question and commented about consulting an attorney both in regard to the language of what needs to be reported to the colleges/unis and to caution the OP how important it is to have an attorney. Every other discussion about drinking/driving, alcohol abuse, how many drinks one can have before one is imparied are all secondary noise and not relevant to the original discussion. No one has any knowledge about the OP or the personal issues involved. Every single person knows how serious the situation is, but that is not the original discussion.</p>
<p>I agree with Goalie Dad. It is ridiculous to pull out a soap box and start ranting about moral superiority. The kid in this case needs an attorney and the family would be wise to take some proactive steps in order to be in good favor with the court, and for that matter, perhaps admission committees as well.</p>