Keith

The defendant was convicted of violating Vehicle Code, section 23102, driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or under the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and any drug. He appeals from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

Appellant argues (1) that the evidence was insufficient, (2) that an instruction was erroneous, and (3) that the use of the word “drug” in the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

The first and third arguments grow out of the fact that the “drug” involved was an accidental overdose of insulin (combined with taking two drinks containing vodka).

The real constitutional problem is not whether insulin is a drug but whether drugs such as this when taken normally may be the basis for a prosecution under the statute. Appellant earnestly argues that many persons take insulin for its beneficial effect, that it actually improves their ability to react properly while driving, and yet such a person who also takes any amount of intoxicating liquor however small would be subject to prosecution. The same argument could be made with respect to many other drugs. Because of the widespread use of beneficial drugs by many persons, this is a…