Court Opinion

ID: 9690774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:41:59.329007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:20.954956
License: Public Domain

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.
¶ 77. (concurring). I join Chief Justice Abrahamson's concurrence. However, I *34am compelled to write separately to make it clear that the majority's opinion should not be construed as precedent for sanctioning the criminal prosecution of an individual who takes prescription medication— medicine that is designed to maintain his or her health and general welfare — at its prescribed dosage, only to then find him or herself arrested for driving under the influence.
¶ 78. The purpose of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act is to prevent abuse of drugs, not to create new criminal penalties for those who properly take prescription medicine as prescribed by their physicians in order to be more functional. See Wis. Stat. § 961.001:
Declaration of intent. The legislature finds that the abuse of controlled substances constitutes a serious problem for society. As a partial solution, these laws regulating controlled substances have been enacted with penalties. The legislature, recognizing a need for differentiation among those who would violate these laws makes this declaration of legislative intent:
(lg) Many of the controlled substances included in this chapter have useful and legitimate medical and scientific purposes and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the people of this state.
(Emphasis added.) As this statutory language acknowledges, many of those drugs labeled as "controlled substances" are prescribed for the very purpose of helping individuals function better in society, and have beneficial medicinal purposes, making it safer, not more dangerous, both for those behind the wheel and those in their paths.
¶ 79. The case at hand involves prescription drug abuse involving a medication taken in excess of its prescribed dosage. The majority points out the dangers *35resulting from an overdosage of the prescription drug Xanax, such as somnolence, confusion, impaired coordination, and diminished reflexes. Majority op., ¶ 6 n. 3. The majority also correctly observes that the defendant in this case took 13 Xanax pills before the automobile accident, which exceeded his prescribed dosage for the drug. Id.
¶ 80. This is not a case involving an individual taking a medication at its prescribed dosage.1 It is critical to make this distinction clear, lest today's opinion be misread as sending a dangerous message to individuals taking prescription medications to disregard their doctor's orders and stop taking their prescribed medications if they want to retain their right to drive and thereby continue participating fully in society.
¶ 81. Prescription medications serve a critical role in the preservation of health and safety of individuals. This court has long recognized that "[i]t is not only desirable that the drugs be dispensed to the public by skillful and competent persons to avert peril from occasional mistakes, but it is far more desirable, nay, practically essential, that medicines be within prompt and easy reach by the public." State v. Evans, 130 Wis. 381, 388, 110 N.W 241 (1907).
*36¶ 82. Our state already recognizes that "the effects of prescription medication can form the basis of an involuntary intoxication defense." State v. Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d 32, 40, 601 N.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1999); see also 1 Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 4.10(f), at 560 (1986). Under the Model Penal Code, intoxication that is not self-induced is an affirmative defense when it renders the actor incapable of appreciating the criminality of his or her conduct. Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d at 40; see also Model Penal Code § 2.08(4) (1962). An exclusion to the definition of "self-induced" intoxication exists when the actor knowingly introduces into his or her body substances pursuant to medical advice. Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d at 41; see also Model Penal Code § 2.08(5)(b); Phillip E. Hassman, When Intoxication Deemed Involuntary so as to Constitute a Defense to Criminal Charge, 73 A.L.R.3d 195 § 7 (1977). Thus, the "involuntary intoxication defense is available when the intoxication was due to prescription medication taken as directed." Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d at 35.
¶ 83. Moreover, the legislature has specifically adopted a valid prescription defense in OWI cases for detectable amounts of methamphetamine, gamma— hydroxybutyric acid, or delta — 9—tetrahydrocannabinol in a defendant's blood. Wis. Stat. § 346.63(l)(d).2 It is *37ludicrous to suggest that the legislature would provide a valid prescription defense for these otherwise illegal restricted controlled substances, while at the same time refusing to recognize a valid prescription defense for properly dispensed medicine taken at its proper dosage.
¶ 84. An improper reading of today's opinion would contravene the intent of the legislature in addressing "controlled substances" within the Wisconsin Statutes. The statutes addressed by the majority creating criminal penalties for the inappropriate use and abuse of controlled substances must be read in conjunction with the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 961.001 of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act quoted above, with our state's recognition of an involuntary intoxication defense, and with our state's recognition of an OWI prescription defense in cases involving a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in a defendant's blood.
¶ 85. The Uniform Controlled Substances Act reveals the legislature's intent to criminalize only that behavior linked to the abuse of controlled substances, and not to criminalize that behavior involving the proper use of prescription medicine. We must not lose sight of this essential distinction. If prescription medication is of the type that may assist a person in functioning more healthily, it is important to make sure that our evaluations of OWI cases do not impede the progress to be gained through the medication's use. *38Because it is clear that the legislature intended to penalize those who abuse drugs, while not extending criminal penalties to those who take at its proper dosage medicine that is properly prescribed under the direction of a doctor or pharmacist, that legislative purpose should not be undermined.
¶ 86. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur.

 I recognize that some prescriptions include warnings clearly specifying that a person taking the medication should not operate an automobile because of the effects the medication would have on the person. Failing to follow the prescription's instructions, in my view, would be improper and potentially subject a person to criminal prosecution.
Other prescriptions include warnings clearly indicating that before a person operates an automobile, the person should first determine what effects the medication might have. This opinion does not address such situations.

 Wisconsin Stat. § 346.63 provides in relevant part:
(1) No person may drive or operate a motor vehicle while:
(am) The person has a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood.
(d) In an action under par. (am) that is based on the defendant allegedly having a detectable amount of methamphetamine, *37gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in his or her blood, the defendant has a defense if he or she proves by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the incident or occurrence he or she had a valid prescription for methamphetamine or one of its metabolic precursors, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, or delta-9-tetrahydroeannabinol.
(Emphasis added).