Posted on 03/22/2006 10:40:15 AM PST by Daytyn71
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sent a message to bar patrons last week.
TABC agents and Irving police swept through 36 Irving bars and arrested about 30 people on charges of public intoxication. Agency representatives say the move came as a proactive measure to curtail drunken driving.
North Texans interviewed by NBC 5, however, worried that the sweep went too far.
At one location, for example, agents and police arrested patrons of a hotel bar. Some of the suspects said they were registered at the hotel and had no intention of driving. Arresting authorities said the patrons were a danger to themselves and others.
"Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk," TABC Capt. David Alexander said. "It's to have a good time but not to get drunk."
Dallas comedian Steve Harvey agreed with the Texas residents who said the arrests infringed on individual rights.
"If a guy's got a designated driver, go ahead and let him get toasted," Harvey told NBC 5.
Texas law states that inebriated individuals could be subjected to arrest anywhere for public intoxication. Harvey and other North Texans called the measure extreme.
"That seems to be an extreme case," one man said. "You are self-contained, in the hotel, you're not going in the streets, it seems a little ridiculous."
TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights. Harvey and others interviewed by NBC 5 said they believe drunken driving to be unacceptable, although Harvey wanted to confirm that the United States remains a free country.
"Freedom of drinking should always be allowed, and it is only American to let a guy get drunk where he wants to get drunk," Harvey said.
The Blue Wall of Dumbass strikes again!
I don't know what's weirder - getting arrested for being drunk in a bar or having comedian Steve Harvey randomly chosen to opine on the fairness of it all.
I'm not winking at anyone that drinks like a fish and gets behind the whell of a car.....no one who has been drinking heavily should be behind the wheel of a car. heck, I don't get in my car if I've taken certain types of allergy medicine because it impairs me, so I'm not going to do it after I've been drinking.
But with that said - I still believe this was just flat out wrong.
Years ago I had a friend who was charged with DUI.....and it would have been a legitimate charge IF he had been driving. But he wasn't, he was walking, but because he had his car keys in his pocket it was claimed "the intent to drive" was there. It didn't matter that his car was about 3/4 of a mile away - IN THE PARKING LOT of the establishment he had left and was walking home from.
Since then the law has been changed and you can not lose your DL under such circumstances in Delaware - but it used ot be a common occurrance.
Well, they booted the smokers out. We all know what they're going after next.
It's okay, though. As long as it's for the chillun.
What about the term "might" don't you understand.
Most fascists like you don't last too long on Free Republic. Good luck.
Speakeasy?
Paging the next Al Capone.
My attitude has nothing what so ever to do with the criminal behaviour of others.
They are responsible for themselves.
What taste better, the leather boots or the residue on your chin.
Since when has being in a private establishment been being in public?
I assume you must also support smoking bans in private businesses? That is exactly where this nonsense has stemmed from.
Why am I fascist because I disagree with you? I know the law. I respect the law. At no time did I say you can't drink, I said you have no right to be drunk in public. There is a big difference. I also said what you do in your own home is your business.
I would suggest that you are very intolerant of others stated views. I would also suggest to you that this forum is open to all view points.
Just take a look at some of the threads about smoker bans (tobacco) and then you will see that those types last VERY long on Free Republic.
Next, the jack-booted thugs will want to come into your home.
Officials Make Public Intoxication Arrests Inside Bars
POSTED: 4:04 pm CST March 15, 2006
UPDATED: 9:44 am CST March 17, 2006
Email This Story | Print This Story
IRVING, Texas -- The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission has taken its fight against drunken driving to a new level. TABC agents, along with Irving police, targeted 36 bars and clubs Friday, arresting some allegedly intoxicated patrons before they departed the businesses.
The officers and agents also kept watch on bartenders who might have over-served patrons.
Agents arrested 30 people Friday night. Most of the suspects now face charges of public intoxication.
The agents and Irving police officers traveled from bar to bar and worked undercover, according to an NBC 5 report.
The report also said that some agents shared tables with suspected drunken patrons. Some patrons were subjected to field sobriety tests inside bars.
Agents and officers said the operation represented an effort to reduce drunken driving.
Sgt. Chris Hamilton, of the TABC, said some inebriated bar patrons "end up killing themselves or someone else" after departing the businesses.
"Speaking as a teetotaller who is sick of hearing of innocent citizens being killed by all of these addicts' irresponsible behavior, that is."
These are tragedies alright. But what will you do about the other 70% (+ or -) of like tragedies where the drivers weren't drinking? Get all drivers off the roads?
The statistics don't necessarily demonstrate that the one drinking caused the accident. Sometimes it is the non drinking driver that caused the accident but it still is logged as alcohol related for statistical purposes.
If that accounts for 10% then we are up to 80% of fatal accidents not alcohol related.
And then if we account for the guy who had two beers and was responsible for the accident, but not because he was drunk, rather he lost control for some external cause beyond anyone's control whether sober or drunk ie hydroplane, or blowout etc,
say that takes another 10% toll on the stats...bringing it to 90% of tragic accidents not alcohol related.
Now we take it a final step and suggest if truth were told, less than 5% of fatal accidents are caused by drunk drivers...and 95% of fatal accidents are caused by sober people.
What does this say for sober people? It tells me we have some teetotalers who shouldn't be on the roads. What I want to see is some stats that show how many teetotalers are responsible for fatal accidents. Now we can get to the truth fair and balanced.
show me where I ever suggest the banning of booze. The discussion is about the legality of public drunkenness. I have no problem with people going to bars and having a good time, I have trouble with them getting drunk in public. The two are not the same.
I don't think this even qualifies for wrong...I'm not sure what it is, need for controversy?
I'm glad I don't have to worry about drinking in the bars. The state needs the taxes they charge for the sell of drinks and smokes so they don't do anything unless of course you start destroying property then they might give you a ride home if you don't cause trouble.
I think I will go get a drink now because I can.
NAw, Kinky Friedman got spotted drinking a Guiness while riding in a car in a parade on St. Patrick's day, and they tried to make some hay out of his being a scofflaw for breaking the Open Container law. His comment? Lighten up, it's St. Patrick's day.
Wow. That IS bad. In Texas he would have gotten a PI just like the people in the bar. In fact, I've heard stories where people got found passed out in their car along the side of the road, but if the keys aren't in the ignition, they couldn't do anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.