Public intoxication stings catch 2,200 in Texas bars

chron.com ^ | 3/23/06 | Anne Marie Kilday

[takenoprisoner]

More than 2,200 people have been arrested in Texas bars in the six months since the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission announced a crackdown on public intoxication, primarily targeting bars.

The arrests included people who were drunk in bars, who sold alcohol to a drunk person, or a drunk employee on the premises of a bar or restaurant with a license to sell alcohol, said Carolyn Beck, a spokeswoman for the TABC.

The commission has been responsible for enforcing the state's alcoholic beverage code for the past 70 years. In August, 2005, the agency announced it was beginning a crackdown on public intoxication, using both undercover and open operations.

The agency has used undercover agents before, Beck said. In a recent operation, agents infiltrated 36 bars in a Dallas suburb and arrested 30 people for public intoxication.

[Old_Mil]

Well that's a dumb-ass statement. Just because i have a dislike for alcohol and and all the misery it's created. You want to compare me to the Taliban? I guess you say that to all the people who've lost loved ones due to idiots on alcohol.

Mind you, I'm not in favor of letting people who commit crimes under the influence off scott free. However, I am in favor of tightening up the relationship between the crime and the time. For instance: the reality of the situation is that alcohol affects different individuals differently. Instead of a catch and release system based on .08 that serves as a cash cow for the legal system, there should be no drunk driving surveillance at all. However, if you kill/cripple someone driving under the influence you should not only get your license revoked, but spend life in prison.

[steel_resolve]

Refuse a breathalizer. And I have read your posts. You sound like you would be better suited for the Daily Kos, they like the nanny state over there.

[weegee]

Related thread (200+ posts):

Bar Sweep Sparks Controversy (Drunk People Arrested in Bars!!)

[Junior_G]

If people know they have a chance of getting arrested for drinking too much in a bar isn't there a chance that they might go to tailgate parties or somewhere else that they can get drunk with friends but don't have the option of calling someone for a ride so they won't have to drive?

SHHHH!!! Rather than realize the error of their ways, the nanny-staters will use your logic to start pre-emptively arresting people in their homes.

[Dashing Dasher]

Dang!

[Junior_G]

Just because i have a dislike for alcohol and and all the misery it's created.

...and the fact that you would like to take away the freedoms of others due to your own personal dislike for alcohol. Don't forget that part.

[Graycliff]

Just those that blow past .08 percent.

[steel_resolve]

We aren't talking about a few drinks and getting a little buzzed

See, here is the problem. You're all for a LITTLE drunk, but adamantly opposed to ALOT drunk. You can't have it both ways. If the texas police are doing breathalizers on people, it is very easy to blow past .08, even though they are not "falling down drunk" by any sense or shape of the word. This is FASCISM and you should really rethink your position. It is anti-freedom.

[Old Professer]

Do us all a favor and wait until you are safely at home to take any medicine he may prescribe for you.

[weegee]

And some want to move the DEA under the TABC by legalizing other drugs. Same tactics, different office.

[weegee]

What about the woman in Boston who was arrested for PI while riding home in the back seat of a cab?

[Junior_G]

Just those that blow past .08 percent.

Without ever getting behind the wheel of a car? That's nonsense. Anything over two drinks will send you to jail in your utopian police state.

[CSM]

"This charge may be overzealously prosecuted as can be Jaywalking. The story doesn't make the distincion clear."

The fact that there was a "sweep" makes the distinction clear enough for me. In situations where the persons are a danger to themselves or others, the bartenders almost always call the authorities. There is no need for a "sweep."

[weegee]

Natioanlizing .08 was not about making the roads safer, it was about getting easier convictions.

And the feds couldn't nationalize the BA level, but they could withhold highway funds due to a state.

[Xenalyte]

We'll protect you! ;)

[me-here]

I have see it done already.

I'm glad I don't have these kinda problem here (yet).

[eastforker]

No, you made the comment that it would be okay with you to shutdown all the bars.You are the one trying to push your values on others.

[Graycliff]

(No, what you have a problem with is freedom, and how it can result in other people doing things that you don't want them to do.)


You might be right. I sure didn't want that drunk bastard to drive across the median and hit my 17 year old daughter head on. She would have been 27 on the 28th of May. If your idea of freedom is getting drunk and doing anything you want to, then you can keep it.

[SmoothTalker]

"
What is hypocritical are these pseudo-conservatives who are really authoritarians who post on FR defending any and every abuse of government power. What the Texas Alcohol Beverage Control Board is doing is as much unwarranted government intrusion as any "hate speech" or "speech code" ordinance."

Thank you. 100% correct. The only thing I hate more than a big government "conservative" is a big government liberal. And really there isn't that much different about them. Both want a nanny state. Both want their own values imposed on everyone else. The only difference are the particular things they want the nanny state to nanny about.

[SmoothTalker]

"
What is hypocritical are these pseudo-conservatives who are really authoritarians who post on FR defending any and every abuse of government power. What the Texas Alcohol Beverage Control Board is doing is as much unwarranted government intrusion as any "hate speech" or "speech code" ordinance."

Thank you. 100% correct. The only thing I hate more than a big government "conservative" is a big government liberal. And really there isn't that much different about them. Both want a nanny state. Both want their own values imposed on everyone else. The only difference are the particular things they want the nanny state to nanny about.