Posted on 03/23/2006 8:18:08 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
I found in my drinking days tht it was almost impossible not to wind up in the car to get more beer, to get cigs, whatever... you always ran out of something. Prohibition NOW!
I bet if you chose to fight a PI half the time the cop wouldn't even show. Cops are corrupt idiots, basically.
I'm sure that's true. If you want a liquor license, you have to play by the TABC rules.
Smith was beside himself. He said they could have locked up his entire staff last nite in a bar in NY. LOL
He went on to say but if they tried, somebody was gonna die! whoa! LOL
I should have mentioned I drink plent - and often in bars - so I'm no big fan of this.
Nonetheless there's a flaw in your argument: Its "public intoxication" their arresting the people for - not DUI.
All it takes to be guilty of that is to be intoxicxated and to be in public.
Lastly, I doubt you're correct re the "entrapment" argument. That's just one of those things you hear around bars. Entrapment in the legal sense means they somehow enticed you to do something you otherwise wouldn't have. Hard to see how that fits the cop outside the bar scenario.
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.
It seems to me that once you've become drunk you have already relinquished your freedom to alcohol. That's when bar fights start, physical and sexual assaults, drunk driving, etc. It's the age old excuse. "I was drunk; I didn't know what I was doing." An excused used by cheating spouses as often as those guilty of other things. Well guess what? If you freely choose to get plastered in public while in Texas then you just might find yourself arrested because it's against the law there. If you don't like that, use your freedom to speak and petition that gov't to change the law. But don't tell me that through the law you are giving up freedom. You give up your freedom when you allow alcohol to control you.
I do not know all the details of this, that I admit. But on its face it is not some tyrannical sting operation by an overbearing government out to oppress the public. It is a reasonable issue for government to address.
So your stance can be summarized as "Get Drunk...Go To Jail". Catchy. I think the do-gooder politicians could really run with that one.
Look, alcohol contributes to many, many societal ills; but unfortunately prohibition was already tried and it didn't work. Your stance of "drink one or two drinks, but go to jail if you drink more" is as silly and unrealistic as it gets. I suspect you would like to see alcohol banned outright, but just don't want to admit it. Smugly condemning the 99% of the adult population that has been drunk doesn't serve any real purpose.
So if you live in Texas petition the government for a change in the law. That's how it works. If you have ever been around drunks much you will know that they can be belligerent, violent, obnoxious, and dangerous. Even if none of those, they can throw up, pass out, pee their pants, and otherwise not be in control of themselves which can be a big problem for communities. If Texans don't like what their gov't is doing then let them petition for a change. But it is hardly something that should be considered a Constitutional right.
Did you read this part of my comments?:
"Of course I'm not going to go speeding through "school zones" trying to run over "the children".
Last I checked, a bar is a PRIVATE establishment because you have to be at least 21 to even enter such an establishment. In that case, these charges hold NO merit whatsoever because these people were in PRIAVTE, not public. If this is allowed to stand, it could lead to a slippery slope whereyou can be arrested for being drunk in your own home.
It really shows how FReepers think.
Some actually feel FReedom is okay - as long as it doesn't bother me.
Others understand that argument can be used for anything.
We need to be careful when infringing on FReedoms anytime, anywhere.
Enforce the laws, fine - go out of your way to infringe - not okay!
Very interesting coming from someone who, along with her compadres, supports bans on smoking in private establishments. And has a penchant for personal attacks against smokers.
With all due respect, your passion is greater than mine on this issue, so I'll leave it with you. I don't care only to establish that the Constitution does not prohibit communities from addressing problems with public intoxication. It only makes them equal and free to make their arguments for or against.
Trying to reason with single issue types is like eating ice cream with a fork - just when you think you're getting somewhere the whole thing melts away.
Bars which forbid anyone under 21 from even setting foot inside are private establishments, while bars which allow all ages to step inside (but only serve alcohol to those of legal age) are considered public. If this bar only allows people 21 and older to step inside, then these charges hold no merit whatsoever and should be declared null and void. Being drunk in public is illegal. Being drunk in private is not illegal. If being drunk in private were illegal, you would hear about people being arrested for simply being drunk in the privacy of their own homes.
Sounds like the town in Masshole I am stuck in for a few more months - but these liberals are going after parties in houses! At 9:45 four police cars screamed into my driveway because...guess....
I was hosting a party for seniors with FOUR other parents and the gestopo got a complaint on "noise." Mind you - this is winter in Masshole. All the windows and doors closed. All the doors covered by adults and all the "guests" scrutinized... Then this cop has the nerve to start yelling at the four parents who met him in driveway about daring to host a party for seniors!
You are not allowed to cuss on Freerepublic so I will not say what came forth from the parents' mouths. Here I thought i was moving to a conservative state to join my husband and Dallas is bothering people in bars - just in case they were thinking about driving drunk! This is the stuff of civil war. I don't like this country anymore.
Lame.
That's why the government is, in incremental steps, setting up the NWO...open borders (or no borders at all) is one of the main goals.
I'm sure MADD is behind this. I guess next is "one sip, legally drunk" laws where if you drive after having just one sip, you go to jail.
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.