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 ...
Drive Thru liquor stores: for you drunk driver that's always on the go.
Hurry up! I've got places to go and people to hit.
We aren't talking about a few drinks and getting a little buzzed we are talking about staggering, falling down slurring drunks.
So you saw all of the police reports from all of those arrested, and they were all staggering, falling down, slurring drunks?
Nice try.
Pre-emting terrorist attacks against civilians is similiar to pre-emting drunks from having a hangover?
Congrats, you've won today's Idiotic Analogy Award.
Mike also had on a spokeswoman for the TABC. She said that the men are asked by plainclothes officers to step outside so that the test can be administered. To me they do this because while they claim that the bar is a public place, they know that getting the mark to go outside means they ARE in public.
Mike said that he does not drink but that he opposes this program and that a similar tactic and been tried and shouted down in Virginia.
Got to "love" how the politicos push for "sin taxes" on beer and cigarettes yet the State makes a lot of money off of their sales (and makes even more money off the prosecution of those arrested for drinking and smoking in bars).
Follow the money.
If these are bad products, outlaw them. If they are going to be legal, permit their use among like minded individuals.
The guest who was on Mike Gallagher's radio show said he will not be staying in Irving anymore. When the host informed him that TABC stands by this policy statewide, he said he may think twice about going to Texas.
Convention business will suffer when out of state visitors get prosecuted by overzealous police forces looking for $350-500 fines.
Amendment IX : US Constitution
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I guess you missed that part of civics.
That was one of the reasons I loved going to Russia. Over there, pay your taxes (13%) and don't try to overthrow the government and guess what? They LEAVE you alone. PC is also non existent there as well.
That is because their despots were overthrown.
Those in America most actively protesting against Communism are immigrants who came from (sometimes former) Communist nations. Meanwhile our universities continue to indoctrinate new Communist sympathizers.
Which you interpret to mean your right to be intoxicated in public? So is there anything you can't do in public? If you want to traipse up and down the street in your birthday suit, the IX Amendment gives you the right to do it? If you can will it, it's your right? That's your position?
But maybe you're right. Since this is a state and local issue, we should petition the government over this. I say from now on, we vote out any modern puritans who want to revive the Anti-Saloon League and the Women's Christian Temperence Union, or anyone who favors the Bar Gestapo playing chaperone to grown adults.
Without the full story on both sides of this I think it is patently unfair to make the judgment you suggest. It is oh so tempting to define your opponents stance in the extreme. It is much tougher to search for the details and hear both sides before you pass judgment. I don't know the story well enough to say how I would want my local gov't to act. I just think the anarchy folks are ridiculous (see, everyone can do it). To be more precise, those who claim a constitutional right to public intoxication are ridiculous. I don't know if truth seeking will find that this was poor judgment by the gov't or by the individuals arrested. But it is no one's constitutional right to be in a drunken stupor in public.
What makes you think the Puritans would've been on the ban alcohol side?
Some "fun" Puritan facts:
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/FunFacts/PuritansToProhibition.html
Wow. I guess these people are worse than Puritans then.
In August, 2005, the agency announced it was beginning a crackdown on public intoxication, using both undercover and open operations.
And from what we've heard from several of those arrested, the methods they are using are pretty much the equivalent of pedestrian DUI checkpoints; posting plain clothes undercover officers in private establishments to arrest people who appear to be intoxicated.
This represents such a leap to a police state, that nothing that TABC does in the future (including sending undercover agents into private parties, your home, weddings, office parties) will surprise me.
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.