Posted on 03/23/2006 8:18:08 AM PST by takenoprisoner
My conservatism certainly is not so narrow that it has no room for heart-led thought but this issue primarily involves the head. Drunks have to drive home and when they do, they likely will involve others. If a drunk in a bar can prove that he has a designated driver, then he should not be harrassed for public intoxication. Or maybe bars should have a bus service for their drunks?
"Free to drink alcohol, but only if you don't become drunk." That isn't exactly freedom.
Oh! Why should your puritanical beliefs be applied. Maybe you would feel more comfortable living with the Taliban.
Classic business shakedown..... Tony Soprano couldn't have done better....
I agree, just make smoking and drinking illegal again just down all the bars and be done with. I wonder how many $'s these stings earn Texas? Think maybe the $'s had something to do with it?
Drunk driving is different. Apparently, a bunch of these people were arrested for drinking in a bar. What, there's not enough real crime in Texas for the cops to go after?
I think it quite obvious that this is nothing more than revenue enhancement.
How do you know who they arrested or how much they had to drink.
Didn't we try something like this in the '30's?
HEY! Stop trying to inject facts into discussion!
Well put, Junior. Good tagline material.
Does that include the "designated driver" too...???
I think you're right. Here in Washington, they're always coming up with a new scam to shakedown the public. Recently, it was cops posing as panhandlers on the side of the road. If anyone stopped that wasn't wearing a seatbelt, they'd radio it in to the squad car down the road. After being pulled over, the driver would be slapped with a $100 ticket "for their own good". Of course, the majority of the folks in Seattle are nanny-staters and absolutely LOVE the "Click it or ticket" campaign. I LOATHE NANNY-STATERS.
These arrests had nothing at all to do with DUI.
Some of those arrested were at the hotel bar where they were guests of the hotel. They weren't driving anywhere.
You advocate pre-crime, possibility of crime, and accusation of crime without basis, just so you can feel a wee bit safer in your person from the possibility of drunk drivers.
You deserve not freedom nor security. Thinking with your head indeed. Wait until they come for the christians who may commit the "hate crime" of hurting homosexuals feelings. Go ahead, and see if you can rationalize heart-led, emotionally based facism then.
There seems to be a touge of misinformation and maybe a slight amount of hyperbole here.
It has been illegal for more than 50 years to be intoxicated in public in Texas. Public Intoxication is defined as "being intoxicated to the extent that you could be a danger to yourself or others"
If you do that while driving a blood alcohol test is necessary to prove you are drunk. Not so with Public Intoxication.
This charge may be overzealously prosecuted as can be Jaywalking. The story doesn't make the distincion clear. Freepers that leap to conclusions and over react should look at all sides of the issue (remember the Port Issue)They should also decide if they would like to sit in a bar with people that are drunk enough to be a danger to themselves or others.
I don't get drunk in public, I get drunk in bars.
"Between this and the smoking bans, I have developed a true hatred for the nanny-staters. Freedom is precious, yet we now have so-called conservatives cheerleading for the erosion of freedom after freedom..."for the children" of course."
I'm so with you. Many on free republic are just as into the nanny state as the worst of the dems. The only difference is the specific policies and norms they want the government shoving down people's throats. I don't find them to be real conservativs. Real conservatives want the smallest government possible and the most individual liberty possible.
Prove it.
Can you provide a code/law which say "getting drunk is illegal" specifically when you are in a private establishment?
We have far more reformers here than we once did; something in the water, perhaps.
This story has been up at least three times now and the neo-prohibitionists jump in around the first 10 posts with their hair shirts on fire.
Seems we are going from pro-active to pre-emptive in our zest to ward off evil spirits; about the only thing left is to take an oath of purity.
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.