Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Public intoxication stings catch 2,200 in Texas bars
chron.com ^ | 3/23/06 | Anne Marie Kilday

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: aa; abuse; abuseofpower; alcohol; alcoholics; alcoholism; austin; bar; dallas; donutwatch; drunk; drunkdriving; dui; dwi; houston; madd; nannystate; police; policestate; potsmokerslaughing; revenuers; sanantonio; taxation; texas; twelvestepprogram; wacoraid; warondrugs; waronsomedrugs; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 421-436 next last
To: American_Centurion

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?


81 posted on 03/23/2006 9:02:28 AM PST by Muleteam1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Freedom abused by licentiousness is eventually freedom lost.

"Free to drink alcohol, but only if you don't become drunk." That isn't exactly freedom.

82 posted on 03/23/2006 9:02:55 AM PST by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Graycliff

Oh! Why should your puritanical beliefs be applied. Maybe you would feel more comfortable living with the Taliban.


83 posted on 03/23/2006 9:02:55 AM PST by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner

Classic business shakedown..... Tony Soprano couldn't have done better....


84 posted on 03/23/2006 9:03:00 AM PST by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
"Well, by your rational maybe we should just shut all the bars down"

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?

85 posted on 03/23/2006 9:03:03 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist

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?


86 posted on 03/23/2006 9:03:24 AM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Texas Mom
Are you going to sleep in the bar or drive home? Get them in the bar before they head home

Never heard of taxis? designated drivers? Sober friends? You are seriously making the assertion that someone who is drinking in a bar is going to drive drunk?
87 posted on 03/23/2006 9:04:38 AM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

I think it quite obvious that this is nothing more than revenue enhancement.


88 posted on 03/23/2006 9:04:54 AM PST by Roccus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Texas Mom

How do you know who they arrested or how much they had to drink.


89 posted on 03/23/2006 9:04:56 AM PST by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner

Didn't we try something like this in the '30's?


90 posted on 03/23/2006 9:05:19 AM PST by Loyal Buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RolandBurnam

HEY! Stop trying to inject facts into discussion!


91 posted on 03/23/2006 9:05:46 AM PST by PissAndVinegar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G
"Free to drink alcohol, but only if you don't become drunk." That isn't exactly freedom.

Well put, Junior. Good tagline material.

92 posted on 03/23/2006 9:06:38 AM PST by ProfoundMan (At what point does this crap become sedition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner

Does that include the "designated driver" too...???


93 posted on 03/23/2006 9:07:48 AM PST by auto power
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roccus
I think it quite obvious that this is nothing more than revenue enhancement.

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.

94 posted on 03/23/2006 9:08:30 AM PST by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Muleteam1

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.


95 posted on 03/23/2006 9:08:58 AM PST by American_Centurion (No, I don't trust the government to automatically do the right thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker
I am not sure what the laws are in Texas, but here in Maryland someone actually has to be in the car before the police can try to bust them for DUI. Public intoxication, drunk and disorderly, and so forth are another story.

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.

96 posted on 03/23/2006 9:09:04 AM PST by River_Wrangler (Nothing difficult is ever easy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Graycliff

I don't get drunk in public, I get drunk in bars.


97 posted on 03/23/2006 9:09:32 AM PST by RolandBurnam (I WANT SOME PORK RINDS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G

"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.


98 posted on 03/23/2006 9:09:51 AM PST by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Texas Mom

Prove it.

Can you provide a code/law which say "getting drunk is illegal" specifically when you are in a private establishment?


99 posted on 03/23/2006 9:10:20 AM PST by PissAndVinegar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

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.


100 posted on 03/23/2006 9:10:30 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 421-436 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson