I see a camera in this mans pitiful life.
Posted on 03/22/2006 10:40:15 AM PST by Daytyn71
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sent a message to bar patrons last week.
TABC agents and Irving police swept through 36 Irving bars and arrested about 30 people on charges of public intoxication. Agency representatives say the move came as a proactive measure to curtail drunken driving.
North Texans interviewed by NBC 5, however, worried that the sweep went too far.
At one location, for example, agents and police arrested patrons of a hotel bar. Some of the suspects said they were registered at the hotel and had no intention of driving. Arresting authorities said the patrons were a danger to themselves and others.
"Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk," TABC Capt. David Alexander said. "It's to have a good time but not to get drunk."
Dallas comedian Steve Harvey agreed with the Texas residents who said the arrests infringed on individual rights.
"If a guy's got a designated driver, go ahead and let him get toasted," Harvey told NBC 5.
Texas law states that inebriated individuals could be subjected to arrest anywhere for public intoxication. Harvey and other North Texans called the measure extreme.
"That seems to be an extreme case," one man said. "You are self-contained, in the hotel, you're not going in the streets, it seems a little ridiculous."
TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights. Harvey and others interviewed by NBC 5 said they believe drunken driving to be unacceptable, although Harvey wanted to confirm that the United States remains a free country.
"Freedom of drinking should always be allowed, and it is only American to let a guy get drunk where he wants to get drunk," Harvey said.
"Confused...how is being inside a bar public, unless it is owned by the government."
The smoking bans have conveniently changed the definition of private property into public property. You can thank many FReepers for celebrating that change for this next logical step.
"The discussion is about the legality of public drunkenness."
OK, what is your definition of drunk?
Our son snuck out of the house one time (NOTE - one time) and met some friends. AN older guy bought them some cheapo wine and he got very plastered. Next day we had to go early to the ranch to plant pecan trees - holes 3 foot wide by 3 1/2 foot deep - by hand. He and his buddy who was spending the night dug them - by hand. LOLLL On the 30 minute drive home, he got sicker and sicker. Puked his guts out that afternoon. Never again had to deal with this. LOLLLL
I see a camera in this mans pitiful life.
Additionally, selling liquor is not a "right" but a licensed activity, subject to regulation by the state. In order to get a permit to sell liquor, you must agree to abide by certain provisions. The entry of the TACB officers into the bar is not a constitutional issue (boy I'm going to get flamed for that). The issue is the absurdist way in which the law is being enforced.
Until CPS takes your children away for "negligence" due to a neighbor filing a complaint that you are a "drunkard".
"If members of the public are allowed to go into an area, government representatives have the right to go into the area."
Do you think that is right? I don't.
Public intoxication stings catch 2,200 in Texas bars
2,200 arrests X $500 fine = $1,100,000 in potential fines.
We don't really need to know anything more about this, do we?
The underlying issue here is private property rights. This will end up being yet another defining case in the effort to extinguish the concept altogether.
The real thing won't happen till John Mclaim or Hillary Clinton get elected as Prez..
LOLL Yep. He was never drunk again. He drank but if you watched closely, you could see him sipping and then getting another after he had placed his mostly full beer some place else. He looked like he was drinking along with the rest of the guys but actually wasn't. BTW, I NEVER saw him drink ANY wine after that. LOLL
Yeah, I think it's right. I kind of like the idea that a health inspector visits a restaurant and that theaters have fire inspections. I don't like what TACB is doing, as listed on this thread, but this is something that should be addressed politically. It's not a constitutional issue.
I always get a chuckle out of evening news interviews with cops who lapse into police-ese even when discussing the most trivial of subjects. "They got out of the car" becomes "Driver and passenger occupying the rightmost front seat egressed the vehicle." Similar to a nice clear concise word like "suspect" becoming "person of interest." Cops do a dangerous, demanding job but GET OVER THE OFFICIAL BLUSTER!
Then we'd see how quick they;d be to pre-emtively confront the citizens.
Much like AAA's rating system for hotels, I'd bet that private commpanies would do a better job inspecting and certifying private property than the government does today.
That is the Law in Texas, and that is what the State must prove.
Request a jury trial and have everyone with you testify in your behalf (if you really weren't dangerous). Its not an easy thing to prove.
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.