Busted for being Drunk.... in a bar - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

maleficent · 03-24-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Don't party too hardy in Texas.

The booze patrol is looking for drunks, even in Lone Star State saloons.
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is sending undercover officers into bars to spot those who over imbibe.

Agency spokeswoman Carolyn Beck says drinking is fine. But she says when people drink too much, they become dangerous.

The enforcement program also targets underage drinking and bartenders who continue to serve drunks. Public intoxication carries a possible 500-dollar fine and a few hours in the drunk tank to sober-up.

State on the lookout for overly drunk bar patrons

Quote:

By JIM VERTUNOTHE ASSOCIATED PRESSAUSTIN -- Get fall-down drunk in a bar and it may cost you more than a bruised backside: Try $500 or a few hours in jail.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is sending undercover officers into bars to look for exceedingly drunk customers, issuing citations or making arrests for public intoxication even if patrons haven't left the building.

"Drinking is fine," agency spokeswoman Carolyn Beck said. "But when people drink too much, they become dangerous to themselves and other people."

The program was started to reduce drunken driving. It focuses not only on those who are drunk but also on the bars and bartenders who continue to serve them and those who serve underage drinkers. So far, it has resulted in about 2,200 arrests or citations statewide.

According to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Web site, Texas had 1,264 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2004, the most in the nation.

"We're trying to reduce that and save lives," Beck said.

B.J. Hassell, manager of victim services with MADD Texas State, which serves 29 counties in Central Texas, said her organization supports the crackdown.

"Can you imagine if TABC had not stopped those people from leaving the bar, how many more drunk drivers we might have had on the road?" Hassell said.
The most recent sting was March 10, when agents infiltrated more than 30 bars in Irving, arresting or citing dozens of people. Karen Smith, a spokeswoman for the commission in Fort Worth, said that such crackdowns have happened routinely in the Dallas-Fort Worth area over the past year.
The goal is to eradicate problem spots, Smith said. After the initial arrests of everyone involved, agents will return to the bars over the next week to "provide education for the employees and managers so they will serve alcohol more safely."

In Texas, the legal threshold for driving while intoxicated is a blood alcohol level of 0.08. But the law also defines public intoxication as "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties" because of alcohol or other drugs.
Public intoxication is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500. An offender can be cited or arrested. Many jails require anyone arrested to be detained for at least four to 12 hours.

Bar patrons may be approached if an officer spots them behaving erratically. The officer will perform a field sobriety test similar to one for drunken drivers. A suspect may also be asked to take a breath test, although it is not required, Beck said.

Most people who take the breath test have a blood alcohol level of 0.17 or higher, she said. "These people who are being arrested are really drunk," she said. "We're not going up to random people."

And having a designated driver isn't an excuse to be knee-wobbling drunk.
"There are plenty of dangerous things people do without getting behind the wheel of a car," Beck said.

She cited a recent case in El Paso where a man staggered into traffic and was killed, and one in South Padre Island where a student on spring break died when he tried to jump into a hotel pool from a second-floor window.
"When people drink, they lose their inhibitions," she said. "That's when people start making bad decisions."

The decision on targeting a bar is based on whether it is frequently cited by drunken-driving suspects as the last place they had a drink, whether it is in an area where police routinely make drunken-driving stops or whether police have been called there numerous times.

Beck acknowledged that many people may be surprised to learn that they can be arrested for being drunk in a bar. "It is legal to go out and drink in a bar," she said. "We are trying to get the message out that we want bars to sell responsibly and consumers to consume responsibly."

Staff writer Caren M. Penland contributed to this report.
1,264 Alcohol-related fatalities in Texas in 2004, leading the nation, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving
$500 Maximum fine for public intoxication, a Class C misdemeanor
0.17 Blood alcohol level of most people who take the breath test as part of the crackdown, according to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
0.08 Legal blood alcohol limit for Texas motorists

Some more info on the crackdown... .17 is pretty darned drunk...

Quote:

"When people drink, they lose their inhibitions," she said. "That's when people start making bad decisions."

Well- I guess this will also cut down onthe number of hookups based on beer goggle syndrome...

/me makes note to never go to texass again...

roachboy · 03-24-2006, 08:12 AM

thanks mal---i kinda sensed something like this...the logic of working to reduce drunk driving gets extended, following on some moralizing logic, to other "bad decisions"--yay---i think the state should take this all the way---all bad decisions should be pre-empted....

falling unwittingly for a real estate scam?---no problem----because bad investments lead to bad outcomes lead to shock and disappointment leads to drinking as medication leads to drunk driving and other bad things, arrest the investor before the contract is signed. another life saved...

a girl is preparing to break up with her boyfriend, using the "its not you its me" line-well, you know how that goes----so arrest her...

a graduate student is preparing for master's exams and is really feeling the pressure and decides to join up with friends to blow off some steam--o no, another bad potential situation--luckily, texas law enforcement can see into the future and so the arrest on the street outside his apartment was logical....

i am never---ever----going to texas.

Willravel · 03-24-2006, 08:44 AM

Preemptive arrests are illegal since no crime has ben committed.

Charlatan · 03-24-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Preemptive arrests are illegal since no crime has ben committed.

So you write a law that makes it legal. You are guilty of public drunkeness. It's no longer a preemtive arrest.

Hektore · 03-24-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

So you write a law that makes it legal. You are guilty of public drunkeness. It's no longer a preemtive arrest.

So, then how long is it until we're guilty of driving(we might speed or drive recklessly)? Or how long until owning a knife or gun is crime(since that may aid us in harming another individual)? Normally I don't buy into slippery slope arguments but I think on this one you almost have to.

The whole idea of a law supporting arresting people for being drunk to prevent drunk driving and other alcohol related crimes rests on it being factual that you cannot be drunk without driving drunk or committing an alcohol-related crime - which I have personally witnessed to not be the case more than a few times.

To make it a crime to be in a position capable of commiting a crime is ludicrous.

dksuddeth · 03-24-2006, 10:30 AM

This whole debacle is nothing more than producing revenue for the state. This 'raid' has been all over the local talk radio and news channels. the TABC aren't arresting people that are falling down drunk, they are arresting people who might be talking loudly, slurring some words, or even looking like they can't walk straight. All of this is done without any blood or breath tests. The fines for these are $100 to $500 for patrons and they can go up to $15,000 for the bar owners. The people of texas are getting hopping mad about this and you can bet that if it gets back to Rick Perry ordering this or even encouraging it, it's gonna get ugly. right now, the TABC is hammering the media left and right to make sure that they put in every story exactly what the law says in order to justify this action. This isn't any different than the police writing 3x the tickets in a given period to produce revenue.

Willravel · 03-24-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

So you write a law that makes it legal. You are guilty of public drunkeness. It's no longer a preemtive arrest.

Until that hypothetical law is passed, these are illegal practices. There is a latin term that escapes me that says you can't be prosecuted for a crime that was committed before the law was passed, I can't remember it. I believe the englishg translation is "after the fact" or something. If there is no CURRENT law against being drunk in a bar, then they can't do anything about it until there is a law passed. While I personally frown upon drunkenness anywhere, I frown more on liberties being trampled on.

Edit: if there is anyone out there that has been a victim of this, contact a lawyer. You will win and save a lot of buzzed people from ridiculous fines from tyranical governmental organizations. If they tried to fine me, I'd refuse to pay. Peaceful civil disobedience is my middle name.

Val_1 · 03-24-2006, 11:49 AM

The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

Pre-Crime strikes again.

I have said this a thousand times, the people that write laws are, for the most part, idiots. They are reactionary in their law making and poor in the choice of verbage in the law, which makes it easy for the law to be abused/mis-applied. I doubt that the intent of the laws for public intoxication were to arrest people drunk in a bar. Nor was it intended, I suspect, to arrest someone for what they might do upon leaving the bar. I suspect it was intended to keep people from passing out on street corners, thusly making the town an undesireable place to work/live/shop. But, in this puritan and extremist world we are now living in what are you going to do. Now, if these people were creating a nuisance, they should have been arrested for that rather than the public intoxication.

In that town I live in, a ten year old was arrested for riding his bike uptown last year. I'm sure that law was written to prevent skateboarders (I have nothing against them al long as they're curtious) from hanging out infront of businesses and creating a nuisance uptown. But, the way the law was written it was illegal to be on a bike or a skateboard anywhere in the downtown area. He was going uptown to pick up something from the store for his dad, and he got arrested (hand cuffed and driven to the police station in the back of a squad car). The police are not paid to interpret the laws, they are paid to enforce them. But, it does tend to clog up our legal system if people are being arrested for things like this.

Suave · 03-24-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It seems there has been a pendulum for the word pendulum in this thread. Something to think about...

That's deep.

MSD · 03-24-2006, 05:35 PM

How convenient, criminalize something that harms nobody, the arrest people for violating the new law. 50/50 on whether its' about "morality" or money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I guess since the Texas courts over turned the Sodomy Laws now all of those cops policing the bedrooms needed some other foolish law to enforce...

How many convictions for sodomy occurred prior to Lawrence vs. Texas?

Gilda · 03-25-2006, 05:45 PM

I've tried twice to type up a reasonable response here, but it just isn't coming. So here is my gut reaction:

If it makes it even a little less likely that bartenders will be serving people until they get drunk, or removes a few potential drunk drivers off the road, it's cool with me.

Of course, I think a person should lose their car, lose their liscense for a year, and spend a month in jail for a first drunk driving offense, and lose their liscense permanently and go to jail for six months on a second offense, so I'm not one to look to for sympathy here.

Gilda

Charlatan · 03-25-2006, 07:03 PM

It's all well and good to talk about stopping people from driving, but I keep thinking about the guy who didn't drive, or has a designated driver.

Why should *anyone* care if he gets drunk.

Ustwo · 03-26-2006, 11:46 PM

Quote:

AUSTIN -- Lawmakers plan to review a state drinking crackdown that uses undercover agents to arrest drunk people in bars.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission program, designed to stem public intoxication and drunken driving, has resulted in more than 2,200 arrests or citations since it began in August.

But the program has been criticized after news reports following the most recent busts, at 30 Dallas-area bars this month.

"I'm getting all those same e-mails, the Nazi, Taliban, Gestapo e-mails," said commission spokeswoman Carolyn Beck. "I don't really understand the hateful outrage. I don't understand, 'Die in a fire.' "

Legislators who oversee the commission said they agree with the emphasis on public safety, but the program should be reviewed to check for abuses and to measure its effectiveness.

"Somebody hanging around the hotel, a little stumbling on the way to their room? I don't think that was what we were focusing on," said Rep. Peggy Hamric, R-Houston, who authored a proposed rewrite of the statute authorizing the agency.

Rep. Kino Flores, chairman of the House Licensing and Administrative Procedures, said he plans to call a meeting next month to examine the commission's work.

"We're looking at it and we're going to be looking at it: Are we going too far, or do we need to go further?" the Mission Democrat said.

Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat and member of both the powerful Senate Finance Committee and the Criminal Justice Committee that oversees the commission, defended the principle of in-bar citations.

"Even though a public drunk is not planning on driving, that could change in an instant," he said. "There is certainly potential danger."

According to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Web site, Texas had 1,264 alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2004, the most in the nation.

The commission also points out that being drunk in public, even in a place licensed to sell alcohol, is against the law.

"We can't ignore somebody who's obviously breaking the law," Beck said.

In Texas, the blood alcohol limit for drunken driving is .08. But the law defines public intoxication as "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties." Public intoxication is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500. An offender can be cited or arrested.

Under the state program, bar patrons may be approached if an officer spots them behaving erratically. The officer will perform a field sobriety test similar to one for drunken drivers. A suspect may also be asked to take a breath test, although it is not required, Beck said.

While Whitmore supports the safety aspect of the program, he also said lawmakers should examine whether the agency, which is funded by fees it collects, is motivated to stricter enforcement by fiscal concerns.

Sen. Chris Harris, a Republican whose district includes Irving, called the recent arrests in his area "very questionable."

"At first, I was generally totally in agreement with them," he said. "But there are too many stories that demonstrate an abuse of power."

I'll read this as democrats for and republicans against. It looks like its as I suspected and all about the money

CMH · 03-27-2006, 12:18 AM

Please don't judge the whole state by this law. Like any other place (probably more so), we like to kick back a few cold ones. The only problem is that we also have a lot of churchies. These fucking do-gooders always want to stick their noses where they don't belong.

The religious right takes my beer and the liberals take my guns... so I am a libertarian.

Ustwo · 03-27-2006, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMH

The religious right takes my beer and the liberals take my guns... so I am a libertarian.

Who's taking your beer again?

The_Jazz · 03-27-2006, 06:27 AM

Wow, people are pissed off by the state enforcing the law. If the legislature wants to rewrite that law, then fine, but death threats to the folks enforcing it? Seriously.

dksuddeth · 03-27-2006, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Wow, people are pissed off by the state enforcing the law. If the legislature wants to rewrite that law, then fine, but death threats to the folks enforcing it? Seriously.

Quote:

But the law defines public intoxication as "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties.

how do you enforce that? That would put half of this country behind bars.

timalkin · 03-27-2006, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

what a bunch of bullshit.

this type of thing is exactly why cops get called pigs. if they do shit like this, they are pigs. plain and simple.

Dude, calling police officers "pigs" is sooooo 50 years ago. Ya'll need to come up with a better word.

If the police can articulate why they suspected that you were drunk, you were probably acting like an ass and were obviously intoxicated. Inside of a bar or outside on the street--- It doesn't make a difference.

The_Jazz · 03-28-2006, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

how do you enforce that? That would put half of this country behind bars.

Now, now, dksuddeth, I know that you and the rest of the gun nuts are chomping at the bit for the revolution to begin, but you can't start your "re-education" camps just yet....

/deliberately misreading

To answer the question - you don't. By doing exactly what they're already doing, the TABC is forcing the bars to do a better job of self-policing, which they should be doing anyway. One of the parts of this story that keeps getting glossed over, mainly because it really doesn't qualify as "news", is that the TABC is ticketing the establishments for overserving people and serving minors. If the bar knows that they're going to get in trouble for overserving, which is against the law by the way, they aren't going to do it.

AZrunner43 · 03-28-2006, 09:54 AM

sorry i didnt read the entire thread so i dont know if this has already been brought up... but from what i understand it is illegal to be drunk in a bar and it's illegal for a bar to get you drunk. nutty

dksuddeth · 03-28-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

To answer the question - you don't. By doing exactly what they're already doing, the TABC is forcing the bars to do a better job of self-policing, which they should be doing anyway. One of the parts of this story that keeps getting glossed over, mainly because it really doesn't qualify as "news", is that the TABC is ticketing the establishments for overserving people and serving minors. If the bar knows that they're going to get in trouble for overserving, which is against the law by the way, they aren't going to do it.

what they are actually doing is discouraging people to even be at a bar.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8313414/detail.html

Quote:

The Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau has been flooded with angry e-mails and hostile phone calls from meeting planners threatening to cancel commitments in Dallas, concerned a trip to the area could land them in jail.

The goal was stopping drunken drivers when people staying at a hotel bar were arrested.

"What has happened in this situation is, it's sort of crossed the line," Phil Jones said.

The CEO of Dallas CVB said national attention focusing on the arrests has changed the motto from "Don't mess with Texas" to "Don't visit Texas."

"If you think they would even consider doing something like this in Las Vegas, you're fooling yourself," Jones said.

Jones has told the governor's office that arresting hotel patrons in hotel bars is a biz-killer.

"I'm getting calls from groups and meetings who are looking at canceling bringing their meeting or convention to Dallas," Jones said.

"It definitely concerns us," the Fairmont's general manager Frank Naboulsi said.

Naboulsi has no problem with initiatives to stop drunken driving but cringes at the thought of conventioneers being arrested in their hotels.

"Allow us to do the job that we're hired to do and allow us to do the job to service the guests that come to Dallas," Naboulsi said.

So Fairmont conventioneers will return as Dallas is hosting two major conventions.

Meanwhile, Dallas is battling new perceptions that visitors aren't welcome.

"What I told the governor's office was that from this point forward, we'll just encourage anyone who's upset or who has something to say about it to just contact the governor's office because TABC is a state agency," Jones said.

TABC said it's only enforcing the law.translation, we're raking in the big bucks

The long-term impact of booking conventions is yet to be seen but concerns about the arrests are definitely being heard.

I'm betting that this will get swept away very quickly, lest it hurt Perrys chances at re-election.

martinguerre · 03-28-2006, 01:51 PM

dksuddeth...that's interesting that out of state people are in on the uproar. way i see it, it's a chance for the people to legislate via their buying practices. boycott and economic re-direction is an excellent way to nullify an attempt to legislate something.

just ask the brits.

The_Jazz · 03-28-2006, 02:21 PM

DK, this is beginning to be a "to-may-to/to-mah-to" debate. I think that they're encouraging bars to make sure that they don't overserve anyone. You think that they're discouraging people to drink in bars. What they're doing is making sure that people don't get drunk in bars. Can we agree on that? If the two of us go to our favorite Dallas watering hole and have a couple of beers apiece over a couple of hours and the TABC walks through, we're fine (unless you're acting "erratic" by spouting off about gun rights and the impending revolution

). Now if we pound down 10 shots each in 10 minutes, we're going to have a problem. And you know what, the bar shouldn't have served us since that's dangerous for us and those around us (especially whoever sitting near me, since I promise that I'd puke under these circumstances).

Let me get this straight - when it comes to guns, you don't want the government to pass any new laws but just enforce the ones on the books. However, when it comes to drinking, you don't want them to enforce the ones on the books but write new ones instead. Alcohol kills more people in the US than all the guns worldwide (ok, I made that stat up, but I'll be its close). If I overserve you at a party at my home and you go out and kill someone while driving, I'm potentially liable as the server. There's a reason to enforce the laws.

dksuddeth · 03-28-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Let me get this straight - when it comes to guns, you don't want the government to pass any new laws but just enforce the ones on the books.

Not quite. I said we don't need any more laws IF they would enforce the ones that are already there. I, personally, think that they should actually do away with a few of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

However, when it comes to drinking, you don't want them to enforce the ones on the books but write new ones instead.

Not quite again. If TABC hits up a bar and they find people falling down drunk, I have no problem with them citing/arresting them. I do have a problem if they hit a hotel bar and arrest people that are staying AT the hotel. Thats a far cry from a more realistic 'wanting to stop drunk driving so we raided hooters' type of argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Alcohol kills more people in the US than all the guns worldwide (ok, I made that stat up, but I'll be its close). If I overserve you at a party at my home and you go out and kill someone while driving, I'm potentially liable as the server. There's a reason to enforce the laws.

agreed, see my statement above. Again, if they hit up hooters or champs or the local strip club, fine. When you roust hotel patrons at the hotel bar who have no plans to go anywhere, thats an issue.

Sultana · 03-29-2006, 12:01 PM

I agree with Willravel (and journeyman [?])...How can it *possibly* be legal to arrest someone when a crime Has Not Been Committed?

Why can't the agents sit in the parking lot and see how many apparently drunk folks get in the car and start it up, thereby pretty much proving their intent?

And raiding hotel bars, that's just the STUPIDEST thing I can possibly imagine. Why don't they start raiding folks indulging in the hotel room's minibars?!? Come, on, it's not that far off from the Hotel's bar.

Any how about arresting drunks for assault and battery, molesting poultry, and the myriad of other crimes that often take place under the influence?

The_Jazz · 03-29-2006, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sultana

Any how about arresting drunks for assault and battery, molesting poultry, and the myriad of other crimes that often take place under the influence?

I think that's the point of this new tactic - preventative maintenance. We all know that drunks do some stupid things, and if you're not allowing them to get out of control, then you theoretically keep a lid on the stupidity.

As far as a crime not being committed, I'm afraid that you're wrong. The bars are certainly overserving these folks, and that's against the law. The individuals in question are drunk in a public establishment. That's against the law as well. If you don't like the law, then get it changed.

Obviously I don't know the whole story, but I'll wager that the hotel bar in question has a history of either overserving patrons or serving underage patrons. Having been to many a hotel bar in my day, I can tell you that I've certainly been overserved in some and that I've done some considerable damage afterwards (my apologies Airport Hilton of Minneapolis for leaving a steaming pile of something in a stairwell on a bet). I'll agree that a hotel bar is an unlikely place for habitually overserving people but the Bi-Lo on Sutherland Avenue in Knoxville, TN was an unlikely place to sell beer to kids from a private school 10 miles away. That didn't stop it from happening.

Carno · 03-29-2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Alcohol kills more people in the US than all the guns worldwide (ok, I made that stat up, but I'll be its close).

Goddamn, that must be some good crack you are smoking.

lusciousmunkee · 03-30-2006, 03:27 AM

If Dallas is anything like Los Angeles (near where I live), then a lot of dance clubs and bars are inside hotels. They are open to the street and the public, it's not like a bar lounge for the occupants. These are part of the night life.

Also, at the club I work at the servers have to cut off the men when they've had too much. If the vice squad comes into my club, then they would ticket the bartender for serving too much alcohol. It was like this in Oregon (where I grew up), too. Oh, and you can't buy liquor in supermarkets or on Sundays in Oregon, either. I bet it's against the law to overserve people everywhere and that this just became a big issue out of something that has already been law for a long time. And I don't go to bars to get drunk, but to hang out and have some fun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Not quite. I said we don't need any more laws IF they would enforce the ones that are already there. I, personally, think that they should actually do away with a few of them.

Not quite again. If TABC hits up a bar and they find people falling down drunk, I have no problem with them citing/arresting them. I do have a problem if they hit a hotel bar and arrest people that are staying AT the hotel. Thats a far cry from a more realistic 'wanting to stop drunk driving so we raided hooters' type of argument.

agreed, see my statement above. Again, if they hit up hooters or champs or the local strip club, fine. When you roust hotel patrons at the hotel bar who have no plans to go anywhere, thats an issue.

flstf · 03-30-2006, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

As far as a crime not being committed, I'm afraid that you're wrong. The bars are certainly overserving these folks, and that's against the law. The individuals in question are drunk in a public establishment. That's against the law as well. If you don't like the law, then get it changed.

I agree, this is another one of those silly laws dealing with alcohol that states pass from time to time that should be changed.

Quote:

Alcohol
Texas state law prohibits taking more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.

Nebraska state law prohibits bars from selling beer unless they are simultaneously brewing a kettle of soup.

State law of North Dakota prohibits serving beer and pretzels at the same time in any bar or restaurant.

In Houston, Texas, beer many not be purchased after midnight on Sunday, but can be purchased anytime on Monday...which happens to begin right after midnight on Sunday! So it's illegal to buy it when its legal to buy it?

If you are intoxicated but not driving your car, but the person who is driving your car is intoxicated, both you and the driver can be charged with DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol) in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Some states and other jurisdictions within the US require that the interior of public drinking establishments be visible from the street, whereas other specifically prohibit that; some insist that food be available wherever drinks are served, whereas other make that illegal; and some require that anyone drinking stand at a bar, whereas others mandate that they be seated while drinking.

In the 1940's, California law made it illegal to serve alcohol to a gay (homosexual) person.

The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a recipe for making beer that can be used at home.

The_Jazz · 03-30-2006, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I agree, this is another one of those silly laws dealing with alcohol that states pass from time to time that should be changed.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there. It should not be legal for anyone to get falling down drunk in a bar, and the bars that do it should be penalized. Alcohol is fine in moderation, but it's poisonous and overconsumption can cause death, among other things. Drunks have notorious poor impulse control, and they also rarely realize how drunk they are. Having provided insurance for some establishments that habitually overserve patrons, I can confirm that drunks do drive and they also do other things that place themselves and others in danger, like riding on top of elevators, get in fights and drop things on people, just to name a few of the claims I have been involved in.

flstf · 03-30-2006, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there. It should not be legal for anyone to get falling down drunk in a bar, and the bars that do it should be penalized. Alcohol is fine in moderation, but it's poisonous and overconsumption can cause death, among other things. Drunks have notorious poor impulse control, and they also rarely realize how drunk they are. Having provided insurance for some establishments that habitually overserve patrons, I can confirm that drunks do drive and they also do other things that place themselves and others in danger, like riding on top of elevators, get in fights and drop things on people, just to name a few of the claims I have been involved in.

I get your point, I guess we are looking at this from different angles. I think the quote you reference by Benjamin Franklin applies here and I suppose you think otherwise. With designated drivers and such, not everyone who drinks too much should be subject to arrest. I especially do not like the idea that low paid servers should be responsible for determining how much liquor their patrons can hold, some people can handle much more than others.

JStrider · 04-13-2006, 08:45 AM

it looks like the program has been suspended, at least temporarily...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3791210.html

Quote:

State suspends public intoxication stings

By TERRI LANGFORD
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

The state's alcohol authorities have put a temporary halt to the arrests of drunks in Texas bars.

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Administrator Alan Steen notified a legislative committee this week that the agency is suspending the controversial program known as Operation Last Call for further review.

"I still feel strongly that this is a sound program with positive implications,'' Steen wrote in Tuesday letter to state Rep. Ismael "Kino'' Flores, chairman of the House Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures. ``However, I have asked our Enforcement Division to delay these operations until the hearing before your committee next week.''

The decision came two days after the Houston Chronicle reported that more than two-thirds of 1,740 arrests for public intoxication in Texas bars occurred in small towns with populations 150,000 or less.

TABC stepped up arrests last September at the request of lawmakers, who approved funding for 120 new staffers including 59 new agents. By arresting more drunks in bars, the agency had hoped to reduce the number of drunken drivers on Texas roads.

Each year, about 1,600 people are killed by drunk drivers in Texas, TABC reports.

Steen wrote that he will recommend to the agency's commissioners on Monday that TABC "take a few steps back to re-evaluate the program beyond that date.''

TABC spokeswoman Carolyn Beck said the suspension will give the agency time to complete its own internal investigation of the program and evaluate criticism of the program.

"We feel like it's in everbody's best interest,'' she said.

viejo gringo · 04-13-2006, 07:28 PM

10:25 PM---they just suspended all bar checks until the legislature does a review on Monday...

of coarse they have already issued tickets to 2200 people for being drunk---even when they had a designated driver....

more on this later....

Gatorade Frost · 04-13-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by viejo gringo

10:25 PM---they just suspended all bar checks until the legislature does a review on Monday...

of coarse they have already issued tickets to 2200 people for being drunk---even when they had a designated driver....

more on this later....

Wait... The Texas legislature is going to do something?

I don't believe it.

Dragonknight · 04-13-2006, 07:57 PM

Okay this just seams so very wrong to me, catching some one before they actually break a law. If the Owner or operator of a bar has a problem with you then they call the police. If not then they keep sucking up your money. You should be a "responsible" adult and either not drink too much or have some one there to take care of you if you do i.e. your DD. This eliminates the need for the police to come in and judge by there own standards (I found nothing that shows they have a set standard of drunk).

Now if the Police want to hang out outside of a bar and watch if your stumbling butt gets into your car and starts it up then cool. Once the car is started you intended to drive drunk and they grab you. You now started to commit a crime. This whole grabbing people drinking in bars is crap.

spived2 · 04-17-2006, 02:01 PM

If only 30 people got arrested from 36 bars that were checked, I don't see what the problem is. Every bar has their drunk jackass causing problems, and they usually get the cops called on them anyhow.

dksuddeth · 04-18-2006, 01:01 PM

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8798212/detail.html

Quote:

AUSTIN -- Lawmakers in Austin on Monday evening ruled that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission needs to change its ways.

Following a five-hour hearing, legislators found that TABC agents were often mentally and physically abusive while arresting intoxicated people during undercover stings in bars.

The hearing catalogued what one legislator called an "out of control program" that needs to be reworked and that agents need to be retrained.

The program remains on hold pending further review.

so, the texas legislature is telling the offending agency to police itself and change its ways. God, I love america.

Fearless_Hyena · 04-20-2006, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Because they are being forced enforce the law, doesn't make them pigs, they are doing their job. I'm sure the directive to arrest people comes from higher than Office Friendly on the street.

Of course it comes from a higher authority, but I don't think that makes it right. I don't think it's as much the fault of the arresting officer so much as the Chief of Police or someone else who's influential and has a vested interest in this enforcement. The cops have to do it or they'll get fired, but if *all* officers felt it was unjust enforcement, I think the collective dissent would put a halt to it pretty quickly.

Police departments choose to enforce what they want more stringently or passively for many different reasons. I sure hope this particular reason isn't just to increase revenue (but I'm sure that's one of the driving factors). Usually it's just a very few people who have the power and decide to put selectively-enforced programs like this into place. Like the Police Chief, Mayor, Governor, President, and assorted influencial rich folks. It's definitely revenue-driven, but that's probably (hopefully) not the only reason why they're doing this.

Similarly, a while back my county department had a "Seatbelt Challenge" where officers were rewarded for pulling over the most people who aren't wearing seatbelts. They don't do that anymore; It was selective enforcement only during that period of time -- now they probably won't pull you over just for not wearing a seatbelt unless they were hunting for PC. I knew a few people who got pulled over during that time, and I haven't heard of anyone getting pulled over just for that since the program ended. In my mind, that was just as silly as this bullshit operation.

doubleaught · 04-26-2006, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Journeyman

Either way, the concept behind this stinks of the Minority Report plot of arresting people before they commit a crime.

My thoughts exactly. Though, the whole "they were ordered to do it for a revenue stream" seems pretty likely too. Bunch o' crap.

03-24-2006, 08:12 AM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	thanks mal---i kinda sensed something like this...the logic of working to reduce drunk driving gets extended, following on some moralizing logic, to other "bad decisions"--yay---i think the state should take this all the way---all bad decisions should be pre-empted.... falling unwittingly for a real estate scam?---no problem----because bad investments lead to bad outcomes lead to shock and disappointment leads to drinking as medication leads to drunk driving and other bad things, arrest the investor before the contract is signed. another life saved... a girl is preparing to break up with her boyfriend, using the "its not you its me" line-well, you know how that goes----so arrest her... a graduate student is preparing for master's exams and is really feeling the pressure and decides to join up with friends to blow off some steam--o no, another bad potential situation--luckily, texas law enforcement can see into the future and so the arrest on the street outside his apartment was logical.... i am never---ever----going to texas. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-24-2006 at 08:16 AM..

03-24-2006, 10:30 AM	#46 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	This whole debacle is nothing more than producing revenue for the state. This 'raid' has been all over the local talk radio and news channels. the TABC aren't arresting people that are falling down drunk, they are arresting people who might be talking loudly, slurring some words, or even looking like they can't walk straight. All of this is done without any blood or breath tests. The fines for these are $100 to $500 for patrons and they can go up to $15,000 for the bar owners. The people of texas are getting hopping mad about this and you can bet that if it gets back to Rick Perry ordering this or even encouraging it, it's gonna get ugly. right now, the TABC is hammering the media left and right to make sure that they put in every story exactly what the law says in order to justify this action. This isn't any different than the police writing 3x the tickets in a given period to produce revenue. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

03-24-2006, 11:49 AM	#48 (permalink)
Val_1 Addict Location: In a State of Denial	The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car. Pre-Crime strikes again. I have said this a thousand times, the people that write laws are, for the most part, idiots. They are reactionary in their law making and poor in the choice of verbage in the law, which makes it easy for the law to be abused/mis-applied. I doubt that the intent of the laws for public intoxication were to arrest people drunk in a bar. Nor was it intended, I suspect, to arrest someone for what they might do upon leaving the bar. I suspect it was intended to keep people from passing out on street corners, thusly making the town an undesireable place to work/live/shop. But, in this puritan and extremist world we are now living in what are you going to do. Now, if these people were creating a nuisance, they should have been arrested for that rather than the public intoxication. In that town I live in, a ten year old was arrested for riding his bike uptown last year. I'm sure that law was written to prevent skateboarders (I have nothing against them al long as they're curtious) from hanging out infront of businesses and creating a nuisance uptown. But, the way the law was written it was illegal to be on a bike or a skateboard anywhere in the downtown area. He was going uptown to pick up something from the store for his dad, and he got arrested (hand cuffed and driven to the police station in the back of a squad car). The police are not paid to interpret the laws, they are paid to enforce them. But, it does tend to clog up our legal system if people are being arrested for things like this. __________________ I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. -Frank Sinatra

03-25-2006, 07:03 PM	#52 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	It's all well and good to talk about stopping people from driving, but I keep thinking about the guy who didn't drive, or has a designated driver. Why should anyone care if he gets drunk. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-27-2006, 06:27 AM	#56 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Wow, people are pissed off by the state enforcing the law. If the legislature wants to rewrite that law, then fine, but death threats to the folks enforcing it? Seriously. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-24-2006, 08:44 AM	#43 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Preemptive arrests are illegal since no crime has ben committed.

03-25-2006, 05:45 PM	#51 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	I've tried twice to type up a reasonable response here, but it just isn't coming. So here is my gut reaction: If it makes it even a little less likely that bartenders will be serving people until they get drunk, or removes a few potential drunk drivers off the road, it's cool with me. Of course, I think a person should lose their car, lose their liscense for a year, and spend a month in jail for a first drunk driving offense, and lose their liscense permanently and go to jail for six months on a second offense, so I'm not one to look to for sympathy here. Gilda

03-27-2006, 12:18 AM	#54 (permalink)
CMH Upright	Please don't judge the whole state by this law. Like any other place (probably more so), we like to kick back a few cold ones. The only problem is that we also have a lot of churchies. These fucking do-gooders always want to stick their noses where they don't belong. The religious right takes my beer and the liberals take my guns... so I am a libertarian.

03-28-2006, 09:54 AM	#60 (permalink)
AZrunner43 Upright Location: phoenix, az	sorry i didnt read the entire thread so i dont know if this has already been brought up... but from what i understand it is illegal to be drunk in a bar and it's illegal for a bar to get you drunk. nutty

03-28-2006, 01:51 PM	#62 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	dksuddeth...that's interesting that out of state people are in on the uproar. way i see it, it's a chance for the people to legislate via their buying practices. boycott and economic re-direction is an excellent way to nullify an attempt to legislate something. just ask the brits. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

03-28-2006, 02:21 PM	#63 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	DK, this is beginning to be a "to-may-to/to-mah-to" debate. I think that they're encouraging bars to make sure that they don't overserve anyone. You think that they're discouraging people to drink in bars. What they're doing is making sure that people don't get drunk in bars. Can we agree on that? If the two of us go to our favorite Dallas watering hole and have a couple of beers apiece over a couple of hours and the TABC walks through, we're fine (unless you're acting "erratic" by spouting off about gun rights and the impending revolution ). Now if we pound down 10 shots each in 10 minutes, we're going to have a problem. And you know what, the bar shouldn't have served us since that's dangerous for us and those around us (especially whoever sitting near me, since I promise that I'd puke under these circumstances). Let me get this straight - when it comes to guns, you don't want the government to pass any new laws but just enforce the ones on the books. However, when it comes to drinking, you don't want them to enforce the ones on the books but write new ones instead. Alcohol kills more people in the US than all the guns worldwide (ok, I made that stat up, but I'll be its close). If I overserve you at a party at my home and you go out and kill someone while driving, I'm potentially liable as the server. There's a reason to enforce the laws. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-29-2006, 12:01 PM	#65 (permalink)
Sultana Falling Angel Location: L.A. L.A. land	I agree with Willravel (and journeyman [?])...How can it possibly be legal to arrest someone when a crime Has Not Been Committed? Why can't the agents sit in the parking lot and see how many apparently drunk folks get in the car and start it up, thereby pretty much proving their intent? And raiding hotel bars, that's just the STUPIDEST thing I can possibly imagine. Why don't they start raiding folks indulging in the hotel room's minibars?!? Come, on, it's not that far off from the Hotel's bar. Any how about arresting drunks for assault and battery, molesting poultry, and the myriad of other crimes that often take place under the influence? __________________ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." - Matt Groening My goal? To fulfill my potential.

04-13-2006, 07:28 PM	#73 (permalink)
viejo gringo Registered User Location: Deep South Texas	10:25 PM---they just suspended all bar checks until the legislature does a review on Monday... of coarse they have already issued tickets to 2200 people for being drunk---even when they had a designated driver.... more on this later....

04-13-2006, 07:57 PM	#75 (permalink)
Dragonknight Insane Location: Hawaii	Okay this just seams so very wrong to me, catching some one before they actually break a law. If the Owner or operator of a bar has a problem with you then they call the police. If not then they keep sucking up your money. You should be a "responsible" adult and either not drink too much or have some one there to take care of you if you do i.e. your DD. This eliminates the need for the police to come in and judge by there own standards (I found nothing that shows they have a set standard of drunk). Now if the Police want to hang out outside of a bar and watch if your stumbling butt gets into your car and starts it up then cool. Once the car is started you intended to drive drunk and they grab you. You now started to commit a crime. This whole grabbing people drinking in bars is crap. __________________ Freedom is NOT Free.

04-17-2006, 02:01 PM	#76 (permalink)
spived2 Desert Rat Location: Arizona	If only 30 people got arrested from 36 bars that were checked, I don't see what the problem is. Every bar has their drunk jackass causing problems, and they usually get the cops called on them anyhow. __________________ "This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." - V