[himself]

can you believe this:

Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said on Wednesday.

The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission's Carolyn Beck.

They had another story on the evening news where a woman was arrested for being drunk in the bar of the hotel where she was staying... she wasn't drinking & driving. She was going to her hotel room to sleep afterward (needless to say, she won't visiting Texas again). Another guy was arrested for being drunk [in the bar] even though he had a designated driver. One of the bartenders was arrested for serving these folks, all of whom were of drinking age.

Is this going to start prohibition all over again in Texas? How many bars do you assume will close up shop because folks don't want to risk going out to drink? This is not far removed from entrapment, if you ask me. It's going a bit too far.

[turtle777]

Ha !

I knew there was a reason why I wouldn't wanna move to Texas. My wife always wanted to go back. Not gonna happen.

-t

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Huh?!?! You can't get drunk unless you're at your own home?!

Holy crap.

greg

Now Playing: The Little Willies – Easy As the Rain

[JoshuaZ]

Where will all the good times go?

[Teronzhul]

Yeah, this is pretty serious abuse of public intoxication laws that were obviously in place to curtail getting so drunk as to become dangerous or obnoxious in public areas. Texas may as well start arresting people for walking just in case they might jaywalk, or shopping because you never know when someone just may decide to steal something.

I hope someone sues and the Texas police are forced to go pantless.

[Doofy]

They came for the smokers (another ban starts today in Scotland). Next it'll be the drinkers (as demonstrated here). Then it'll be the ugly people. Then the geeks.

I've been ranting about this slippery slope for years. Nobody took any notice.

[Chuckit]

I'd imagine all you have to do is get the bar owner to testify that you were, in fact, on his private property and the "public" part of the intoxication goes away pretty quickly.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I'd imagine all you have to do is get the bar owner to testify that you were, in fact, on his private property and the "public" part of the intoxication goes away pretty quickly.

Boy, that'll sure work.

[faragbre967]

So the same state that still has the death penalty and even added a fast-track to it is slipping into prohibition? I can't imagine this is happening all over Texas; there are too many small towns where everyone drinks. I can't wait until they try to arrest a real big cowboy type guy who starts a barfight because of it.

[ghporter]

The idea is to prevent DUIs, (and to some extent other alcohol-related crimes), NOT to criminalize legal consumption of alcohol.

There was an article about this in yesterday's "San Antonio Express News." Basically, when someone is intoxciated, shouldn't someone step in and keep them from getting behind the wheel? The bar tender cutting off a drunk customer doesn't have any impact on what that customer does next. Further, we have had a very impressive increase in alcohol-related mishaps (that is drunk drivers causing accidents) and fatalities here in San Antonio recently, and the legal threat of being locked up for a number of years, the cost of even a losing defense, and the social stigma of being a convicted drunk driver don't seem to be having the effect of discouraging drunks from driving. And that kind of makes sense; someone who's really plastered probably has no comprehension of how impaired he is.

I'd like to add that I NEVER drink in public unless I'm with someone who I trust and who is not drinking because I do know how easily I can be impaired. So no, I do not go out to "get drunk" at all, and only drink a bit when I'm out with someone else who can drive me home. What's the point behind "getting drunk" in the first place? I have had a few while out with friends, but never even unintentionally got really drunk.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The idea is to prevent DUIs, (and to some extent other alcohol-related crimes), NOT to criminalize legal consumption of alcohol.

Basically, when someone is intoxciated, shouldn't someone step in and keep them from getting behind the wheel?

I'd like to add that I NEVER drink in public unless I'm with someone who I trust and who is not drinking because I do know how easily I can be impaired.

Originally Posted by himself

Another guy was arrested for being drunk [in the bar] even though he had a designated driver.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The idea is to prevent DUIs, (and to some extent other alcohol-related crimes), NOT to criminalize legal consumption of alcohol.

And again.

Originally Posted by himself

They had another story on the evening news where a woman was arrested for being drunk in the bar of the hotel where she was staying... she wasn't drinking & driving. She was going to her hotel room to sleep afterward (needless to say, she won't visiting Texas again).

I think they are all still worked up over the gay cowboy movie down there- just a bunch of Roscoe P. Coltrains trying to assert their masculinity.

[himself]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The idea is to prevent DUIs, (and to some extent other alcohol-related crimes), NOT to criminalize legal consumption of alcohol.

There was an article about this in yesterday's "San Antonio Express News." Basically, when someone is intoxciated, shouldn't someone step in and keep them from getting behind the wheel? The bar tender cutting off a drunk customer doesn't have any impact on what that customer does next. Further, we have had a very impressive increase in alcohol-related mishaps (that is drunk drivers causing accidents) and fatalities here in San Antonio recently, and the legal threat of being locked up for a number of years, the cost of even a losing defense, and the social stigma of being a convicted drunk driver don't seem to be having the effect of discouraging drunks from driving. And that kind of makes sense; someone who's really plastered probably has no comprehension of how impaired he is.

Preventing DUI's is a good thing, but using this tactic is throwing out the baby with the bath water. A better idea would be to wait outside the bar and stop people going to their cars from the bar and testing them on the spot. If they're drunk and don't have a designated driver, lock 'em up. Otherwise, they probably don't pose much of a threat.

Besides, I'm certain this won't have much impact on the drunk driving problem there anyway, since it can't touch folks who get drunk at home or at a house party or similar private gathering, and then hop behind the wheel afterwards.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The idea is to prevent DUIs, (and to some extent other alcohol-related crimes), NOT to criminalize legal consumption of alcohol.

Explain that to me. Either the consumption of alcohol is legal or it isn't. Having a couple of beers gets you drunk. So what. It doesn't mean that you go out and drive home.
This is the equivalent of arresting a car driver for speeding before he even got into his car. They are arresting people who had no intention of driving.

[porieux]

...

[volcano]

Things sure have changed.

They enacted the Smoking Ordinance here in Austin a few months back - causing all the bar/club/venue owners downtown to kick all the smokers outside. Everyone thought the city would shut down and that the venues would lose masses of customers - no such thing happened. But as for all of these incidents regarding public intoxication - it's nonesense. I think I have another great story to tell:

A friend of mine was downtown drinking with a few buddies a couple of weeks ago. They didn't drive (because they don't have cars - which is easy to live with here in Austin, we have a good bus infrastructure), and got a little tipsy. When the night ended, they were smart enough to catch a cab home - nothing wrong with that, right? Wrong. A cop pulled the cab driver over, and asked if the gentlemen in the backseat were drunk. They all took a breathalizer test - and two of them failed - but all three spent the night in jail. The third guy was apparently incarcerated because by having his intoxicated friends in public, he was creating a "threat" for innocent bystanders. That, my friends, is the epitome of stupid.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Explain that to me. Either the consumption of alcohol is legal or it isn't. Having a couple of beers gets you drunk. So what. It doesn't mean that you go out and drive home.
This is the equivalent of arresting a car driver for speeding before he even got into his car. They are arresting people who had no intention of driving.

People who get drunk cause problems in other ways besides driving. Some get violent, some stumble around and can injure themselves (which causes others to get involved), some do stupid things like light cigarettes and burn places down, etc. I'm not sure if I agree 100% with what these Texas folks are doing, but the biggest drug problem in America is alcohol, and far too many people die annually because they can't seem to control their consumption. As a younger man, I drove drunk too many times, and I thank my lucky stars that no one else ever suffered as a result of my stupidity and lack of self control, and maybe we ought to start thinking seriously about curbing others' propensity to cause mayhem and death.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Is the charge "public intoxication," which is charged as being drunk while not in a private home? In other words, is being drunk while not in said private "area" illegal?

That's the only possible way I can see that they're not getting their asses sued all to hell. To arrest someone for the potential to commit any possible act of harm seems mind-boggling to me.

That is absolutely crazy. The last time I was hammered and got stopped, the police were all happy that we had a lovely designated driver who was driving us retards home.

greg

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by KarlG

People who get drunk cause problems in other ways besides driving. Some get violent, some stumble around and can injure themselves (which causes others to get involved), some do stupid things like light cigarettes and burn places down, etc.

If people do stupid things that cause problems when they are drunk then they should be arrested or held liable for those things. Arresting someone for something they might (bust most likely will not) do is not the way this country, or any civilized society, works. I hate analogies and using an extreme comparison is almost always a weak argument, but I'm going to do it anyway.

More people die from heart attacks and other "natural" causes brought on by lifestyle choices and habits (eating poorly, smoking, over-work and self-inflicted stress) than by the yahoos who get drunk and light something on fire with a cigarette. A woman drinking in a hotel bar, that she is staying in, is not a menace to society.

This brings to mind two recent news stories from DC (area). The first is that someone on the DC police force got the idea that they could start arresting people for DUI that were well below the legal limit for intoxication. They apparently felt the law was more if a guideline. After scores of law abiding citizens were sent to the pokey, the press went crazy and everyone from the mayor on down was falling all over themselves to apologize and ensure that the police would start adhering to the law.

The second was in a Maryland suburb where a few yokels who found themselves on some sort of "homeland security" detail took it upon themselves to march in to a public library and announce that it was against the law for anyone to use the libraries' internet connection to view adult material. As I recall, they even yanked some poor guy out of his chair and tried to "detain" him. Fortunately, the library staff had the cops haul their asses out of there and again, they apologies flowed like water.

I'm sure in both of these cases, much like in Texas, someone came up with what sounded like a really good idea at the time and did not stop to consider common sense. Most likely just a case of good intentions, by people who should know better, gone wrong. But it is wrong and eventually, like in DC, cooler, more reasoned heads will prevail.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Can you file a class action against the state?

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by KarlG

People who get drunk cause problems in other ways besides driving. Some get violent, some stumble around and can injure themselves (which causes others to get involved), some do stupid things like light cigarettes and burn places down, etc. I'm not sure if I agree 100% with what these Texas folks are doing, but the biggest drug problem in America is alcohol, and far too many people die annually because they can't seem to control their consumption. As a younger man, I drove drunk too many times, and I thank my lucky stars that no one else ever suffered as a result of my stupidity and lack of self control, and maybe we ought to start thinking seriously about curbing others' propensity to cause mayhem and death.

People who buy guns might end up killing other people. People who buy cars might end up speeding. People who buy butter might end up being obese. You cannot possibly be serious in claiming that it is ok to arrest people pre-emptively for what they might or might not do. Land of the free, my foot.

[SimeyTheLimey]

As far as I know, every jurisdiction in the US has a public intoxication law, and has had for many years (probably, roughly as long as the US was a country). So does the UK, where I also lived. It has nothing to do with driving, and at least in the US there is no issue that I can see where a state can't enforce its law. Indeed, there is more of a problem if they have a law and don't enforce it.

It's also not a "Texas" thing. About 4 years ago when I lived in DC, the police started cracking down on people drinking out of doors. The City Paper started carrying stories of well to do Washingtonians arrested for drinking Merlot on the steps of their townhouses. It's against the law - not just in Red state Texas, but also in deep, deep, deep, blue Washington, DC (one of the most liberal jurisdictions in the country, for those of you who don't know it).

I think some knees are jerking here.

[himself]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

As far as I know, every jurisdiction in the US has a public intoxication law, and has had for many years (probably, roughly as long as the US was a country). So does the UK, where I also lived. It has nothing to do with driving, and at least in the US there is no issue that I can see where a state can't enforce its law. Indeed, there is more of a problem if they have a law and don't enforce it.

It's also not a "Texas" thing. About 4 years ago when I lived in DC, the police started cracking down on people drinking out of doors. The City Paper started carrying stories of well to do Washingtonians arrested for drinking Merlot on the steps of their townhouses. It's against the law - not just in Red state Texas, but also in deep, deep, deep, blue Washington, DC (one of the most liberal jurisdictions in the country, for those of you who don't know it).

What you are talking about makes sense, for the most part. I understand and appreciate public intoxication laws, and public drinking laws as well (there is a direct connection, after all). We have laws against public intoxication and public drinking here in Chicago. But pulling people out of bars is not the same thing; for one, bars are not public property. It is property owned by the proprietor (or the building's landlord) and is opened up to the public, specifically adults of drinking age. The proprietor has every right to kick someone out and permanently bar (no pun intended) them from returning if he/she pleases. If they see someone getting out of control, they can call the authorities to take them away.

If I am riding drunk in a cab, I am not in "public," the cab is not public property. When I step outside of the cab onto the sidewalk in front of my home, the cops can nab me then, but what kind of sense does that make? If I am drunk, but I'm taking steps to not be a nuisance (having a designated driver, catching a cab instead of driving, etc), there shouldn't be a problem.

I know you are a lawyer (or, at least studying law), but the public intoxication laws obviously rely on the discretion of the authorities (as many laws do). The Texas example appears to be abuse of this law, in my opinion.

I think some knees are jerking here.

yes indeed, those of the Texas authorities.

Originally Posted by Paco500

I'm sure in both of these cases, much like in Texas, someone came up with what sounded like a really good idea at the time and did not stop to consider common sense. Most likely just a case of good intentions, by people who should know better, gone wrong. But it is wrong and eventually, like in DC, cooler, more reasoned heads will prevail.

This program has been around for a while, but it apparently picked up steam after a recent funding increase.

MSNBC story
Dallas/Fort Worth story (with video links)

[ambush]

In Paris I can sip a beer on the street and have fun.

[Mastrap]

That's true for most of Europe. You can drink in public in most countries.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Explain that to me. Either the consumption of alcohol is legal or it isn't. Having a couple of beers gets you drunk. So what. It doesn't mean that you go out and drive home.
This is the equivalent of arresting a car driver for speeding before he even got into his car. They are arresting people who had no intention of driving.

Consuming alcohol IS LEGAL. Getting drunk in public is NOT LEGAL. The other guy noted in Doofy's quote was apparently really, REALLY drunk, and it's all about the "public intoxication" staute being enforced, so he got arrested too.

Originally Posted by porieux

texas sucks

Witty. So very witty.

Originally Posted by Mastrap

People who buy guns might end up killing other people. People who buy cars might end up speeding. People who buy butter might end up being obese. You cannot possibly be serious in claiming that it is ok to arrest people pre-emptively for what they might or might not do. Land of the free, my foot.

All of your examples are POTENTIAL violations. Being drunk in public IS a violation.

I can't say I agree with the Austin police in volcano's post, but then I had issues with them 20 years ago when I lived there, too. The city got exceptionally looney in the early 90s (not at all like when we elected a flower pedler as mayor-that was a statement, and his administration was one of the better ones).

[wdlove]

Definitely not what I was expecting by the title. Americans need to wake up and not allow all this encroachment on our freedoms.

[Dakar]

That taxi story is insane.

[Dark Helmet]

My friends are in Australia and they were telling me that you are NOT allowed to get drunk in a bar even though many of them are open all night.

You are also not allowed to arrive drunk and test you with a breathalyzer before you enter.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

This is all crazy!

Pre-drinking before the bar is an essential lifeskill for any sane student!



greg

[Goldfinger]

Bring on the Only In America™ pic.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by volcano

A friend of mine was downtown drinking with a few buddies a couple of weeks ago. They didn't drive (because they don't have cars - which is easy to live with here in Austin, we have a good bus infrastructure), and got a little tipsy. When the night ended, they were smart enough to catch a cab home - nothing wrong with that, right? Wrong. A cop pulled the cab driver over, and asked if the gentlemen in the backseat were drunk. They all took a breathalizer test - and two of them failed - but all three spent the night in jail. The third guy was apparently incarcerated because by having his intoxicated friends in public, he was creating a "threat" for innocent bystanders. That, my friends, is the epitome of stupid.

Question: At what blood alcohol content (BAC) do you have to blow to be "publicly intoxicated?"

I understand having a strict BAC for drunk driving. But for being publicly intoxicated, I would argue it would be higher...

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

My friends are in Australia and they were telling me that you are NOT allowed to get drunk in a bar even though many of them are open all night.

You are also not allowed to arrive drunk and test you with a breathalyzer before you enter.

Having been a bartender, you don't serve drunk people... period. I don't care if they have had a handful of drinks prior to coming to the bar... but if they are slurring their speech, stumbling, can't open up their wallet/purse, etc.... forget it. I had people come in WASTED asking for drinks... I would cut them off only to have them freak out... I couldn't count the number of belligerent "I'm not drunk!" as they proceed to fall off the bar stool.

[ambush]

Originally Posted by wdlove

Definitely not what I was expecting by the title. Americans need to wake up and not allow all this encroachment on our freedoms.

Ever heard of the Patriot Act?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Bring on the Only In America™ pic.

Shall I

I could make a Only in Texas™ pic, too

-t