Illegal to be drunk in Texas Bars

[sullysue]

QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 03:31 PM)

QUOTE (sullysue @ Mar 30 2006, 04:21 PM) QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 03:17 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Mar 30 2006, 04:01 PM) QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 02:15 PM) Much money is made by the state for alcohol related offenses.  This has become a cashcow for the state without question. There is good reason for that. If the major cause of fatalities on Texas roads was speed, then the state would be cashing in big time on speeding tickets. If you want to drink yourself silly, do it at home. Otherwise, if you want to make a drunken ass of yourself in public, you deserve to get a P.I. I agree but they have gone too far. We are the 2nd most populous state and almost everyone has a long commute. That's probably why we are at the top of the list in fatalities. People driving drunk is why we have so many alcohol related fatalities. I don't care if your commute is from here to El Paso. You have a better chance of making it there alive if you're sober. So you are saying that people in Texas drive drunk more than people in other states? What about population and length of commute? Most people in Northeastern cities don't even drive. They WALK home. Why won't you take that into consideration? Again, the number ranking is due to these factors. I'm not saying Texans drink anymore than people in any other state. I am saying that being intoxicated in public and driving drunk are not inalienable rights. So what if the state makes money from issuing Public Intoxication charges? When large amounts of alcohol are involved, sometimes people do need to be saved from themselves. An extremely intoxicated person is completely lacking in reason. The police are not going to arrest someone for laughing too loud or having too much fun. I urge you to find stats on the number of people arrested who turned out to be within the legal blood-alcohol limits.

[Riv]

QUOTE (sullysue @ Mar 30 2006, 11:43 PM)

I urge you to find stats on the number of people arrested who turned out to be within the legal blood-alcohol limits.

What is the "legal" BAC for being in a bar?

[liquidcrystalcompass]

QUOTE (sullysue @ Mar 30 2006, 04:43 PM)

QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 03:31 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Mar 30 2006, 04:21 PM) QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 03:17 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Mar 30 2006, 04:01 PM) QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 02:15 PM) Much money is made by the state for alcohol related offenses.  This has become a cashcow for the state without question. There is good reason for that. If the major cause of fatalities on Texas roads was speed, then the state would be cashing in big time on speeding tickets. If you want to drink yourself silly, do it at home. Otherwise, if you want to make a drunken ass of yourself in public, you deserve to get a P.I. I agree but they have gone too far. We are the 2nd most populous state and almost everyone has a long commute. That's probably why we are at the top of the list in fatalities. People driving drunk is why we have so many alcohol related fatalities. I don't care if your commute is from here to El Paso. You have a better chance of making it there alive if you're sober. So you are saying that people in Texas drive drunk more than people in other states? What about population and length of commute? Most people in Northeastern cities don't even drive. They WALK home. Why won't you take that into consideration? Again, the number ranking is due to these factors. I'm not saying Texans drink anymore than people in any other state. I am saying that being intoxicated in public and driving drunk are not inalienable rights. So what if the state makes money from issuing Public Intoxication charges? When large amounts of alcohol are involved, sometimes people do need to be saved from themselves. An extremely intoxicated person is completely lacking in reason. The police are not going to arrest someone for laughing too loud or having too much fun. I urge you to find stats on the number of people arrested who turned out to be within the legal blood-alcohol limits. So, you have no problem with people being arrested in bars? You know that this is a witch hunt don't you? If someone is starting trouble that's one thing but being drunk in a bar is another. The tourism industry is going to take a kick in the pants because of the over zealous nature of our state. If you don't think that this is over zealous then you are sadly mistaken.

[sullysue]

QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 04:02 PM)

QUOTE (sullysue @ Mar 30 2006, 04:43 PM) QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 03:31 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Mar 30 2006, 04:21 PM) QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 03:17 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Mar 30 2006, 04:01 PM) QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 02:15 PM) Much money is made by the state for alcohol related offenses.  This has become a cashcow for the state without question. There is good reason for that. If the major cause of fatalities on Texas roads was speed, then the state would be cashing in big time on speeding tickets. If you want to drink yourself silly, do it at home. Otherwise, if you want to make a drunken ass of yourself in public, you deserve to get a P.I. I agree but they have gone too far. We are the 2nd most populous state and almost everyone has a long commute. That's probably why we are at the top of the list in fatalities. People driving drunk is why we have so many alcohol related fatalities. I don't care if your commute is from here to El Paso. You have a better chance of making it there alive if you're sober. So you are saying that people in Texas drive drunk more than people in other states? What about population and length of commute? Most people in Northeastern cities don't even drive. They WALK home. Why won't you take that into consideration? Again, the number ranking is due to these factors. I'm not saying Texans drink anymore than people in any other state. I am saying that being intoxicated in public and driving drunk are not inalienable rights. So what if the state makes money from issuing Public Intoxication charges? When large amounts of alcohol are involved, sometimes people do need to be saved from themselves. An extremely intoxicated person is completely lacking in reason. The police are not going to arrest someone for laughing too loud or having too much fun. I urge you to find stats on the number of people arrested who turned out to be within the legal blood-alcohol limits. So, you have no problem with people being arrested in bars? You know that this is a witch hunt don't you? If someone is starting trouble that's one thing but being drunk in a bar is another. The tourism industry is going to take a kick in the pants because of the over zealous nature of our state. If you don't think that this is over zealous then you are sadly mistaken. I'm not sadly mistaken. The tourism industry, around here particulary, will be fine. But, I do understand your point. Try to understand mine, and let's agree to disagree. I also acknowledge Riv's point. I guess a P.I. should apply only when you step outside the door of a bar.

[liquidcrystalcompass]

QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 05:02 PM)

QUOTE (sullysue @ Mar 30 2006, 04:43 PM) QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 03:31 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Mar 30 2006, 04:21 PM) QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 03:17 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Mar 30 2006, 04:01 PM) QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Mar 30 2006, 02:15 PM) Much money is made by the state for alcohol related offenses.  This has become a cashcow for the state without question. There is good reason for that. If the major cause of fatalities on Texas roads was speed, then the state would be cashing in big time on speeding tickets. If you want to drink yourself silly, do it at home. Otherwise, if you want to make a drunken ass of yourself in public, you deserve to get a P.I. I agree but they have gone too far. We are the 2nd most populous state and almost everyone has a long commute. That's probably why we are at the top of the list in fatalities. People driving drunk is why we have so many alcohol related fatalities. I don't care if your commute is from here to El Paso. You have a better chance of making it there alive if you're sober. So you are saying that people in Texas drive drunk more than people in other states? What about population and length of commute? Most people in Northeastern cities don't even drive. They WALK home. Why won't you take that into consideration? Again, the number ranking is due to these factors. I'm newt saying Texans drink anymore than people in any other state. I am saying that being intoxicated in public and driving drunk are newt inalienable rights. So what if the state makes money from issuing Public Intoxication charges? When large amounts of alcohol are involved, sometimes people do need to be saved from themselves. An extremely intoxicated person is completely lacking in reason. The police are newt going to arrest someone for laughing too loud or having too much fun. I urge you to find stats on the number of people arrested who turned out to be within the legal blood-alcohol limits. So, you have no problem with people being arrested in bars? You know that this is a witch hunt don't you? If someone is starting trouble that's one thing but being drunk in a bar is another. The tourism industry is going to take a kick in the pants because of the over zealous nature of our state. If you don't think that this is over zealous then you are sadly mistaken. I completely see your point. I just feel that our state is crossing the line that's all.

[Weakly Criminal]

QUOTE (Riv @ Mar 30 2006, 03:56 PM)

QUOTE (sullysue @ Mar 30 2006, 11:43 PM) I urge you to find stats on the number of people arrested who turned out to be within the legal blood-alcohol limits. What is the "legal" BAC for being in a bar? In TX there is no BAC limit for anyplace other than behind the wheel of a car. The PI law relies entirely on the judgement of the law enforcer.   I think it's important to consider here that the arrests that have brought on this controversy were made in hotel bars where the patrons were not the least bit likely to drive or wander outside the hotel itself where they were staying. PI is a great law for giving the law enforcers a way to get trouble making kids off the street till they can sleep it off, and gives the kids (young and old) something to think about before they tell the law enforcers to piss off.   What I fail to understand is how anyone could not see the inherent danger in the selective enforcement of innumerable laws where the obvious motive of revenue enhancement is involved. I can only guess that such a person receives their paycheck from the government in some way and so is always in favor of bigger, more powerful and ever enriched government. Such a one should realize that they are just as subject to such injustice as any other, and that their particular picadillo may be the next to be chosen for 'enforcement'.

Edited April 7, 2006 by Weakly Criminal

[sullysue]

Bar crackdown must go on, but with some intelligence

By Bud Kennedy

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Texas' crackdown on bars, bartenders and drink servers must continue.

 

But Texas' random crackdown on casual drinkers must stop.

 

The state's top liquor cop said this week that agents will do a better job of choosing where and how to enforce the state law against overserving drinkers.

 

The goal is to make sure that a barroom's last call doesn't turn into a customer's final call.

 

But instead of upholding industry standards and busting servers who might send a drunken driver out the door, state agents have been swooping into bars since September and rounding up anybody who looks tipsy.

 

Texas Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, a staunch friend of law enforcement and the chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, said it best at a Monday hearing in Austin.

 

The hit-and-miss roundup of drinkers "hurts our effort to fight DWIs," he said.

 

"They" -- the public -- "lose respect for what we're doing."

 

The booze busts have wound up costing the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission respect and maybe costing Texas some tourist business.

 

Tarrant County Probate Judge Pat Ferchill was among those criticizing the TABC at the hearing.

 

State officers, he said, showed "abuse of power, abuse of discretion, bullying or downright mean-spiritedness" when they arrested customers, including one of his relatives, in a lounge on White Settlement Road.

 

State Rep. Charlie Geren, R-River Oaks, owns a couple of Tarrant County barbecue restaurants that sell beer. He's the vice chairman of a Texas House committee that co-hosted the hearing.

 

He said bar and restaurant owners who sell liquor are "terrified and intimidated" by state liquor officers.

 

The TABC is supposed to regulate liquor sales, enforce the law and uphold professionalism in the liquor industry.

 

The agency's three commissioners were appointed by Govs. George W. Bush and Rick Perry. The current administrator, Alan Steen, is a Granbury product who came to the TABC from the Texas juvenile justice system.

 

As far back as 2003, newsletters and reports on the TABC Web site were announcing the SSIP arrest program -- "Stop Sales to Intoxicated Persons." A spring 2003 TABC newsletter said SSIP would "put a stop to the number of drunken drivers" leaving bars.

 

In a 2005 state report on drug education, the TABC reported again that its goal was "to significantly reduce the number of intoxicated drivers" and that the bars targeted for crackdowns would be those which "have sold to intoxicated persons in the past or have been the subject of complaints."

 

That entire premise apparently went out the window March 10-12, when state agents along with Irving police swept through that city checking bars with no history of complaints and arresting out-of-state tourists in their hotels who obviously had no plans to drive.

 

The bust of an Arkansas man in his Clarion hotel made the most headlines. According to the TABC arrest report, he shouted to encourage a woman who had taken off her shirt, revealing a bikini, and then shook her chest toward other customers. Both the man and the woman were hotel guests,

 

By the next week, the news hit national TV news and talk radio with the headline: "Don't Go to Texas."

 

One city strongly supports the TABC crackdown: Arlington. Two Arlington police officers went to Austin hearing in support of the arrests as the best way to stop bars from overserving drunks.

 

But then Arlington is one of the few cities where police and TABC agents stuck to the original plan.

 

When Arlington police haul someone to jail for drunkenness or drunken driving, the person is asked where he or she had been drinking. The answer goes on what Arlington police call their "last drink list," a count of the city's least responsible bars.

 

"We try to direct our resources," police spokeswoman Christy Gilfour said. "We try to make the bar owners aware of the danger of overserving, and educate bar owners and servers."

 

On the other hand, an Irving police spokesman said that city keeps no such list. TABC agents, not city officers, decided arbitrarily which bars to raid.

 

Whitmire and state Rep. Kino Flores, D-Mission, the co-chairs of the Austin hearing, both said that they support stronger enforcement of laws against DWIs, overserving by employees and underage drinking.

 

Agreed. We want to stop drivers from getting wasted. We just don't want our money wasted.

 

 

 

Source: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/14386055.htm

 

 

 

Point taken, guys. And, no, I do not receive money from the government in any way, shape or fashion. Nor do I support an overbloated and intrusive government. And, I understand the fact that those hotel guests weren't likely to get behind the wheel. Further, I do understand that I am just as subject to injustice as anyone else. I simply did not realize how exactly they were conducting these sweeps. I read more about the subject and admit I was not fully informed. I understand now what you meant, liquid. However, I have been on the other side of the bar, and I've wondered how many people walked out and didn't make it home alive. My stance on the subject is directed toward those who feel they have the right to get shitfaced drunk at a bar without regard to the possible consequences. Servers and the business owners hold a great deal of responsibility as well.

[blonde77th]

Stay sober no matter where you live .....know your limits ....

[third hand grace]

I'm all for prohibition because I will make the booze, distribute the booze, and get really rich like my man Capone.

I already transport mass quantities of Yuengling Lager from Pittsburgh to Chicago on a regular basis. I'm getting pretty good at it.

[D-13]

My best friend just moved to Texas... I wonder what she thinks about this!

[liquidcrystalcompass]

QUOTE (D-13 @ Jul 11 2006, 12:17 PM)

My best friend just moved to Texas... I wonder what she thinks about this!

What city is she moving to?

[Dread Pirate Robert]

QUOTE (sullysue @ Apr 21 2006, 10:54 AM)

I simply did not realize how exactly they were conducting these sweeps. I read more about the subject and admit I was not fully informed.

 

Good to see you write this. My faith in your sanity has been restored.

Edited July 14, 2006 by Drunk Pirate Robert

[Dread Pirate Robert]

QUOTE (sullysue @ Apr 21 2006, 10:54 AM)

My stance on the subject is directed toward those who feel they have the right to get shitfaced drunk at a bar without regard to the possible consequences.

Frankly, I don't know what in the world you are talking about here. You seem to be arguing against a mirage existing only in your own imagination, rather than anything that exists in the real world.

 

The fact of the matter is that every state holds people accountable for their actions, with "hey, I was drunk" being no legal excuse. Intoxication is NOT a defense to any crime at all, from DUI to disorderly conduct to assault or any other crime.

 

Thus, I am puzzled by your stance. What matters is how people act. If they get "shitfaced drunk" and don't cause a problem, the state has no rational reason for intervening. If they get drunk and do cause a problem, the law already addresses such situations.

[sullysue]

QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 14 2006, 05:06 PM)

If they get "shitfaced drunk" and don't cause a problem

I've yet to run across someone who was "shitfaced drunk" who didn't cause a problem in one way or another.

 

Thank you so much for suggesting that I'm ignorant and living in a world of fantasy while my state tops the list for alcohol-related traffic deaths. Sad that in too many cases the law kicks in after lives are lost.

 

 

[Dread Pirate Robert]

QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 05:27 PM)

Sad that in too many cases the law kicks in after lives are lost.

There is simply no other realistic way of going about it, unless you want to reinstate Prohibition -- which is itself not a realistic option, as the US found out before.

 

 

The fact of the matter is that we don't have crystal balls into the future, and thankfully have not reached the point of fascism where we start arresting people because of what "might" happen or what they "might"

do.

 

QUOTE

I've yet to run across someone who was "shitfaced drunk" who didn't cause a problem in one way or another.

 

I've encountered legions of such people, whose only serious "problem" during the night was passing out in their beds (or on the floor, or wherever) perhaps after hugging the porcelain god for awhile.

 

Edited July 15, 2006 by Drunk Pirate Robert

[sullysue]

QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 05:37 PM)

QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 05:27 PM) Sad that in too many cases the law kicks in after lives are lost. There is simply no other realistic way of going about it, unless you want to reinstate Prohibition -- which is itself not a realistic option, as the US found out before. Now you aren't making sense. Who the hell has suggested prohibition?   I've already admitted my fault in understanding the means by which these sweeps have been taking place. My point, ultimately, is that those people who have made it home in one piece to puke their guts out or pass out on their beds have made it there only by accident, luck, a ride from a relatively sober friend, or whatever. More power to them. But, the day they cross the median or lose their concentration and smash into the car carrying your or my kids, a friend of yours or mine, or even a casual aquaintance of yours or mine is the day that justice and the law provides absolutely no comfort to me, or to you, at all. If you or I or anyone wants to get shitfaced, stay at home. If you or I or anyone wants to just have a drink or two with friends, hang out then leave with our senses and reasonable ability to drive in tact, good. I'm not against that.

[Dread Pirate Robert]

QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:01 PM)

QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 05:37 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 05:27 PM) Sad that in too many cases the law kicks in after lives are lost. There is simply no other realistic way of going about it, unless you want to reinstate Prohibition -- which is itself not a realistic option, as the US found out before. Now you aren't making sense. Who the hell has suggested prohibition?   I've already admitted my fault in understanding the means by which these sweeps have been taking place. My point, ultimately, is that those people who have made it home in one piece to puke their guts out or pass out on their beds have made it there only by accident, luck, a ride from a relatively sober friend, or whatever. More power to them. Fine. Let's leave it at that. I agree.   What I was objecting to earlier was something that you seemed to be suggesting -- namely that we should start arresting people for being too "drunk", on the mere possibility that they MIGHT cause trouble.   If you don't really believe that, than we have no disagreement here.

[sullysue]

QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 06:10 PM)

QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:01 PM) QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 05:37 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 05:27 PM) Sad that in too many cases the law kicks in after lives are lost. There is simply no other realistic way of going about it, unless you want to reinstate Prohibition -- which is itself not a realistic option, as the US found out before. Now you aren't making sense. Who the hell has suggested prohibition?   I've already admitted my fault in understanding the means by which these sweeps have been taking place. My point, ultimately, is that those people who have made it home in one piece to puke their guts out or pass out on their beds have made it there only by accident, luck, a ride from a relatively sober friend, or whatever. More power to them. Fine. Let's leave it at that. I agree.   What I was objecting to earlier was something that you seemed to be suggesting -- namely that we should start arresting people for being too "drunk", on the mere possibility that they MIGHT cause trouble.   If you don't really believe that, than we have no disagreement here. OK. We're finally on sort of the same page. Thank you.       edit cause it's a good thing I'm not driving.

Edited July 15, 2006 by sullysue

[Dread Pirate Robert]

QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:19 PM)

edit cause it's a good thing I'm not driving.

and a good thing the Texas police are not raiding you at the moment

[sullysue]

QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 06:32 PM)

QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:19 PM) edit cause it's a good thing I'm not driving.  and a good thing the Texas police are not raiding you at the moment and you thought you'd have the last word?

[Dread Pirate Robert]

QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:58 PM)

QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 06:32 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:19 PM) edit cause it's a good thing I'm not driving.  and a good thing the Texas police are not raiding you at the moment and you thought you'd have the last word?

[sullysue]

QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 08:21 PM)

QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:58 PM) QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 06:32 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:19 PM) edit cause it's a good thing I'm not driving.  and a good thing the Texas police are not raiding you at the moment and you thought you'd have the last word?   A true pain in the ass to the very end.

[Dread Pirate Robert]

QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 08:57 PM)

QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 08:21 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:58 PM) QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 06:32 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:19 PM) edit cause it's a good thing I'm not driving.  and a good thing the Texas police are not raiding you at the moment and you thought you'd have the last word?   A true pain in the ass to the very end.

[sullysue]

QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 09:32 PM)

QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 08:57 PM) QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 08:21 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:58 PM) QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 06:32 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:19 PM) edit cause it's a good thing I'm not driving.  and a good thing the Texas police are not raiding you at the moment and you thought you'd have the last word?   A true pain in the ass to the very end. Were you aware that it's illegal to be drunk in Texas bars?       Keep it up, sweetheart. I have all night.

[Dread Pirate Robert]

QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 09:38 PM)

QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 09:32 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 08:57 PM) QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 08:21 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:58 PM) QUOTE (Drunk Pirate Robert @ Jul 15 2006, 06:32 PM) QUOTE (sullysue @ Jul 15 2006, 06:19 PM) edit cause it's a good thing I'm not driving.  and a good thing the Texas police are not raiding you at the moment and you thought you'd have the last word?   A true pain in the ass to the very end. Were you aware that it's illegal to be drunk in Texas bars?       Keep it up, sweetheart. I have all night. Shhh . . .   don't tell anyone, but I am online from my laptop in a Texas Bar right now.