3/22/2006

What the hell happened to Texas?
Filed under: General — nobrainer @ 12:51 pm

This is very anecdotal, but still:

“Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk,” TABC Capt. David Alexander said. “It’s to have a good time but not to get drunk.”

TABC is the acronym for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, who apparently went through 3 dozen Irving bars last week. Only 30 people were arrested for public intoxication. As Texas-born comedian Ron White is famous for saying:

I was drunk in a bar. They THREW me into public. I don’t wanna be drunk. In. Public. I wanna be drunk in a bar. Which is perfectly legal. Arrest them.

Apparently it’s not perfectly legal to be drunk in a bar.. in Texas anyway.

The TABC is just trying to prevent drunk driving.

TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights.

But it gets better.

At one location, for example, agents and police arrested patrons of a hotel bar. Some of the suspects said they were registered at the hotel and had no intention of driving.

This leads me to some questions. Such as: what is the statute for being publicly intoxicated? Is it based on your actions or BAC?

And this is a bit of an odd search for data, but I’ve been wondering if anyone has ever correlated car crashes involving drunk drivers and their previous sober driving records. I’d like to see if there is any data that says that drunk drivers who cause accidents are also usually the ones causing accidents when they’re sober.

collapse Evan Says:

Preemptive action against people who haven’t done anything wrong (yet)? Where have I seen this before? Where would cops get an idea like that?

Some may argue that the country as a whole is inching away from our “land of the free” mentality to more of a “what’s wrong with a national curfew?” mentality. Texas is just at the bleeding right-wing edge (haven’t they always been?).

 
collapse Howard McEwen Says:

No doubt, if challenged the guy would say it was “for the children”

Jackass. Some guy puts in a 10 hour shift and just wants to get a buzz on before heading home to the wife and kids and this prick hassles him.

I guess drunks in bars are easier to deal with than chicken neck pipe suckers in crack houses..or rapist…burglars…

 
collapse Wha Says:

Here’s a novel idea: Place a breathalyzer with disposalble mouthpiece attachments at the door. Encourage patrons to use it. Pay it off by either chargning a nominal fee for use or by following the likes of the many chians bar/pubs and raise the price of a 2 dollar beer to 3. In exchange, the cops leave you alone and go work some other block, or (gasp) work on solving some more important crimes. The accidents due to DUI should decrease. Bars don’t want to foot the entire bill, fine, whay doesn’t the law enforcement community spend some cash in prevention other than scare tactic commercials that are largely ignored instead of wrapped up with lawyers that know all the loop holes in the courts. Trust me, they spend plenty in this realm, I’ve seen ‘em do it.
Solution: I get my beer after work or out with the guys. We do the machine to see who got the most messed up and realize that the ol BAC is pretty high though we don’t feel it. Damn tolerance, better get a cab instead. Everyone is more safe. We all win and Fox News at 10 has even less to report on.

collapse Skippy Says:

I have to agree with Wha on the subject.

 
 
collapse Skippy Says:

Well, I hope said guy dosen’t hit MY wife and kids on the home with his buzz. Don’t get me wrong, I’m totaly against this. Walking into a bar and arresting people is wrong on many levels! But, I have to say I would have no problem with police pulling someone over as soon as they pull off the lot. Offer one good reason why it would be ok for someone to drive with a “buzz” and kill me, friends and family and I my join in on the right wing bashing.

 
collapse Evan Says:

“Drive at your own risk” Let’s go libertarian on this one folks.

We save on insurance, police salaries, taxes, law suits. ‘We the people’ could regulate the the roads by ourselves–with the 2nd amendment. Sure there’d be some turbulent moments early on, but after the first drunk driver got impailed by an angry mob, it’d send a pretty powerful message to other potential drunk drivers.

 
collapse Wha Says:

The only message that would be sent is the same as the one that is sent now. Drive drunk at your own risk and suffer the consequences. Popular people are forgiven by the public, typically the same as they buy their way out with the lawyers. Average Joe gets the crap kicked out of him instead of 24 hrs in the pen, really what’s the difference, they learn their lesson the hard way or buy their way out of it. At least with some efforts towards prevention, regardless of where it comes from, we all end up on the longer end of the good stick instead of wrapped around a phone poll.

 
collapse Evan Says:

“Average Joe gets the crap kicked out of him instead of 24 hrs in the pen, really what’s the difference, they learn their lesson the hard way or buy their way out of it.”

At least it would be more honest, and there’d be a lot of public money saved.

 
collapse Howard McEwen Says:

I know Wha’s idea of a breathalyzer was installed in some bars in Indiana when I was in college. Instead of decreasing drunk driving, it served as a game to who could blow the highest score.

collapse nobrainer Says:

And that is why I have always wanted a breathalyzer.

I finally got to use one (for fun) a couple months ago, but the damn thing apparently maxed out at .12. I imagine the point there was just to tell you if you were legally drunk and to take the game-ness away from it. The problem was that I kept drinking and thinking that I wasn’t all that drunk. That kind of mental state does not lead to clear thinking.

 
 
collapse tree hugging sister Says:

They did a story on the NBC weekend news tonight on this. Hauled five people off to jail from a hotel bar for public intoxication ~ and they were STAYING at the hotel. Dragged the poor bartender off for serving them, too, just for good measure.