Texas Arresting People in Bars for Being Drunk

Wed Mar 22, 6:05 PM ET

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.

(That’s right. If you are drinking in a bar and you get drunk in that bar, you will be arrested. Why? Because you might do something stupid or dangerous later on while intoxicated. There are no other crimes going on that require our attention. Times must be good. On the other hand, it is gun happy shoot-em-up Texas, and as we all know, alcohol, firearms, and Texans don't mix well.)

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Beck said. The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

(Except that bars and dance clubs are PRIVATE property. Not that a little thing like the 4^th Amendment ever stops the fascist jackboots from marching in. Apparently, it is not legal to do anything in a bar for which the bar was intended? The state does have rights in there because bars and clubs require inspection and certification. They use that same power to ban smoking in bars as well. I wonder what the real intent is.)

"We feel that the only way we're going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this," she said. "There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they're intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car," Beck said. "People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss."

(Maybe Texans are as wild as they are stupid. Walking drunk is dangerous, but only to the drunk. Forgive me for asking, but exactly how many Texans use 2^nd story window ledges as diving boards? This sting operation seems like just another attempt by government to save us from ourselves. What’s next? Policing the lactose intolerant because of farting on elevators and too many toilets flushing? If Ms. Beck is concerned about the 'cost' to the state, does she consider what it costs to field 36 officers? Oh wait. That's right. These cops are raising their own salaries through the fines they impose.)

She said the sting operations would continue throughout the state.

(Texans boast that everything is bigger in Texas. The reason is now obvious. They have no intellectual depth perception. Stupidity is the biggest thing Texas has going for it, which explain why GW Bush feels so much at home in Crawford. Please, can we give it back to Mexico now?)

A few problems arise:

1) Define drunk. Does one have to be slobbering falling off the bar stool drunk, or is being anywhere near or above the legal limit for driving considered drunk enough? I have plenty of experience with drinking and drunks and the vast majority are not a danger as long as they aren't bicycling (never do that) or driving. If the inebriated customer has sober friends with him to keep him in check, would he or she also face arrest?

2) How is the determination made? Does the officer make an ‘educated guess’ or does he pull a breathalyzer out of his holster on the spot? I'm wary of allowing law enforcement to make snap judgments as they always 'err on the side of caution' which, in English, means they will write you a ticket or arrest you anyhow and you can sort it out later in front of the judge.

3) How are they going to fine the drunk person? Take away his driver’s license? He wasn’t driving! Are they now going to be ordered into counseling? Is it just 'drunk in public' or something more? Are they also going to fine the bar owner, since he isn't allowed to serve someone obviously drunk? But what if his standard and the state standard of 'drunk' differ?

I hope somebody makes the proper and full legal challenge to this insanity. It feels like prohibition all over again, but with higher penalties and fines. I suspect this is just another way for law enforcement to raise money. Maybe drunk driving is way down in Texas and the police miss all the revenue they were getting from it. This is the kind of madness that ensues when law enforcement agencies begin to think up creative ways to generate funding. The people always pay. One can see bars and night clubs losing patrons and ultimately closing down, taking all of the licensing and tax revenue already generated out of the system.

How do we stop the police from coming into the bars and harassing law abiding patrons? Short of fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court, we could solve the problem with one innovative solution. Bars should charge a $15.00 cover. The person who takes the money at the door gives a receipt coupon to the customer which substitutes for cash inside the bar. Since police cannot drink alcohol while on duty, the coupons would be essentially worthless to them. Even if they were to pay the cover charge to get in, they would be immediately spotted as non-drinking and their cover would be blown instantly.

Ms. Beck's use of the word 'infiltrate' was instructive. First, it shows her ignorance of what goes on in bars. One does not have to be James Bond to walk into a bar and casually greet the patrons. Secondly, it indicates a religious intolerance; as if what average hard-working citizens do after a long day of work in a place that has a state issued license to operate is somehow so evil that it requires so much policing. Then again, it is probably just all about the money.

I'm just going of my gut reaction to the story and my experience. Maybe someone out there knows more.

Kol Tuv (L'chayim! Hic!)