11 Comments

Don’t Mess with Texas Morals Police: Tavern Patrons Arrested for Intoxication

“Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said,” according to Reuters. Public intoxication is illegal in Texas, and the authorities…

One of the more ignorant comments I’ve ever heard from a legislator.

According to that logic we should outlaw aolcohol consumption anywhere outside of your primary residence.

What this really boils down to is that people are getting arrested for a crime they MIGHT commit in the name of safety. It’s no wonder so many people like myself, reasonable, honest, well-meaning, generally respectful, law abiding folks have damn near lost all respect for the law and government. Truthfully, I can’t believe that people are just willing to sit by and allow this sort of stuff to happen. Sooner or later there is going to be an ugly revolt and I hope I’m dead before it happens.

I cry tears of shame daily…

Pardon the Hollywood reference here but this is starting to sound like the movie “Minority Report”.

In that movie, the police just storm in and arrest you for a crime you commit in the future.

Now, granted it was a sci-fi flick, but for all intents and purposes, they are essentially doing that.

It is almost like we are going to the Soviet system of justice. Where rather then have a concept of burden of proof, they wing it and go on a “crime prevention” model of justice.

Crime prevention meaning that as long as we don’t mind surrendering a given right set forth by the Bill of Rights and/or the US Constitution, we will deter crime… flawed logic.

You can still prevent crime without taking away the rights of good people.

By mandating tougher sentences, you can prevent people who normally get in trouble often, to re-think what they intend on doing, before they are going to do it. New laws just increase bureacracy and slows the system down.

If a drinker has arranged for some alternate transport (friend, taxi), could they sue the police for false arrest?
What proof would the police need to convince them that the drinkers are not going to drive themselves home?
Bar owners could register drinkers in a ‘Ride Home’ program after a certain number of drinks.

So may I presume that State Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston) of won’t mind having he cops come into his home and checking for the possibility of a future rape, right? I mean, if he’s in possession of the tool to commit the crime, he might be going to use it later “Even though a public (official) is not planning on (rape), that could change in an instant,” he said. “There is certainly potential danger.”

Let’s save alot of time, just make owning a vehicle illegal. Since all drivers have a potential to drink, and all drinkers have a potential to get drunk, and all drunks have a potential to drive.

Then the idiots at MADD would all have to get real jobs, and actually work.

Gerald,

Unfotunately, the idiots at MADD have shown in the last few years that it is the alcohol not the vehicle that they detest.

Example: parents hosting ofter prom (or was it after graduation?) party for their kids and kids’ friends… on the condition that they all check in their keys before the night began AND staying the night (after the party was over, boys slept outside in tents, girls inside).

This unquestionably prevents drunk driving… but was prosecuted (with full MADD support) for them enabling underaged drinking (even though it was well known that there were drunken parties every year that no one ever did anything about, and those parties ended with everyone DRIVING HOME).

And we already tried prohibition, so MADD has basically found a way to never fulfill thir purpose.

What this really boils down to is that people are getting arrested for a crime they MIGHT commit in the name of safety

Not really. The same could be said for drunk driving laws, after all, you haven’t run into anything YET. We have laws against operating a vehicle in an impaired state because one is not capable of being responsible for one’s actions. However, a drunk doesn’t need to get behind the wheel to be dangerous, especially in a state with TX’s rate of personal armament. In Ohio, a drunk killed a woman on I-77 without ever getting in a car – he threw a chunk of asphalt at a fellow drunk while on an overpass, and missed. It landed on the vitim’s windshield below. Every argument for outlawing being drunk behind the wheel is applicable to being drunk and at large in public. People who choose intoxicants other than alcohol have long known that altered states of consciousness are best reserved for the privacy of one’s own home.

Increased penalties have done little to curb drunk driving, because the decision to commit that crime is made when one is already impaired and not able to fully consider consequences.

Re: post by dweeb. those who choose intoxicants other than alcohol, ie chemicals, use those intoxicants in the privacy of their homes primarily because those intoxicants are illegal to possess. those folks are not using some kind of beneficent judgement. as well, those whom choose to use intoxicants other than alcohol frequently then drive to other locations, abetting the very public safety concerns you attempt to excuse them of in your post. Also, frequently, after arriving at these other locations, these very same people tend to indulge in more and other non-alcoholic intoxicants. Lastly these same people, in various locales, are not so intent on keeping their use of non-alcoholic intoxicants in their homes. Witness virtually any popular music event. Your arguement , in short, doesn’t hold water, or non-alcoholic intoxicants either.