Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

http://news.yahoo.co..060322/us_nm/bars_dc

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - 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.

Why shouldn't being in a bar exempt you from public drunkenness? You're not in public, you're on private property, unless the bar is owned by the government for some reason.

If you and your buddies get together at a friend's house and get drunk, can they arrest you for public drunkenness there too?

I understand the premise--of reducing the number of drunken drivers--but aren't there issues with this?

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It'll definately put a new spin on Ron White's Tater Salad story.

Why not just sit in the parking lot and arrest people who stumble into their cars?

At 3/22/06 11:22 PM, BeFell wrote: That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It'll definately put a new spin on Ron White's Tater Salad story.

Why not just sit in the parking lot and arrest people who stumble into their cars?

That's what I don't get. If it's drunk drivers they're going after, why don't they do that? As it stands, they could end up arresting people who were responsible and rode with a designated driver.

Ahahahahahaha! Thank God I am not living there, that is a stupid stupid (stupid) waste of tax dollars.

Meeting at city council

Man 1:Hey, lets start arresting more drunks.
2:Where will we find more drunks?
1:Let us march to the bars!
2:Bars! That's it! Lets go to the place where people buy drinks... That can make you drunk... TOO get drunk... BRILLIANT!!!

Why shouldn't being in a bar exempt you from public drunkenness? You're not in public, you're on private property, unless the bar is owned by the government for some reason.

Unless your laws work different then ours, hosting beer and wine at your party makes you responsible to anyone who is drunk. If they get into a car and kill someone in a drinking-and-driving, the host/bartender can be blamed for it.

I worked at a hockey arena. We do have to remove people who drink too much or report to the authorities.

This isn't breaking civil rights or business rights. Because of these laws, drinking and driving accidents have been lowered.

At 3/22/06 11:34 PM, MarkyX wrote:

Why shouldn't being in a bar exempt you from public drunkenness? You're not in public, you're on private property, unless the bar is owned by the government for some reason.

Unless your laws work different then ours, hosting beer and wine at your party makes you responsible to anyone who is drunk. If they get into a car and kill someone in a drinking-and-driving, the host/bartender can be blamed for it.

At least here, the drunk is solely reponsible for his actions while drunk, which is the way it should be. Unless the host/bartender physically restrains you and forces you to drink or some other odd, unlikely scenario, you, and you alone, should be responsible for the amount of alcohol you consume, and your actions while drunk.

To claim otherwise opens up all sorts of possibilities for misplaced liability--grocery stores, liquor stores, stadiums. They don't tell you to drink--neither do bartenders--so they shouldn't be held responsible when you make a decision to get drunk.

At 3/22/06 11:43 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 3/22/06 11:34 PM, MarkyX wrote:

Why shouldn't being in a bar exempt you from public drunkenness? You're not in public, you're on private property, unless the bar is owned by the government for some reason.

Unless your laws work different then ours, hosting beer and wine at your party makes you responsible to anyone who is drunk. If they get into a car and kill someone in a drinking-and-driving, the host/bartender can be blamed for it.

At least here, the drunk is solely reponsible for his actions while drunk, which is the way it should be. Unless the host/bartender physically restrains you and forces you to drink or some other odd, unlikely scenario, you, and you alone, should be responsible for the amount of alcohol you consume, and your actions while drunk.

To claim otherwise opens up all sorts of possibilities for misplaced liability--grocery stores, liquor stores, stadiums. They don't tell you to drink--neither do bartenders--so they shouldn't be held responsible when you make a decision to get drunk.

You obviously never touched beer before.

It does mess up your mind if you go too far, or even just a bit. It ruins your coordination, impairs your judgement, and makes you do stupid things. For example, the 500 pound chick will lose her virginity to you that night, because you were too damn drunk to know the difference.

Bartenders/host should tell people when they should stop drinking. They have every legal right to. Stadiums do get into trouble if they see someone clearly drunk and yet still give him more to drink despite that he is in a messed up condition. They are not only endangering his health, but exploiting him for cash.

I have no idea where you get grocery stores or liquor stores from. They are retail, not hosts. Going to a hockey game, you are a guest and they are the host. Go to a friend's party, they are a host, you are a guest.

At 3/22/06 11:49 PM, MarkyX wrote: You obviously never touched beer before.

It does mess up your mind if you go too far, or even just a bit. It ruins your coordination, impairs your judgement, and makes you do stupid things. For example, the 500 pound chick will lose her virginity to you that night, because you were too damn drunk to know the difference.

Yes, but it's your decision to even drink the beer in the first place--a decision made knowing that, by drinking the beer, you open yourself to all the dangers of being intoxicated.

I have no idea where you get grocery stores or liquor stores from. They are retail, not hosts. Going to a hockey game, you are a guest and they are the host. Go to a friend's party, they are a host, you are a guest.

If a grocery store sells me a big bottle of Jack Daniels, and I drink it, and commit some sort of illegal act, why wouldn't they get in trouble under the same standard as bars, then, especially if I'm drunk?

I can think of no other situation where one can be legally penalized for not actively preventing someone else from committing a crime.

It does mess up your mind if you go too far, or even just a bit. It ruins your coordination, impairs your judgement, and makes you do stupid things.

Maybe you should think about that before you motherfucking drink. You people piss me the fuck off. Oh its not the drunks fault he decided to have a beer despite the fact he can't handle it. Right, sure thing cockwad.

Texas is silly.

At 3/22/06 11:19 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

Does this remind anyone else of Minority Report? You can't possibly know the future of someone's actions by arresting them before the action. Humans are unpredictable.

Why don't they just illegalize drinking alcohol in "public," and turn everything into juice bars? It seems that if you are not allowed to be "drunk" in a bar, then certain restrictions ought to be put into place. Juice is a healthy alternative, and still allows everyone to socialize.

But it's pretty predictable what happens when a person drinks too much alchohol and gets behind the wheel. Driving under the influence is illegal for a damn good reason.

At 3/23/06 12:59 AM, BFG_Nine-Thousand wrote: But it's pretty predictable what happens when a person drinks too much alchohol and gets behind the wheel. Driving under the influence is illegal for a damn good reason.

But still, why not arrest them when they actually start to get behind the wheel of a car? Rather than arresting people that may have had designated drivers, or were planning on taking a cab home?

At 3/23/06 12:59 AM, BFG_Nine-Thousand wrote: But it's pretty predictable what happens when a person drinks too much alchohol and gets behind the wheel. Driving under the influence is illegal for a damn good reason.

You drive better, right?

At 3/22/06 11:22 PM, BeFell wrote: Why not just sit in the parking lot and arrest people who stumble into their cars?

Because someone could be a distraction.

I heard a story of a cop who was watching the bars parking lot for people who where obviously drunk and about to drive. So as he was watching he witnessed a guy stumble out of the bar falling down, walking sideways, singing, you know really drunk and disorderly stuff.
The cop decided to wait for the guy (because this guy was hammered bad, he might be close to alcohol poisoning) to get in his car. As he waited other people started leaving, but the cop payed attention to this guy, finally when the guy got his car started and drove off the bar was empty. The cop caught up to the guy and gave him a breathalizer, it came up with .02, he did the walk in a line and say the alphabet backwords test and the guy did it perfectly.
So the cop asks him why he stumbled out of there drunk, the guy replied that he collected 5 dollars from nearly everyone in the bar (a total of 100-150 dollars) to distract the cops while everyone else drove away.

Wow, great urban legend.

At 3/23/06 01:03 AM, red_skunk wrote: You drive better, right?

Uh... yeah.

In the end, we really have to weigh the rights of the first group of people (to get drunk,), with the rights of the second group of people (to not get splattered all over the highway.).

Is it an infringement of the bar patron's rights to get arrested in a bar? Yes. Its not a public place, its private property. But at the same time, if I'm driving home, isn't sharing the road with a drunk driver a huge danger to my rights? (IE, my life.)

At 3/23/06 01:08 AM, fahrenheit- wrote:

At 3/22/06 11:22 PM, BeFell wrote: Why not just sit in the parking lot and arrest people who stumble into their cars?

Because someone could be a distraction.

Okay, but if you just go and arrest the people that are "drunk" in the bar, do you give them all breathalyzer tests? Or do you just go with who looks the most drunk? And if so, what if that person is actually under the legal limit, but just can't handle alcohol very well, while someone who can sits in the corner quietly, but over the limit?

At 3/23/06 01:12 AM, BFG_Nine-Thousand wrote: But at the same time, if I'm driving home, isn't sharing the road with a drunk driver a huge danger to my rights? (IE, my life.)

A person in a bar is not sharing the road with you, buck-o. I'm five minutes walk from probably a dozen bars. In Texas I'd run the risk of being arrested for drinking in them? It's insanity.

At 3/23/06 01:16 AM, red_skunk wrote: A person in a bar is not sharing the road with you, buck-o.

Maybe not immediately, but if that person gets behind the wheel, he'd be committing a criminal offense, and the danger of him hurting another person spikes dramatically.

At 3/23/06 01:21 AM, BFG_Nine-Thousand wrote:

At 3/23/06 01:16 AM, red_skunk wrote: A person in a bar is not sharing the road with you, buck-o.

Maybe not immediately, but if that person gets behind the wheel, he'd be committing a criminal offense, and the danger of him hurting another person spikes dramatically.

So would people that never earned a drivers license. But you wouldn't arrest them for being able to potentially get into a car and cause damage and hurt someone, would you?

Reminds me of the joke that one dude from the Blue Collar Comedy Tour told (can't remember his name).

He got arrested for being drunk in public and told the cops, "Five minutes ago I was drunk in a bar, which is perfectly legal. THEY... threw me... into... Pub. Lic. Arrest THEM!"

So, in Texas; you can't be drunk in a Bar?! How are Bar owners supposed to make $$$?

At 3/23/06 01:16 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Okay, but if you just go and arrest the people that are "drunk" in the bar, do you give them all breathalyzer tests? Or do you just go with who looks the most drunk? And if so, what if that person is actually under the legal limit, but just can't handle alcohol very well, while someone who can sits in the corner quietly, but over the limit?

Its the policemans job to recognize people who would seem drunk. It doesnt matter if a kid is under the limit but cant hold it well because if he drives he cant say "Im sorry I hit that girl, it was my first beer and that cop said I wasnt breaking any laws".

And if a guy can hold it, good for him. Say if he is right at .08 but he could pass a basic test about mathmatics than let him drive. A breathalyzer is just a quick way to prove someone is drunk.

At 3/23/06 02:17 AM, fahrenheit- wrote:

And if a guy can hold it, good for him. Say if he is right at .08 but he could pass a basic test about mathmatics than let him drive. A breathalyzer is just a quick way to prove someone is drunk.

That's preposterous. Let someone operate a deadly motor vehicle just because they can add 2+2? Being able to do basic math isn't a valid indicator of reaction time, the main problem with drunken driving.

This isn't about "drunk driving" per se. This is about arresting people IN A PLACE IN WHICH THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DRINK and then claiming it's because they MIGHT be getting behind the wheel of a car, which is pure speculation and illegal grounds to arrest someone. I think we should just arrest all arabs in this country because they MIGHT set off bombs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to serve drunk people alcohol?

You guys are forgeting a key premise in this arrest case - they were arresting under the charge of public intoxication .

Does this mean that getting drunk [at a licensed bar] deem a violation of law now?

a bar is a place to get drunk.

another example of our rights being taken away.

screw america. can go to hell for all i care. which is exactly where it is heading.

land of the free my ass. more like land of the told your free but each day a right of yours is take away for a stupid cause.