Drinking in Bars Illegal in Texas!

#6 Mar 22 2006 at 3:03 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591836293434

Scholar

380 posts

Drinking isn't the problem, getting drunk is.

#7 Mar 22 2006 at 3:08 PM Rating: Decent

Kelvyquayo

Imaginary Friend

16,112 posts

I'm not afraid of heights, I'm afraid of splattering.

____________________________

With the receiver in my hand..

#8 Mar 22 2006 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1657498616216

Scholar

10,012 posts

How did they Texas Police arrest patrons for "Public Intoxication" if they were inside.

For instance:

Quote:

The Code of Iowa note: (Im using Iowa only as a referrence)(123.46) states that a person shall not be intoxicated or simulate intoxication in a public place. A violation of this statute is a simple misdemeanor. The following report is a synopsis of those individuals arrested for this offense. Generally, a person arrested has a BAC (blood alcohol content) of over .10 AND has drawn negative attention to themselves, committed another public offense, or is considered a danger to themselves or to the public.

Source

Granted a bar is a public establishment but it's privately owned. So what the hell?

Are they going to police thoughts next? "I'm sorry sir but your under arrest for rape because you thought about having sex with that woman."

#9 Mar 22 2006 at 3:24 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591836293434

Scholar

380 posts

Texas Legislature wrote:

Â§49.02. Public intoxication.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the alcohol or other substance was administered for therapeutic purposes and as apart of the person's professional medical treatment by a licensed physician.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(d) An offense under this section is not a lesser included offense under Section 49.04.

(e) An offense under this section committed by a person younger than 21 years of age is punishable in the same manner as if the minor committed an offense to which Section 106.071, Alcoholic Beverage Code, applies.

Source

A bar is publicly accessible even if it isn't government owned. I doubt a club (with membership) would fall under this law, but staggering out into the street would.

I doubt Texas is the only state with this law even if they are the only ones strongly enforcing it.

#10 Mar 22 2006 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1657498616216

Scholar

10,012 posts

Yea I just read the Section. Seems Texas has some of the biggest balls in the country.

#11 Mar 22 2006 at 3:45 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1660522747496

Sage

23,925 posts

Quote:

"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."

soon people will be going to the mafia to get drunk

#13 Mar 22 2006 at 4:25 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1695601009560

Guru

18,463 posts

I'd heard of being arrested outside a bar for public drunkeness, but never inside. I can understand if the person is making a nuisance of him/herself, threatening someone or refusing to pay the tab even, but not just for being drunk. Would it be safer for them to stay at home and drink alone, thereby reducing the chance that anyone else would even be around to take their keys when they got up for the 2am drunken beer restock run?

Let me be the first to say: slippery slope.

#14 Mar 22 2006 at 4:39 PM Rating: Excellent

Demea

Official Shrubbery Waterer

14,659 posts

Quote:

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

By this logic, every single one of the people that they arrested were going to die or kill somebody else on their drive home, including the people picked up in the hotel.

Are all Texans this stupid, or just the ones in power?

Edit: Bcuz wurdz r teh h4rd.

Edited, Wed Mar 22 16:40:45 2006 by Demea

____________________________

Jophiel wrote:

I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#15 Mar 22 2006 at 4:40 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1695601009560

Guru

18,463 posts

Demea wrote:

Are all Texans this stupid, or just the ones in power?

Just the ones with hats.

And the ones that are Presidents.

#16 Mar 22 2006 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent

Demea

Official Shrubbery Waterer

14,659 posts

The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:

Demea wrote:

Are all Texans this stupid, or just the ones in power?

Just the ones with hats.

And the ones that are Presidents.

See, I implied it, but you had to come right out and say it. The name of the game is "subtle", Flea.

____________________________

Jophiel wrote:

I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#17 Mar 22 2006 at 4:43 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1593362601198

Scholar

13,594 posts

I'd like to say its just the ones in power, but thats not true. The churches lead the goverment around here. If you dont belong to a church (Church of Christ mostly around here) then you are nobody. Its crazy here. I'm of the opinion that Texas should secede to Mexico and get it over with, after I leave of course.

#18 Mar 22 2006 at 4:44 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591836293434

Scholar

380 posts

The President has a hat.

Anyway, it sounds like they were targeting fall-on-your-*** puke-on-your-shoes still-reaching-for-the-keys drunk people, and not just the pleasant buzzed folks.

#19 Mar 22 2006 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1607300319902

Guru

1,863 posts

Quote:

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

Folks are generally pretty safe in a cage, when you bring 'em food and water. Maybe we should just lock everybody up pre-emptively.

#20 Mar 22 2006 at 5:37 PM Rating: Excellent

Danalog

Code Monkey

7,476 posts

Coldcut wrote:

We are tougher on crime,
before the election.
We want a national law
Establishing children's bedtimes.
Bedtime Patrol,
We'll check up on you...
Bedtime Patrol,
Make sure that your bracelet is on.
The nanny state:
To reach down your pants and check to see if you've been
Moistening yourself with any unauthorised substance without permission

Tag them!
Curfew them!
Keep them down!
Keep them at home!
At school!
To rent a video on the way home
And stay home.
Just like at work...
Do not gather after dark...
Curfew!
It's such a family oriented word.
A much more acceptable smiling soft word.
A much more pallatable concept,

THAN MARTIAL LAW!

Put your bracelets on
You are safer when you are watched
Don't go outside
You'll set the alarm off!
Curfew
Forever
And ever and ever!

____________________________

Do what now?

#21 Mar 22 2006 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good

Iamadam

@#%^

15,953 posts

Quote:

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. Arresting authorities said the patrons were a danger to themselves and others.

This is nice, especially since I'll be going to Texas on business early next month.

Oh well, guess I'll just have to get loaded in the confines of my room.

____________________________

"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#22 Mar 22 2006 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1591851944762

Sage

1,257 posts

Quote:

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

,and people wonder why I'm pessimistic of all this "New World" business going around now-a-days... Smiley: disappointed

#23 Mar 22 2006 at 9:30 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1616977010829

Sage

13,880 posts

Quote:

Are they going to police thoughts next? "I'm sorry sir but your under arrest for rape because you thought about having sex with that woman."

Great. Real life Minority Report.

#24 Mar 22 2006 at 10:02 PM Rating: Good

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

The Great Pandorra wrote:

Quote:

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

,and people wonder why I'm pessimistic of all this "New World" business going around now-a-days...

Yeah. I'm going to put on my classic "conservative hat" and point out that this sort of use of government is typically liberal, not conservative. Same basic underlying concept as the Kelo v New London ruling. Social Liberalism has as its basic ideology the belief that the rights of the individual are less important then the good of society as a whole. Which "side" do you think argues most for things like seatbelt laws, and mandatory insurance laws, and anti-smoking laws, and a host of other things designed to make the whole better but at the cost of individual freedoms?

Could be wrong in this case of course (there are always exceptions), but most of the time I'm not.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#25 Mar 23 2006 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1695601009560

Guru

18,463 posts

Demea wrote:

The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:

Demea wrote:

Are all Texans this stupid, or just the ones in power?

Just the ones with hats.

And the ones that are Presidents.

See, I implied it, but you had to come right out and say it. The name of the game is "subtle", Flea.

I don't have the time or the temperament to be subtle, much less to do more than glance over most posts.

#26 Mar 23 2006 at 10:19 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591851385364

Scholar

130 posts

Next step:
Can anybody say... prohibition?

If they intend to stop drunken driving so forcefully, it's the only way. And tbh, I wouldn't put it past Texas... no scratch that... Bush.

If Blair ever tries copying these numb ideals I swear to whatever force governs existence, Downing Street will be getting a subtle shift. From standing, to rubble.

*Goes back to drinking*