Mebby Texas ain't that great. . .

[Papakeith]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...22388344_RTRUKOC_0_US-BARS.xml&archived=False

 

[robwbright]

Another example of the "nanny" state. :bang:

I appreciate a quote from Fred Reed which I saw on his website:

"If drinking and driving is illegal, why do bars have parking lots?"

Or to quote Thomas Jefferson:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."

How many of our laws today would survive if Jefferson's above statement were applied?

 

[ls1cameric]

That just adds another reason to my list of why I cant stand San Antonio...


Hell just move to Austin, they promote junken behavior on 6th street! lol... Although I wouldnt know ANYTHING about that! ;)

Although there is a bar here called "Dallas night club" (cowboy hangout) that is being shut down because cops wait for people to leave and constantly bust everyone for DWI's

 

[CRguyStan]

What next, are they going to arrest the fans at ball games for braking noise laws after 10pm......crazy stuff.

 

[Papakeith]

I wouldn't put it past someone to try that at some point.

 

[HajiWasAPunk]

Reminds me of that Ron White line, after getting kicked out of a club "Officer, I wasn't drunk in public, I was drunk in a bar. They throw me into public" :)

 

[robwbright]

Further thoughts:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis

Last year the small town I work in outlawed smoking inside or within 10 feet of any business - including bars.

I've only drank in a bar on a handful of occasions, and I've never had a cigarette - nevertheless, laws such as these not only ridiculous but also oppressive and infringe on people's property rights and personal rights.

Organizations like MADD mean well, but as a political organization, they do what virtually all political organizations do - they skew the facts in favor of their "motherly" and oppressive proposals.

See this for evidence:

http://www.getmadd.com/

Lord knows I don't need another mother trying to protect me - I've got a mother, a mother-in-law and a wife. ;)

The study numbers several years ago showed that approx. 600 people drive drunk for every person who is caught. Thus, it is evident that the DUI laws are highly ineffective and essentially unenforced. Further, it's evident that drunk driving is not causing that many accidents proportionate to the number of people who are driving drunk.

A person I know - 53 years old - drinks steadily from 10am to 12 midnight every day. He's been doing that for as long as I've known him (25+ years). He runs a very successful business, has never been caught for DUI and has never been involved in an accident.

I do not advocate drunk driving. However, by Jefferson's test in my prior post, it is not a crime it itself. The crime occurs when another person is injured or killed.

What I do advocate is SEVERE punishment (civil and/or criminal depending on the totality of the circumstances) for anyone who injures or kills another person as a result of a legitimate fault on their part in the failure to control their vehicle - whether that be because they are intoxicated or because they are falling asleep or because they were fiddling with the radio or cell phone.

The DUI laws would be unneccessary if the penalties for actually causing an injury or death AS A RESULT OF BEING INTOXICATED were very harsh and were strictly enforced by prosecutors and judges.

 

[Thump]

Considering Texas leads the nation by a land slide in alcohol related deaths (not just vehicular either) I am glad they are trying something new. Obviously what they have been doing in the past is not working. Texas has some of the strongest DUI laws too, but that is not proving to be a deterant.

So yeah, if it means the state is trying to do someting that has the potential to keep my wife and baby safe, I am for it. Living, breathing, walking and talking in public are not against the law. Blatant public intoxication is. That is not a new law and it is not the law only in Texas.

 

[Papakeith]

Thump, they are arresting people in the bar, not outside on the streets. Last time I checked, most pubs aren't owned by the State or town.

Pretty soon, it will be illegal to go home and have a couple of shots of Jack. The drunk police might bust in and arrest you.

 

[Okiewan]

However, by Jefferson's test in my prior post,

Jefferson also owned slaves. Seems even he was fallible.

 

[Reesknight]

I would think that enforcing the PD laws in this way will eventually make PD legal. This activity will begin to shut down bars, which will drastically cut down on alcohol consumtion. Alchohol is big business. They will start lobbying congress to change the laws. This is a step in the wrong direction IMO.

 

[XRpredator]

"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."

Is this person a comedian? These are just examples of disinfecting the gene pool.

Being drunk in a bar is drunk in private. If the cops want to bust someone, wait outside the bar and catch the guys who climb behind the wheel. I walk home. Sometimes on my lips.

 

[Thump]

Thump, they are arresting people in the bar, not outside on the streets. Last time I checked, most pubs aren't owned by the State or town.

Pretty soon, it will be illegal to go home and have a couple of shots of Jack. The drunk police might bust in and arrest you.

They are open to the public NOT private establishments, comprende? So by your logic, are you saying that it is okay to steal from the tip jar inside the bar? Or piss under the table? Get in a fist fight? Because those are misdemeanors, just like PI. The law is the law, inside a public bar or outside. Believe it or not, it is not your right by birth or by the constitution to get blatently drunk in public. You want to do it at home, so be it. And we are not talking about people who have had a few beers, we're talking about drunk to the point that the police have reason to believe that they could be a risk to themselves or others. We all trust the police to pull over and test a suspected drunk driver when he or she feels that driver could be a risk to themselves or others. This is no different.

What is funny is for years the liberals have been complaining about how the republican run state govt of Texas has "allowed" alcohol related fatalities to dwarf all other states in the nation. Now they try to do something about it and the liberals complain about this to...

 

[HajiWasAPunk]

RobWRight, people have shown far too often that if you leave it to their own responsibility, they can't hanlde themselves. Getting drunk or intoxicated or otherwise. I agree that if the penalty were more stiff, it would take care of itself. But ppl getting drunk/high and then doing something against their normal judgement is far too common to change the laws to say we'll wait until you hurt someone to call it a violation.

The smoking thing is because it's been proven that smoking harms the ppl around it.

I have a friend similar to the one you described (funtional alcholic). He went on this way for years and then one day it caught up with him and he hit another car, lost his license and hurt (not seriously) another driver. The fact that he hasn't caused pain yet is a matter of luck. Under the system you're describing, a cop would follow a drunk weaving all over the road until he hit someone before pulling him over. (As another aside, whatever success he's had at business or otherwise would've been greater were he not an alcholic).

 

[Papakeith]

Your leaps of logic escape me Dave. And please don't type down to me. It's not necessary or welcome. You obviously have a strong opinion on this topic. So be it. I think that it is a stretch for police to enter a private establishment and start arresting patrons before they break the law.

So by your logic, are you saying that it is okay to steal from the tip jar inside the bar? Or piss under the table?

I don't see where I said any of that.

And we are not talking about people who have had a few beers, we're talking about drunk to the point that the police have reason to believe that they could be a risk to themselves or others.

I didn't see in the article where they demonstrated how drunk the arrestees were, or what the criteria were for making the call to arrest. Maybe I just missed that part.

 

[Okiewan]

or what the criteria were for making the call to arrest

Prolly make them blow.

 

[Thump]

Is this person a comedian? These are just examples of disinfecting the gene pool.

Tell that to the family members of the mini van that stuck a drunk crossing Hwy 183 last year. The drunk came through the windsheild and guess what, killed a baby. Why do you ask? They guy knew he was too drunk to drive so he was going to alk home.

Loose your spouse or child in an accident like this and we will see if you change your mind. Loosing my spouse or child like that is not something I want to experience.

 

[XRpredator]

Loosing my spouse or child like that is not something I want to experience.

Living in fear of everyone else is not something I want to experience. Don't want to hit a drunk? Don't drive near a bar. The blame for the hitting of the drunk cat doesn't all lay on the drunk dude. Maybe the driver of the minivan was a tad inattentive at the time, which one can be quite easily with a carload of kids.

If a guy is so afraid for his family because of everyone else's activities, maybe he ought to move somewhere less populated.

 

[Thump]

Your leaps of logic escape me Dave. And please don't type down to me. It's not necessary or welcome. You obviously have a strong opinion on this topic. So be it. I think that it is a stretch for police to enter a private establishment and start arresting patrons before they break the law.

Okay, here is logic that is straight forward then. Bar = PUBLIC establishment NOT PRIVTE. Clubs recquiring membership cards and dues = PRIVATE establishment.

Break the law in public and you get popped.

So that I don't type down to you I will explain my logic behind the "steal from the tip jar inside the bar? Or piss under the table? Get in a fist fight?" comments. They were not intended to type down to you, they were typed to make a point/draw an annalogy... Here it is: Those things are against the law. Some people do not agree that they should be against the law but they are and they are enforcable. Just because you don't agree with a law does not mean you don't have to obide by it.

 

[Thump]

Living in fear of everyone else is not something I want to experience. Don't want to hit a drunk? Don't drive near a bar. The blame for the hitting of the drunk cat doesn't all lay on the drunk dude. Maybe the driver of the minivan was a tad inattentive at the time, which one can be quite easily with a carload of kids.

If a guy is so afraid for his family because of everyone else's activities, maybe he ought to move somewhere less populated.

Yeah you are right, driving down a 6 lane highway the woman probably should have been on the lookout for the drunk x-ing signs. It was most definately her fault.

I do not fear of other peoples actions, I just have no problem with the police enforcing the law. If I break the law, I expect to get nailed for it. Same should go for the rest.

 

[HajiWasAPunk]

Living in fear of everyone else is not something I want to experience. Don't want to hit a drunk? Don't drive near a bar. The blame for the hitting of the drunk cat doesn't all lay on the drunk dude. Maybe the driver of the minivan was a tad inattentive at the time, which one can be quite easily with a carload of kids.

If a guy is so afraid for his family because of everyone else's activities, maybe he ought to move somewhere less populated.

I gotta agree with XRPred atleast on the drunk guy walking part. Thump are you suggesting that had the walker been sober he could've jumped out of the way of the van? I mean it seems like a stretch to blame a pedestrian for getting hit unless he was just randomly running across a busy street or something?

As for living in fear though, it's not a matter of fear as it is precaution. We all take risks just walking out of the house each day (not to mention going fast on two wheels on the track). What seems unacceptable is being put at risk for someone elses decision to get drunk and be in a position to hurt you (ie driving drunk). We could debate forever whether a guy should be able to get drunk in a bar and then walk home or take a cab.

 

[XRpredator]

A bar is private property -- even if it might be open to the public, it is not a "public" place (a la, a city park, main street, etc.). I think if you unroll the hog and start takin' a leak under the table, you might be doing something other than urinating in public, but I'm sure it's still a misdemeanor.

This kind of goes along with the not allowing smoking in bars. I like that it is now illegal to smoke in bars in Washington, but it rankles the libertarian in me who doesn't like a lot of laws telling me what I can and can't do.

 

[Thump]

If a guy is so afraid for his family because of everyone else's activities, maybe he ought to move somewhere less populated.

And if a guy has such a need to get hammered he should do it at home or go to a private establishment.

 

[Thump]

I gotta agree with XRPred atleast on the drunk guy walking part. Thump are you suggesting that had the walker been sober he could've jumped out of the way of the van? I mean it seems like a stretch to blame a pedestrian for getting hit unless he was just randomly running across a busy street or something?.

No, I am saying that if he was sober he would have driven home. He walked because he thought it was safer because he knew he was drunk.

 

[HajiWasAPunk]

No, I am saying that if he was sober he would have driven home. He walked because he thought it was safer because he knew he was drunk.

I don't know the details of the event your talking about, but could he not have just as easily been walking because his car broke down? Where was he when hit, on the side of the street or in the middle of it?