What the idiot TABC and Irving PD hath wrought
Posted by TFG on March 24th, 2006
The cops at night
Are big and white
[CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP]
Don’t start a tab in Texas!
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 03 23 at 11:52 AM • permalink#
If you’re high as a kite,
It’s jail for the night,
[CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP]
Don’t start a tab in Texas!
Posted by paco on 2006 03 23 at 12:10 PM • permalink#
A sip of booze
Means laceless shoes
[CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP]
Don’t start a tab in Texas!
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 03 23 at 12:46 PM • permalink#
Throw down that brew
Its the red and blue
[CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP]
Don’t start a tab in Texas!
I’d love to hear something about this from all those prosecutors who tell me they read this waste of interweb. I don’t expect much out of them, though.
Meanwhile, we learn this bit of news:
[Note that TABC is undergoing sunset review by the Texas Legislature this interim and next session] Like I said yesterday, before I knew this, They’re clearly feeling that their legitimacy as an agency is threatened VERY CLEARLY…CRYSTAL.
Want to know more krazee stuff? How about two thousand, two hundred fellow Texans arrested for being drunk over the last six months? Our little idiot buddy, spokeswoman Carolyn Beck, makes an appearance again:
“The laws in Texas against public intoxication also apply to bars,” Beck said. “Texas has the highest DWI rate in the nation, and we are trying to reduce those rates.”
The TABC also is trying to “encourage licensees” to serve patrons responsibly, Beck said.
Part of the problem with enforcing the state’s code regulating alcohol sales is “people still think that a bar is place to go get drunk,” Beck said. “People can go into bars and have fun with their friends and not become intoxicated to the point whether they may become a danger to themselves or others.”
People arrested for public intoxication “are not people who had a couple of beers with dinner. They are people who are so drunk that they caught the attention of a TABC agent,” Beck said.
A massive load of typical bureaucrap. Fuck DWI rates. This isn’t about DWI rates, Ms. Beck. I distinctly do not fucking care if they are drunker than Cooter Brown. If they are sitting on a barstool, hurting nobody, then that’s that. The state has no right to do a damn thing. Except they do, and we’ve let that happen. In the interest of public health, we the citizens have not fought back against other laws that have been ginned up in the last few years, and yes, as a wonderfully easy example, I’m speaking of the public-smoking laws. I’m a smoker desperately trying to not be one (and pretty much failing), but even as a smoker willing to go out on the patio for a post-prandial coffin nail, I could see where those laws were going, and it’s not a damn bit surprising that we’re letting it happen. Because we’re selfish and we like unsmoky restaurants if they’re a really cool restaurant that we want to go. And now we like undrinking bars, I guess.
And let me tell you…careerists like Carolyn Beck and Capt. Alexander are simply not going to stop with that subjective “caught the attention” horseshit, and leave the “couple of beers with dinner” people alone. Why in the hell would they? They can get away with this, and they’ll get away with the next step, which is making sure that you’re not getting close enough to drunk that you might possibly catch the attention of the random undercover TABC agent. Because, you know, that’s a public safety issue, too — you might stumble over the doorjamb on the way out because of that glass of wine, and bump some lady with her precious babe in her arms and cause the nipper to fall on it’s head. Then what? It’s for the children, you see. I think you might oughta take off those high heels, lady…public safety and all. You with the long hair – it might blow in your eyes while you’re driving…so assume the position, bud.
Think it won’t happen? I never thought some dumbass mayor would decide that smoking on private property was regulatable by the city, and be able to pass a law against it, and be able to cause it to be enforced. I never thought that a state agency in charge of making sure liquor licenses were issued in accordance with laws passed by the lege would be out in undercover James Bond-mode, scouring 36 bars to find 30 drunks in Irving with the assistance of the fucking po-lice. It appears that I was horrendously wrong about both of those.
Lookie here. There’s a damn good reason they call it “the slippery slope” argument. And another aphorism — follow the money — [Note that TABC is undergoing sunset review by the Texas Legislature this interim and next session] I suggest you determine your precinct, and at the minimum, send an email to those who claim to represent us and try to put some pressure on these assholes to get back to licensing and away from the happy-smiley public-safety crap. I strongly recommend that you go so far as to consider dropping a note to your favorite public house letting them know why you’re not there anymore.
Bottom Line, though: keep your eyes peeled if you’re a dumbass and decide to have a cool one at your local. Carolyn Beck and Capt. Alexander might be there to make sure you don’t get to a state where you’d jump off a balcony.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:17 am
It all makes sense now. I wasn’t aware of the sunset review. I was a bit suspicious that something like that was up, though (i.e. they were trying to justify their existence). But I just thought they might be angling for a larger budget.
Anyhow, perhaps it’s time to adjust the public intoxication law to specifically require that you be a real threat to yourself or others while out and about on public streets (etc), rather than inside a “private” establishment (I say “private” in quotes, since it’s obvious these days, given the anti-smoking laws, that nothing is truly private anymore). Oh.. and perhaps attach a rider to their funding bill that forbids TABC from performing any kind of undercover work. Frankly, it seems to me that public intoxication is a local issue, and the local cops are the ones who should handle it.
Of course it’s all a pipe dream. Our nanny-state betters in Austin can’t stand the idea of anyone being left to their own devices, as they might harm themselves somehow.
March 25th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Nah. Let’s us just ignore the hell out of any law we don’t like. That’s pretty much what everybody does anyhow. It is much easier than worrying over trying to get them changed.
March 31st, 2006 at 7:01 am
I don’t disagree with the idea of being “drunk” in a bar. If you are obviously drunk in a bar then you are drunk. I cannot serve you. I’m actually required to get you home safely or else I’m responsible.
What is evil is that the TABC can tell me, no matter how responsible I was, that I was wrong by serving a person who, by their definition, is “drunk”. They usually claim everyone they eyeball as drunk. They don’t care. They are law. What is missing from this whole affair is what happens to the bartender who is caught in this draconian trap. We go to jail and more than likely lose our jobs. The drunk goes to jail and gets a mediocre fine. Repeat: We lose our jobs.
To repeat. I would lose my job if the TABC found some guy that could pull it together enought to order a beer but let go and appear “drunk” for these idiot cop rejects to pounce upon.
See the problem? Our job is fraught with danger although most of us try exceedingly to do what is required of us.
Nanny state.
March 31st, 2006 at 11:07 am
Man, I feel for you. I bitched loudly about the dram shop laws when they were being debated. Problem was, I was in a bar on a stool talking to other beer monkies, and not typing on the internet.
Plus, more of that damn MADD.