http://www.reporter-news.com/abil/nw_local/article/0,1874,ABIL_7959_4084477,00.html

State to keep tabs on bars
60 agents hired; MADD lends hand

By Matt Phinney / San Angelo Standard-Times
September 16, 2005

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is saturating bars in the Abilene and San Angelo areas to arrest people for public intoxication, and bar or nightclub employees who sell alcohol to drunken customers.

The TABC campaign will continue through September 2006, said Lt. Randy Motz said.

''We are meeting with retailers. We are not playing sneak attacks,'' Motz said.

''If we don't arrest a bunch of people, then that's fine. But we will do what we can to get them before they get in their car intoxicated.''

Heather Hodges, an Abilene-based MADD victims advocate, said her group is working closely with the TABC on the project.

''We believe responsible adults should drink responsibly,'' Hodges said.

''And those that serve them should be responsible. A lot of people think it's OK to be drunk in bar, but it's illegal . A bar is not intended to be a place to get fall-down drunk ... . You don't have to be fall-down drunk to be considered drunk. Even after one drink, you aren't 100 percent.''

The state allowed the commission to hire 60 agents this year, Motz said.

Those new agents will be used to work undercover and as regular agents in the operation, he said.

Several San Angelo bar owners and managers who did not want to be quoted by name said all employees must go through a TABC class that demonstrates the signs of an intoxicated person.

TABC officers are trained to make that determination in the field, Motz said.

Motz said drunk people can be arrested in a bar if they present a degree of danger to themselves and others. People can also be arrested for public intoxication even if they have a designated driver.

And bartenders can be arrested for selling alcohol to intoxicated people.


----

Looks like thanks to MADD pre-crime is becoming a reality.

Anything that keeps drunk drivers off the road is OK with me.

I've never heard of it being illegal to BE drunk in a bar. In NC it's illegal to serve alcohol to someone who is noticably intoxicated.

Give me a break. Just b/c someone gets drunk in a bar doesn't mean they're going to drive home. Would you be in favor on banning alcohol all together? That would reduce drunk driving right?

The TABC is the most worthless organization in the state of Texas, and I have personally watched them kill dozens of kegs in my lifetime. Full kegs, with a long life ahead of them, murdered by these pieces of shit. MADD is a decent enough organization, but they go completly overboard sometimes. Many of them seem to target all alcohol and not just drunk driving. As for public intoxication, you can get pretty much slammed without worrying about getting arrested. If you start being "One of those guys" though then you can be arrested like anyone else.

Thats just horrible logic.

Yes, Serjical, you must rethink this. I know you don't agree with the idea that "Anything that keeps terrorists off the streets is OK," so it shouldn't be acceptable when talking about drunk driving.

Thats example was actually exactly what I was thinking.

What they are talking about is arresting people who they think are drunk and who may in future drive, even if they have a designated driver. Why bother with a DD if you are just gonna get arrested anyway?

It is not ok to arrest someone who hasn't committed a crime (drunk in bar is public intoxication? gimmie a f**king break). We should be teaching people to drink responsibly, not ruining their lives (giving them a criminal record) for crossing some arbitrary BAC line.

That reminds me of a few halloweens ago, I was walking home from Franklin Street (big party in Chapel Hill) and I stopped to pee in the woods (it was a 3 mile walk). A cop pulled up and harrassed me for peeing in the woods.

Guess who said fuck it and drove to the party the next year!?

i really don't see the problem with this. if you want to get shitfaced drunk, that's fine, but please do it at home. if you want to go out to the bar and have a few drinks and hang out with your friends and watch the game, that's fine too, but expect the bartender to watch you and cut you off at some point.

i would think bars would be in favour of this. it'll cut down on lawsuits from people that were injured when a drunk driver ran into their car or from patrons who were cold cocked by the shitfaced guy next to them or from the guy who drank himself into alcohol poisoning, suing the bar for negligence.

i would think patrons would be in favour of this. it'll cut down on bar fights caused by severe drunkeness. it'll ensure them that, even if they're not paying close attention to things, someone else is watching out for them. it'll make something that could be dangerous slightly safer.

and i would think that the general public would be in favour of this. this potentially means fewer very drunk people on the road. it potentially makes things a bit safer.

now, having said that, it seems a bit extreme to simply arrest people for drinking in a bar. there's a line between not being 100% and being drunk, and truthfully, i don't know if any of us can say that we're 100% all the time. we're tired, we're stressed, we're distracted by things. if we're arresting people for not being 100%, i'd be jailed now. people just need to be responsible for their actions and know their limits.

Actually, I don't think he's too far off base. It's hardly comparable, and with terrorism we're talking about basic civil rights, and with drunk driving we're talking about the right to get inebriated. In addition, terrorism is not caused by people abusing civil rights, either.

I'm not saying they're going about it in the best way, but I'm not sure that analogy really helps, either.

Getting drunk is also a basic right. Arresting someone who has not committed a crime, on the basis that they may commit one in the future is a comparable concept to the debate on civil rights and terrorisim. At the point when someone becomes drunk and becomes a danger to themselves or others, then fine arrest them. But the drunk guy whos slurring his words and stumbling around a bit isn't neccasarily a danger to anyone. People should have the right to get as shit faced as they want, especially at a place like a bar, that is privately owned. It should be up to the bar themselves to determine whether the patron is out of control, not some ass hat in disguise. People shouldn't have to lock themselves in their homes to party. Think of this concept used at a football game, or a Pearl Jam concert. Under the loose guidelines these people are using, they would have the right to arrest half the stadium.

And to say "anything goes" when talking about stopping drunk driving, if you think about it a little further it could be taken to all sorts of extremes. Putting breathalizers in every car, illegalizing alcohol, making drunk driving a felony punishable by death, shooting drunks on site. The point at which you are removing peoples civil liberties in order to stop a crime is the same exact concept. Of course that is taking it to an extreme, but that is why saying "Anything that keeps drunk drivers off the street" is a weak arguement.

You're right, people should have the right to get drunk, but it's a bit silly to say it's a "basic right" and that it compares at all to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, et al.



Good. Arrest them. I'm sick of idiots who have had too much to drink ruining it for the rest of us. Nothing pisses me off more than going to a concert or a sporting event and having beer spilled on me.

A bar selling a drink to a customer that could be drunk or become drunk after finishing said drink, doesn't this strike anyone else as being arbitrary and completely illogical...I can see a new law being implemented down the road that would allow only 3 or 4 drinks to each patron of a bar or night club

Not to be mean, but what line? One that is determined by a breath machine that does not actually measure BAC (just methyl gas in your stomach)? One drink? Two? There is no line and no accurate measure of "tolerance". I can have 4-5 drinks before I get a buzz. I know 5' tall girls who can drink me under the table. How would you know when we are drunk in public? What gives the police the right to test us at a bar where there is no probable cause?

I think it's probably safer to be drunk in a bar, than drunk at a house party. Especially for young women.

Well first of all, the breathalizer states that an individual is drunk after 2, to 3 drinks and unless you are a pygmie, you aren't drunk and while an accurate meassure may not exist, there is still a line, and to say there is no line is to ignore the fact that you can be intoxicated and interact or very intoxicated and be face first, down in a toilet.

i'm saying that there's a line. the madd people seem to think that anything aside from being 100% is not fine. it's not four drinks and you're fine and five you're drunk. it's not three beers is okay, but more than five and you're drunk. it's an individual line. but there are signs of approaching the line and there are signs of being over the line. surely, you can recognise that.

i'm more in favour of a bartender saying "okay, you've had enough" than a cop coming in and testing everyone in the bar and arresting those that are over some limit.

I agree

I argee, but in our culture there must an equal line for everyone... we have it set at 0.08, which is 1.5 drinks for the average sized woman.

MADD has way to much power in determing this line for people. I think that a legal limit is good, but 0.08? Bulls*t.