Posted 3/22/2006 05:08:00 PM by Douglas

You ever wake up some days and wonder what country you're in? [Horrible sentence, and I apologize to my fellow readers with English degrees.] Anyhoo, it seems like liberty and personal responsibility has definitely taken a back seat in this country, at least in Irvine, Texas. This crap is unbelievable.

TABC agents and Irving police swept through 36 Irving bars and arrested about 30 people on charges of public intoxication. Agency representatives say the move came as a proactive measure to curtail drunken driving.

Can you imagine? Being drunk. In a bar. Not being rowdy, not starting fights, and certainly not biting the heads off ferrets as part of a performance art show. Being drunk. In a bar. What does that have to do with drunk driving? What if you had a designated driver? What if you lived across the street? Oh, we're going to get to that.

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.

Wow, a danger to themselves, being drunk at a hotel bar? How, exactly? Paying $7.95 for a beer, or the fact that their company was going to find out about it, since they were charging this to their corporate expense card? Look, if you pound down nine beers (or worse) at the hotel bar and stagger up to your room, how are you a danger to anything, except your productivity the next morning?

Not to fret, dear reader. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission lets us know what's up:

"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."

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read. No, I don't think everyone that goes to a bar wants to puke in the bathroom, but since the DWI/BAL is so ridiculously low, anyone that goes to a bar is going to be "drunk", from a legal standpoint.

Here's my point, and I draw it, not because it's been done 1,000 before, but because I think it's relevant. Bars exist at the convenient whim of law enforcement. If they wanted to enforce established laws (which is what happened in Irving), they could go into any bar in the state and arrest 99.9% of its occupants (that have had more than three drinks) for being publicly intoxicated. The legal BAL for public intoxication, I would assume, is as ridiculously low as it is for DWI statues, which is 0.08% (in Texas).

As far as the public intoxicantion law is concenred, I have no idea how long this law has been on the books, but I know it's not enforced. If you're drunk off your ass, face down in a bowl of peanuts and not bothering anyone, you're not going to jail. The bartender would throw you in a cab and you'd go home. Don't ask how I know this, but the cops are only involved if you're belligerent. So why draw the line now?

It's not because counties have so much money to make from these cases that police officers treat them like cash-cows? Is it? I mean, if they really wanted to arrest someone that's legitimately guilty (under the statute), they could pull over and arrest anyone driving away from a bar that's had more than three drinks. The DWI/BAL law in Texas is so stupidly low (thank you, G'Dumb) that anyone would be guilty. So why mess with someone sitting on a stool in a bar crying in their Scotch, when you've got a sure thing pulling out of the parking lot in a Mustang?

Probably? Paperwork. Yet another shining example that the first responsibility of the police isn't to protect the public, but to collect fines.