The journey from there to here

Imagine this scenario: You have just arrived at your favorite buffet. Armed with utensils, you proceed to fill up your plate. You finish your meal and go back for seconds. A man from the table next to you approaches you, cuffs you, and arrests you for public gluttony.

This scenario might seem like something that would play out in a bad, unbelievable science fiction novel, but the simple truth is, we're already headed in that direction. When we gave police officers the power to go into strip clubs and "adult movie houses" to arrest people who were, umm, taking certain matters into their own hands, we employed a logic that has never been sensible in a free society: that what you do behind closed doors DOES matter, and that the government has a right to regulate your behaviour to ensure your own safety.

The logic has recently been extended, in the state of Texas at least, to include police officers trolling the bars to arrest people for public intoxication. The logic is that it will stop drinking and driving, but the logic does not hold, because it presumes a behaviour that is not necessarily guaranteed. While I wouldn't argue the RIGHT of Texas law enforcement officials to uphold a law already on the books, I would argue that their actions certainly give us cause to question the validity of such laws in the first place. Baker rightly commented on terpfan's thread on the police issue that government only has as much power as we give it. That is why we must stop giving it so much power.

The long term implications of these actions are terrible. In Texas, if you're a member of a country club, you are in a private club, and there would be no right to enforce such a law. So the wealthy, of course, are immune to these actions. And as an increasing number of employers require background checks, a growing number of Texans stand to become part of a permanent underclass because of their free time activities, regardless of how responsible they are in the exercise of those activities. Certainly noone is going to advance to a boardroom with a number of public intoxication convictions on their "rap sheet".

We need our police force to protect and to serve. They SHOULD be there for domestic assault; they SHOULD be there to answer a rape call. They should not be there to police activities of individuals who are doing no public harm in the course of their actions. To do so wastes the money of taxpayers and leads to greater resentment of the lower class towards a police force that was allegedly designed to protect them, but is increasingly being employed to harass them.


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Mar 30, 2006

I see you have a nice brouhaha on your hands.  I will say while it is the law, it is a stupid law.  But until the people of Texas decide to dump it, there is not a lot one can say against it.

Every state has stupid laws.  And with the legislatures not doing their jobs, until such time as the people stand up against them, they will be enforced.

on Mar 30, 2006
we have a public intox law here in Cali too, I guess public falls if yer Inna bar and drunk, yer busted because it is within the confines of public drunkenness.

Safety for us common folk is a fine line, I too wonder where will it stop.
on Mar 30, 2006
Selective enforcement isn't the way to make change, it just breeds corruption. "Common sense" is great, but if you are standing with a cop who has had a bad day, you'd much rather he deal with the strict wording of the law than "common sense".


Just like when I was a paramedic, I wasn't paid to follow "protocols" to the letter with my brain on autopilot these policement aren't paid to turn off their brains either. It isn't about "selective enforcement" it's about police doing what they are paid to do... make rational decisions.

You show me any professional who can't get passed strict wording and I'll show you a piss poor waste of a paycheck.
on Mar 30, 2006
"You show me any professional who can't get passed strict wording and I'll show you a piss poor waste of a paycheck."


like I said, that's great for talk, but you don't like standing in front of a cop you know is having a bad day any more than anyone else. Selective enforcement is just a tool for people who want to pick on others. Local officials don't like the guy who owns one bar, so you hassle them, but you like the other guy, so he doesn't get a visit.

That's all that's happening here. You get sloppy drunk and stagger around the mall no one questions it when a cop carts you away. We have some sad implied standard, though, that you don't do that in bars. Why? Why not just make your laws explicit to begin with, and not give bully cops the tools to hound people they dislike and give a pass to those they do?

We wink at this kind of thing in hopes that when we break the law the cop will have the "common sense" to go bother with someone else and not us. You don't want to deal with drunks at youf kids chucky cheese party, then don't be surprised when you find out a bar is just as 'public', though.

Better yet, just pass the laws you want enforced, instead of leaving them so vague they can be used to abuse people on a whim.
on Mar 30, 2006
I can't believe it's illegal to be drunk in public in the US! What happened to your proud tradition of alcoholic beverages? Talk about a nanna state.
on Mar 31, 2006

...other than the fact that they are breaking the law? If you don't like the law, amend it, but if it is illegal to be drunk in public, then the police have an obligation to arrest people who break those laws.

Actually, they really aren't breaking the law. The law states that the person must be intoxicated enough to present a danger to themself or others. The police are simply superinterpreting the law to mean that ANY level of intoxication can be construed to "present a danger to themself or others".

You keep hammering home the argument "if you don't like the law, change it", Baker, yet ignoring the fact that DISCUSSING the law is an important first step in changing it. That is precisely what I'm doing, DISCUSSING the law. And I AM taking steps to try to change it.

As I said before, I can't wave a magic wand and make the nanny state disappear. I have to use a multifaceted approach before that can happen.

on Mar 31, 2006

I can't believe it's illegal to be drunk in public in the US! What happened to your proud tradition of alcoholic beverages? Talk about a nanna state.

Uh, Cacto, did you forget Prohibition?  I think, other than Muslim nations, that the US was the only modern nation to try that stupidity.

on Mar 31, 2006
I am curious as to whether there have been any documented/reported arrests made in the described police activities in which a person was not demonstrably intoxicated.

It's obvious that the vast majority of people drinking in a bar will most likely be driving home once they leave the place, and this could easily be taken as a proactive means of reducing drunk driving accidents, so I am curious as to whether they have been shown to be abusing this law enforcement technique in any way.
on Mar 31, 2006

It's obvious that the vast majority of people drinking in a bar will most likely be driving home once they leave the place, and this could easily be taken as a proactive means of reducing drunk driving accidents, so I am curious as to whether they have been shown to be abusing this law enforcement technique in any way.

No, it's NOT obvious. It seems to me that, for many years, the designated driver program has been promoted. Can you assume someone doesn't have a designated driver? In a larger city, can you assume that someone isn't calling a cab or a friend?

To say this is a "proactive means of reducing drunk driving accidents" is nonsensical. We could use the same logic to say that we should imprison everyone in the inner city projects as a "proactive means of reducing violent crime". Just as not everyone in the inner city is a violent criminal, not everyone in a bar is a drunk driver.

I live in a community where the ONLY means of entertainment is the bars. That's IT! No movie houses, no hangouts, and the streets roll up at sunset except at the bars. As a result, there are a lot of people at the bars who would not be there if we had other means of entertainment and/or self expression. To view all of us as potential criminals and throw us in the slammer for being at the bars is insane, frankly.

on Mar 31, 2006
That isn't what it sounds like, though, Gid. People here are saying that the police should use common sense. Well, as distasteful as it may seem it IS common sense to go to the place where people are drinking to find drunk people.

I don't think everyone in the projects should be arrested, but when you can go to the projects 24/7 and see people openly standing on corners selling drugs, well, lets REALLY use come common sense. If a policeman sees someone standing there, and every few minutes a car pulls up and an exchange is made, then if nothing else he should check to see if the man is a roadside vendor without a license.

That's why I think a lot of Libertarian ideals fly in the face of common sense. We have public intoxication laws that should be enforced, but we can't go where people get intoxicated. We have laws against dealing drugs, but a man should be able to stand on a corner for hours handing things into car windows and getting money in return, but the police shouldn't be allowed to assume he's selling stuff.

I have to say, Gid, if you'll allow me to go a tad off topic, but I really expected to be wooed more and more to Libertarian ideals over time. On the surface, they seem to make sense. The deeper I dig, though, the less I like what I see society as being living under such a system. I think Libertarianism robs us of our rights, frankly, as many people practice it.

I've weritten a blog about it, and I would appreciate your opinion if you get the chance.
on Mar 31, 2006
To view all of us as potential criminals and throw us in the slammer for being at the bars is insane, frankly.


You mean they are arresting people for merely being in bars? I thought you said they were arresting people for being drunk. Well, if they are arresting people merely for being in a bar, then I would agree that's insane. My mistake, I could have sworn the arrests were for public drunkeness.
on Mar 31, 2006
I thought you said they were arresting people for being drunk.


They have no sobriety standards for public intoxication, mason. So one person's "drunk" could be another person's "tipsy".

And again, we revert to the argument about two sets of justice. Because joe working class has to go into the bar to get a drink, he gets arrested, while joe CEO, nicely situated at the country club, gets a free pass. But that's one of many arguments.
on Mar 31, 2006


And once again I ask is there any evidence that they have arrested anyone who wasn't demonstrably intoxicated?
on Mar 31, 2006
They have no sobriety standards for public intoxication, mason. So one person's "drunk" could be another person's "tipsy".


And once again I ask is there any evidence that they have arrested anyone who wasn't demonstrably intoxicated?

Sorry about the double post
on Apr 01, 2006
No, Mason, but they shouldn't be given such broad authority, in my opinion.

Do you really feel comfortable about the extra tax dollars that will be spent in manpower for undercover police officers to hang out in bars to arrest anyone who appears drunk, or in incarcerating the individuals arrested, or in the lost wages of those individuals and increased welfare benefits when they lose their jobs? To say this is to decrease drinking anddriving is patently absurd; all it will do is move many of these individuals to private parties in the homes of friends, where they will continue to drink and drive.

If people want to create an alcohol free "utopia", they can and should go ahead and do it in their own communities. But increased enforcement on laws like this has a tendency to get them overturned in appeals courts, or worse yet, police officers who effectively nullify the law by refusing to enforce it. It's a mistake on the part of these departments, in my opinion.

I don't know what standard these police are using for enforcement, but I do know one thing: I can't afford a ticket for public intoxication. So I don't even go NEAR the bars, which means I'm stuck with literally NOTHING to do on a Friday or Saturday night (or any day during the week, for that matter). You may think that social activities aren't important, Mason, but try going entirely without them for a year and a half. It gets tiring.
4 Pages1 2 3 4