I was doing a little research on an unrelated item and I came across this little gem:

http://www.enidnews.com/enidnews/homepage/local_story_088004854.html

Now, this particular paper's newspaper forums are particularly prone to censorship (can we say "irony", boys and girls?) so I'll post my thoughts here.

Although this article is slightly dated, it lauds the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission for its program of sending officers into bars to arrest patrons for public intoxication on the grounds that they *might* attempt to drive home later. I've previously written on my disgust with TABC's actions as it is against so many basic principles to arrest someone for what might occur in the future. We arrest people for crimes they have actually committed, not for ones that MIGHT occur.

This whole thing came about because we live in a nation where there are a substantial number of people who really don't like prohibition, who would like to see alcohol completely banned, and are dedicated to back door attempts to make it happen. They've continually had the BAC requirements for drinking and driving lowered to the point where it's almost impossible to drink and NOT be considered impaired. As a result, the court systems are further tied up, and fewer and fewer American adults can pass a criminal records check because we've redefined what it means to be "criminal" so liberally that it has begun to encroach on what one would consider "normal" behaviour (an example would be that toilet papering someone's house is now considered vandalism).

But I digress...

The editors of this right wing rag that passes itself as a newspaper (note: the preceding was my opinion and not necessarily that of JoeUser or any of its staff, or any particular agencies or organizations which I may represent) have taken the position that this is a good thing, one that Oklahoma should adopt. It's not enough to throw people in the clink for drinking and driving, now we need to criminalize drinking.

Basically, what they are saying is, since they can't outlaw the product, they'll outlaw the act. You can't drink in the park, you can't drink in the bars, you can't drink at home with friends (who might drive home). You can only drink at home. Alone. And even then you can't do that, because that makes you an alcoholic!

As a beer lover in a region where beer drinking is honestly considered a mortal sin (yes, folks, in Texas, you can run people out of church, you can slander them with all sorts of false allegations, but don't you DARE touch the brew!), and yet, ironically, has substantial beer sales, I am appalled by the hypocrisy of it all. I've never had a drunk driving arrest, I've never been arrested for public intox, and heck, the worst drunken binge I've had since my 30th birthday involved a case of Michelob light and a broad selection of Pauly Shore movies (trivia: Tenacious D's first appearance AS Tenacious D in a movie was in 1996's "BioDome". Look for them on the quad with the big eco-party). But I'd like to be able to make it to karaoke night without some officer deciding that my rendering of "Pancho and Lefty" is a crime against humanity.

It's bad enough that we have become an insane, ridiculous nanny state. Even worse when members of the press, who arrogantly regard themselves as guardians of the Constitution (bloggers are fast assuming that role, in my opinion...but we'll address that later. And you can give me my crown then!) are endorsing such ridiculous, draconian measures. I'll take my news WITHOUT the idiocy, thank you very much!