The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) has recently begun raiding bars at night and arresting patrons inside the bars that they determine, by way of the sole discretion of the officer given the horrific task of arresting merry makers inside bars, are intoxicated in public. I'm sure you've all heard of this at least. I just wanted to bring it up because most of you know more about politics and law than I know about electronic circuits and Food Network combined.

I originally argued that you can't possibly be publicly intoxicated inside a bar, because that's privately owned. Not so. It's still public property. Okay, fine. I'll give them that. But don't you dare ask me to agree with the College Station Police Department when they informed us that sitting on your porch with a beer at night under the overhang of the square footage that you pay for is considered public consumption. Bastards. But seriously, to say that you cannot be drunk inside a bar is like saying you can't read in a library or turn tricks in a motel.

They'll argue that they're doing the community a service because they are arresting people that are intoxicated -- not people that are belligerent, or causing a scene, mind you, just those that are intoxicated. TABC defines intoxication as anything over the legal limit of 0.08. We all know that the legal limit is bullshit in a way. You can reach the legal limit if the guy 3 tables down from you is drinking a beer and burps. It's insanely low, the equivalent of about one beer if you drink it like a man. I don't know how many nights, while living with Ryan and Todd, that we blew 0.2s (and probably above since the thing went no higher). And while we were clearly intoxicated, none of us were a danger to ourselves or each other.

The legal limit should only apply to driving. In that case, while still low, I think it's okay. Really you shouldn't be driving after drinking at all. EVEN IF you drive better when you're drunk and only have one eye open and your head cocked back and your foot gunning the accelerator. But, I didn't get to the best part yet. TABC defines intoxication as anything over the legal limit of 0.08, or one who is exhibiting signs of intoxication -- impaired judgement, or loss of motor skills. So even if you don't drink, you just limp, you can get arrested. You could get arrested in a bar if you are the designated driver, provided you trip on your way the bathroom to pee out the 29 Coca-Colas you've had to occupy your hands while your friends get sauced.

I'm all for public safety and welfare and blah blah blah, but I cannot fathom how this can be legal. We tried allowing the government to listen to hysteric, dried up old hags the last time we did Prohibition. See how awesomely that turned out? You fucking bitches spawned rum running (the predecessor the NASCAR, thanks a lot). Not to mention organized crime. And cocktails, a result of the need to mix bathtub liquors with fruit juices to make them tolerable. Well, bad example there. Thank you for that one. But back to my point.

How does something like this become legal? I don't understand. Much like how tow truck owners are allowed to steal your car and hold it for ransom. Or how one county is "dry" but literally 9 feet to the left, you can buy liquor. Or why there's this sudden trend to ban smoking everywhere despite the fact that capitalism should be driving that decision, not facism. Is this a result of some kind of voting? Do I need to start participating in local government elections? Do candidates publicly state their views on villanizing people who don't spend the night reading scripture and avoiding sex?

Help me JonSteed or someone whose legal opinion I value as highly. You're my only hope.

BRILLIANT!!!!

Yeah, seriously, I couldn’t have said it better. The TABC is a joke. They think that they are doing a public service, but all it really pans out to is shooting easy targets, i.e. arresting drinking but not always drunk college students in order to generate revenue for the county so they can “lower taxes,” the quintessential Republican platform. Relating it to Prohibition is genius, but a stretch because I think it boils down to money. Shocker, huh?

I think there is a distinction between behavior that causes harm to others and behavior that doesn’t. For example, while I strongly oppose the smoking bans, there is at least still a legitimate argument that second-hand smoke damages other people’s lungs. Or that belligerent drunk behavior, or drunk driving, causes a public safety concern. However, the crime of being drunk in and of itself? So being drunk in private is okay, but don’t get intoxicated in public? Not to get political, but these are the same folks who a) don’t like the idea of two men having sex together and thus oppose gay marriage (which doesn’t hurt anybody), b) value life at conception but don’t give a shit about that life after birth (cutting child welfare programs, Head Start, etc.), c) believe that global warming doesn’t exist. Idiots. Perhaps if more lushes like us would get out and vote, this kind of stuff wouldn’t go down any more. But we have more important things to worry about, such as whether or not Brad and Angelina are going to get married, or who the next winner of American Idol will be.

Nooooo! I didn’t want biased liberal media propoganda. I need serious instructions. Is this a thing I can overturn through voting?

I heard on the radio today that they have decided to “hold off on enforcing this new law” because of tremendous opposition from the public. Additionally, Dallas just lost about $4m of business when a 25,000 person convention relocated to Atlanta to avoid the new law.