Everybody in the Club Gettin Tipsy

Perhaps if everyone gave a resounding F-YOU to the state of Texas and went out and got plastered (what? are they going to arrest everyone?) and kept doing it....then they might say to hell with this facists law and scrap it. Also aybe send a letter to that "nanny state" supporting bitch Carolyn Beck telling her to keep her friggin nose out of another adults business. The "what if" factor in making decicisons to govern the lives of people is irrational. You could ban pencils because they have the potential to put someones eye out, which in turn would call for the ban of linolium floors because a passer-by could slip and fall and crack their head open on the floor from the blood pouring out of the poked out eye. Im sure the founding fathers....who Im sure drank quite a bit of the sauce in their day are rolling in their graves right now. You can call me a douche bag but it always seems like laws meant to protect you from yourself are conjured up by women. I no longer need my mom to change my filthy britches, i dont need some cat lady telling me or anyone else what they can and cannot do. You have gangs, drugs, human trafficing, and other crap coming over the border yet were making sure people dont get drunk and maybe have a good old fashioned bar brawl. If they proposed this law in Europe......im willing to bet there would be VIOLENCE on a massive scale. But its OK. Once Texas tourist dollars and other revenue from the bar industry takes a severe plunge, someones ass is gonna pay for it with their job.

"would of thought that logically the people who are for smoking bans in bars would also applaud the TABC for coming down on over drinking in bars, too. After all, we'd all be safer and healthier if people didn't drink in bars. But I guess not."

I would have thought by now that you couldn't possibly be retarded enough to continue with this bullshit analogy. But I guess not.

It's interesting how emotionally charged up people are about the smoking ban after all this time.

I don't follow Fox News myself, but you certainly won't find much coverage about second-hand smoke from Liberal media sites since smoking bans come from the Left. It's a political correctness issue.

I don't think there's much danger that the smoking ban will be lifted. Perhaps there will be some waivers issued at some point for the bars that have lost a lot of money, but that's the most smokers could hope for. I think the trend is for more restictive smoking bans so I would expect to see smoking banned at some point in Austin on sidewalks, parks, in cars, and eventually in apartments.

I would of thought that logically the people who are for smoking bans in bars would also applaud the TABC for coming down on over drinking in bars, too. After all, we'd all be safer and healthier if people didn't drink in bars. But I guess not.

By the way, I had a good time smoking and drinking Saturday night in a bar that flaunts the ban. :)

Spyglass,

I googled "junk science secondhand smoke." I love the fact that the first 2 links that come up are for Fox news. The next 2 are to the junk science website, which also debunks the "myth" of global warming.

When I google "secondhand smoke," I get links to the NIH and American Lung Association about the dangers of secondhand smoke. Maybe that's what you're referring to when you talk about what the anti-smokers are saying. But to me, those seem like more reliable sources your junk science site.

spyglass, you jackass, some of us look at a market where a small minority (smokers) can screw everything up for everybody and see a problem that needs to be addressed somehow. The market, itself, left to its own devices, didn't do shit to produce non-smoking airlines or restaurants, remember?

I don't like a full-out ban, either, since it's a very suboptimal heavy-handed intervention when a small one would have been more effective and less onerous, but I voted for it anyways precisely because of assholes like you.

hc,

You are right. I looked up what the anti-smokers say about second hand smoke and that proved that not everything you read on the internet is true.

Again, I voted for the smoking ban. I go to bars more often now because I like the fact that now when I go out I can breathe better (junk science or not - which I don't think it is - I really do feel lousy if I'm been inhaling second-hand smoke all night) and because my hair and clothes don't smell like smoke.

Also the point about drunks running into traffic and jumping off balconies - that only hurts themselves. To me, that's the equivalent of helmet laws. If you're stupid enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and crack your head open, that's your decision. Likewise, if you're dumb enough to jump off a balcony and walk into traffic when you're drunk, you're hurting yourself. Unless you land on someone or fly through the windshielf I guess...but still...being drunk itself is not an inherent threat to my health. Making me inhale secondhand smoke is. (Unless you believe that all the research that points to this is junk science and it that's your primary argument then I'm not even going to bother unless you can cite these sources. Just because you google junk science on the internet and come up with something doesn't mean it's true. Not everything on the internet is true.)

DJ, you misunderstand me, I am against smoking bans.

As for the facts on second-hand smoke, google "junk science second hand smoke" for some good info.

Miek, you will get no smoke in your lungs if you do not enter a bar where smoking is permitted. Just watch for the signs.

The simple solution to all this is to require establishments to hang out a sign, "Smoking Permitted" or "No Smoking." Then, responsible adults can make a decision and private property rights are not trampled on.

The government that governs least governs best.

My point was not to argue the smoking ban. It's too late for that, and will very likely become more restrictive in the future.

My point was the smoking ban and the TABC crackdown are part of a larger new Prohibition movement and that anybody that voted for the smoking ban helped out the Prohibitionists. Congratulations.

First off let me just say that Mr. Spyglass needs to STFU and I don't think I need to spell out the acronym. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to everyone that the same crowds that frequented the nightclubs before are the same crowds that frequent them now. Knowing this brings me to an even more alarming fact that as long as people are given authority to control the masses they will take away any and all rights that we enjoy on a daily basis anytime they find the slightest little fault in continuing to allow those same freedoms. it is total BS I agree. The Smoking ban in my opinion is far less of a public health concern than intoxicated drivers, and my reasoning for this opinion is simple if a nonsmoker does'nt want to be around cigarrette smoke they have the choice to either A.) Stay there and let there poor little lungs get polluted or B.) Go far enough away that it does'ntand keep their stupid opinions to themselves about those of us who do enjoy lighting up and god help the next person who asks me if I know how bad that it is for my health. I think the reason that nonsmokers get more cancer than the smokers, is because they're all a bunch of uptight prissy little pantywastes who take their lives far too seriously in the first place. Relax, we're all gonna die eventually theres no sense in worrying about it, after all nobody is guaranteed another minute on god's green earth so shut up and enjoy it while it lasts and don't bother the ones who would like to light up on the streets because if you bother me I might just make your life all the more shorter. As for Drunk people go, I cannot condone driving whilst being intoxicated and that is the bottom line. Therefore I think that harsher punishment of people who violate the IMPORTANT laws such as those who get DWI's should have to suffer stiffer punishments. How about a minimum of 90 day's in jail along with a twentyfive thousand dollar fine to boot? If you do the crime you should do the time. harsher punishments always have a way of making people see the bigger picture. I also think that we need more public awareness campaigns on this issue. How about showing the pictures of Accident victims on public infomercials to get the message out there? Have the people who commit the crime have to register their names they do that with Sex offenders why can't they do it with DWI's? What's worse people, the guy who has to register as a sex offnder because he molested a Woman at the night club? Or the guy who get's behind the wheel of a vehicle knowing he's drunk and runs over ten School children as they're getting off the bus because he was so drunk he passed out behind the wheel? Why is it that some people still think this is a more acceptable risk to keep letting these types of offenses go unscathed while other far less offenses are causing some to be crucified? Not everyone who get's in a drunk driving accident dies either what about the Beutiful young Woman who get's full thickness burns over three fourths of her body and lives with the scars forever? What about the Footbal star who ends up getting paralyzed from the neck down? I'm sorry but if TABC thinks it's necessary to violate the peoples rights in an attempt to make our roadways safer for everyone then I am all for it? At least till I'm the one being hauled off to jail for PI anyway. Then again the choice is completeley up to you all. If you don't want that to happen to you then stay at home I'm sure their will be plenty of clubowners shoving their hands down TABC's Throat with all kinds of accusations that they're the reason their businesses are going south if we just boycott the night clubs because of TABC's actions. I think that individual resonsibility takes hold in this situation because if you don't want to get busted it's your responsibility to make sure that you don't. If it means staying home so be it.

First off let me just say that Mr. Spyglass needs to STFU and I don't think I need to spell out the acronym. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to everyone that the same crowds that frequented the nightclubs before are the same crowds that frequent them now. Knowing this brings me to an even more alarming fact that as long as people are given authority to control the masses they will take away any and all rights that we enjoy on a daily basis anytime they find the slightest little fault in continuing to allow those same freedoms. it is total BS I agree. The Smoking ban in my opinion is far less of a public health concern than intoxicated drivers, and my reasoning for this opinion is simple if a nonsmoker does'nt want to be around cigarrette smoke they have the choice to either A.) Stay there and let there poor little lungs get polluted or B.) Go far enough away that it does'ntand keep their stupid opinions to themselves about those of us who do enjoy lighting up and god help the next person who asks me if I know how bad that it is for my health. I think the reason that nonsmokers get more cancer than the smokers, is because they're all a bunch of uptight prissy little pantywastes who take their lives far too seriously in the first place. Relax, we're all gonna die eventually theres no sense in worrying about it, after all nobody is guaranteed another minute on god's green earth so shut up and enjoy it while it lasts and don't bother the ones who would like to light up on the streets because if you bother me I might just make your life all the more shorter. As for Drunk people go, I cannot condone driving whilst being intoxicated and that is the bottom line. Therefore I think that harsher punishment of people who violate the IMPORTANT laws such as those who get DWI's should have to suffer stiffer punishments. How about a minimum of 90 day's in jail along with a twentyfive thousand dollar fine to boot? If you do the crime you should do the time. harsher punishments always have a way of making people see the bigger picture. I also think that we need more public awareness campaigns on this issue. How about showing the pictures of Accident victims on public infomercials to get the message out there? Have the people who commit the crime have to register their names they do that with Sex offenders why can't they do it with DWI's? What's worse people, the guy who has to register as a sex offnder because he molested a Woman at the night club? Or the guy who get's behind the wheel of a vehicle knowing he's drunk and runs over ten School children as they're getting off the bus because he was so drunk he passed out behind the wheel? Why is it that some people still think this is a more acceptable risk to keep letting these types of offenses go unscathed while other far less offenses are causing some to be crucified? Not everyone who get's in a drunk driving accident dies either what about the Beutiful young Woman who get's full thickness burns over three fourths of her body and lives with the scars forever? What about the Footbal star who ends up getting paralyzed from the neck down? I'm sorry but if TABC thinks it's necessary to violate the peoples rights in an attempt to make our roadways safer for everyone then I am all for it? At least till I'm the one being hauled off to jail for PI anyway. Then again the choice is completeley up to you all. If you don't want that to happen to you then stay at home I'm sure their will be plenty of clubowners shoving their hands down TABC's Throat with all kinds of accusations that they're the reason their businesses are going south if we just boycott the night clubs because of TABC's actions. I think that individual resonsibility takes hold in this situation because if you don't want to get busted it's your responsibility to make sure that you don't. If it means staying home so be it.

I see this as punishing people for something they haven't done yet. Protecting us, and others, from our possibly drunk selves by a literal meaning of the law, though by what criteria do they administer the law (I think this question was raised on austin.metblogs)?

And to open up another can of worms, let me just say, "Iraq." Our pre-emptive invasion there was to (massively simplifying) get them now so they can't get us later. It's the same prinicple, now being applied locally.

um, off topic much? i guess i get the connection between a public referendum about a smoking ban versus a government sponsored, yet private institution arresting people for drinking alcohol. no, wait, i don't. just so we're all clear about the difference: i'm not going to get put in jail for having some undercover agent's perception of one too many cigarettes. this whole thing is about the limits of policing personal behavior. not about what is or isn't allowed in a bar.

The difference between cigarettes and alcohol? Cigarettes---or any tobacco product---WHEN USED AS DIRECTED---are harmful to your health and the health of those sharing your air. Alcohol, when used as directed (e.g., in moderation, outside the operation of heavy machinery), is not harmful to you or others, ipso facto.

Yeah, yeah: I hear you arguing---What about the guy who has a beer and gropes a waitress/starts a fight/slips and breaks his neck? In the first two instances, let's be honest: It wasn't the alcohol he's a jerk who was looking for an excuse to be a jerk. And in the third example: Accidents happen.

Spyglass & Odam: Cite your sources on secondhand smoke.

spyglass,

No, you really aren't getting it. Me being drunk CAN make me do bad things, but often doesn't. You smoking ALWAYS puts smoke in the air. It's not because smoking is bad for YOU that we're restricting it; it's because you're smoking in everybody else's lungs.

And there's plenty of non-junk second-hand-smoke science. You're getting your data from some pretty screwed up places if you think it's all been debunked.

M1EK,

I think that you do not get it.

The anti-drinkers are coming up behind the anti-smokers. Drinking is bad for you, therefore we will restrict it. That is their line of thinking. The anti-smokers opened the door for them.

I read the other day that if the equivalent taxes were put on beer that are put on a pack of cigarettes, a six pack of beer would $18.

SG, i know, that is why i said this: (and to what extent is definitely debatable)

odam,

The secondhand smoke research is junk science.

Can it be annoying? Yes. But it's actually less harmful than wood smoke or BBQ smoke.

The neo-prohibitionists have taken what is essentially a moral issue and used junk science to justfy themselves.

spyglass, you're not getting it. Drunk people COULD do this, and COULD do that. People smoking inside ALWAYS put smoke in the air. Get it?

The one thing to remember is that even though the smoking ban passed I have yet to see all those non-smokers come out to the clubs. I still see the same people who always used to come out and now they have to stand outside to smoke when no one whos there really cares. Too bad the self rightoues don't follow through and keep up their end of the bargain.

well, i think the difference, obviously, is that smoking (which i do) immediately puts others health at risk (and to what extent is definitely debatable) and drinking (which i don't do any more but love) does not automatically put anyone else's health in immediate danger.

hc,

I quote from one of the news reports:

“There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they’re intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car,” Beck said. “People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss.”

You could get drunk in a bar and start a fight with me. Or sexually harrass a woman. Even a single drink impairs your judgement. There's no telling what a drinker might do when under the influence.

I'm playing devil's advocate here. My point is the same line of thinking that banned smoking in every Austin bar will lead to further restrictions on drinking in bars. It's all for the Public Health. What we are seeing is a kind of back-door Prohibition beginning. And you were a contributor to that back door Prohibition when you voted for the smoking ban rather than patronizing a bar that did not allow smoking.

Sandy Golden, a spokesperson for the Campaign for Alcohol-Free Kids, has said, “We’re 10 to 15 years behind the tobacco people, and we want to close the gap.”

Spyglass, I voted for the smoking ban but I think that arresting people for being drunk in a bar is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

In my opinion, the smoking ban is about "your right to swing your fist stops at my chin." Your secondhand smoke hurts my lungs. It also creates an unsafe workplace for employees by exposing them to long-term secondhand smoke.

Your public drunkeness, however, is no concern of mine. You can be as drunk as you want anywhere you want, as far as I'm concerned. Drunk people are not endangering the health or well-being of anyone except possibly themselves. However, once they get behind the wheel of a car when they're drunk, their drunkeness is a threat to others.

Spyglass, I voted for the smoking ban but I think that arresting people for being drunk in a bar is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

In my opinion, the smoking ban is about "your right to swing your fist stops at my chin." Your secondhand smoke hurts my lungs. It also creates an unsafe workplace for employees by exposing them to long-term secondhand smoke.

Your public drunkeness, however, is no concern of mine. You can be as drunk as you want anywhere you want, as far as I'm concerned. Drunk people are not endangering the health or well-being of anyone except possibly themselves. However, once they get behind the wheel of a car when they're drunk, their drunkeness is a threat to others.

As for bartenders being responsible - the bartenders at the hotel incident with the guests were arrested for serving them.

yea, apparently something went down at red fez, i think it was, as i was there months ago, last fall or so, and a friend of mine got told to leave after a 'bouncer' walking around the club saw him leaning against a booth. he was hardly wasted, maybe acouple of drinks in and just leaning. it was quite funny, however, that within 30 minutes ofl eaving the club he was completely impaired. one half of Muscle & Flow at work. anywho...the guy was really nice about it, although he could not explain what my firend did to warrant getting kicked out. the bouncer guy did explan though that somebody had died or been severley injured in a car accident after leaving the club recently and they were being watched by TABC and were being super-vigilant about anyone hwo might cross the line. of course that all faded away after about 3 weeks from what i understand. any of the way, all of this sounds pretty f*d to me. and if you want to catch drunk drivers and violate rights, just pull over anyone who pulls out of taco cabana or whataburger at 3am after they have had their stereo blasting. chances are...

or, as lisa said, have foot patrols keep an eye on wobblers as they go to their car. and if you are walking home drunk, the way i use to all the time, just let me be. i am not going to hurt anyone but maybe myself by falling, and if i do that then i deserve it. ah, i love sobriety. or seomthing.

These stings didn't just start. Several Austin bars that I know of have been hit. One back in September.

I wonder what the people who voted for the smoking ban think of this. After all, it's for the Public Health, too.

so what about people who drink in the privacy of a friend's home and then drive drunk? can tabc get warrants for private revelry? i think this thing is screaming "profiling." you know that they're going to target certain people for this shit. probably people who look like they can afford the fines and don't want to spend a night in jail. it's not like they're out there looking for potential rapists. since they don't have to quantify what you "might" do, they can pull aside anyone they want. bullshit.

oh, and according to a somewhat recent tabc law, a server/bartender IS responsible for their customer's state of drunkenness.

This is a toughie. My initial reaction is that it's wrong. You can't arrest people on the prediction that they might do something that could hurt themselves or others. That's the sort of slippery slope thinking that leads to arrests for reading a book about bombs. And, well, people who get drunk and then dive off balconies to their death: Thanks for removing yourself from the gene pool.

On the other hand . . . we do have and enforce certain laws specifically to prevent possible harm. Speeding comes to mind. In the moment of speeding, you aren't harming anyone. Most of us speed every day without causing any harm. But because speeding can cause harm to oneself or others, we've made it illegal and you can be stopped by the police for the act, without any actual harm being done.

I don't think holding bartenders/servers accountable is even feasible---they can't possibly track how much each person has had to drink and there are too many ways to get around that (e.g., alternating who buys rounds, ordering from different bartenders each time).

I really don't know what the solution is, though. Maybe more foot patrols in parking areas to stop people when it is apparent that they are about to get in the driver's seat?

Yeah, this pisses me off too! I plan ahead and know when I am going to be getting wasted, and that is when I take the bus downtown and catch the night owl home. Why can't I be drunk w/o the man trying to bum my flow? I'm a responsible citizen.

i think the quote was something like, "people still think that you are supposed to go to a bar to get drunk." hmmm... people do a lot of stupid shit when they're sober too, like arrest people for drinking in a BAR!

that makes me sick. i was trying to have a peaceful friday. damn it! stupid authority figures and pea brains.

You do realize that some of the people arrested for this were tourist staying in a hotel and drinking in their hotel bar. They obviously weren't going anywhere but to their rooms. When they told police that, apparently they were told "it doesn't matter, you're still breaking the law".