Crimes Rate At Bars/Restaurants Drops as 51% Signs Come Down

[The Annoyed Man]

Actually, there is NO difference in driving or carrying. Both are the exact same rules, impaired or .08%.

This has been discussed in previous "drinking and carrying" threads, but the officer discretion to determine impairment bothers me a little bit. I will freely admit that I have carried to a restaurant, had a beer and gone home with no problems whatsoever.

But Keith is absolutely correct. You earlier said that the law allows you to drive with up to a .08 BAC, and that's wrong.

The pertinent section of the Texas Penal Code is PC §49; the definition of "intoxicated" is in PC §49.01(2):

"Intoxicated" means: (A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or (B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

If you check the Texas Government Code GC §411.171, you'll see that item 6 points to the same definition of "intoxicated" as used for any other purposes, be they charges of public intoxication, DUI, or anything else. If you need further clarification of what is and isn't considered a "drug," see the Health and Safety Code, Title 6, Subtitle C.

And in that last bit is the rub regarding the text. "Intoxicated" is not limited to alcohol. There's a big range of ingested or injected influencers that can cause impairment of mental or physical faculties.

If I were a legislator, I don't know how I would word PC §49.01(2) any differently. It sets an absolute alcohol limit at .08 BAC: if you are .08 BAC you are absolutely intoxicated.

But how do you legislate for the guy who chews a couple of Qualudes, snorts "bath salts," and gets behind the wheel to head down I-35 at 80 mph? His BAC is zero, but he's flying higher than an entire Japanese kite festival.

Or the guy who does a few lines of coke, and maybe a little crystal, but has just one beer before starting up his Escalade to cruise the "strip"? He'd have a tiny BAC percentage, but his pupils are as big as the custom rims on his Caddy and his resting heart rate is 130.

How could we otherwise word the law to allow LEOs to take those guys off the road? Or be able to charge them with illegal carry?

To me, the insane part was seeing someone on this board, a member in good standing at the time (and no, I don't remember who it was), argue that there should be NO penalty for driving while impaired/intoxicated so long as the impairment/intoxication does not result in a bad outcome for anybody; that penalties should only be assessed after an accident happens. His logic was along the lines of "he hasn't hurt anyone yet or damaged any property, why should he be penalized?" He was at odds with the prophylactic nature of laws against driving while impaired or intoxicated. I could only conclude that this individual must himself drive a lot of the time while impaired or intoxicated, and I would urge him to spend a year in an ER, putting shattered bodies back together.

I fully understand 74novaman's point, and I have been guilty of the same, although it's been a while as I rarely ever consume alcohol, even at home, but Skiprr's point is very valid. The law as written does account for other substances than alcohol, and in those instances, officer discretion is the only thing we have to go on.

[74novaman]

How could we otherwise word the law to allow LEOs to take those guys off the road? Or be able to charge them with illegal carry?

Valid point, and thanks for the lengthy explanation. I edited it down because its hard to read nothing but massive quote trees on a phone.

I think its honestly probably a non issue. As long as you're not being dumb, it won't be a problem.

Just one of those things that has about a .0001% chance of happening, but I'm afraid a perfect storm of unfortunate circumstances could turn into an expensive and bad situation. (Example, drink some wine at meal while carrying, make an illegal lane change or roll through a stop sign after leaving the restaurant. Get pulled over by a cop who firmly believes that no one should carry after a drink, so he determines you're intoxicated and its left up to the courts to decide if he's right or not.)

The chances of that happening are slim to none but as I said, it still worries me which is why 98% of the time if I am out and about, I won't get a beer with my burger.

I can't think of a good way to reword the law to make it more clear while still giving the officer some discretion to arrest the crazies either, so I guess we're stuck with what we've got.

[Valk]

We were taught at our CHL class (from 3 different instructors) that there was not a limit with alcohol .08 or otherwise. Meaning they just do not mix. There is not a safe level.

I don't have a problem with that formula.

[74novaman]

We were taught at our CHL class (from 3 different instructors) that there was not a limit with alcohol .08 or otherwise. Meaning they just do not mix. There is not a safe level.

I don't have a problem with that formula.

And that's a respectable personal choice to make.

I look at it this way: If I'm going out to drink (2 drinks or more) then I am not going to be carrying, period. However, 1 beer does not make me feel like superman, or get angry and want to start fights, or anything that might cause me trouble. If 1 beer leads someone to bad decisions/actions, then they need to make the adult choice to not drink and carry. 1 drink of anything is my personal limit that I am comfortable with.


There was a discussion of drinking and carrying on another site and I thought this valid point was raised:

"If you can't be trusted to carry after a drink, I'm not sure you can be trusted to carry before one either."

I know its a broad blanket statement and there are exceptions to every rule, but I tend to agree.

I've made my choices and drawn my own personal limits. In my opinion, its up to everyone else to do the same.

[longtooth]

We were taught at our CHL class (from 3 different instructors) that there was not a limit with alcohol .08 or otherwise. Meaning they just do not mix. There is not a safe level.

I don't have a problem with that formula.

And that's a respectable personal choice to make.

I look at it this way: If I'm going out to drink (2 drinks or more) then I am not going to be carrying, period. However, 1 beer does not make me feel like superman, or get angry and want to start fights, or anything that might cause me trouble. If 1 beer leads someone to bad decisions/actions, then they need to make the adult choice to not drink and carry. 1 drink of anything is my personal limit that I am comfortable with.


There was a discussion of drinking and carrying on another site and I thought this valid point was raised:

"If you can't be trusted to carry after a drink, I'm not sure you can be trusted to carry before one either."

I know its a broad blanket statement and there are exceptions to every rule, but I tend to agree.

I've made my choices and drawn my own personal limits. In my opinion, its up to everyone else to do the same.

These 2 statements are exactly what I teach in class.

[remington79]

In addition to getting rid of the prohibition at sporting events and the 30.06 signs they need to do away with the prohibition at polling places. Since I moved from Nacogdoches to Idaho all of the places that are off limits in Texas are allowed here. Even bars. There have been no issues and there has not been blood running in the streets. I see no reason why the designated driver shouldn't be able to carry. It doesn't affect me because I don't go to bars but its the principle.

[recaffeination]

In addition to getting rid of the prohibition at sporting events and the 30.06 signs they need to do away with the prohibition at polling places. Since I moved from Nacogdoches to Idaho all of the places that are off limits in Texas are allowed here. Even bars. There have been no issues and there has not been blood running in the streets. I see no reason why the designated driver shouldn't be able to carry. It doesn't affect me because I don't go to bars but its the principle.

If a Texas peace officer on vacation can carry some place, there's no legitimate reason a citizen with a Texas CHL can't carry there.




Anti gun hysteria and bigotry is not a legitimate reason.

[remington79]

I think CHL's, CWP's, or whatever a state may call them, they should be honored everywhere just like a DL. One just has to obey that particular state's laws. Imagine if a DL wasn't honored in a state and we had to load our vehicles on a rail car until we passed through. The hollering for change would be loud.

[Dragonfighter]

<SNIP> I could only conclude that this individual must himself drive a lot of the time while impaired or intoxicated, and I would urge him to spend a year in an ER, putting shattered bodies back together.<SNIP>

...or a few years scraping 'em up with a spatula to get to the ER in the first place. You are absolutely correct.