March 27, 2006 - Here is yet another example of how law enforcement successfully avoids fighting real crime and, instead, going for the easy catch to pad their stats. [Link]

A bar is not a public place. They are privately owned. Plus, any place that sets a rule for admission (like a minimum age) should be considered private, not public, as it is not open to everybody.

What I don't get is that it doesn't seem to be that any of the officers who are ever asked to force people to prove their innocence (like at random checkpoints for "compliance") question the law. After all, I would think that they are American citizens first and cops second. When is an officer going to stand up and say "I refuse to do this, this is not what the law intends nor what our Founding Fathers envisioned?" Safety is important but law enforcement should protect us from criminals before they try to protect us from ourselves. I guess it's hard to catch real criminals so they go after petty offenses to harass the mistakenly guilty.

All states have now redefined what they consider drunk. What they do is lower the BAC then complain that DUI is still a major problem. If they raise BAC then the number of DUI's goes down. Clearly, special interest groups are well aware of the lack of math skills a majority of people have and have worked that into their playbook.

Soon, cops will be cruising through suburban neighborhoods and looking for an unusually large number of cars parked near someone's house - indicating a party - and randomly checking to make sure everyone drinking is 1) at least of age and 2) not driving. Don't laugh.

Is this Texas law yet another step towards prohibition?