TABC Shots: Anti-Terrorism, Anti-Competition and Anti-Alcohol Apologists

It\'s mother-fucking booze timeFrom our favorite pre-emptive arrest agency comes some interesting revelations related to their funding. From an email forwarded by HoT pal First Last comes this news:

Our Homeland Security Department is not related to the federal Department of Homeland Security. Our agency was given funding in the 2003 Legislative Session to create a Homeland Security Division so that we could devote additional personnel to investigate applicants for alcoholic beverage permits (something we were already doing). Whenever someone applies for a permit to sell alcoholic beverages, we are tasked with ensuring that they meet the legal requirements including criminal history and legal residency requirements. We also ensure that the money used to fund the business is legally acquired. There are laws specifically prohibiting the distributing and manufacturing tiers from funding any retail establishments. I hope this answers your question, but if not, please let me know.

Carolyn Beck
Public Information Officer
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
www.tabc.state.tx.us
512-206-3347

Because as I’m sure you know… Al Qaida was most definitely eyeing Texas for opening their own muslim brewpub. Jihadi Ale or Bin Laden Lager anyone?

And speaking of brewpubs, I did some research into the dumb licensing restrictions for such establishments and it seems they are designed in such a manner that explicitly kills any kind of competitive growth (funded by terrorism dollars too, natch). From the TABC code (rev. Sept 2005):

CHAPTER 74. BREWPUB LICENSE

Sec. 74.01. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.
[…] (d) The holder of a brewpub license may not hold or have an interest either directly or indirectly, or through a subsidiary, affiliate, agent, employee, officer, director, or other person, in a manufacturer’s or distributor’s license or any other license or permit in the manufacturing or wholesaling levels of the alcoholic beverage industry regardless of the specific names given to permits or licenses in Title 3 of this code. The holder shall be considered a “retailer” for purposes of Section 102.01 of this code.

So you like that local pub who’s making their own lager on site? Well guess what, TABC won’t let them sell their brew in the grocery store next to Miller and Budweiser.

And in even more Texas-sized kick-in-the-nuts news comes one legislator’s proud endorsement of the program (from Instapundit):

Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, was instrumental in getting the increased staffing, as a member of both the powerful Senate Finance Committee and the Criminal Justice Committee, which oversees the alcohol commission.

Although he agreed hearings are merited, he defended the principle of in-bar citations.

“Even though a public drunk is not planning on driving, that could change in an instant,” he said. “There is certainly potential danger.”

To which Reynolds aptly responds:

Even though a Senator is not planning on taking bribes from the underage-goat-sex lobby, that could change in an instant. Best we lock them all up now.

[image from Married To The Sea internet t-shirt store]

12 Comments
  1. Because as I’m sure you know… Al Qaida was most definitely eyeing Texas for opening their own muslim brewpub. Jihadi Ale or Bin Laden Lager anyone?

    Is this Muslim Brewpub to be located next to Prophet Muhammad Pork BB?

    Even though a Senator is not planning on taking bribes from the underage-goat-sex lobby, that could change in an instant. Best we lock them all up now.

    Speaking on behalf of the goats-of-age-sex lobby, I couldn’t agree more.

  2. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. One thing is an agency and actions tht don’t pass the BS test, but what is real sad is when politicians, not wanting to look like the morons they ocassionally are, go out of their way to justify insanity.

    Frank

  3. “There is certainly potential–”

    [Sound of thermonuclear devices obliterating all life on Earth]

    And what, I wonder, are the odds that one of these drunks does something GOOD whilst not being in jail for alcohol consumption? I suppose the government will have to form a new department that calculates these sorts of probabilities. Then they can preempt the murder that is probably definitely going to occur the next time I hear the phrase “certainly potential” uttered in earnest.

  4. From the 4/1/06 Austin American-Statesman:

    LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
    I don’t understand the outcry and criticism against the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Drunken drivers kill thousands of people annually in our nation, and getting drunks off the street is better than charging them with vehicular homicide of our loved ones.

    A long time ago, and for a relatively short period of time, I did my share of bar socializing.

    The arrests and citations issued are legal. I think TABC is failing to articulate, or maybe I should say educate, the public on the law and the outrageous slaughter on our highways by drunken drivers. Everyday the media remind us of the death of our brave soldiers in Iraq, as they should. It is tragic and for the nation a sad thing indeed. Maybe the media should also print, on a daily basis, the annual year-to-date drunken driving fatalities?

    JOE PELKINGTON

    [email protected]
    Georgetown

  5. I posted the above LETTER TO THE EDITOR to point out the typical MADD brainwash that our society accepts as truth.

    Using their stats from 2004, a Texan has a 1 in 13,697 chance of being in a fatal DWI accident. If we further discount the fact that many of these deaths are drunks killing themselves and no one else, that would put the odds closer to 1 in 20,000+ that an innocent victim will be killed by a drunk driver. That is a .00005 chance, or somewhere near the likelihood of SMU winning five consecutive NCAA Football Championships.

    Call me cold but the public “fear” of the DWI “danger” is completely out-of-whack and I, for one, will eagerly accept the .00005 chance of death over supporting a police state that preemptively arrests its citizens; many of whom aren’t even driving.

  6. I posted the above LETTER TO THE EDITOR to point out the typical MADD brainwash that our society accepts as truth.

    Using their stats from 2004, a Texan has a 1 in 13,697 chance of being in a fatal DWI accident. If we further discount the fact that many of these deaths are drunks killing themselves and no one else, that would put the odds closer to 1 in 20,000+ that an innocent victim will be killed by a drunk driver. That is a .00005 chance, or somewhere near the likelihood of SMU winning five consecutive NCAA Football Championships.

    Call me cold but the public “fear” of the DWI “danger” is completely out-of-whack and I, for one, will accept the .00005 chance of death for myself and my family over supporting a police state that preemptively arrests its citizens; many of whom aren’t even driving.

  7. The above LETTER TO THE EDITOR to points out the typical MADD brainwash that our society accepts as truth.

    Using their stats from 2004, a Texan has a 1 in 13,697 chance of being in a fatal DWI accident. If we further discount the fact that many of these deaths are drunks killing themselves and no one else, that would put the odds closer to 1 in 20,000+ that an innocent victim will be killed by a drunk driver. That is a .00005 chance, or somewhere near the likelihood of SMU winning five consecutive NCAA Football Championships.

    Call me cold but the public “fear” of the DWI “danger” is completely out-of-whack and I, for one, will eagerly accept the chance of death over supporting a police state that preemptively arrests its citizens; many of whom aren’t even driving.

  8. BoozeFlash:

    I saw the site and we may indeed have a problem of underage drinking. How does this relate to arresting people in bars? In Texas, one has to be at least 21-years-old to drink in a bar so I don’t see the logic.

    If you are further contending that a fatal DWI is a true “danger” in our society, I still disagree.

    In TEXAS 2004:

    22,490,022 Population

    85,000 New Cancer Cases (1 in 265)

    4,802 New HIV Cases (1 in 4,683)

    1,642 DWI Fatalities (1 in 13,697)

    If we are truly worried about our society, should we not be pooling our resources to combat the biggest killer, saving the most lives in the process? DWI is nowhere near the danger that MADD would like us to believe and, although it is sad people die, the chances of it happening to an innocent victim are slim to the point of insignificance.

%d bloggers like this: