January 7, Washington Post, on the topic of the Fairfax County, VA police arresting people for being intoxicated in public with fairly flimsy probable cause:

Katherine K. Hanley (D), chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, said the operation was a tool to reduce drunken driving and would be evaluated before it is repeated.

The same woman, January 16, also in the Washington Post, speaking about the same issue:

Katherine K. Hanley (D), chairman of the Board of Supervisors, said she had “serious concerns” about a tactic that has won little community support. Hanley said the sting was unlikely to be repeated.

The police, of course, are unrepentant:

Asked where one could get drunk, [Police Chief J. Thomas Manger] replied, “At home. Or at someone else’s home, and stay there till you’re not drunk.”

So all of that stuff about designated drivers that the police and MADD & Co. have been telling us for years? Never mind. They were mistaken. (Which begs the question: why should we give a damn what these clowns tell us now?)

Instead, we’re being told to drink at home, at least until they decide to ban that. We all know that sitting around drinking at home is healthy behavior.

Anything as long as our delicate sensibilities are not disturbed by what the Virginia ABC gives as telltale signs of the drunk:

• Difficulty in lighting a cigarette

• Person is overly loud or friendly

• Person is overly quiet and subdued

Because we wouldn’t want people to be too friendly, or too loud or too quiet. Given the recent jihad against smoking, though, one would think that “difficulty in lighting a cigarette” would be cited by the Surgeon General as a beneficial effect of drunkenness.

But, in Virginia, there are no beneficial effects of drunkenness, except for the incredible pile of money the state collects from taxing beer and wine, and from selling hard liquor itself. (In Virginia, all hard liquor must be purchased from state liquor stores or from distributors who must purchase their stocks from the state. In fiscal year 2002, the state raked in over $189 million in revenue, invluding over $46 million in profits from its liquor-sales operation. Almost 4% of the state’s revenue comes from taxes on and sales of alcoholic beverages.)