When I first heard that state legislators were debating a bill about banning consumption for bartenders, I thought the lawmakers were drunk.

The Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs talked about the measure, which was proposed by Josh Zepnick, a Milwaukee Democrat.

Now, bartenders are supposed to judge whether to "cut off" service to intoxicated customers. Because of this, they can play a role in reducing drunken driving accidents, which is an admirable goal.

But, do you think police should be barging into corner taverns to see if Jimmy the Bartender does a shot when the Packers score a touchdown? Should the cops spend their resources trying to catch drunk drivers or drunk bartenders?

I think it's a pretty easy choice.

Why should the state pass a law that is virtually unenforceable? (The 21 drinking age is tough enough -- just ask cops who work college campuses.)

If you've ever seen a bartender who was drunk, or even slightly impaired, you know that he or she probably isn't a very good bartender. Chances are, you got rotten service and will find another establishment to frequent.

It's up to the tavern owners to police their bartenders. And, it's up to bartenders to conduct themselves professionally and keep an eye on customers.

Most bartenders I know are too busy working to drink on the job. They save that for when they punch out. And, most bartenders I know are responsible drinkers and good tippers.

If lawmakers think that binge drinking and drunken driving are pressing issues in need of attention, that's OK. But, targeting bartenders and holding them to the standard of absolute sobriety seems a bit ridiculous.