RW>This happens weekend in a college town.  They have to
  >look at the drunk and think; "Does he need to be
  >arrested and maybe ruin his life or does he just need
  >to be told to go with his buddies and sleep it off."
If he's operating a motor vehicle, for public safety and HIS safety,
he gets arrested and goes through the program in hopes of straightening
him out and preventing an unneccessary death(s) or injury(s).  I don't
want discretion in that area.
RW>Now there were probably a couple of dozen of public
  >drunk (illegal) people disturbing the peace (illegal)
  >there but no one was arrested, no one was even
  >questioned.  Was this good law enforcement?
  >Technically it wasn't because a LEO was 'over looking'
  >a crime, but using common sense it was.  Peace was
  >restored and everyone was happy.  The drunks got to
  >have their food, I kept the place in one piece, the
  >company made money and the cop didn't have to taken off
  >the streets for ever how long it would have taken to do
  >everything that has to be done after an arrest.
I could go along with your theory except where those drunks were
about to operate motor vehicles.
RW>Now if the town had passed a ZT law they would have HAD
  >to arrest them or face disciplinary action.
And if the town had invoked ZT in a particular area it would probably 
be because it was a problem area that needed to be cleaned up.
CHARLES HUNTER
 * 1st 2.00 #9124 * Never blame the rainbows for the rain.
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0671
---------------