I respect your right to your own opinion. But with that said, I would like to point out that I am FAR from being a "bleeding heart liberal". LOL I just believe that in some situations "responsibility" can rest on more than one person. And guess what? So does the law in many situations.
I will however state that I believe that not enough responsibility is given to those who deserve it. We are discussing peripheral "responsibility" yet in all honesty not enough consequences are given to those who are actually doing the drunk driving. The system is broken.
Your comment about believing that responsibility can rest on more than one person is your opinion and you are entitled to it ,but the bleeding heart lawmakers that insist on blaming the manufacturer or vendor for someones mis-use of a product is pure BS. The laws that conform to that theory are BS also and are the by-product of the aforementioned bleeding heart liberal lawmakers. In my opinion NO ONE should bear any responsibility for someone elses actions unless they are in a position of authority over that person and directed them to do something illegal or immoral.
The only reason we are having this discussion is because of bleeding heart liberals.
There was once a time when people accepted responsibility for what they did.
There was a time when it was not someone else fault when you made a choice.
There was a time if someone made a mistake they paid for the consequences.
Those times are long gone.
Since bleeding heart liberals don’t want people punished, and they get off scott free, then people have to look for someone else to blame, and in our legal system that is usually the person with the deepest pockets.
It takes a village of idiots to raise an idiot.
__________________
So , let me get this straight…..your Honda has 1.6 liters, whereas my bottle of Mountain Dew has 2?
Change…..it’s what is left after taxes.
- Shaken....Not Stirred 2003 Mach I Auto Torch Red - Sold
-1988 Ford Mustang GT Convertible, 331 Trick Flow Stroker with a Tremec 3550....oh yea and a 1.6 liter V-TECH motor to work the convertible top.
- 1966 Inline 6……..the pile of parts car!
The only reason we are having this discussion is because of bleeding heart liberals.
There was once a time when people accepted responsibility for what they did.
There was a time when it was not someone else fault when you made a choice.
There was a time if someone made a mistake they paid for the consequences.
Those times are long gone.
Since bleeding heart liberals don’t want people punished, and they get off scott free, then people have to look for someone else to blame, and in our legal system that is usually the person with the deepest pockets.
It takes a village of idiots to raise an idiot.
I agree with You whole heartedly.Everyone clearly responsible should shoulder their part of the responsibility.Btw,I like the part about village of idiots.Kinda like "In the land of the blind the one eyed man is King."
Should a bartender serve a cocktail to an obviously drunk person? Of course not. I do believe that it is fairly standard practice for many establishments to refuse to serve people when they appear intoxicated. But then this is just common sense. However, there are many people out there who handle alcohol in different ways. What are the determining factors here? I mean, there are plenty of people out there who could be well over the limit, but outwardly seem perfectly fine. On the other hand, there could be someone completely wasted off of one beer, but with a designated driver.
So where do we draw the line? We have to hold responsible the responsible parties.
I think the standard wording I've seen here in PA is "visibly intoxicated." And, in my experience, once I'm "visibly intoxicated" enough for a bartender to notice, and not serve me, I'm WAY past the point where I shouldn't be driving.
I think the "we won't serve alcohol to someone who is visibly intoxicated" is a good idea. I look at it as kind of a minimum due dilligence. However, I don't like the idea of holding the establishment legally responsible for what their customers do after they get loaded and leave.
I found an FAQ from the PA Liquor Control Board on "Visible Intoxication":
I really don't like the part about how "... If regardless of your best efforts the patron refuses the other options from you and insists on driving then it will be your responsibility to phone the police and document the incident." Granted, the above isn't legal code, just an FAQ.
I wonder which is more likely? Someone working for tips takes a lot of time to shut someone off, and talk them out of driving, and possibly have to call the cops? Or, they just turn a blind eye unless the drunk is causing a disturbance or passed out?
__________________
2005 Mustang GT in Torch Red
C&L Cold Air Intake/Diablosport Predator Tune
Tokico D-Spec Shocks & Struts
Steeda Sport Springs/Front and Rear Swaybar/Front Swaybar Brace/LCAs/Adjustable Panhard Bar and Brace
Steeda-branded Borla Stingers
Steeda Underdrive Pullies
1965 "GT" Logo and some other chrome bits
The only reason we are having this discussion is because of bleeding heart liberals.
There was once a time when people accepted responsibility for what they did.
There was a time when it was not someone else fault when you made a choice.
There was a time if someone made a mistake they paid for the consequences.
Those times are long gone.
Since bleeding heart liberals don’t want people punished, and they get off scott free, then people have to look for someone else to blame, and in our legal system that is usually the person with the deepest pockets.
It takes a village of idiots to raise an idiot.
I couldn't agree more!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bethelism
the whole reason that the drinking age is 21 is because you are supposed to be "responsible" and an "adult" at this age.
Actually, most states have the legal drinking age set at 21 because then the federal government gives them money for roads and highways.
As for being responsible at 21, I know some people who are in their 20's and they have the common sense of my 6 year old cousin. Just because somebody is 21 doesn't mean they have common sense, which is why there are more and more laws regulating everything because a lot of people are just plain stupid. The only bright side to the massive amount of stupidity is that it means I still have a job
__________________
2008 Grabber Orange GT premium, 5 speed manual, 3.31s
Diablosport Predator Tuner and Bamachips tunes (93 Race, Torque, and Preformance), Boom Tubes
Kooks LT headers and catted H pipe, Steeda UDPs, delete plates, UCAs, LCAs, and Panhard brace, all waiting on time to install them
Actually, most states have the legal drinking age set at 21 because then the federal government gives them money for roads and highways.
As for being responsible at 21, I know some people who are in their 20's and they have the common sense of my 6 year old cousin. Just because somebody is 21 doesn't mean they have common sense, which is why there are more and more laws regulating everything because a lot of people are just plain stupid. The only bright side to the massive amount of stupidity is that it means I still have a job
Ah, but why 21? The age used to be 18. Until is was proven that too many "adults" really weren't all that adult in their actions.
And I agree. Just because someone is 21, or 31 or even 41, it doesn't mean that they are automatically responsible and reeking with common sense. Age is hardly ever a factor when it comes to that.
__________________
Proud Driver of Sheila - 2005 Satin Silver GT Member of the Silver Mustang Registry SMR# 0518
Check out my profile for the latest mods..... All the work here is done by a broad!
No idea. For all we know it could just be a number picked out of a hat. Email your congressman/senator/reprosentative etc, maybe they can come up with an answer.
__________________
2008 Grabber Orange GT premium, 5 speed manual, 3.31s
Diablosport Predator Tuner and Bamachips tunes (93 Race, Torque, and Preformance), Boom Tubes
Kooks LT headers and catted H pipe, Steeda UDPs, delete plates, UCAs, LCAs, and Panhard brace, all waiting on time to install them
Personal accountability means nothing anymore. I see it everyday. I hear you people this, and you people that. Uh excuse me, I did not break the law. I did not make the poor decision.
__________________
Getting ready to love life again! Dreams do come true! __________________________________________________ 2006 Mustang GT
Most states had a drinking age at 21. During the Vietnam war the old “18 is old enough to die for your country they should be old enough to drink”. So many state (16 or more cant remember off the top of my head) lowered the drinking age to 18.
Cause and effect. 16-24 year olds who died in alcohol related crashes sky rocketed it brought about organizations like MADD and others organizations put pressure on the states, many states agreed to on their own but when Reagan made the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 all state followed it or lost a percentage of their high way funds.
Cause and effect. The 16-24 year olds who died in alcohol related crashes went down I would have to look it up but it was huge like a 60% drop. Now other groups drop also but in MUCH smaller quantities. So some of the drop could be contributed to safer cars and highways but the huge drop in the 16-24 is only explainable to the NMDAA.
As for why 21, they believe people were fully developed by 21, but now know the brain does not stop growing until the age of 25.
__________________
So , let me get this straight…..your Honda has 1.6 liters, whereas my bottle of Mountain Dew has 2?
Change…..it’s what is left after taxes.
- Shaken....Not Stirred 2003 Mach I Auto Torch Red - Sold
-1988 Ford Mustang GT Convertible, 331 Trick Flow Stroker with a Tremec 3550....oh yea and a 1.6 liter V-TECH motor to work the convertible top.
- 1966 Inline 6……..the pile of parts car!
People don't want to take responsibility anymore because the laws keep getting tighter and tighter. The punishments worse and worse (unless your a criminal). History is repeating itself, glad our family has a remote farm also. . .
Most states had a drinking age at 21. During the Vietnam war the old “18 is old enough to die for your country they should be old enough to drink”. So many state (16 or more cant remember off the top of my head) lowered the drinking age to 18.
Cause and effect. 16-24 year olds who died in alcohol related crashes sky rocketed it brought about organizations like MADD and others organizations put pressure on the states, many states agreed to on their own but when Reagan made the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 all state followed it or lost a percentage of their high way funds.
Cause and effect. The 16-24 year olds who died in alcohol related crashes went down I would have to look it up but it was huge like a 60% drop. Now other groups drop also but in MUCH smaller quantities. So some of the drop could be contributed to safer cars and highways but the huge drop in the 16-24 is only explainable to the NMDAA.
As for why 21, they believe people were fully developed by 21, but now know the brain does not stop growing until the age of 25.
Exactly. The drinking age is not just an arbitrary number imposed to punish those under that age. And the majority of folks in the Military that I now support the 21 drinking age and know there is not a direct relationship between picking up a gun and dieing for your country (under supervision of others) and the ability to pick up a drink and then have the affects which far too often follow it.
Now as you point out, the age at which it SHOULD be legal to drink can be debated. And for scientific reasons it would be justified (IMO) to raise it to mid 20's. But the statistics have shown that the raise from 18 to 21 has saved huge numbers of lives and injuries.
The arguments that people under 21 still drink are not valid arguments though either. Because there are people who are in their low to mid teens that drink too, so should be lower the legal drinking age to that as well?
There are those who also claim that lowering the legal drinking age will reduce "binge drinking" in colleges. This is pure hogwash. What it does is allow drinking to be LEGAL, and that will NOT reduce the consumption of alcohol. It will actually raise it, causing more problems.
__________________
- Sam
The shackles of opression and dependence are most easily slipped on with a smile and kind words of hope.
But with that said, I would like to point out that I am FAR from being a "bleeding heart liberal". LOL I just believe that in some situations "responsibility" can rest on more than one person. And guess what? So does the law in many situations. 
