[Colt 45]

Should the owners of the establishments, and or the people serving alcohol be responsible for related acc.?Or should the consumer be responsible?What do Ya'll think?

[05horse]

consumer.

end of story

its not up to the tender to decide when enough is enough

its profit not charity

[s&dqtrhrs]

Where do you draw the line...The bartender has the right to cut you off, You're supposed to be bright enough to Know your limits...society needs someone to blame...The consumer is the weapon..Who loaded it? Dosen't matter if you're at a party, tavern, or wedding..They're always going to go after the host...I try to party at home and be safe..If we have guests, and they plan on really partying, I get their keys...Have had no complaints....

[302Feen]

I used to work at a gas station. And we were told never to give alcohol to someone that you think is drunk.
One of our other stores sold beer to a minor (forgot to ID), the guy got drunk and was in a wreck and almost killed the innocent driver. The store was then charged as an "accessory to the crime".

In my opinion, the person doing the drinking makes the decision to drive or whatever. The person serving the alcohol is just doing their job... for the most part...

[shartley]

This is a tough call. I do think the bar has some responsibility though. How much would be the question. This is NOT the same as someone buying a 6 pack of beer at a store and then taking it outside, drinking it, and then driving away. The bar knows they are serving alcohol to someone. They then should be responsible for the reasonably known actions of that person.

If you give a loaded gun to a 12 year old and allow him to walk away with it, I believe you are partially responsible if he/she shoots someone. What else would they be doing with a loaded gun?

Same with driving. If you knowingly allow someone to drive away after you served them enough alcohol to be impaired, and they got into an accident, you should shoulder some of the blame if only financially at the least. And I believe that should apply to private settings as well. If you host a party and serve alcohol and let your guests drive home drunk, you should be partially responsible.

There are similar laws on the books concerning other crimes and not doing your part in preventing them, or in fact aiding in them. Drunk driving should be no different.

Think about it, if those who served you the alcohol were also punished for any accidents or even the driving of the vehicle illegally, then they would be more apt to NOT let you drive away.

Now if the person reasonably thought you were NOT going to drive away, and you did, then they are not responsible.

It is also why I love seeing police outside bars. They don't get them all, but they do get quite a few.

[Bethelism]

Seriously?

I mean, the whole reason that the drinking age is 21 is because you are supposed to be "responsible" and an "adult" at this age. Holding a bartender or store or party host(ess) responsible is ridiculous. Basically, by saying this, you don't hold the person taking action responsible, but someone else. You want your mommy and daddy to catch hell for you for the rest of your life?

If you can't monitor your drinking, or be adult enough to plan ahead for other transportation, then you just aren't old enough to be drinking.

Period.

[BlueStreak03]

Consumer is responsible for their actions 100%. To say that it's the hosts fault is like saying that it's Ford's fault everytime some innocent bystander gets killed by a 18 year old doing 120+ in his Mustang.

[shartley]

First of all let me start by saying this is a controversial question and has never had unanimous consensus ANY time I have seen it discussed. That does NOT however mean one side is right and the other is wrong. It just means there is a difference of opinion.

Originally Posted by Bethelism

Seriously?
I mean, the whole reason that the drinking age is 21 is because you are supposed to be "responsible" and an "adult" at this age. Holding a bartender or store or party host(ess) responsible is ridiculous. Basically, by saying this, you don't hold the person taking action responsible, but someone else. You want your mommy and daddy to catch hell for you for the rest of your life?

If you can't monitor your drinking, or be adult enough to plan ahead for other transportation, then you just aren't old enough to be drinking.

Period.

That is NOT what I am saying, nor said. So anyone reading this needs to go back and read what I ACTUALLY wrote. I was quite clear in what I thought and what I said.

I in NO way said that the person who drinks the alcohol has NO responsibility for their actions. I said that the person who knowingly lets them drive away after serving them alcohol to the level to impair their abilities (and thus is why it is ILLEGAL to drive while drunk) should be held to some level of responsibility. What the level is I am not sure, but I don't personally hold them "blameless" but a direct contributing factor for the crime committed.

Again, this does NOT take away any responsibility from the person who did the drinking and then who chose to drive away.

Originally Posted by BlueStreak03

Consumer is responsible for their actions 100%. To say that it's the hosts fault is like saying that it's Ford's fault everytime some innocent bystander gets killed by a 18 year old doing 120+ in his Mustang.

The real difficulty with that argument is that driving a Ford (if you have a valid driver's licence) is LEGAL. Driving a car while intoxicated is not. And there is no reasonable thought that an 18 year old (or anyone) will get into a car and drive 120MPH and kill someone. It IS a reasonable conclusion that if you serve alcohol to someone (and they are over the legal limit) and let them drive away they are breaking the law, and that their ability to drive will be impaired and can reasonably cause an accident.

Now if you know the 18 year old does not have a license and hand him over the keys to your car, and then he speeds and kills someone, you can be charged for your part in it.

To me it is about what is reasonably known by all involved. And in many situations those not actually doing the act can be charged with one thing or another. Heck, if you are involved in robbing a store and only drove the car, yet someone is shot, guess who also gets charged for that act if the person dies? Yup, you.

Again, this is a touchy subject to be sure. I know that I will NEVER let someone leave my house and drive home themselves if I know them to be unable to drive safely.... and that means if I know the are over the legal limit.

There are of course gray areas. Some times you can think someone is fine and they are not. But in the cases which spark this discussion it is CLEAR that the people are DRUNK and the Bar/Party did nothing to prevent the person from driving away.

Now if the person's vehicle is NOT on premises and the person WALKED into the bar and got drunk but then walked away... but THEN got into their car and drove off, that would be different. But then we would be getting into exact circumstances and each case would be different... which I think they ARE.

So I guess I am not saying any "additional" responsibility should be assigned by "default" but that in some cases it is warranted. And SMART bars/clubs will do what they can to insure that people do NOT drive away from their places drunk.

[tripleblack]

I come down on the side of Individual Liberty most all of the time.

But like many Liberties, this one involves more than just the individual.

In Libertarian THEORY, an individual of the proper age to drink (and this and any other requirements are left up to the state and local governments to determine) has the freedom to consume alcohol.

As a customer in a private establishment, his freedom to consume any such items is subordinated to the right of the OWNER of the establishment (it is, after all, his private property) to choose whether or not to SELL him alcohol. This is not a LEGAL concern (in my fictional Libertarian universe), but solely one left to the judgement of the individuals involved, ie, the owner or his agent, and the customer.

Of primary importance in such a universe is adherance to the LAW. There is a long history of state and local laws restricting the sale of alcohol. This can and does vary wildly from place to place - this is as it should be, according to the Constitution, which left such details to the locals and with NO idea of centralizing this governmental function in Washington DC.

It is both legitimate, logical and LEGAL for those local and state governments to decide that serving alcohol to under-age persons is a crime - and once a crime has been committed, OTHER legal problems in the civil courts often occur as well. To put a point on it, those who serve alcohol illegally open themselves up to all manner of criminal and civil prosecution and costs.

This is right and as it should be, imo.

Where the lines start to blur is when one leaves the provinces of Libertarianville, and re-enters our real universe. In this universe, things are very different.

In many places, laws have been placed on the books that greatly EXTEND the liability of those selling or serving alcohol. Not content with merely adhering to whatever laws regarding legal drinking age - operation of vehicles - legal definitions of "drunk", etc, these laws seek to subvert the concept of individual liberty - and the individual responsibilities which SHOULD always be tethered to that liberty.

Perhaps this is even logical - having destroyed the reality of individual liberty, it would follow that the attendant idea of the individual also being accountable for their own actions would be damaged.

Hence the idea of entering into lawsuits against parties who sell such things as alcohol, guns, cars, tobacco, fatty foods, hot coffee, etc.

In theory, ANYTHING can become dangerous to someone, somewhere, and some time, and via this logical loophole, ANYONE can be sued or jailed for selling even the most mundane of things.

But focusing solely upon alcohol again, it has become increasingly clear tha the majority in this country WANTS laws that protect them from themselves - WANT government to guard their safety even in the event when they do something they KNOW is either dangerous or potentially injurious to their health - WANT government to, in the event they are damaged by their own wanton stupidity, provide them with health care, support, and a court system with which to sue for damages, real or imagined.

Libertarian (or any other) ideology aside, the reality is that ANYONE engaging in trafficking (legal product notwithstanding) in alcohol is laying themselves open to these potential charges and civil actions.

It goes with the 21st century territory, and it is only getting worse as the years go by.

[Colt 45]

I don't think a bar could afford to stay open if they only served enough to each customer to keep him or her street legal,so to speak.I managed a 500 seat lounge in Myrtle Beach for 6 yrs. when I was younger,a lot younger.And I'll have to admit to selling way too much to way too many.But I also put a lot of people in cabs at my expense to get them to their destination safely.But it is a hell of a question ain't it?Who is to say that maybe you only served a patron 2 beers.He goes outside to his car and kills a pint of whiskey,drives off and wrecks.Puts the bar owner in a tight spot,don't you agree?Btw I don't drink at all,never.I would rather watch the show,than be the show.Have a good one.

[jim293]

I think that the consumer is. Know when to say enough.

[Bethelism]

Originally Posted by shartley

First of all let me start by saying this is a controversial question and has never had unanimous consensus ANY time I have seen it discussed. That does NOT however mean one side is right and the other is wrong. It just means there is a difference of opinion.

That is NOT what I am saying, nor said. So anyone reading this needs to go back and read what I ACTUALLY wrote. I was quite clear in what I thought and what I said.

I in NO way said that the person who drinks the alcohol has NO responsibility for their actions. I said that the person who knowingly lets them drive away after serving them alcohol to the level to impair their abilities (and thus is why it is ILLEGAL to drive while drunk) should be held to some level of responsibility. What the level is I am not sure, but I don't personally hold them "blameless" but a direct contributing factor for the crime committed.

Again, this does NOT take away any responsibility from the person who did the drinking and then who chose to drive away.



The real difficulty with that argument is that driving a Ford (if you have a valid driver's licence) is LEGAL. Driving a car while intoxicated is not. And there is no reasonable thought that an 18 year old (or anyone) will get into a car and drive 120MPH and kill someone. It IS a reasonable conclusion that if you serve alcohol to someone (and they are over the legal limit) and let them drive away they are breaking the law, and that their ability to drive will be impaired and can reasonably cause an accident.

Now if you know the 18 year old does not have a license and hand him over the keys to your car, and then he speeds and kills someone, you can be charged for your part in it.

To me it is about what is reasonably known by all involved. And in many situations those not actually doing the act can be charged with one thing or another. Heck, if you are involved in robbing a store and only drove the car, yet someone is shot, guess who also gets charged for that act if the person dies? Yup, you.

Again, this is a touchy subject to be sure. I know that I will NEVER let someone leave my house and drive home themselves if I know them to be unable to drive safely.... and that means if I know the are over the legal limit.

There are of course gray areas. Some times you can think someone is fine and they are not. But in the cases which spark this discussion it is CLEAR that the people are DRUNK and the Bar/Party did nothing to prevent the person from driving away.

Now if the person's vehicle is NOT on premises and the person WALKED into the bar and got drunk but then walked away... but THEN got into their car and drove off, that would be different. But then we would be getting into exact circumstances and each case would be different... which I think they ARE.

So I guess I am not saying any "additional" responsibility should be assigned by "default" but that in some cases it is warranted. And SMART bars/clubs will do what they can to insure that people do NOT drive away from their places drunk.

Ack! you misunderstand. I say "you" as a reference to the general populace, not as a particular reference to you, shartley. I simply state that we must make people responsible for their own actions, and by forcing blame, even if only partly, onto an only somewhat contributing party allows for gray area. 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.

[BlueStreak03]

Sam, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I see no valid argument anywhere that convinces me that a bar owner is responsible for the actions of another grown adult regardless of what the bar owner sold to him in a legal fashion. That end consumer should have the forethought and responsibility to get himself from the bar to point B on his own safely and without being a terror to those around him.

[snake 42]

Originally Posted by shartley

This is a tough call. I do think the bar has some responsibility though. How much would be the question. This is NOT the same as someone buying a 6 pack of beer at a store and then taking it outside, drinking it, and then driving away. The bar knows they are serving alcohol to someone. They then should be responsible for the reasonably known actions of that person.

If you give a loaded gun to a 12 year old and allow him to walk away with it, I believe you are partially responsible if he/she shoots someone. What else would they be doing with a loaded gun?

Same with driving. If you knowingly allow someone to drive away after you served them enough alcohol to be impaired, and they got into an accident, you should shoulder some of the blame if only financially at the least. And I believe that should apply to private settings as well. If you host a party and serve alcohol and let your guests drive home drunk, you should be partially responsible.

There are similar laws on the books concerning other crimes and not doing your part in preventing them, or in fact aiding in them. Drunk driving should be no different.

Think about it, if those who served you the alcohol were also punished for any accidents or even the driving of the vehicle illegally, then they would be more apt to NOT let you drive away.

Now if the person reasonably thought you were NOT going to drive away, and you did, then they are not responsible.

It is also why I love seeing police outside bars. They don't get them all, but they do get quite a few.

Here we go again. I don't believe that a vendor, be it bartender, clerk at a liquor store or whomever should be held responsible for the actions of a legal adult. Giving a loaded weapon to a child is not the same thing since the child may or may not realize the responsibility of having a loaded weapon. The bleeding heart liberals that want to blame everyone else for someones mistakes instead of holding he or she responsible are wrong, in my opinion. Accepting responsibility for your actions is the Hallmark of adulthood and should rest squarely on your own shoulders.

[shartley]

Originally Posted by snake 42

Here we go again. I don't believe that a vendor, be it bartender, clerk at a liquor store or whomever should be held responsible for the actions of a legal adult. Giving a loaded weapon to a child is not the same thing since the child may or may not realize the responsibility of having a loaded weapon. The bleeding heart liberals that want to blame everyone else for someones mistakes instead of holding he or she responsible are wrong, in my opinion. Accepting responsibility for your actions is the Hallmark of adulthood and should rest squarely on your own shoulders.

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.