🚀 go-pugleaf

"Gerry Carter" <gerrycarter@home.com> wrote in message
news:Wafr6.22878$p66.7967158@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
> "ZsaZsa" <reply@ng.org> wrote in message
> news:fwar6.21370$p66.7342285@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> >
> > "John Smith" <fatjohnny72@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:6Z5r6.217$q46.14964784@news1.tor.primus.ca...
> > >
> > > AlexF@cc1.bhc5.org wrote in message ...
> >
> > > >    If the customer had one too many, no.  But if the
> > > >bartender saw that the customer was clearly drunk out
> > > >of his mind, and yet served him another drink anyway,
> > > >just because he wanted to make an extra buck, then
> > > >yes, if I get hit by that drunk driver you can bet
> > > >I'm suing both the drunk and the bar.
> > >
> > > How absurd.  Bartenders shouldn't be under any obligation to define
and
> > > enforce consumption limits on their customers.  They sell a fully
legal
> > > product to people who request it and can stop requesting it at any
time.
> > > The consequences of this exchange rest with the buyer.  End of story.
> >
> > On the contrary, in Ontario people who serve booze, and those who sell
it
> in
> > retail establishments , are required to deny service to people who are
> > obviously drunk.  The license holder of an establishment can lose
his/her
> > liquor license for "permitting drunkeness", that is allowing drunks to
> > remain in said establishment.  This is as much to protect other patrons
> > and the public as the drunk.
>
> By the time someone is obviously drunk, they are already to drunk to drive
> etc.  How does allowing them to get more drunk remove from them the
personal
> responsibility for their own inebriation?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.