🚀 go-pugleaf

ZsaZsa wrote:
> 
> "Carter Lee" <crlee@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3AAD6598.8533CCF6@ns.sympatico.ca...
> > ZsaZsa wrote:
> > > "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.
> >
> > Cut the crap.
> 
> Touchy, touchy.  Are you a drunk Carter.

No why do you ask?
> 
> >That rule was created to appease the blameless society.
> 
> Well, no.  It has always been there. Created to appease blue-blooded
> Presbyterian WASPS in old Ontario.

Whatever.  That doesn't make it any better, it is simply a lousy law.
> 
> > It should never have been enacted.  How much you drink or what you do
> > after you drink it is not the responsibility of anyone but yourself.
> 
> That is why there are no rules about getting as drunk as you want in your
> own dwelling or other non-public place.

What has that got to do with this particular law?  Drunkenness in a
public place is an offence in most jurisdictions and nobody but the
drunk is held accountable for his condition.
> >
> >   The license holder of an establishment can lose his/her
> > > liquor license for "permitting drunkeness", that is allowing drunks to
> > > remain in said establishment.
> >
> > So a bartender in Sudbury should toss a drunk out in sub zero weather so
> > he can freeze to death?  That is about the most archaic law left in
> > Canadian jurisprudence.
> 
> What are you saying?  That bartenders in Sudbury should let drunks stay
> after closing time if it's cold outside?

No if that is what I wanted to say that is what I would have said.  What
I said was a question, answer it.
> 
> >   This is as much to protect other patrons and
> > > the public as the drunk.
> >
> > Protect the other patrons from what?  Protect the drunk from what?
> 
> Do you support public drunkeness Carter?

Of course not don't be daft.  I also do not support making anyone but
the drunk responsible or accountable for his drunkenness.  That what
this thread is about.

Carter