🚀 go-pugleaf

"ZsaZsa" <reply@ng.org> wrote in message
news:2_vr6.29805$p66.9645934@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> "G. B." <gregp@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:gfvr6.15951$tr5.1863990@news1.telusplanet.net...
> > "ZsaZsa" <reply@ng.org> wrote:
> > > "Gerry Carter" <gerrycarter@home.com> wrote:
> > > > "ZsaZsa" <reply@ng.org> wrote in message
> > > > > "John Smith" <fatjohnny72@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > It's very simple. It's about not passing the blame to someone else.
> Someone
> > has to take responsibility for our actions, and in most cases the best
> > person to take the blame is yourself.
>
> Oh, OK.  I was just taking issue with the fact that the  previous poster
had
> said something about a bartender selling a fully legal product.  Alcohol
is
> not "fully legal"  it's is conditionally legal.  Bartenders know that they
> aren't allowed to serve drunks, just as they know they are not allowed to
> serve underage people.
>
> > I recognize that it has become popular to pass-off the blame for one's
own
> > behavior on someone else, but if everyone passes the buck, the problem
> never
> > get addressed.  If you choose to get drunk and drive, no one should
really
> > take the blame for the consequences but yourself, otherwise it gives
> license
> > to bad behavior, based on the fact than no one else stopped you.
>
> If someone sold a gun to someone who was not legally allowed to have one,
> are they partly responsible if they buyer uses it to kill someone?
>
Now I'm the one who fails to understand. Are we small children? Can we not
make adult decisions? If you choose to buy a gun from a shady character, and
hurt someone, why aren't you responsible?  You really should examine this
impulse to offload blame wherever possible.