🚀 go-pugleaf

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.  That rule was created to appease the blameless society. 
It should never have been enacted.  How much you drink or what you do
after you drink it is not the reesponsibility of anyone but yourself.

  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.

  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?

Carter