quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 How i would fix this: Make the drunk driving law ZERO tolerance meaning no alcohol allowed in your system. Then remove 3rd party blame completely. How does this work? The moment an individual has ONE drink, they know it is illegal for them to drive. They are still within sound judgement to make other arrangements. If they decide to continue to drink or decide to drive at all, there is no doubt that they and they alone are responsible for making that choice the moment they took the first sip of liquor. Lets get back to a society where like the ads in the 70s and 80s used to say "You are your own liquor control board". Can you imagine that message ever being conveyed in Ontario? It wasnt that long ago!!

Once again, Jay, you do realize that these charges have nothing to do with whether or not the "overly refreshed" person drives, right?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Orko If I think the law is wrong, as I do in this case, then yes.

So places that serve alcohol shouldn't have to be held accountable for their actions?

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Do you honestly believe that licensed establishments should have no obligation to monitor the consumption and intoxication levels of their patrons?

Yes. Adults are responsible for their own consumption and their own actions. If there are any laws it should be that bars are obligated to call a taxi or make a phone available upon request (but not pay for the taxi) etc etc. But it should not be liable for what you do.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I gave this some more thought and think the club is liable. Not because the kids drove - the law is about intoxication, not driving while intoxicated. There is no way anyone can think that after 31 or 35 or whatever drinks for 4 people, that no one is intoxicated. Moreover, I expect that the small atmosphere of the bar is going to mean that the club was likely able or should have been expected to keep an eye on the people that were drinking.

Additionally, I'm pretty certain the OPP would not have levied charges if they did not have multiple witnesses that would testify the patrons were visibly intoxicated.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced

\

lol I thought this was Jamie with a new avatar
he'll be proud of you!

/hijack

___________________
Just surrender yourself to the rhythm,
With your hands up in the sky,
Feel the energy deep inside your system
And leave this world behind...

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Do you honestly believe that licensed establishments should have no obligation to monitor the consumption and intoxication levels of their patrons?

Well that is exactly it. At what point is somebody intoxicated and at what point do you stop serving them? I just think the law is too open for this sort of abuse, and wrongful accusation.

What about a bar downtown at last call? Are they going to start rejecting people all over the place because they are drunk, and might do something stupid?

These young guys could have easily got ass loaded, and then gone and soaked in the sun beside the pool all afternoon, considering it was a resort. How were the staff supposed to know they were going to go driving home right after? Sure if they saw them drink like fish, then somebody from the bar actually SEES them try to drive off, they should try and stop them, that is just a moral obligation.

quote:

Originally posted by FunkyCrew \ lol I thought this was Jamie with a new avatar he'll be proud of you! /hijack

lmao

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Once again, Jay, you do realize that these charges have nothing to do with whether or not the "overly refreshed" person drives, right?

They do and they dont. The law says you cant serve intoxicated people. Which in itself is a farce. The whole idea behind it is to parent both patron and establishment to "Prevent" them from behaving stupidly including drunk driving.

In reality i have watched the AGCO in action. They use it to intimidate establishments that are on a political hitlist. There is also no obligation on the part of the AGCO to prove that they were drunk. All they have to do is point to any patron and declare that they are drunk and you get charged. They dont even have to ask his name or take his blood alcohol. Its all about control and politics.

Here we go with the conspiracy theories

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I gave this some more thought and think the club is liable. Not because the kids drove - the law is about intoxication, not driving while intoxicated. There is no way anyone can think that after 31 or 35 or whatever drinks for 4 people, that no one is intoxicated. Moreover, I expect that the small atmosphere of the bar is going to mean that the club was likely able or should have been expected to keep an eye on the people that were drinking.

How strong were the drinks? Over how many hours were the drinks dispensed, and how much food they eat prior, and during the event? How big were the people? So many factors.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Yes. Adults are responsible for their own consumption and their own actions. If there are any laws it should be that bars are obligated to call a taxi or make a phone available upon request (but not pay for the taxi) etc etc. But it should not be liable for what you do.

Sorry Jay but I have to disagree with you on this one. As the proprietor of a tavern you are selling a controlled substance, a potentially dangerous substance, and inviting people onto your property to consume that substance. That creates a duty of care to ensure the safety of all persons you invited into your establishment, which in-turn necessitates monitoring and controlling the consumption of the controlled substance. I would argue that the vast majority of North Americans agree with me as I cannot think of a single North American jurisdiction where there is not some regulation on the consumption of alcohol in a licensed establishment.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Orko What about a bar downtown at last call? Are they going to start rejecting people all over the place because they are drunk, and might do something stupid?

Simple answer....yes. The bartender has the right to refuse service to anyone that looks to be intoxicated. IMO, the laws are not strict enough on these establishments. I remember in university, coming home from many a bar with black Xs on my hands to show that I was no longer to be served alcohol.

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48