MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Well, at least he looks remorseful.
Time to ban bar hopping. Too dangerous. Deadly in fact. Think of the children.That would be very hard to do in Austin durring SXSW. Bars and clubs sell lots of beer and people bar hop. That is a Austin tradition.
View attachment 67163332
Home | SXSW 2014
Yes! We should require all cars to be registered, insured, and the driver must pass a reasonable test to obtain a license to operate them.
:lol: oh wait...
Time to ban bar hopping. Too dangerous. Deadly in fact. Think of the children.
Should. Makes traffic a bitch.There was no indication he even got drunk at SXSW. He allegedly stole that car in Kileen Tx. He could have got high on the way down to Austin.
How many people die each year at spring break in Fla? 2-3? Gonna ban spring break cuz drunks die or hit someone?
Well obviously. But you aren't suggesting they should be able to sit in their car in public, are you?!
There was no indication he even got drunk at SXSW. He allegedly stole that car in Kileen Tx. He could have got high on the way down to Austin.
How many people die each year at spring break in Fla? 2-3? Gonna ban spring break cuz drunks die or hit someone?
Sometimes I think no one, esp. conservatives, ever read my signature (the one in blue).
I know there are laws. I just don't think they are as effective as better education would be, because they target the symptom instead of the problem. Laws restricting how much bartenders can serve don't do anything to affect how much a person drinks at home, or in the parking lot, or at their neighbor's barbecue, etc. Brain damage, paralysis, families and lives destroyed, drunk driving - these are all problems that stem from alcohol abuse. Not bartenders who serve too much. Over-serving someone is a result of the abuse, not the cause. If the person weren't abusing in the first place, they wouldn't ask to be over-served. If someone abuses any other inanimate object, I don't ask who sold it to them, I ask what's wrong with them. So why should abusing alcohol beg the question "who served it to them?" instead of "what's wrong with them?"There are plenty of laws on the books prohibiting bartenders (bars) from over-serving regardless of whether they're driving. When you hear 2 people dead and 26 injured (at least a half-dozen seriously**), it begs the question: "Who served him the alcohol?" We are more likely to prosecute (at least civilly) a private home's owners than we are bartenders and their employers. There's nothing wrong with insisting on professional responsibility.
**Just think: brain damage; paralysis; whatever. Families and lives destroyed. If a bar, in the name of profit, ignorance or embarrassment served a guy well-past oblivion? I think they should also be held responsible.
I know there are laws. I just don't think they are as effective as better education would be, because they target the symptom instead of the problem. Laws restricting how much bartenders can serve don't do anything to affect how much a person drinks at home, or in the parking lot, or at their neighbor's barbecue, etc. Brain damage, paralysis, families and lives destroyed, drunk driving - these are all problems that stem from alcohol abuse. Not bartenders who serve too much. Over-serving someone is a result of the abuse, not the cause. If the person weren't abusing in the first place, they wouldn't ask to be over-served. If someone abuses any other inanimate object, I don't ask who sold it to them, I ask what's wrong with them. So why should abusing alcohol beg the question "who served it to them?" instead of "what's wrong with them?"
Actually, what I've been saying is, these kinds of laws don't target the problem, they target a symptom of the problem, and therefore they are probably going to be less effective than improved education would be. Too many people end up in AA/NA before they learn things that I think everyone should learn in high school.I don't disagree with much of what you said about the drunk. I disagree that, as a society, we have no responsibility not to exacerbate what a drunk does.
If I sell liquor to a minor (or serve it to him), and he kills someone, I'm going to at least be civilly responsible for the end result. Why? Because it's against the law to sell or serve liquor to a minor.
It's against the law to over-serve as well. If you're saying it shouldn't be, that's another argument. But, in every state, it is.
So many lives changed forever because of one drunk's reckless selfishness.
It's time for us to start using The Dram Act. Find out where that idiot got his booze and hold deep pockets accountable for tragedies like this. Nothing is going to change until we start going after the bars and restaurants who over-serve and then let someone walk out of their establishments with car keys.
What a tragedy.
It's not the bar nor restaurant's responsibility. You can sue the city who doesn't offer enough public transport, or artificially reduces the allowed number of cabs in an area too, or didn't have enough checks on DUI, etc. I mean, government has pretty deep pockets, yes?
This whole "sue till we can't do anything" thing actually ends up doing well more damage than good.
Well, we disagree. I think a bar that serves a person until they're blind drunk bears some responsibility. We have laws against it. Why do people object to enforcing them?
It's time for us to start using The Dram Act. Find out where that idiot got his booze and hold deep pockets accountable for tragedies like this. Nothing is going to change until we start going after the bars and restaurants who over-serve and then let someone walk out of their establishments with car keys.
What a tragedy.
Well, we disagree. I think a bar that serves a person until they're blind drunk bears some responsibility. We have laws against it. Why do people object to enforcing them?
Do you want gun makers held responsible for gun crime?
We aren't talking about holding the people who make liquor being held responsible. Poor analogy.