Possible New Liquor Law

[AC2717]

Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind this proposed law?

More like "Live Free and Dry" state motto now
this is turning into somethign terrible up here in Good Ole New Hampshire

[twoplustwo]

David Goodhue - AHN Reporter
Miami, FL (AHN) - New Hampshire's top liquor enforcement chief is denying he ever really considered proposing the state pass a law prohibiting bartenders from serving customers more than one drink an hour.

Eddie Edwards said the rumor got out of hand after the topic was brought up hypothetically in discussions with restaurant owners about serving over-intoxicated people.

"It's completely fabricated, a complete distortion of the truth," Edwards told WMUR Channel 9 News in New Hampshire. "The liquor commission has not sanctioned, sponsored or endorsed any law that would mandate a one-drink-an-hour service. It's unenforceable."

Several media outlets in the state and blogs nationwide have reported that the state's liquor commission was considering a one-drink-an-hour law as a way to cut down on intoxication and drunk driving.

Edwards also said that 98 percent of restaurants and bars in the state comply with rules about serving people who've had too much to drink.

[jeffk]

There was a recent incident in NH where a person got into an accident and the bartender who was serving him was charged with over serving. There was a discussion, I can't remember if it was formally proposed, that the liquor law should be changed so that bartenders would only be responsible for behavior in their bar. That is, if a guy had 5 drinks somewhere else and the last bar only served him 2 over the last hour and he wasn't obviously intoxicated the last bartender would be off the hook. It's often a guessing game to figure out how drunk a customer really is. Also, people's alcohol tolerance can vary wildly from person to person so that one drink might be too much for some and seven just fine for someone else.

In response to this suggestion other proposals, like one an hour, started popping up. Of course the press reports all this chit chat like it was being taken seriously.

The problem, IMHO, is that they are trying to tweak the current law to make it work but the law proceeds from a seriously broken premise; that someone else is to blame for the person's inebriated condition.

People are responsible for their own behavior. The current law tries to pass the buck to the bartender.

-Everyone knows drinking alcohol affects judgment and physical reactions.
-Everyone knows drinking and driving is illegal.
-Designated drivers, take a cab campaigns, and friends don't let friends drive drunk ads have been around forever. Many bars are the strongest advocates of these campaigns.

At this point there is no excuse for drinking to excess and getting into legal trouble. If you walk into a bar, ask for a drink, and pay for it you have executed three acts of intention to get your drink. People who do so to excess should be held personally accountable. Many people drink responsibly, either limiting themselves to one or two drinks or not driving when drinking more. Punish the law breakers, not the people who follow the law while enjoying themselves.

Unless the bartender tied the guy down and poured the booze down his throat or the guy was so far gone that he had to crawl into the bar the bartender should be left alone.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by jeffk

There was a recent incident in NH where a person got into an accident and the bartender who was serving him was charged with over serving. There was a discussion, I can't remember if it was formally proposed, that the liquor law should be changed so that bartenders would only be responsible for behavior in their bar. That is, if a guy had 5 drinks somewhere else and the last bar only served him 2 over the last hour and he wasn't obviously intoxicated the last bartender would be off the hook. It's often a guessing game to figure out how drunk a customer really is. Also, people's alcohol tolerance can vary wildly from person to person so that one drink might be too much for some and seven just fine for someone else.

In response to this suggestion other proposals, like one an hour, started popping up. Of course the press reports all this chit chat like it was being taken seriously.

The problem, IMHO, is that they are trying to tweak the current law to make it work but the law proceeds from a seriously broken premise; that someone else is to blame for the person's inebriated condition.

People are responsible for their own behavior. The current law tries to pass the buck to the bartender.

-Everyone knows drinking alcohol affects judgment and physical reactions.
-Everyone knows drinking and driving is illegal.
-Designated drivers, take a cab campaigns, and friends don't let friends drive drunk ads have been around forever. Many bars are the strongest advocates of these campaigns.

At this point there is no excuse for drinking to excess and getting into legal trouble. If you walk into a bar, ask for a drink, and pay for it you have executed three acts of intention to get your drink. People who do so to excess should be held personally accountable. Many people drink responsibly, either limiting themselves to one or two drinks or not driving when drinking more. Punish the law breakers, not the people who follow the law while enjoying themselves.

Unless the bartender tied the guy down and poured the booze down his throat or the guy was so far gone that he had to crawl into the bar the bartender should be left alone.

Well said Jeff....I've never been a fan of people placing blame on the server.
I seem to remember something about the widow of the gentleman who fell off the Mount (years ago, on the Halloween cruise) wanting to bring a suit against the bartenders. She should maybe place the blame on herself for not shutting her husband down...anyway....

Now, this deal about one drink an hour??!! This would indeed be a problem...for me anyway. Glad it was just a rumor. One drink an hour??? Yikes!!!!

[ishoot308]

Unfortunately we have become a society of blame. No one takes responsibility for their own actions and blame is placed on everyone else for their own irresponsibility. Our court system and elected officials are allowing this to happen!

How about this for a new law... If your drunk and you drive, you go to jail plain and simple! No blaming the restaurant or bar that served you. Now wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air!

Dan

[SAMIAM]

Anyone who is used to drinking can easily consume 4 or 5 beers and then walk into a bar while appearing sober.A few drinks later,he may show the effects......the bartender isn't God....all he knows is the guy had two drinks and seems fine.A couple of drinks later,he's over the limit even though he was served a reasonable 4 drinks over a couple of hours.
It's very unfair to blame the bartender unless it can be proved that the guy was just staggering drunk and was knowingly served.

[kjbathe]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

How about this for a new law... If your drunk and you drive, you go to jail plain and simple! No blaming the restaurant or bar that served you. Now wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air!

AMEN!!!

When you get/renew your license, you should be presented with that simple law and your signature should also indicate your understanding of it. I don't care how much people drink, but there should be zero tolerance -- ZERO! -- for driving drunk.

[farechofisherman]

Samiam; i completely agree with you that the business should not be held liable for these situations, to think that is just absurd. About thirty years ago i was a police officer in a lakes region police department. We had many dwi situations, one night a 45 year old women who ran a red light was stopped and found to have alchohol on her breath. Her road side sobriety tests were inconclusive (she failed one out of four) but the patrolman decided to bring her in for a breathalyzer anyway. That lady blew a .42!!! The manual said she should have been comotose and near death from poisoning, and have been transported to the hospital, but she acted completely normal; even to the four cops in the station house that night. Point being that even seasoned cops have trouble determining someones level of intoxication without chemical tests, and to put that pressure on a bartender, waitstaff or even management of an establishment is absurd. People need to take responsibility for their own actions-period!!!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by farechofisherman

Samiam; i completely agree with you that the business should not be held liable for these situations, to think that is just absurd. About thirty years ago i was a police officer in a lakes region police department. We had many dwi situations, one night a 45 year old women who ran a red light was stopped and found to have alchohol on her breath. Her road side sobriety tests were inconclusive (she failed one out of four) but the patrolman decided to bring her in for a breathalyzer anyway. That lady blew a .42!!! The manual said she should have been comotose and near death from poisoning, and have been transported to the hospital, but she acted completely normal; even to the four cops in the station house that night. Point being that even seasoned cops have trouble determining someones level of intoxication without chemical tests, and to put that pressure on a bartender, waitstaff or even management of an establishment is absurd. People need to take responsibility for their own actions-period!!!

I sincerely hope you transposed the numbers, and meant to post a .24 BAC. While a .42 is possible, it is highly unlikely someone with a BAC of that level would show no signs of being intoxicated. The BAC chart I am looking at shows "death possible" for a woman over .30 BAC.

http://www.brad21.org/bac_charts.html

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I sincerely hope you transposed the numbers, and meant to post a .24 BAC. While a .42 is possible, it is highly unlikely someone with a BAC of that level would show no signs of being intoxicated. The BAC chart I am looking at shows "death possible" for a woman over .30 BAC.

It is possible for chronic drinkers to exceed .50 BAC and be awake. As to how functional they are, I don't know. The studies I saw say these people were discharged within 24 hours. My wife, an ICU RN, often makes comments on the ridiculously high BAC levels that alcoholics can function at.

PS - Just checked with wife and she confirmed recent .396 BAC, patient fully awake and talking rationally. She remembers occasional .4+ levels as well.

[farechofisherman]

No chip i got it right; it was .42 bac. That is exactly my point a normal person would be close to death if not dead. But an alcoholic who has twent to thirty years of tolerance built into their drinking habits can blow incredible bac's without showing outward signs of intoxication, just as this woman did, she was a full blown functional alcoholic. Just like people who take the pharmacuticals (like oxi, valium etc) their tolerance grows with the abuse making it neccassary to consume more and more to reach the "high" they are seeking. I'm not a doctor, councelor or a pharmacist but my years in law enforcement taught me this quite evidently.

[twoplustwo]

If you walk into a bar, ask for a drink, and pay for it you have executed three acts of intention to get your drink ...Unless the bartender tied the guy down and poured the booze down his throat or the guy was so far gone that he had to crawl into the bar the bartender should be left alone.

This bartender thanks you

[chipj29]

Thanks for the info guys. Never in my wildest dreams did I think a persons BAC could be that high and they would still be alive, nevermind acting as a functional human being.
I was there...once, a long long time ago. Believe me when I say that I was NOT a functional human being!

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Thanks for the info guys. Never in my wildest dreams did I think a persons BAC could be that high and they would still be alive, nevermind acting as a functional human being.
I was there...once, a long long time ago. Believe me when I say that I was NOT a functional human being!

A .42 ?????????? I gotta get me one of those!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

A .42 ?????????? I gotta get me one of those!

I have no idea what my actual BAC was. But I was 19, and had just drank a boatload of 100 proof SoCo. Trust me when I say...you don't WANT one of those!
Without exagerrating, I can safely say that the hangover lasted almost 3 days. In fact I think I was drunk the entire following day.
Again...you do NOT want to go there.

[Argie's Wife]

When I lived in Maine I was bar-tending at a local seafood restaurant and Maine does have a similar law on their books. It's a bartender's nightmare.

Picture this: A group of 4 to 6 people walk in, grab a table, and just a couple of people from that group come up to the bar for drinks and carry them back to the table.

How are you supposed to judge who's already 3-sheets to the wind when you're 40 feet from them?

Sure, it's easy if they're staggering or getting ugly (sloppy drunk)... but what if you just can't tell. Sometimes it's hard enough to tell whether or not the people over 21 at a table (such as in a restaurant with a bar) are the ones drinking the beverages; never mind how many drinks folks may have had already before they even walked in! You can only hope that the waitstaff is also sharp and will alert you. Like I said... it's a nightmare!

[EllyPoinster]

Here's one from just a few days ago. The comments below the article definitely lean toward putting the blame on the drunk driver. Still - even the bar staff apparently did not back up the bartender on this one.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...a-f5813ccd4da2

[Winnipesaukee]

Why can't people be responsible for themselves and their own stupidity?

Maybe we should also hold auto companies responsible for car accidents, or hold The North Face responsible when someone freezes to death in their apparel?

Oh! I got it! Sue the microwave manufacturer after you nuke your poodle trying to dry it!

[Nadia]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

Why can't people be responsible for themselves and their own stupidity?

The age old question, when do people stop pointing the finger at everyone else, and take responsibility for their own behavior? My take on the matter is, we can wish in one hand and "you know what" in the other. Don't mean to hi-jack the thread or get off-topic, but I have to share just a few of these outrageous moments I've experienced related to people refusing to take the rap.

I was returning home from a shopping trip in North Conway when I came to a normally timed stop at a red light. I heard the loud squeal of tires and barely had enough time to look in my rear view mirror before the man behind me slammed into the back of my car. Luckily no one was in the back seat, and no one was seriously injured. When Police responded to take a report of the accident, this man had the audacity to try and tell Ossipee Police Department that I had backed into him!!! The Police Officer looked at him with a half crooked smile. "You mean to tell me she backed into you and caused that much damage? She would have had to be going at the very least, 40 MPH in reverse". Turns out he was speeding wildly while yacking on his cellphone, and trying to turn the volume down on his navigation system...

We had a tenant at one of our rental properties call us one day, irate that she had just slipped in the drive way. I arrived and immediately saw that the driveway had been properly shoveled and sanded. The girl came out of the store located in the building where she had been waiting for me to arrive. She was wearing platform wooden flip flop sandals that were at least 5 inches high, a skirt, and now torn and stained nylons. She again told me she had slipped in the driveway and pointed out the spot. I looked at her, looked down at her shoes, and then looked back up at her and said "I can imagine you fell in shoes like that!". This was totally irrelevant according to her and she knew more about the law then the typical tenant did (which they all claim). I took pictures and gave her our Attorney's information. We offered to pay for her outfit but she was going for the throat. We never heard anymore about it needless to say

[SAMIAM]

After that tragic night club fire in Rhode Island,the lawyers went wild.....even sued purveyors such as Coke, Pepsi,Budweiser and anyone who sponsored or supplied the place.Even newspapers that ran their ads were named.I'm surprised the cleaning lady didn't get sued.
Anyway,that's the way things are....they always go for the deep pockets.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

After that tragic night club fire in Rhode Island,the lawyers went wild.....even sued purveyors such as Coke, Pepsi,Budweiser and anyone who sponsored or supplied the place.Even newspapers that ran their ads were named.I'm surprised the cleaning lady didn't get sued.
Anyway,that's the way things are....they always go for the deep pockets.

I followed that story closely and was shocked at who paid up and how much- it really was obscene (the fire was much more so), but most of the people that paid real money had zero culpability. It is sad when large corporations prefer to settle a case not because they were wrong but because it would be less expensive to settle than litigate it.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Yes, it was a tragic event. This one against Home Depot really seemed "off the wall":

and even Home Depot, for not “warning of the potential hazards” of the insulation they sold the club, despite the fact that the insulation Home Depot sold “is different from the foam ignited by the pyrotechnics”

http://overlawyered.com/2006/02/doze...lub-fire-suit/

The fire inspector that failed to enforce the existing fire laws and was, in my opinion, the most negligent got off with nothing. The town of West Warwick got off with $10 million. The lawyers had a real field day and got rich on everyone's suffering.

Sorry, this was

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

After that tragic night club fire in Rhode Island,the lawyers went wild.....even sued purveyors such as Coke, Pepsi,Budweiser and anyone who sponsored or supplied the place.Even newspapers that ran their ads were named.I'm surprised the cleaning lady didn't get sued.
Anyway,that's the way things are....they always go for the deep pockets.

The term is "jointly and severally" [liable]. It varies among the states.