Party hosts not liable for drunk guests... Agree? - Page 3 - VeggieBoards
View Poll Results: Should Party Hosts Be Liable for Their Guests
Yes 0 0%
No 0 0%
Unsure 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 Old 05-10-2006, 03:58 PM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstutzma View Post

Driving drunk is already illegal. Making drinking illegal probably won't help the problem. Making people liable for when their drunken friends leave their home with car keys in hand - that could maybe work. People would be motivated by threat of losing their own money/freedom. At least more motivated than they are now by the "simple" threat of potential loss of innocent life due to their inaction. Pretty sad but true.



So, a drunk guest is not responsible for their actions, but the drunk host is responsible for their own actions AND the actions of the drunk guest?
GhostUser is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 Old 05-10-2006, 04:16 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,552
[QUOTE=Ducati]There is the same potential to harm or be harm with other objects. A drunk person at home may decide the lawn needs mowing, or a tree needs to be cut down, or they want to grill something but its raining out, so they pull the drill inside (This happened). So, people aren't safe as long as booze is being consumed. Is alcohol the problem? QUOTE]



i think people are the problem, lol.



its interesting that people either can't cope with, or choose not to remain in the 'real world' and instead choose to alter their reality, or stimulate or sedate themselves through chemical means, and therefore loose their judgement and do stupid things like drive into each other. then some of them get addicted to whatever they're using, and can't function without it, or particularly well with it. we have to have laws and punishments to control them and protect everybody else, and employ medical proffesionals to rescue them and everyone else from their inebriated misdeeds. as stupid humans, we keep on doing it, perpetuating a vicious cycle. self destructive or what?

i personally used to use some dubious substances in my teens- and i can't say it did me any good what so ever. luckily i didn't get addicted, but pretty soon i thought 'this isnt smart' so i just don't do it now- but every friday night i see perfectly sane seeming people getting wasted for fun and then doing incredibly stupid things and then for the rest of the week dealing with the consequences of their own foolish actions, saying things like 'man, was i hammered, i won't do that again' and then, low and behold, doing it again next friday.

jees, what is wrong with people? can't they get their buzz through rollercoaters or some form of excersise or nookie (between consenting adults) and their chill out through yoga or sleeping or massage or relaxing in the sunshine listening to birds tweeting or something?
jeneticallymodified is offline  
#63 Old 05-10-2006, 04:45 PM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
To be honest Ducati, I really don't care if someone gets drunk in their own home and hurts themselves. That's their perogative and there's nothing I can do about it. If they want to be an idiot who am I to stop them?



But when the idiots hurts or kills someone who is innocently going on with their life one day and bam! have it smashed all over the pavement then it's a problem.



There is such a thing as responsible consumption in my opinion. I could have a glass of wine with dinner and be fine. Or I can drink a beer after work with my buddy and be fine. It's the people who have no regard for their actions that's the problem.



If I have someone over (who's sober) and they trip over their own two feet, fall down my stairs and break their arm, maybe they'll sue my homeowners insurance and win. Why should I be responsible for that? I shouldn't but in all likelyhood my insurance would pay.



Why would it be any different if someone is in my home, I supply them with alcohol to the point they are stubbling around, I see them get in their car and drive off and do nothing to stop them. Why wouldn't I be responsible for damage they cause when they leave? Certainly my decision contributed to the outcome. I chose to have a party, I chose to serve alcohol, and then I chose to not try and stop the drunk by taking his keys or at least popping the hood and taking out the starter, battery, whatever. Am I totally innocent or partially to blame? (Devils Advocate as well)
GhostUser is offline  
#64 Old 05-10-2006, 05:27 PM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by SotallyTober View Post

To be honest Ducati, I really don't care if someone gets drunk in their own home and hurts themselves. That's their perogative and there's nothing I can do about it. If they want to be an idiot who am I to stop them?



But when the idiots hurts or kills someone who is innocently going on with their life one day and bam! have it smashed all over the pavement then it's a problem.



There is such a thing as responsible consumption in my opinion. I could have a glass of wine with dinner and be fine. Or I can drink a beer after work with my buddy and be fine. It's the people who have no regard for their actions that's the problem.



If I have someone over (who's sober) and they trip over their own two feet, fall down my stairs and break their arm, maybe they'll sue my homeowners insurance and win. Why should I be responsible for that? I shouldn't but in all likelyhood my insurance would pay.



Why would it be any different if someone is in my home, I supply them with alcohol to the point they are stubbling around, I see them get in their car and drive off and do nothing to stop them. Why wouldn't I be responsible for damage they cause when they leave? Certainly my decision contributed to the outcome. I chose to have a party, I chose to serve alcohol, and then I chose to not try and stop the drunk by taking his keys or at least popping the hood and taking out the starter, battery, whatever. Am I totally innocent or partially to blame? (Devils Advocate as well)



You should care if somene hurts themselves in their home, because eventually you pay for it in higher insurance premiums or higher taxes.



If you served seafood at this party, and someone who knows they are deathly allergic to seafood decides to have a bite, are you responsible for their reaction, hospitalization, or death? Every adult knows what happens when they consume alcohol.



I think the question you need to ask is: Why is drunk driving so much more prevelant in the U.S. than in many other developed nations?
GhostUser is offline  
#65 Old 05-10-2006, 06:13 PM
Joe
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
Just for the record, public drunkenness is already illegal in most places in the US.

Here again, though, you have a "law on the books" that is rarely enforced (except on TV in shows about the old West where the sheriff is always throwing the town drunk in jail to sleep it off or on shows like the old "Andy Griffith" show).



Quote:
Originally Posted by ducati View Post

I think the question you need to ask is: Why is drunk driving so much more prevelant in the U.S. than in many other developed nations?



A number of reasons:



1) The US has a Puritannical Protestant tradition. Alcohol is considered sinful in many religious traditions here. "Demon rum." The US even had Prohibition. Alcohol therefore has "the lure of the forbidden."



2) Automobiles and driving are seen as basic parts of one's freedom in the US, not simply as modes of transportation. You don't just drive on Route 66, you "get your kicks" by driving on Route 66. Restrictions on driving and speed are seen as intolerable ("I Can't Drive 55").



3) The laws concerning businesses (bars, restaurants) overserving alcohol are rarely enforced.



4) The laws concerning drunken driving are often complex and, from one point of view, full of loopholes. Because serious penalties attach to a drunken driving conviction, some of the best lawyers in the country specialize in defending people against drunk driving convictions. Many prosecutors find it is often harder to get a drunk driving conviction than to get a conviction for murder.



5) Many drunken drivers are government officials. They often get "sweetheart deals" from prosecutors. Indeed, many government officials and members of boards and commissions are drunks and come to meetings drunk. If I had my way, all public government meetings would be televised.



6) The US has a poorly developed public transportation system. So drunks drive home from the bar rather than take the bus, train, trolley or subway.



7) Businesses (and the government) often profit heavily from alcohol sales, and thus are against measures that might curb such sales (even if they would cut down on drunk driving). Many restaurants derive most of their profits from alcohol sales, not from selling food. My local government built a football stadium with taxpayer money. Forty (40) percent of the revenues from that stadium come from alcohol sales there. The local government also has the responsibility of enforcing the laws against public drunkenness, drunk driving, etc. How effectively do you think these laws will be enforced against the patrons of its own sports stadium?



There are probably many more reasons, but these just occur to me off the top of my head.
Joe is offline  
#66 Old 05-10-2006, 07:29 PM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducati View Post

There is the same potential to harm or be harm with other objects. A drunk person at home may decide the lawn needs mowing, or a tree needs to be cut down, or they want to grill something but its raining out, so they pull the drill inside (This happened). So, people aren't safe as long as booze is being consumed. Is alcohol the problem?



it's a lot harder to run over someone with a lawnmower than with a car. the potential is not the same. maybe you can run yourself over, but that's just natural selection at it's finest.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducati View Post

I am playing Devil's Advocate in case you are wondering.



that's a shocker.
GhostUser is offline  
#67 Old 05-10-2006, 07:38 PM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by SotallyTober View Post

Why would it be any different if someone is in my home, I supply them with alcohol to the point they are stubbling around, I see them get in their car and drive off and do nothing to stop them. Why wouldn't I be responsible for damage they cause when they leave? Certainly my decision contributed to the outcome. I chose to have a party, I chose to serve alcohol, and then I chose to not try and stop the drunk by taking his keys or at least popping the hood and taking out the starter, battery, whatever. Am I totally innocent or partially to blame? (Devils Advocate as well)



you would be partially to blame, I think. having a party and serving alcohol is not illegal, but allowing someone who is intoxicated and obviously cannot drive to leave your home is irresponsible- because drunk driving is a crime and you are not doing anything to stop the crime. it's reckless disregard for life.



think about it this way. you are standing outside a bar. a obviously drunk person (stumbling, dopping keys) walks out and gets into a car, and drives off swerving down the road. would you call the cops?



what if you knew your mom was driving down that same road coming to pick you up?
GhostUser is offline  
#68 Old 05-10-2006, 07:46 PM
Joe
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrpelle View Post

it's a lot harder to run over someone with a lawnmower than with a car. the potential is not the same. maybe you can run yourself over, but that's just natural selection at it's finest.







True. But you can be arrested for drunk driving on a lawnmower.



Ohio Man Arrested For DUI On Lawn Mower



http://www.ksdk.com/news/watercooler...?storyid=96455



Quote:
It's his third drunk driving arrest in six months. The first time he was in a van; the next in a car. This time he decided to hop on his 20-horsepower lawn mower.

...



The officer says Bowles smelled of alcohol and his speech was slurred.



He arrested Bowles after giving him a field sobriety test.



Later, Bowles blew a .144 -- almost twice the legal limit.

Joe is offline  
#69 Old 05-10-2006, 08:04 PM
Banned
 
bstutzma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducati View Post

So, a drunk guest is not responsible for their actions, but the drunk host is responsible for their own actions AND the actions of the drunk guest?





NO. The drunk is liable for his/her own actions, but the host should also be held responsible for his/her part in what happened.
bstutzma is offline  
#70 Old 05-10-2006, 08:50 PM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post

True. But you can be arrested for drunk driving on a lawnmower.



Ohio Man Arrested For DUI On Lawn Mower



http://www.ksdk.com/news/watercooler...?storyid=96455



I was under the impression we were talking about a regular lawnmower.



even so, still not as dangerous as a car.
GhostUser is offline  
#71 Old 05-10-2006, 10:23 PM
 
elibrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodedclawjen View Post

anyone here been in a situation where they've had a drunk person, armed with their keys and getting into their car to drive off, infront of them? how did you handle it?



I worked a short contract for FEMA driving a wheelchair van to move handicapped evacuees in Louisiana. We were stationed at this rest stop in the middle of nowhere, and one driver got drunk the night before we were to evacuate for Rita, got scared and decided to drive his van home to Texas. Standing by his open window and trying to talk him down, I informed him that I would be calling the police immediately if he left. He insisted that he wasn't drunk. It was obvious that it was the liquor saying that. He left anyway.



First, I called the owner of the company that the van belonged to and asked his advice, since it was his van. He told me to call the police. So I called 911 and informed them that there was a drunk driver in a FEMA van headed north on Interstate 49 in Saint Landry parish. An officer came to our rest stop a few minutes later and asked me some questions, and that was the last I heard of it until a month later when I got back to Texas. The owner of the van said it had been returned safely a few days later and I never talked to the driver again.



My best friend has a big problem with drinking and driving, and I am ashamed that I watched her drive away several times. But on Thanksgiving of 2004, something happened and now my (innocent) dad's face is permanently disfigured and he is blind in one eye because of a drunk driver, and I don't care what kind of petty social repercussions it carries- I will not allow anyone to drive drunk in my presence. I've taken my best friend's keys, driven her home, she's slept on my couch, etc. Actually, when she's really sloshed, it's not that hard to restrain her.



I don't think there's anything wrong with calling the police and simply informing them that there is a drunk driver at this certain place, with this certain type of car and this certain outfit and hair color and race. Sometimes that's the only thing you can do. Look at it this way: you might lose a friend. Or someone might DIE. Personally, the kind of people who blame YOU for when THEY decide to do something stupid...those aren't the type I want to be friends with.
elibrown is offline  
#72 Old 05-10-2006, 10:42 PM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post

Just for the record, public drunkenness is already illegal in most places in the US.

Here again, though, you have a "law on the books" that is rarely enforced (except on TV in shows about the old West where the sheriff is always throwing the town drunk in jail to sleep it off or on shows like the old "Andy Griffith" show).







A number of reasons:



1) The US has a Puritannical Protestant tradition. Alcohol is considered sinful in many religious traditions here. "Demon rum." The US even had Prohibition. Alcohol therefore has "the lure of the forbidden."



2) Automobiles and driving are seen as basic parts of one's freedom in the US, not simply as modes of transportation. You don't just drive on Route 66, you "get your kicks" by driving on Route 66. Restrictions on driving and speed are seen as intolerable ("I Can't Drive 55").



3) The laws concerning businesses (bars, restaurants) overserving alcohol are rarely enforced.



4) The laws concerning drunken driving are often complex and, from one point of view, full of loopholes. Because serious penalties attach to a drunken driving conviction, some of the best lawyers in the country specialize in defending people against drunk driving convictions. Many prosecutors find it is often harder to get a drunk driving conviction than to get a conviction for murder.



5) Many drunken drivers are government officials. They often get "sweetheart deals" from prosecutors. Indeed, many government officials and members of boards and commissions are drunks and come to meetings drunk. If I had my way, all public government meetings would be televised.



6) The US has a poorly developed public transportation system. So drunks drive home from the bar rather than take the bus, train, trolley or subway.



7) Businesses (and the government) often profit heavily from alcohol sales, and thus are against measures that might curb such sales (even if they would cut down on drunk driving). Many restaurants derive most of their profits from alcohol sales, not from selling food. My local government built a football stadium with taxpayer money. Forty (40) percent of the revenues from that stadium come from alcohol sales there. The local government also has the responsibility of enforcing the laws against public drunkenness, drunk driving, etc. How effectively do you think these laws will be enforced against the patrons of its own sports stadium?



There are probably many more reasons, but these just occur to me off the top of my head.



Good points Joe. What is interesting is that in places where alcohol is not taboo, alcoholism is much lower. In Europe, many people start drinking at a very young age because a dinner without wine is darn near sacrilegious. It is so commonplace that the thrill is not there.



Also, many other countries have much stricter drunk driving laws. I am told that in Hong Kong (Might have been Singapore), you lose your license forever if you are caught drunk driving. Yet here, we give people 5, 10, or even 15 chances. Low fines and short sentences involving mostly probation have proven to not be a good deterrent.



And finally, we live in a society where no one wants to take responsibility for his or her actions. They want to blame it on the host of a party, the owner of a bar, or the store that sold them the booze. Why not blame the gas station for selling you fuel that allowed you to get into an accident?



It is very ironic that those who make alcohol taboo to attempt to reduce underage drinking end up creating the problems they are trying to avoid.
GhostUser is offline  
#73 Old 05-10-2006, 10:52 PM
Banned
 
astro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodedclawjen View Post

jees, what is wrong with people? can't they get their buzz through rollercoaters or some form of excersise or nookie (between consenting adults) and their chill out through yoga or sleeping or massage or relaxing in the sunshine listening to birds tweeting or something?



I know a fair amount of people who do get their buzz through that stuff but they also choose to do "dubious substances" as you call them as well because it's fun. It doesn't always mean that there is something wrong with them. Human beings in all kinds of cultures have consumed some kind of drug in social gatherings and rituals practically since the dawn of time...we're no different.
astro is offline  
#74 Old 05-11-2006, 10:44 AM
Banned
 
bstutzma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro View Post

I know a fair amount of people who do get their buzz through that stuff but they also choose to do "dubious substances" as you call them as well because it's fun. It doesn't always mean that there is something wrong with them. Human beings in all kinds of cultures have consumed some kind of drug in social gatherings and rituals practically since the dawn of time...we're no different.



There are many of us who choose not to partake of these things. I don't care if others do - so long as they aren't going to hurt someone.



Drunk driving convictions are not always difficult - just for those wealthy enough to get attorneys who can get them off. The problem is that people DO consider driving a right, and not a privledge, and will drive even if their license is revoked. I'm not sure of a good way around this. Some people have to get their cars equipped with breathalizers - the ignition wont start if there is alcohol - given the advancement of electronics, it might be interesting to see what would happen if you couldn't turn on a car without a valid drivers license scanned. That could have positive anti-theft possibilities as well.... hmmm....



Of course, this would take people an extra 10 seconds to pull their license out of their pocket and put it back, so they would protest it vehemently.
bstutzma is offline  
#75 Old 05-11-2006, 10:55 AM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstutzma View Post

it might be interesting to see what would happen if you couldn't turn on a car without a valid drivers license scanned. That could have positive anti-theft possibilities as well.... hmmm....



The problem with making cars more theft deterent is that it increases the chances of car jackings. Instead of stealing the BMW, they wait for the owner with the transponder equipped key to open the door, then they shoot em or kidnap them, etc. You could use bioscans too, but I would be afraid the criminals would start cutting off body parts to steal cars.



The breathalyzer is a good idea. If someone is ever caught drunk driving, then this should be mandatory. The problem is that they might have access to several cars. Do you equip the wife's car because the husband is a drunk?
GhostUser is offline  
#76 Old 05-11-2006, 11:29 AM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducati View Post

The breathalyzer is a good idea. If someone is ever caught drunk driving, then this should be mandatory. The problem is that they might have access to several cars. Do you equip the wife's car because the husband is a drunk?



That is the root problem of trying to curb all crime. How much do we limit personal freedom to ensure public safety?



Any person has access to any car when you really think about it, and you would have to equip every car with a breathalyzer to ensure perfect safety, and even then people will find a way around ignition lock systems.



Don't ban alcohol, ban cars.
GhostUser is offline  
#77 Old 05-11-2006, 12:32 PM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sketchy View Post

Don't ban alcohol, ban cars.



Don't ban cars, ban stupidity.
GhostUser is offline  
#78 Old 05-11-2006, 01:50 PM
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
GhostUser is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off