The Real Costs of Electric Car Ownership - CNET

[DoggyDaddy]

Do you not know any alcoholics? I fully support laws prohibiting servers from serving visibly impaired customers more alcohol. Would you think it cool if the local bar kept feeding drinks, to run up the tab, to your friend that had too much alcohol and was no longer capable of rational decisions? The business of serving mind altering substances in public comes with as much responsibility as that of the imbiber.

I ask again, bars and servers “should” be serving visibly impaired customers?

IIRC, the laws regarding this changed after an incident up in Lafayette in the late 70's or early 80's. I can't remember the name of the restaurant/bar, but it was on 26, just east of 52/Sagamore Pkwy. Bartender "over-served" a patron and they left and hit a pedestrian that was walking along 26. I wound up working at that restaurant for a little while. Shortly after I started, they changed the name (but it was the same owners) to "Redmondo's" and it became a BBQ place, known for their sauce that had mango chutney in it. It went out of business maybe a year later. Owner let me haul out many cases of beer for free.

 

[KLB]

Do you not know any alcoholics? I fully support laws prohibiting servers from serving visibly impaired customers more alcohol. Would you think it cool if the local bar kept feeding drinks, to run up the tab, to your friend that had too much alcohol and was no longer capable of rational decisions? The business of serving mind altering substances in public comes with as much responsibility as that of the imbiber.

I ask again, bars and servers “should” be serving visibly impaired customers?

Should bartenders be serving people that are really drunk, and should it be illegal are two different questions. Whether the bartender/bar should then be civilly liable for some stupid act by the drunk is yet another.

 

[Flash-hider]

Gee, maybe if we would just pass an amendment that would prohibit the sale of alcohol that would be the commonsense thing to do.

 

[Ingomike]

Should bartenders be serving people that are really drunk, and should it be illegal are two different questions. Whether the bartender/bar should then be civilly liable for some stupid act by the drunk is yet another.

If there is no law what is the punishment for when they should not serve visibly impaired customers? Just to be clear, you are against the law that can be used to punish bars and servers if they continue to serve alcohol to visibly impaired customers?

 

[Ingomike]

IIRC, the laws regarding this changed after an incident up in Lafayette in the late 70's or early 80's. I can't remember the name of the restaurant/bar, but it was on 26, just east of 52/Sagamore Pkwy. Bartender "over-served" a patron and they left and hit a pedestrian that was walking along 26. I wound up working at that restaurant for a little while. Shortly after I started, they changed the name (but it was the same owners) to "Redmondo's" and it became a BBQ place, known for their sauce that had mango chutney in it. It went out of business maybe a year later. Owner let me haul out many cases of beer for free.

Free beer is great, tastes best of all!

I get the whole small government thing, fewer laws and all, but should it be legal to serve visibly impaired customers?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There's a thread for this discussion...

Bill Making Happy Hour Legal Heads To Governors Desk…

Apparently they are not doing a good job of it. Although after using my GOOGLE skills.....and thus supporting an evil monopoly.......I realized they are basically known to me as front porch and back deck. I'm with ya on the back deck. My front porch is too small, and there's no seating.

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[KLB]

If there is no law what is the punishment for when they should not serve visibly impaired customers? Just to be clear, you are against the law that can be used to punish bars and servers if they continue to serve alcohol to visibly impaired customers?

Gee, how did we ever survive without this law?

I am guessing this is yet another time something bad happens to someone. The response is, "Something needs to be done!" And voila, we have another law on the books. One that is generally not enforced.

And the civil liability is even worse.

 

[Ingomike]

Gee, how did we ever survive without this law?

I am guessing this is yet another time something bad happens to someone. The response is, "Something needs to be done!" And voila, we have another law on the books. One that is generally not enforced.

And the civil liability is even worse.

So plain English, just to be clear, you are against the law that can be used to punish bars and servers if they continue to serve alcohol to visibly impaired customers? yes or no? Why is it so hard to answer?

Apparently those before us found it to be a problem. I can easily see both establishments and servers increasing profits by pushing drinks on those impaired to a point beyond reason. This also can fuel drunk driving. Also there seem to be several citations for it per year.

Loading…

www.in.gov

 

[KLB]

So plain English, just to be clear, you are against the law that can be used to punish bars and servers if they continue to serve alcohol to visibly impaired customers? yes or no? Why is it so hard to answer?

Apparently those before us found it to be a problem. I can easily see both establishments and servers increasing profits by pushing drinks on those impaired to a point beyond reason. This also can fuel drunk driving. Also there seem to be several citations for it per year.

Loading…

www.in.gov

I was pretty clear, but yes.

There were FOUR on that list for the whole state. One of those looks like they charged the place with every violation they could come up with.

 

[Ingomike]

I was pretty clear, but yes.

There were FOUR on that list for the whole state. One of those looks like they charged the place with every violation they could come up with.
View attachment 371539

Does every speeder get caught? That is just who they caught. How many more would do it if it were not illegal? And it should be illegal…

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I was pretty clear, but yes.

There were FOUR on that list for the whole state. One of those looks like they charged the place with every violation they could come up with.
View attachment 371539

That looks a lot like Excise came in after a shootout in the parking lot that left at least one dead. I'd have to check the date to be sure, but shenanigans were afoot prior to if it's the event I'm thinking of.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I was pretty clear, but yes.

There were FOUR on that list for the whole state. One of those looks like they charged the place with every violation they could come up with.
View attachment 371539

That place (or its patrons) were involved in a big hullabaloo out in the parking lot in the wee small hours. I'm wondering if this was related. I don't remember exactly when it happened but it's not all that far from me.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That looks a lot like Excise came in after a shootout in the parking lot that left at least one dead. I'd have to check the date to be sure, but shenanigans were afoot prior to if it's the event I'm thinking of.

Once again, I should've read a little farther before posting! This is the event I was talking about.

 

[Ingomike]

Is the INGO consensus that it should not be illegal to sell alcohol to visibly impaired customers retailers should have care blanch to do as they please. I say no.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Is the INGO consensus that it should not be illegal to sell alcohol to visibly impaired customers retailers should have care blanch to do as they please. I say no.

Holy run-on sentence Batman!

But I'm not answering. I feel like this is a trap, like "Why do so many on INGO hate HOAs?"

 

[rhamersley]

Holy run-on sentence Batman!

But I'm not answering. I feel like this is a trap, like "Why do so many on INGO hate HOAs?"

 

[Ingomike]

Holy run-on sentence Batman!

But I'm not answering. I feel like this is a trap, like "Why do so many on INGO hate HOAs?"

I did miss an and. I do not see this as controversial, folks believe what they believe. I was actually interested in your opinion on this as you have extensive experience in your background.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I did miss an and. I do not see this as controversial, folks believe what they believe. I was actually interested in your opinion on this as you have extensive experience in your background.

I have mixed feelings about it. I think preferably it should be up to the server/bartender to make the judgement call. I mean lets face it, for the average sized person, 2 or 3 drinks in an hour is going to put them above .08 BAC. I don't know many servers/bartenders that are going to cut them off at that point. Are they going to be slurring speech, staggering, losing their balance at that point? Probably not.

If someone is obviously drunk (showing those signs I just mentioned), a responsible server/bartender would cut them off, and maybe even try and find them transportation. If they don't, and that person leaves and has a wreck and/or kills someone, I don't think the server/bartender should be held criminally liable, but I do think they could be subject to civil penalties (ie. lawsuit from the victim).

 

[Ingomike]

I have mixed feelings about it. I think preferably it should be up to the server/bartender to make the judgement call. I mean lets face it, for the average sized person, 2 or 3 drinks in an hour is going to put them above .08 BAC. I don't know many servers/bartenders that are going to cut them off at that point. Are they going to be slurring speech, staggering, losing their balance at that point? Probably not.

If someone is obviously drunk (showing those signs I just mentioned), a responsible server/bartender would cut them off, and maybe even try and find them transportation. If they don't, and that person leaves and has a wreck and/or kills someone, I don't think the server/bartender should be held criminally liable, but I do think they could be subject to civil penalties (ie. lawsuit from the victim).

BTW, the reason I use the phrase of words “visibly impaired” was because I believe that is how the law declares it. The law also seems to leave it up to the server/bar until the situation arises, like the s*** show you mentioned earlier then they get called out on it as KLB said as an add on charge.

I would hope the risk of the charge would make them more responsible in their serving of customers, and think about whether the risk of getting in trouble is worth pushing a couple more drinks on a patron?

 

[KLB]

BTW, the reason I use the phrase of words “visibly impaired” was because I believe that is how the law declares it. The law also seems to leave it up to the server/bar until the situation arises, like the s*** show you mentioned earlier then they get called out on it as KLB said as an add on charge.

I would hope the risk of the charge would make them more responsible in their serving of customers, and think about whether the risk of getting in trouble is worth pushing a couple more drinks on a patron?

Nah. The risk of getting sued might.

Have you ever been to a crowded bar that didn't serve people who were obviously "impaired"? The only people I have seen cut off were people way beyond that. Granted it has been a while since I last frequented a bar, so things may have changed.

The word they use is intoxicated.

IC 9-13-2-86"Intoxicated"

Sec. 86. "Intoxicated" means under the influence of:

(1) alcohol;

(2) a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1);

(3) a drug other than alcohol or a controlled substance;

(4) a substance described in IC 35-46-6-2 or IC 35-46-6-3;

(5) a combination of substances described in subdivisions (1) through (4); or

(6) any other substance, not including food and food ingredients (as defined in IC 6-2.5-1-20), tobacco (as defined in IC 6-2.5-1-28), or a dietary supplement (as defined in IC 6-2.5-1-16);

so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person's faculties.

[Pre-1991 Recodification Citation: 9-11-1-5.]

The law in question

IC 7.1-5-10-15 Sale to intoxicated person prohibited

Sec. 15. (a) A person who, knowing that another person is intoxicated, sells, barters, delivers, or gives away an alcoholic beverage to the intoxicated person commits a Class B misdemeanor.

(b) In any civil proceeding in which damages are sought from a permittee or a permittee's agent for the refusal to serve a person an alcoholic beverage, it is a complete defense if the permittee or agent reasonably believed that the person was intoxicated or was otherwise not entitled to be served an alcoholic beverage.

(c) After charges have been filed against a person for a violation of subsection (a), the prosecuting attorney shall notify the commission of the charges filed.

Indiana General Assembly

Website for Indiana's General Assembly

iga.in.gov