nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Bar serving an alcoholic

pappyodaniel

A guy I know in my hometown has recently fell off the wagon and is back drinking again. I'd say he was dry for the last 3 years where he had become hard working and successful in his self employed job. Yesterday I spotted him legless and falling out of the local pub and this morning I spotted him outside the same pub with a pint in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

What he does with his life is his own business but do you think the barman has a duty of care not to serve him as he's enabling him to drink? I remember him from years ago as a terrible alcoholic, sh1tting his pants, domestic violence and getting arrested for being drunk and disorderly and seeing him off the booze was amazing. It's sad to see him now.

So what do ye think, should the barman not serve him on principle?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Most alcoholics I know drink in 3 or 4 rough pubs in the town. They're the only places that will serve them, well run places don't want them sitting there, talking shyte, mooching for loans of money off other patrons, falling off the stool when they're too drunk etc. They're more trouble than they're worth.

El Weirdo

The Backwards Man wrote: »

As I said above, the kids on the house that are going hungry, the wife that gets a pot of boiling water thrown over here, the fireman that suffers from smoke inhalation putting out the chip pan fire. There are always consequences

And yeah, you can say all those things will happen regardless, and there's a good chance can they will. But are you happy being a party to them?

My old man was an alcoholic but never even got close to doing any of that. There are also people that may not be alcoholics, yet may do the same things after a few drinks.

Mrs OBumble

suicide_circus wrote: »

Oh I've seen it happen but its an extreme rarity. I've seen people who are visibly rat arsed and slurring being served on countless occasions, myself included!

You must hang out in some horrible dives.

I see people refused regularly. Some because they're known troublemakers. Some because theyre drunk. Some because they're underage.

Professional bar staff do this every day.

jbt123

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Well, we're into real world diagnostics here as opposed to medical ones.

If you know someone is incapable of having a drink without winding up in a stupor or a coma, they don't get served.

If you know someone is drinking money that's needed to feed the kids or pay bills, they don't get served

If you know someone is endangering the lives of themselves or others at work as a result of their drinking, they don't get served.

And so on.

It's not rocket science, and you can call it an invasion of privacy or an infringement of rights or whatever the fcuk you want, but I'll stand over it all day long.

Is it just one of the criteria that has to be met?

You really sound as if you'd be a barrel of laughs to spend an hour or two being served by...

Too precious for my liking in a barman...

Cee-Jay-Cee

Hector Bellend wrote: »

Bars serve Alcohol.

Its never a barmans responsbility to maintain a customers sobriety.

Its their own personal responsibility

But it's an offence to knowingly serve alcohol to a person who is already intoxicated. The barman can be prosecuted if he continues to serve drink to the man once they're drunk.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Dravokivich

This thread is bizzare. Countless people on this forum regularly cry out that we've an alcoholism issue that isn't properly addressed. One guy posts about how he'd not be inclined to provide alcohol to an alcoholic he's bombarded by people defending the alcoholics choice. Anyone additiced to a substance who succumbs to it's desire, generally does so without choice. Or any sort of informed desicion making.

What the hell are ye arguing for?

hatrickpatrick

The Backwards Man wrote: »

As I said above, the kids on the house that are going hungry

Not every alcoholic has kids.

the wife that gets a pot of boiling water thrown over here

Not every alcoholic is in a relationship

the fireman that suffers from smoke inhalation putting out the chip pan fire.

Not every alcoholic will do something dangerous after getting locked - and it's not the bartender's job to quiz a customer on his or her lifestyle before serving them. As a single and childless person, why should my life be restricted because I could have kids, which I don't? Such restrictions should only apply to those they are relevant to - they need to be structured in such a way as not to inconvenience those caught in the crossfire. As a civil libertarian, I apply this to everything - no responsibilities = no limitations on what you can do to or with yourself.

hatrickpatrick

Dravokivich wrote: »

What the hell are ye arguing for?

Social freedom. The idea that once a person turns 18, what they choose to do with their life is solely their decision and nobody else's, as long as their life choices to not infringe upon anybody else's freedom to do the same.

.......

This post has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

There must be dozens of alcoholic regular customers in most pubs the same way as each bookies have dozens of addicted gamblers.
The barman has a duty of care not to serve a person too much drink but none for alcoholics, as in serving them in the first place

The Backwards Man

El Weirdo wrote: »

My old man was an alcoholic but never even got close to doing any of that. There are also people that may not be alcoholics, yet may do the same things after a few drinks.

Aye, there's no scientific model for it, that's for sure. Not all problem drinkers are alcoholics, and not all alcoholics are problem drinkers. But they all have a problem.

hatrickpatrick

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Aye, there's no scientific model for it, that's for sure. Not all problem drinkers are alcoholics, and not all alcoholics are problem drinkers. But they all have a problem.

And it's their problem. Their business. Their choice whether to try to do something about it or not. Not anybody else's.

Dravokivich

....... wrote: »

Refusing to serve someone you know is an alcoholic is as good as trying to hold back the sea.

Totally pointless.

Don't assume I know nothing of it. Getting their substance is their problem, handing them a symbolic loaded weapon is not ours. One shouldn't have to be in a position whereby they are complicit in anothers destruction just because they could get it somewhere else. If we as a society want to tackle addiction issues seriously, we should be seeking means to prevent an alcoholic from getting alcohol. Just as heroin addicts are provided with substitutes (even though their affectiveness is questionable).

Dravokivich

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Social freedom. The idea that once a person turns 18, what they choose to do with their life is solely their decision and nobody else's, as long as their life choices to not infringe upon anybody else's freedom to do the same.

I've never known an addict to have a choice.

hatrickpatrick

Dravokivich wrote: »

I've never known an addict to have a choice.

Fair point - "choice" was the wrong word. "Autonomy" would be more in line with what I'm driving at - complete bodily autonomy for the individual, unless they are actively harming somebody with that autonomy.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Dravokivich

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fair point - "choice" was the wrong word. "Autonomy" would be more in line with what I'm driving at - complete bodily autonomy for the individual, unless they are actively harming somebody with that autonomy.

They are driven by a need to consume the substance they are addicted to. Where is autonomy in that?

hatrickpatrick

Dravokivich wrote: »

They are driven by a need to consume the substance they are addicted to. Where is autonomy in that?

Maybe autonomy isn't the word I'm looking for either?

To be entirely specific, I believe that once an individual is an independent adult without any dependents, no other human should have "authority" over them except in instances in which their choices will actively and directly harm another person, or where they have consented to that (by means of employment, etc). It's why I'm in favour of drug legalisation, sex work legalisation, etc. I don't believe in either victimless crime or public / societal morality. Once an individual is an adult, nobody whatsoever should have the authority to tell them what to do in their own free time, unless their actions are directly infringing upon the rights of somebody else.

aaronjumper

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fair point - "choice" was the wrong word. "Autonomy" would be more in line with what I'm driving at - complete bodily autonomy for the individual, unless they are actively harming somebody with that autonomy.

Personal responsibility isn't a thing anymore. Everyone gets to tell everyone else how to live and make their decisions for them.

The Backwards Man

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How many doctors and addiction counsellors advocate pubs selling drink to alcoholics?

clappyhappy

A friend of mine owns a shop that sells alcohol. One particular woman we know has a bad drinking problem, she'll be in at 9am looking to buy alcohol and will wait outside till they are legally allowed to sell it. Her daughters and son all adults have come in and asked my friend not to sell her alcohol. Although my friend would like nothing better than not sell it to her she cannot refuse it to her unless she is really drunk when looking for it. Woman is on a dry spell at the moment and came into the shop a few weeks ago and asked my friend not to sell her alcohol again if she goes back on the wagon, really sad case, odds are that she will be back on the booze soon, husband is a bastard and she finds its her only escape, she will then demand that the alcohol is sold to her and the circle continues....

Estrellita

....... wrote: »

If what you said was true then no alcoholic would ever recover.

People that have been off the drink years attending AA still refer to themselves as alcoholics. Why? Because it's an addiction they have to work hard at to abstain, but the threat is always there. Not every alcoholic has the willpower for attempting abstinence. That is addiction at work, not irresponsibility.

Dravokivich

....... wrote: »

I didnt assume anything.

But taking personal responsibility away from alcoholics is a regressive step in my book.

We are all entitled to the personal freedom to do whatever is legal in the state. How we choose to exercise that freedom is up to ourselves. Heroin is not legal so the analogy doesnt really work.

If we decide to prevent alcoholics from getting alcohol then we should commit them to institutions under the care of the medical community. This has been tried and it fails so it doesnt happen anymore.

Any doctor or addiction counseller will tell you that the person has to take control of their own life if they want to get well.

It wasn't an analogy, it was a comparison of how different substances are treated.

tayto lover

[QUOTE=The_Valeyard;104193352]Should Mcdonalds not serve obese people?

Publican isnt responsible for this individual.

Although it is sad when someone falls off the wagon.[/QUOTE]

Didn't people in the U.S. successfully sue cigarette companies?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698740/RJ-Reynolds-tobacco-company-hit-23-6B-judgment-punitive-damages-widow-chain-smoker-sued-company-death.html

begbysback

Dravokivich wrote: »

This thread is bizzare. Countless people on this forum regularly cry out that we've an alcoholism issue that isn't properly addressed. One guy posts about how he'd not be inclined to provide alcohol to an alcoholic he's bombarded by people defending the alcoholics choice. Anyone additiced to a substance who succumbs to it's desire, generally does so without choice. Or any sort of informed desicion making.

What the hell are ye arguing for?

Because he thinks he can identify an alcoholic based on how drunk they are.

Anybody can be refused more drink in a pub when they have had too much, alcoholic or not. He was defining an alcoholic as somebody who has obviously had too much to drink.

To refuse an alcoholic a drink you have to be able to identify such - that's what the argument is.

TerrorFirmer

Should they be served? Broadly speaking, yes. Should they be served to a point until, or beyond, legless? No.

Understandly they could also be refused service on the basis of having previously caused trouble or disturbances of some kind. But that goes for anyone, not just an alcoholic. I don't think barmen should double up as moral police.

But many alcoholics aren't the type to fall around legless and make a show of themselves despite the ideas many of us have as to what constitutes an alcoholic. That's actually more the 'problem drinker' crowd, who despite having serious issues with alcohol, are not alcoholics (and yes, we've almost all been there, to be sure).

You could also drink far less than the average person and still be an alcoholic. Being an alcoholic a a state of mind; the way you interact with alcohol, how it affects your life or dictates certain behaviors or actions (being really simplistic for a moment).

Refusing an alcoholic is not as simple as turning away someone so drunk as to be on the brink of primitive existance. Barmen and women do this every day in Ireland, it's nothing to do with alcoholics or moral thinking, it's part and parcel of the job as well as the legal system.

It would be most likely, in Ireland, to have to be a moral standpoint as advocated by The Backwards Man in this thread - refusing someone service because they're an alcoholic, knowing that fact and judging them, rather than serve or enable them.

Why would any barman or woman have to make that choice? That's not their responsibility. They should serve the individual until a point as which that person makes it difficult or impossible to serve them due to their behaviors or actions. Otherwise, they're simply a customer, sad or tragic as their choice may seem externally, it is their choice at the end of the day and only they have the power to walk past the pub, the supermarket, the cabinet or whatever it is that enables them - or else seek the strength elsewhere if they cannot go it alone.

That day might come, sadly for many it never does, but it is not the staff member behind the bar or supermarket counter who has that choice to make, nor should they.

tayto lover

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This thread is primarily not about alcohol for me. Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever the f*ck they want, self-destructive or not. I apply the same logic to everything, from drug use to prostitution.

So you'd have no problems with the drunk getting into and driving his car then?

evolving_doors

Winterlong wrote: »

Is it not one of the terms of a publicans licence that they cannot serve someone who is obviously intoxicated?

If anything happens the guy its Potential manslaughter charge due to gross negligence...
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-barmen-charged-with-manslaughter-for-serving-a-10-shot-drink-to-birthday-boy-121312364-237385611

Think the staff got off that time.

My pal is a barman in Oz and says if he spots someone who is visibly intoxicated he has to stop serving them or could loose licence if the cops pick him up. It's an extreme case but shows they have some duty of care.
Unlike ireland.
Sure some bar staff call it quits and refuse but those who continue to serve never get reprimanded.

Anyone know of Any other cases of publicans facing prosecuting by knowingly serving someone intoxicated who comes to harm?