Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Bar serving an alcoholic

12346»

Comments

  • #152
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,236 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    There is a legal duty

    It is an offence under the 2003 Act to supply alcohol to a drunken person and to admit a drunken person to a bar. (A 'drunken person' is someone intoxicated to such a degree that they may endanger themselves or other people). Any licence holder that allows this to occur on their premises is liable on summary conviction to a class B fine for a first offence and a class A fine for any subsequent offence.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #153
    aaronjumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,128 ✭✭✭✭aaronjumper


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Forest for the trees
    Yeeeeeeees . . .

    200.gif


  • #154
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    There is a legal duty

    It is an offence under the 2003 Act to supply alcohol to a drunken person and to admit a drunken person to a bar. (A 'drunken person' is someone intoxicated to such a degree that they may endanger themselves or other people). Any licence holder that allows this to occur on their premises is liable on summary conviction to a class B fine for a first offence and a class A fine for any subsequent offence.

    An alcoholic might not be in a drunken state though.

    But it is highly likely that he will be in a local pub in a drunken state regularly.


  • #155
    CeilingFly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,369 ✭✭✭CeilingFly


    Irish Guitarist wrote: »
    What gets me is I can't buy two packets of Lemsip in Tesco but there's no law stopping someone from buying a trolley full of Dutch Gold.
    I'd agree with that - in the USA you can buy tubs of 500 painkillers
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    The problem with that is it contains codeine which is addictive and can cause substantial issues that go unnoticed til its too late.


  • #156
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    Barman to pubowner: If you're too stupid to know one man slabbering over 12 pints is keeping away half a dozen punters drinking you can stick your job up your ignorant hole :)

    Except that won't happen, my local will serve you regardless of condition. Someone asleep in the corner is a regular sight but the place is still extremely popular and often packed with everyone from extremely heavy daily drinkers to people in for their after work pint, to a few auld women after mass to a group or 20 something's having a bit of a session before hitting town.

    The amount of drink put away by some of the regulars no doubt covers a lot of the running costs making a lot of the big crowds that come in over the weekend or mid week evenings very profitable.

    I also have a cousin working in a pub where the back door is open at 9am every morning, there is maybe 10 pure alcos in every morning and they have the costs covered by lunch time making all the people who come in for the matches or the after work pints pure profit. This is the reality of how pubs in rural towns are in the country side can be viable businesses.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    darced
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • #158
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    Fine publicans you two would make.

    Still, I suppose it's indicative of the shocking attitude most people have to alcohol in this country.

    Yes. Ireland, the only country in the world where alcoholics get served alcohol.


  • #159
    rpmcs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 186 ✭✭rpmcs


    I am shocked that so many people can think the bar man has any reason other than if the alcoholic would be annoying or aggressive, to refuse to serve.
    As a child of an alcoholic and any one who had any dealing with an addict will know that they will find a fix...whatever that be in some town and unless they decide themselves it's utterly useless.


  • #160
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    If I know you have liver disease I'm not serving you either. You talk about personal responsibility, that's me exercising mine.

    You do know that even medical professionals will tell an alcoholic not to stop drinking suddenly as their body may go into shock. So if you refused an alco, they went into shock and died, would you still feel vindicated??


  • #161
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,310 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    begbysback wrote: »
    You cannot deny someone a drink on the basis of you think they are an alcoholic, this would be considered discrimination based on an illness, of which cannot be 100% diagnosed any ways as alcoholism requires a self diagnosis.
    Bollox. A bar owner can't legally serve drink to anyone who's drunk.
    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    And is the barman not responsible for his decisions?

    As I said, shocking attitude. And from someone who should know better.
    They can't serve someone drunk. What you define as "drunk" is down to the barman. The alcoholic may be booted out when they become drunk, but until they're drunk, they have to be served.
    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    Just because you're not responsible for someone's alcoholism does not absolve you of the responsibility for serving them alcohol. An alcoholic is sick, a barperson serving them is a sick joke of an excuse for a human being
    Calling someone an alcoholic could be seen as slander.

    Example; well known alcoholic goes dry. A few weeks later, comes in with family, but the barman refuses to serve him because he's a known alcoholic. The barman would get sued for causing embarrassment to the patron.
    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    FYP

    Problem solved
    Will only work on white males, unless the bartender is not a white male. Refusing anyone else can be seen as discrimination.
    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    Barman to pubowner: If you're too stupid to know one man slabbering over 12 pints is keeping away half a dozen punters drinking you can stick your job up your ignorant hole :)
    Having worked in a pub, I've found the regulars will be the least troublesome. They will mostly leave with the least hassle, as they're either banned from everywhere else, or there is no other bar that is mostly quite.

    And I found that there would be often 10-15 regulars grouped nearby the bar, who order food and drink from the bar.
    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    Alcoholics didn't get served in any pub I worked in. We did OK.
    What do you call an alcoholic? It comes down to the definition.

    I define a functioning alcoholic as someone who will come in for a pint or two at lunch, and be in after work for dinner and pints. Who can't seem to function without a pint. Who'll have a quick slug from the whiskey bottle before going into work, and/or in work. We had a fair few of them. Most "regulars" were functioning alcoholics. The alcoholics would be in the bar from morning to night; all would be old men that worked their entire lives, and now don't want to be at home, for whatever reason.

    In saying that, I never came across a young (18-30) alcoholic, so they may be a different kettle of fish.

    Got more trouble with the binge drinkers, tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    The Backwards Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭The Backwards Man


    You can refuse to serve anyone you want, for any reason you want, as long as it's not discriminatory.

    'I'm not serving you' - fine

    'I'm not serving you, you big black queer gypsy crossdressing foreign-looking whore' - not fine


  • #163
    begbysback
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭begbysback


    the_syco wrote: »
    Bollox. A bar owner can't legally serve drink to anyone who's drunk.
    .

    Who said he was drunk? The op doesn't ask if someone who is drunk should be served.


  • #164
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,610 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    You can refuse to serve anyone you want, for any reason you want, as long as it's not discriminatory.

    'I'm not serving you' - fine

    'I'm not serving you, you big black queer gypsy crossdressing foreign-looking whore' - not fine

    Your reasoning for not serving them is still stupid because it fixes nothing.

    You are literally doing it so you can tell others how great you are.


  • #165
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Lots of things are illegal based on probability, rather than certainty.

    And I fundamentally disagree with that. Drink driving is illegal because scientific data proves that it is detrimental to one's ability to drive - not could be. There are no humans who can get drunk and be as good at the cognitive skills needed for driving as those who are not drunk. That's not a "some people", it's everybody - unless there are some medical marvels out there that I'm not aware of, whose brains are immune to the CNS depressant effects of alcohol consumption?

    Here's a good analogy for you - a lot of people talk about banning or restricting porn because it might lead to unhealthy attitudes, because it might cause young men to have less respect for consent, etc. Personally, unless it can be proven that it does have this effect and that this applies across the board, I would fundamentally disagree with any such restrictions.

    One central pillar of the nanny state is when the many are restricted because of the behaviour of the few, and I don't agree with that concept regardless of any circumstances it is applied in. If you can find even one individual who is single, has no responsibilities, and is not a threat, problem or danger to anybody else when off his face on X, Y or Z substance, then that substance should not be illegal.

    It's rather like the Biblical tale of "if you can find even one good man, I will not destroy this city".


Advertisement
Advertisement