![[winebred.gif]](winebred.gif)
![[dotted line]](rule17.gif){kind=small}
.
This is an offering in the direction of answering some of the licensed establishment questions.
One problem currently with the law (requiring licensed establishments to "not serve an already intoxicated person") is that (some feel) the larger responsibility is on the licensed establishment .. while allowing DUI offenders and problem drinker the "right" to drink alcohol.
It is the intent of this Initiative to make things easier, not more difficult, for licensed establishments.
The DUI problem is of porportions that it behoves us all to take on some responsibility (and put up with a small inconvenience) in helping to protect ourselves from being victimized. All responsibilities for enforcing this Initiatiave are not put on the licensed establishment:
(1) Anyone wanting to purchase alcohol would be responsible for having identification showing that they are over 21 and not restricted from purchasing alcohol.
(2) The DUI offender is restricted by the Court from purchasing or attempting to purchase alcohol. They should not be showing up to ask for an alcoholic beverage (as they have been able to prior to this.)
(3) The law is behind the establishment in saying "no" to their biggest liabilities. Current laws make servers liable even though the definition of intoxicated is a little subjective. The server may appear to be the "bad guy" in denying alcohol to an already intoxicated person who doesn't agree with their assessment.
A restricted license designating their biggest liabilities, removes that "random line." The server now has the law behind them in saying "no". And the only "bad guy" is the one that is ultimately responsible for the restricted license notation ... the drinking driver!
(4)
A licensed establishment's liability is still for a person who was over-served, caught, and arrested for a drinking and driving violation. The chances of that occuring however is greatly reduced (even if a licensed establishment ignores all their responsibilities), because alcohol won't be left as a "choice".
The range of possible administrative penalties remain the same:
Setting an environment that allows for change
Remember when society felt the person who was bothered by cigarette smoke could go someplace else? How things changed! Who would have thought there would be restaurants who would risk offending their customers by asking them not to smoke!
Likewise this Initiative may set the right environment for a change in attitude about the right to drink alcohol as opposed to the right to abuse alcohol. (And the irony of our punishing a person with (what may be) a disease, while continuing to supply them with the source.
.
Public reluctance to hold licensed establishments criminally liable for ignored responsibilities are not conducive to criminal charges being filed. However, .. If a situation warranted a criminal charge, the penalty upon a conviction, also remains the same as before:
.
Forward to THE DUI INITIATIVE
Back To UPDATE
If you have comments or suggestions,
email me at
rsnell@digisys.net
Or you can reach me at
(406) 752-5435
or write to:
Sharon Snell - PO Box 7633
- Kalispell, MT 59904
This page hosted by GeoCities
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page!