Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AppyPappy
They can change their decision about a product or service. If you knowingly take advantage of an impaired person, you should be punished for it.

And what responsibility does the impaired person have? Are they not to be held accountable for getting impaired? If my husband blows the mortgage payment on poker losses, I'm certainly not going to blame the guys he was playing poker with, or the fact that he was "impaired."

50 posted on 07/30/2002 7:21:16 AM PDT by dubyagee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: dubyagee
And what responsibility does the impaired person have?

It seems that both of them should be held accountable. The drunk for getting drunk and the proprietor for getting him drunk AND facilitating a risky behavior (gambling). That is why you need a "cooling off" period or removing the liquor from the equation to reduce the risk.

We have a cooling off period for products. Why not gambling?

55 posted on 07/30/2002 7:24:43 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson