Prohibition

Apr 1
07:34

2008

Myron Gushlak

Myron Gushlak

  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Share this article on Twitter
  • Share this article on Linkedin

A ruling this week in a New Jersey appeals court said that the owners of a tavern can be sued for allowing a customer to drive away drunk, even if they were not serving him alcohol.

mediaimage

          I had to read that twice when I saw it in the newspaper. The specific bar in question was in the resort town of Cape May. The lawsuit was brought by the family of a passenger killed in a crash in a car driven by the drunk man. The drunk man apparently was already drunk when he got to the bar,Prohibition Articles and had a flask that he hid away to continue his partying. No one contradicts that the bar did not serve any alcohol to the eventual driver. The story caught my eye for a couple of reasons, one having to do with the accountability issue, the other more convoluted, perhaps. I’m not saying that the death of the twenty-one year old wasn’t tragic, nor am I saying that the driver shouldn’t be held accountable in some way. But could a ruling be more illogical? If the man stopped to buy a paper at a 7-11 and displayed drunken behavior, should the clerk be also held accountable?  How about the parking lot attendant, if there was one? At what point does the drunk man become accountable for his own behavior, or the dead man partially accountable for getting in the car with someone so obviously impaired to begin with? The ruling is justice run amok.

            When Prohibition began in 1920, the country was caught in an ideological war between the Drys, those against drinking, who were often armed with mandates mined from the Bible, that most flexible of all documents, and the Wets, who thought drinking was none of the government’s business. Thirteen years, five months and nine days later, Prohibition was repealed. The number of bars in New York tripled during Prohibition, by the way, and the repercussions from the legacy of organized crime started in the 1920’s continues today. Unless you live within walking distance of a local watering hole, or live in a city where mass transit is readily available, there is a de facto prohibition taking place today. The driving while impaired laws are harsh, the penalties severe. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be.  I’m just pointing out what is clear to me, that we are in a Prohibition period far more effective than the historical one referenced. Ask any bar or tavern owner.  What used to be a lucrative business is now an iffy financial proposition. Listen to the doors slamming closed on bars across America.

             I guess I’m a Wet at heart, and I don’t even drink that much. I hate the social climate that fosters such decisions as the one the Jersey court rendered. I hate that everyone is always blamed for someone else’s transgressions. I hate that the government spends more time with such matters than the real issues. It’s an easy position for any politician to take. “I’m against drunks! Vote for me.”  Who isn’t?  But I can’t help but feel that something is being lost in the transaction. And I have a feeling I’m going to miss it when it’s gone.

            I know what you’re thinking, and let me cut you off at the pass.  My next blog will not be about the benefits of cigarette smoking, nor a defense for “slapping the old ball and chain around a bit.” It’s just that I get tired of someone’s knee jerk reaction hitting me in the chin.                    

Article "tagged" as:

Categories: