And most laws pertaining to mind altering substances in general. Because, “Fuck personal responsibility, American adults can’t be trusted to put what they want in their own bodies.”

When I worked at the sports bar, we (servers) weren’t allowed to cut people off unless they reached a point of criminal belligerence. And even in that case, they wanted a manager to handle it. We were supposed to document any time we served someone 4 or more drinks, but that was about it. They WANTED people to keep…

As I was reading through this, I wondered if there would be a Pinkham’s Law on this, then I thought “Nah, no one could be that stupid.” Lesson learned: Always bet on human stupidity.

I’ve been reading the replies and am baffled by something. Are you telling me Bartenders and Waiters are only supposed to let people get shit faced if they *know* they aren’t driving and are theoretically legally culpable if they know someone who drinks and drives?

Such a strange law! I can’t imagine the cognitive dissonance required to think that it’s possible to overserve someone. Is someone tying them down and forcing them to drink? Why isn’t it the patron’s lawful responsibility ..entirely?

YEAH BUT THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT THOUGH EVEN WHEN THEY’RE PUTTING OTHER PEOPLE IN DANGER THE ENTIRE WORLD MUST KOWTOW TO THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE THE CUSTOMER DIDN’T YOU KNOW THAT?

The people have clearly spoken. From now on we expect only the most sterling examples of humanity, only faultless tales of innocent virginal waitress waifs intent on selflessly improving humanity through tireless unpaid drudgery being scurrilously abused.

If you tell the cops you see someone actively swerve you’ll get the intended 4 car response as fast as possible.

I’m honestly surprised he willingly served them that amount and then let them on the road at all. In NYS, I was always made to understand that as the bartender/server that served them, the cops would be coming for my ass when they were done with the drivers.

Seriously. This is just depressing. I expect better.

Well, I don’t know, she’s just waitressing in a restaurant.

Pinkham’s Law bringing out burner lawyers. This is amazing.

That makes me think of the Spanish Inquisition. “Our chief weapon is surprise. Suprise and fear. Fear and surprise. Two. Our *two* weapons are fear and surprise and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope . . . . *Amongst* our weaponry are fear, surprise, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red…

Man, you guys are making the absolute laziest Pinkham’s Law attempt I’ve ever seen with this argument. Come on. You can all do better.

Just last night in fact. The only downside is I’m allergic to wool, so you have to pull the acrylic over my eyes.

How is it rape? She consented to blindfolded sex with someone who she’s never seen. Then she complains about the equipment not being what she expected? This is homo-/transphobia, nothing more.

Ah, catfishing. Starts out as a lark, something fun to do while you’re bored, and then next thing you know you’re in England wearing a wool hat and a strap-on.