What do you do? — Benj96

Furthermore of being an ethical issue, I think it is forbidden by law to sell booze to alcoholic if you are aware that he or she is in rehab or needs help. This ethical problem reminds me about the alcohol selling (beers, in most of the cases) to teenagers. Is the owner of the liquor store responsible for selling alcohol to those persons? I think yes. Alcohol is a drug, and everyone who is in this business should be the most responsible in the use and sale of this product.

Well a law that prevents it certainly clarifies it as a non-conundrum. You simply do what is legally your duty.

But if such a law doesn't exist (I'm not sure what countries have such a law or don't, perhaps all of them do), but suppose they don't and the onus is on you to decide individually. What do you think is the correct course of action?

What do you think is the correct course of action? — Benj96

Not letting him to buy alcohol, even though I would lose money or even receive insults from him. Yet, your ethical dilemma makes me wonder about one situation: What is the role of the state in this topic? I am referring to taxation on alcoholic drinks. What if the owner of the liquor store is just doing his job and the state should be responsible for all of this?

I think the state has responsibilities to aid "all addicts". Whilst the clerk has the responsibility (if they so choose within the law) to aid "those alcoholics that they encounter in their daily life".

Aid comes at all levels. Which is most potent is difficult to say. The government has the ability to change laws and policies of commerce which affects everyone. But the clerk has the ability to have more impact on an interpersonal and thus emotional level because the government is impersonal and generic. It doesn't know individual people like the clerk does.

So it's a group effort. It is the responsibility of the government to help those in need on a macroscopic level and it is the responsibility of individuals to uphold morality on a microscopic level however they can as someone with good intentions/good will.

The combination of the two, when working together, is a powerful force to be reckoned with. Ideally everyone would reflect the general concensus (democratic process of legislation) but it is the very reason that we don't that we have need for such an institution as government to police our social deviance. And emplore ethics for those that have a loose sense of it personally.

If everyone was an outstanding citizen government would not be neccesary as we would all collectively and unanimously do the most prudent thing.

I hope this answers your question. Healthy government = the collective imagination of what is ideal while the individual is biased and doesn't reflect the collective conscience. Not ideal. We are all flawed in the end but we hope that by sharing opinions we can establish something beyond ourselves that mitigates out individual prejudice.

A no-brainer, if you look at a small town like a clan. Everybody is his brother's keeper. If you're a farmer and somebody in the town is hungry, you bring them food. If somebody's house is on fire, you help put it out. If their goat fell into a well, you help pull her out. You all make sure the children are safe, the sick and injured are cared-for, the young are instructed and the old are cherished. And if one member of the community has a problem with alcohol, everybody feels responsible for his recovery.

I hope this answers your question. Healthy government = the collective imagination of what is ideal while the individual is biased and doesn't reflect the collective conscience. Not ideal. We are all flawed in the end but we hope that by sharing opinions we can establish something beyond ourselves that mitigates out individual prejudice. — Benj96

It was a very good answer, indeed. Thank you and I appreciate the effort you took to elaborate on your arguments. I always tend to take part in your OPs because they tend to be so interesting.

I think it is forbidden by law to sell booze to alcoholic if you are aware that he or she is in rehab or needs help. — javi2541997

The law in Georgia, where I live, as it relates to alcohol:

A bar can be held liable for the injuries to a third person if it knowingly serves an intoxicated person. So, if a bar owner knowingly serves someone too much alcohol and that person injures another, that injured person can sue the bar owner. Note that if the drunk person is injured he cannot sue the bar owner, but only the innocent third party can sue the bar owner. You can't sue another for the consequences of your drunkeness. This is referred to as the Dram Shop Act.

Voluntary intoxication is never a defense, which means that you cannot blame the alcohol for your behavior or use it to mitigate your punishment as long as you voluntarily were drunk. If someone drugged you, you can use that as excuse for your conduct.

If you provide illegal drugs to someone and they overdose, you can be held criminally liable for their death (i.e. for homicide). The reason for this is that their death resulted from your commission of a felony, and that makes the consequence of your felony an additional crime.

Providing alcohol to a minor is obviously illegal because that is specifically illegal.

As to the moral question of whether you are in the right to sell alcohol to a known alcoholic, I don't know that ethics demands paternalism, and I would not hold it against the purveyor of drink for supplying drink., but I place the responsibility to control one's drinking entirely upon the person drinking. I fully understand that addiction impacts a person's decisions, but with 100 points of responsibility to dole out for the alcoholic's behavior, I give him the full 100 and expect him to take the full 100. I don't think anyone is done any good by spreading the blame for an alcoholic's alcoholism beyond the alcoholic. I also doubt there are any sobriety programs that suggest the addict find others to blame and not take full personal responsibility for his decisions.

It is illegal to sell alcohol to minors here too.

On the other hand, related to alcoholics.It is complex to explain, but I will give it a try. Our law (both the civil and criminal codes) considers alcoholics as "handicapped" persons. Years ago, they had their own regulation among gamblers, but their actions and rights are regulated generally now. One of the key aspects is what happens to the people who makes agreements or treats with alcoholics.

The articles 1265 and 1302 of the Spanish Civil Code declare null all the acts committed by handicapped or "non-capable" persons without judge authorization or legal support, and then, they put responsibility on all of them who treated with the alcoholic when they actually knew about such a problem or addiction.

We can agree with the point that the alcoholic holds all the responsibility for his acts. Yet, the people who are around him must protect him (supposedly). So, I also understand to share some responsibility in those specific cases, such as the one mentioned in this OP. An owner of a liquor store who sells booze to an alcoholic when he is aware about that person's condition.

When I am an alcoholic, if you will not sell me your finest ethanol, I will have to go to the hardware store and buy meths. No tax on meths!

Of course you are your brother's keeper, but if you are also a shopkeeper, you need yourself the support of the community. Easy enough to tell the miserable addict to go away, and impossible to really be responsible for his plight. How can you help me, addicted as you are to your respectability?

When I am an alcoholic, if you will not sell me your finest ethanol, I will have to go to the hardware store and buy meths. No tax on meths! — unenlightened

In my town? No, you won't. The guy in the hardware store knows about you; the girl at the drugstore won't sell you cough syrup with alcohol in it; if you try to buy anything, anywhere in town that's harmful, the clerk will call your AA sponsor.

How can you help me, addicted as you are to your respectability? — unenlightened

That won't wash, or shame anyone who really cares about you.

Well, that's why you drive an hour to the nearest city...

Well, that's why you drive an hour to the nearest city... — Moliere

And half-way back again.

But if such a law doesn't exist (I'm not sure what countries have such a law or don't, perhaps all of them do), but suppose they don't and the onus is on you to decide individually. What do you think is the correct course of action? — Benj96

It's called professional judgment. (Given the law in place, or the lack thereof), you employ your professional judgment to the best of your knowledge to decide whether or not you sell him alcohol. And the obvious answer is, of course, you don't.

Well, that's why you drive an hour to the nearest city... — Moliere

Yes, the alcoholic will find a solution to buy the drinks sooner or later.

Yes, the alcoholic will find a solution to buy the drinks sooner or later — javi2541997

If later - and every minute he's delayed - his chances of recovery improve. If he's trying to resist the temptation, he needs all the help he can get. Sometimes, just removing the temptation a little way out of reach is a boost to the addict's willpower. As a recovering smoker, I know this for a fact.

If he's trying to resist the temptation, he needs all the help he can get. — Vera Mont

As a recovering smoker, I know this for a fact. — Vera Mont

I understand and I have empathy for what you have expressed. That's why I said that we have to share a bit of responsibility and kindness with all of them who needs us.

Thanks for sharing your personal experience. Did you felt disappointed or upset with society when we/they didn't help you out?

Did you felt disappointed or upset with society when we/they didn't help you out? — javi2541997

Not at all. Various kinds of help were always available, but I didn't ask until I seriously decided to quit. The people close to me were very co-operative.
But for some culturally embedded reason, alcoholics have a much harder time. I guess it's because most of them behave badly under the influence, everyone is angry with them. And I suspect the rest of us resent them for making us feel bad about drinking, sometimes to excess. I know I used to resent born-again nonsmokers. (I'm still a smoker; I'm just taking time out, as long as my life is worth living smoke free.)

but I didn't ask until I seriously decided to quit. The people close to me were very co-operative. — Vera Mont

Glad to read personal testimonies as yours.

But for some culturally embedded reason, alcoholics have a much harder time. I guess it's because most of them behave badly under the influence, everyone is angry with them — Vera Mont

I know what you mean. Some of my “relatives”were alcoholic and they even dead because of this. I remember them as angry and liars, stealing money from our pockets to buy booze. Whenever I saw those actions I felt pretty sad and ashamed…

What if the owner of the liquor store is just doing his job and the state should be responsible for all of this? — javi2541997

Applying an increased tax on alcohol might have an effect. It is the most a state can do. It cannot forbid the selling of alcohol. Remember what effects its prohibition had with the alchohol ban in US in the 1920s. Beside fostering the rise of organized crime and the American Mafia. Also, people always find ways to sell prohibited things. A strong example in our times is the selling of street drugs. It just prospers. (Maybe also with the help of the governments, the police, etc.)

The state could force applying "warning" labels on alcohol bottles, as it did --and does?-- with cigarettes. I don't know what effect that had in the selling of cigarettes, but from what I know from my Marketing studies, the first time it was used in US, there had been findings about some cigatrette companies whose sales were increased!

This issue is so complex indeed. I don't understand the behavior and attitude of people. The state warns against the consumption of these "drugs," and randomly, people want to consume even more. This is one of the main issues with drug addiction. The yonkers and stoners wanted to prove drugs once because it seemed interesting to him that those were forbidden by law.

What it pisses me off the most is how the state is making revenue with them thanks to the taxes. Our governors and public servants just accepted that consumers tend to buy a big amount of cigarettes and booze, so it is an "opportunity" to make them profitable. I personally see those acts dishonest as hell...

Our governors and public servants just accepted that consumers tend to buy a big amount of cigarettes and booze, so it is an "opportunity" to make them profitable. — javi2541997

It's been called sin tax, and I don't think there an attempt at deception.

Sin taxes are designed to increase the price of goods and services in an effort to lower demand. They are a form of Pigovian tax which is levied to pay for the damage caused to society for detrimental goods and services.

The increased price may prevent some young people from starting the vice, but it does also encourage illegal trade that circumvents the tax. This kind of legislation is relatively easy to pass in elected bodies, because no party wants to be seen as pro-addiction, and a segment of the voters always wants to see the sinners punished.

I am aware that get zero consumption in alcohol is impossible. What I am against is how the states makes profit from them but at the same time they show slogans to promote health, sport, taking care…
I dont know, for me, they are acting with hypocrisy. If we accept that there always be consumption we can led this supplies to be managed by private companies.

What I am against is how the states makes profit from them — javi2541997

They don't. The public has to manage damage to the citizenry and infrastructure from harmful behaviours - the health and law-enforcement and property defacement and traffic accidents. It's not unfair to collect a substantial part of the compensation for those funds from the people who cause the damage and need rehabilitation. If part of the compensation comes from people who drink responsibly, as the LCBO posters exhort us to, we accept that burden as insurance payments, in case we fall off a wagon, just as good drivers also help to offset the expenses for damage done by bad ones. It's a social contract.

OTOH - I'm really against governments running the gambling racket.

Should you sell -- junk food to an obese person?
-------------------- cigarettes to someone with COPD?
-------------------- candy to a diabetic?

In real life, people make a lot of unhealthy choices while shopping. Clerks are not in a position to police the habits and addictions of the community or individuals.

The most solid theory that I know of is that the alcoholic has to decide to avail himself/herself of therapy or quit without help. A liquor store clerk's decision to refuse a sale is not likely to result in much of anything. The alcoholic an always find someone else to buy the liquor for him/her. At the state law level, bartenders can refuse alcohol sales to people who, in their judgement, are visibly drunk and impaired. That's not a necessarily obvious condition. "How drunk is drunk?" When does actionable impairment begin?

If the clerk is concerned, he or she could attempt to help the alcoholic obtain help (AA, detox, in- or out-patient treatment. Be warned, however, that it can require moving heaven and earth to get an addict to quit--especially If they don't want to. Even involuntary treatment is no guarantee of success.

In real life, people make a lot of unhealthy choices while shopping. Clerks are not in a position to police the habits and addictions of the community or individuals. — BC

The OP scenario is a small town, wherein everyone knows that this person is trying to dry out. The store clerk is not required to diagnose or pass judgment on a stranger.

You care about that family very much, as a close neighbour and friend. The alcoholic asks for a bottle of vodka. — Benj96

Presumably, the alcoholic has gone to AA, his pastor, his GP and whatever services are available. His diabetic cousin is regularly refused candy at the grocery store next door, because the cashier thinks he's cute and doesn't want him to die.
The question is whether the store clerk should put his job/employer's earnings above the welfare of the alcoholic, even if the alcoholic - in this moment of weakness - doesn't?

A small note to start: if it's a shop clerk he or she is not running the business, they are working for someone. (I realize 'running' is a bit ambiguous, but I think we should be clear about the power and role of the person).

I don't think we can make a rule. I think it depends on the boss/owner and how they might react. It depends on the specifics of the relation with the family. And in some ways it depends on the economic situation of the clerk and if there are dependents. If we as a society expect clerks to do such things, then that society should increase the protections clerks have.

I can't see a real problem with challenging the person. I think it gets tricky to expect the clerk to deny the sale.

n my town? No, you won't. — Vera Mont

I'm glad I don't live in your town,

The OP scenario is a small town, wherein everyone knows that this person is trying to dry out. The store clerk is required to diagnose or pass judgment on anyone. — Vera Mont

I grew up in a very small town; the town owns the hard liquor store (but not the beer joints). Small towns are not necessarily the kinds of places where one can rely on the kindness of strangers--or people you know very well, for that matter. Leaving that little berg was a very happy day.

But the ethical problem isn't solved or simplified by living in a small town--it's just more personal.

But the ethical problem isn't solved or simplified by living in a small town--it's just more personal. — BC

And that's what makes it an ethical problem.

I don't understand the behavior and attitude of people. The state warns against the consumption of these "drugs," and randomly, people want to consume even more. — javi2541997

This kind of reaction is similar to that of the children when you forbid something to them. Some ot them start revolting and want it more than before. Also, have you noticed how youngsters react to bulling? Some of them are teasing their bullies and thus they prokoke the bullying themselves. This also happens between young brothers and sisters who are about the same age. The weaker provoke the stronger ones and they insist after taking a bashing. This was happening for a lot of years with my niece and nephew when they were young.
All this I guess reflects the protest and revolt of the weak against power. It's the only thing they can do since they cannot fight back. But of course, it's also reflects the irrationality of the people. It's the human condition ...

the state is making revenue with them thanks to the taxes — javi2541997

I believe this is a necessary byproduct rather than an action aimes at profitability.
In Greece, they have done that in the past for both the alcohol and the cigarettes. But, although I was a heavy smoker and I also used to drink back then, I didn't protest. On the contrary, I supported it and tried to smoke and drink less. (Mainly from lack of cash flow, of cource! :smile:)

In Greece, they have done that in the past for both the alcohol and the cigarettes. But, although I was a heavy smoker and I also used to drink back then, I didn't protest. On the contrary, I supported it and tried to smoke and drink less. — Alkis Piskas

We all have had that period of time where we used to consume a lot of tobacco or drinks. My personal case was a big addition to alcohol when I was only 19/20 years old. I no longer consume big quantities anymore. To be honest, I think that, beyond being my fault (because no one pushed me to drink), I see a bit of bad ethics from the public administration or "bureaus" or "lobbies" of alcohol/tobacco. They are aware that those products can provoke addiction in the youngest and even affect their income because they waste money by just smoking and drinking, but they are sold anyway... It is a profitable business, and that's a fact. 
Only the courts of one state, Uruguay, condemned Marlboro for being dangerous to the public's health. A good move, but the consumption of tobacco hasn't plummeted...