Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are asking, 'does Thailand need a dram shop law?' For any of those out there who are saying 'what the heck is a dram shop law?' we are going to get into that, so give me just a second here and I'll get through the analysis of all of this. I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com. I actually read this initially in the print edition of the Bangkok Post and then found a copy of it online. The article is titled: Homebrew Bill needs new look, scholar says. Quoting directly: "An academic is urging the Government to review its Liquor Bill and implement regulations that make liquor stalls, restaurants or pubs liable for injuries caused by their patrons, such as drunk drivers." Quoting further: "Dr Muhammad, in his capacity as a Centre of Alcohol Studies academic, urged the government to review its Liquor Bill. Although the Bill will allow Thais to engage in home brewing to spur the economy, the Government should review the details, Dr Muhammad said." Quoting further: "He also urged lawmakers to issue liability rules to ensure everyone involved, including alcohol vendors, are accountable for drunk-driving incidents." Okay, a couple of things I want to unpack inside of this. One is this notion of this Homebrewing Bill. Yeah I think we did a video on this last week talking about the Liquor Act. They are seriously discussing and it looks like there is a major momentum behind the possibility of an amendment or an entirely new Act in the Thai Parliament regarding sort of home brewing, micro brewing if you want to call it that. Up to now there has always been a heavy, I hesitate to call it a monopoly, that is probably not the right word, but the industry is dominated by a couple of key major players when it comes to alcohol here in Thailand especially when it comes to the issue of like brewing beer. There are certain quotas and how much beer you have to brew in a given time period in order to be able to run a Brewing Company here in Thailand so it has always been very hard for microbreweries to get into the business. But, as with everything, I think Thailand is just looking, they are really reassessing all of these kind of institutionalized structures if you will within the market; they are kind of reassessing this stuff. Big reason is we did two years where we kicked the guts out of 20% of our GDP, not to mention the rest of the GDP which went down because businesses were closed for prolonged periods of time and there was all kinds of just complete economic inactivity. As we said, I mean literally we talked about this, it decimated the tourism industry. So obviously tax revenues, the Government is concerned about that. Overall economic activity, everybody is concerned about that so I think that's why all of this stuff is being reassessed. 

Now with regard to this, a couple of things I thought were rather odd. One, and I don't know the background or anything and I don't want to cast aspersions on anybody but just one observation I made. This person's name is Dr Muhammed; I am curious if that person happens to ascribe to the Islamic faith which that's fine but it is my understanding that faith is very much against the consumption of alcohol which would cause me to then ask the question: "could that have an impact, could they be biased one way or the other against alcohol as a result of that?" I think that’s a fair question. And look, I am just always very skeptical of any of this "hey you know what the solution to issues in our society is? A bunch more Government." That always really gives me pause.

Now back to this notion of "dram shop", okay? What is a "dram shop law"? Well in the context of American jurisprudence primarily which is where I have my expertise at, I am going to quote directly from dictionary.law.com and this entry is titled: Dram shop rule. Quoting directly: "A Statute dram shop Act or case law in 38 states which makes a business which sells alcoholic drinks, or a host who serves liquor to a drinker who is obviously intoxicated or close to it, strictly liable to anyone injured by the drunken patron or guest." Yeah I hate this law. I think it's really stupid because, the same reason I hated the so-called COVID restrictions and all the mandates and everything because it completely discounts the notion of “proximate cause”. Proximate cause being look for somebody who is being held liable for something, they need to have done it, I mean fundamentally. By "done it" that doesn't mean they have to intend to do it, negligence counts but you have to be the perpetrator. There has to be a cause of action against you and I am sorry I have an issue with the notion that because I run a bar and I served a guy a couple of beers hypothetically and that guy went out to his car, got in it, turned it on and drove 6 miles and then crashed into a tree or hit someone or something, I don't see how that's my responsibility. I get, there may be some constant scrutiny from alcohol licensers or something to make sure people aren't running a place where people are just knockdown, drag out, drunk all the time, I could understand that but I don't understand this "oh well we have got to attach liability". To be clear, they say this in this Bangkok Post article, again quoting again: "He also urged lawmakers to issue liability rules to ensure everyone involved, including alcohol vendors are accountable for drunk driving incidents." Why? Why should that happen? Just because you are a vendor of something does not mean you got behind the wheel and did that. To me there is just a clear disconnect between the liability of somebody who is just running their business and somebody who is being irresponsible in their own personal life. I really fail to see the connection. Incidentally going back to dictionary.law.com, quoting again under this entry, “California recently passed legislation specifically banning such strict liability. It is often hard to prove that the liquor bought or served was the specific cause," Yes, causation is a major issue, "was the specific cause of an accident, such as an automobile crash while driving home since there is always an intervening cause namely the drunk”, the person who drank and that's the point. Again proximate cause. Who is the cause of this?  And again, I just I really hope Thailand does not do this. This is just the kind of nanny-minder laws that are all over the West now quite frankly and that we really ought to be rethinking back there. In fact California, I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes because California has got a lot of really weird laws. But what can I say? Every state has weird laws but they made a good point. Causation is a major issue here. Why should there be strict liability on somebody just for serving alcohol?

And think about this for a real second here. So as a person that owns a restaurant or a bar, and it is not just bars, it's not like everybody's just running in and drinking and drinking and drinking until they pass out. No restaurants serve alcohol etc. So now restaurants have to sit around and do an assessment of everybody that comes into their place as to whether or not they seem like a high risk of drunk driving down the road? Honestly this is a bad policy and it is based on illogical thinking when you get right down to it and I really hope Thailand doesn't adopt it.