In the UK atleast, it is the responsibility of the barmen as well as the bouncers to check ID. As I found out one night several years ago when I showed a bouncer my 100% real ID which showed I was underage but he didn't notice, only for the barmen to ID me and work out I was actually underage.
That's weird. Here in the US, bars like making money. There's usually some dude sitting on a stool near the door. You hand him your ID, he looks at the age, and says come on in. Then you don't have to mess with it the rest of the night.
Yep, bars like making money. But when the fines far outweigh what a 17yr old will spend on a night out it makes sense to keep your nose clean.
How is the bar law-abiding or innocent if it is serving under-age people? If, as in the UK, the terms of the licence state that it is an 18+ venue then it is the clubs responsibility to do what it must to prevent breaking those conditions. That includes ensuring that they are not deceived by fake IDs.
They took reasonable measures to make sure everybody was of age, i.e. carding everybody through the door. Fact is, they don't allow underage people in. They were a victim of ID fraud.
Do what it must? What, like background checks? That's totally unreasonable. If a local bar around here proposed any more thorough a check than carding customers who they don't recognize the entire patronage would be in an uproar. Their customers would never allow it. Because of general philosophies toward personal freedom in general, I believe the general public opinion toward checks like this in the US vs. the UK is very negative. I often hear stories from guys at work or people at school, just--turned-21s and people 40 years old, that being carded despite being a regular customer, or clearly looking 30+ years old, leaves a bitter taste in their mouth. It's not that they don't like the bartender, or the owner of the place, but they know who made those rules and they seriously don't like being scrutinized by those particular people.
It happens here too. They're allowed to hold fake cards and call the police, but they usually don't. I don't know anybody who has had that happen, though I do know some people who have simply been thrown out and told to come back when they're 21.
It isn't illegal for under 18s to consume alcohol. It isn't illegal for the person under 18 to be in a building regardless of it's use. If an under 18 fraudulently gains access then yes, they are responsible, but that's only if the premises asks for ID.
Only if the individual has made an attempt to deceive the premises. A bar that doesn't ask is seeking to make money illegally selling restricted goods.
All they need to do check someone's identity is to check a person's ID. In the UK they only accept Driving licences and Passports. Very difficult documents to forge, especially on an under 18s budget, and a criminal offence to do so.
Then the premises aren't taking the problem serious if they aren't prepared to at least inform the police, in my bar district police are rarely 50 metres away, a quick talking to and that kid won't try again.
Don't blame her, blame the dimwit in head office that put the prompt on the checkout system!I'm 32 and still sometimes get ID'd, I have no problem with that, except the girl that ID'd me whilst I was buying NON ALCOHOLIC Cobra from Waitrose.... Jeez... I try to kick the habit and get treated like a criminal!
In the US the drinking age is 21, and I've been referring exclusively to law-abiding sellers for a couple posts now.
The law is immoral. Law-abiding sellers do not want underage patrons, and if they take reasonable steps to keep them out, but are deceived by a patron with criminal intent, then the seller should not be at fault.
These measures are not fool proof, obviously, or else we wouldn't be having this argument.
I don't think an employee should get any more than a slap on the wrist from their boss if the customer is the one with criminal intent. These laws place the blame where it doesn't belong.
Police in the US don't tend to give kids a "quick talking to". Everybody knows that, and that's why both parties try to avoid police intervention unless absolutely necessary, like if there is a threat of violence. A bar turning in some punk can rest assured that they've just lost a customer for life, and that punk probably won't be too fond of the cops calling his parents to pick him up from juvenile detention, either. That's a lose-lose situation, and a rotten citizen in the making.
Except you're idea of law abiding seems to be bars that serve under age drinkers by ignorance, not be design or incompetency.
Ignorance of criminal activity is not a defence when reasonable pre-cautions can be taken. Handling stolen goods is a common example of how blind or purposeful ignorance doesn't deserve to go unpunished.
Except they almost are if followed correctly. It's very simple to assess the similarity between a photo ID and the holder, check for security features like holograms and ensure that the card has been openly tampered with. However, many employers do not encourage this training and check staff are performing the task correctly.
As could any employer who trains their employees to enforce legal practices. There will be exceptions but it shouldn't be a common issue.
You see no sense of civil duty? That an individual has a responsibility to uphold a small portion of the law of the land?
Don't blame her, blame the dimwit in head office that put the prompt on the checkout system!
checkout crush time..
I don't think I'm underestimating the under 18s, but I do realise that if our legal drinking age was 21 there'd be far more under-age drinkers willing to pay good money. Especially as by 20 you can be earning a half decent wage.
Coming from the nation that introduced the ambulance chasing society I'm quite frankly a little insulted. We do have a nanny state in many cases I'll admit, but when you're selling restricted goods it is very much your responsibility to ensure you are doing so legally.
And I thought the idea of personal responsibility had been lost in our own country. Jeez. In the US we live in a society where people know it is wrong to blame other people for their own actions, but they do it anyway because the twisted system is in their favor. In other countries it seems they don't even realize that it's wrong to blame others for your own wrongdoing.
I'm not sure how secure american ID is but on the British Driving Licence photo ID there's
American's also see gun law as a way to protect themselves, their family and others too weak to protect themselves, thus helping to enforce laws. But apparently taking responsibility for restricted goods doesn't?
And yet as late as 1984 it was set at 21 nation wide. Surely it would be a wonderful way to boost spending in a recession?
Azuremen mentioned that some people get real fake IDs. Most use the real ID of somebody else who looks similar, as was the case with a couple of my friends. At that point, the only thing to go by is the picture.
I honestly don't know what goes through some peoples' minds concerning gun control, but I see it as a bad thing. It's an example of using a couple bad apples to legitimize banning the entire orchard. I'm not sure what you mean by "laws" here, but laws tend to restrict things, so libertarians in American tend to dislike laws in general, especially those pertaining to our legislated rights like gun ownership. Fewer laws = better.
Economics, really?
I'm confused. They don't want money from other countries pouring in without that nasty import/export business?
You'll have to excuse me as I try to figure out this smuggled tobacco and alcohol issue. Either the ATF is way better at their job than I give them credit for, or it is a non-issue in the states, as I know of only one black market alcohol product, moonshine, and that is made domestically by folks like Uncle Jesse. The only black market tobacco I know if is Cuban cigars and people around here selling cigarettes to places like New York and Chicago.
Yes, because being unable to compete with the illegal trade is a good business tactic. Supply would spike early (or as soon as possible) out of necessity.
There's no import/export. It's Europeans travelling to the Netherlands to use cannabis.
In the UK, which I think TenEightyOne originates from, cigarettes are very highly taxed.
That's my point. They are looking to stop Europeans from plugging money into their economy without the problems of setting up trade agreements and whatnot.
So the issue is you have a black market because the government is attempting to setup a defacto prohibition via taxes? That is what is happening in places like New York and Chicago, where people where cigarettes are much cheaper ($3.50 a pack vs $10 a pack) are reselling cigarettes online.
If that's how you see it, I can't say I have much experience with trade.
I'll give you the figures and you can decide.
It isn't a comment on trade, it is a comment on the decision to stop money from coming into their country. It would be like the state of Florida, which has no state income tax because tourism brings in so much money, telling tourists they can't use amusement parks or beaches. Or Las Vegas telling tourists they can't gamble.
OK.
What does that have to do with smuggling? It could explain why they feel the need to tax it so high, but then that backs up my point about it being a defacto prohibition, in fact I would say that it is evidence that making it cost prohibitive is the goal.
77 percent!!!
THAT is why you have smuggling and black markets.
FORTY-NINE PERCENT. Wow. That is absolutely stunning.
77 percent!!!
They're clearly trying to shut down the industry, but to what benefit? At the moment I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why governments do this. Who votes for this stuff? You'd think at least they would want to industry alive and strong so they can tax it reasonably. That's the type of conniving logic I would expect from the government.
You're right when you say the crime forms around them. If we legalized drugs, the reduction in crime would partially come from people not being arrested anymore for drug abuse, but the other part would be that people aren't pissed off to the point of defiance because they can't get what they want.
I've seen examples of that around here. Alcohol isn't illegal, but there are a couple notable bars where cops always seem to hang out recently, waiting for drunk drivers. The business at those bars has steadily dropped off, and people have taken to driving the long way around to bars in other areas in order to avoid the police. They're still drinking, and they're still driving, but because of police presence they are now taking a longer, convoluted, arguably more dangerous route specifically to avoid the police.
You mean, like this guy?
They pay for people's health care. Or in the US they pay for too many low income people's health care, which is the demographic most likely to smoke. And that makes no sense to me, as not smoking a pack a day can save you as little as $20 a week, more in places with higher taxes. Throw in that many smoke multiple packs a day and you get a lot of money. I knew a girl who smoked a carton a day with her husband, and then complained about her electric bill.Keef
Except I think it's fair to say both those states were targeting tourism when the trend towards theme parks and casinos began. The Netherlands weren't.
I think in a state funded health system it's worth noting the "break even" point for a sin tax.
Using very, very simple maths the base line would have to be about 35% for smokers to break even on their imposed health costs to the NHS. But still a massive cut in current prices.77 percent!!!
Now, look at what an area with no smuggling and black markets is doing differently:
http://revenue.ky.gov/business/tobaccotax.htm
$0.60 a pack. That is roughly 17% of a pack of Marlboros (~$3.50 a pack). Short of some Cuban cigars I am unaware of any black market tobacco in this state.
Government tax entirely. "Booze Cruises" to France where many cases of Wine and crates of beer, and large quantities of cigarettes can be bought without Tax due to EU law are common.
I would gladly see Cannabis legalized in the UK. I have seen upwards of a £2,000,000 of cannabis plants confiscated within just 2 miles of my house and 3 different locations by 3 different "gangs".
I don't have much of a clue. Rolling your own cigarettes is cheaper than buying packs pre-made. However, youths and tramps seem to be the majority of people I see doing it. Perhaps they care more about the price than where it came from?
Because the government loves the tax revenue, a stigma towards smokers is ever growing but also as these work together to reduce the number of smokers the government seeks to maintain the revenue by increasing taxation on the decreased numbers.
