[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
No one is forced. Don’t want to show ID? Then you don’t need that pack of smokes.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t want to ride in the back of the bus? Then you don’t need to ride the bus.
The whole anti-smoking thing is a tyranny of the majority, which is usually the worst kind of tyranny there is.
[QUOTE=Harborwolf]
Now, to restate. You have said that a twelve year old does not have the ability to make a proper decision regarding sex. Does that same twelve year old have the ability to make the proper decision regarding smoking?
[/QUOTE]
A typical 12 yr old doesn’t have the ability to make the proper decision about what video game system to play, let alone anything else. That’s what his parents are for.
How do you translate that into a 7-11 clerk somehow being responsible for 25 yr olds smoking?
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Don’t want to ride in the back of the bus? Then you don’t need to ride the bus.
[/QUOTE]
Jesus H. Christ on a cracker, now I’ve heard everything! Not being allowed to sell cigarettes to minors = Jim Crow?
Say, do they still have cigarette vending machines in the US? With these laws restricting sales of tobacco, it seems like those would have been done away with.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Jesus H. Christ on a cracker, now I’ve heard everything! Not being allowed to sell cigarettes to minors = Jim Crow?
[/QUOTE]
Hey, talk to MandaJo, she’s the one who said it.
Everytime I see this troll post I wonder if the good people of Carol Stream, Illinois know this dumbass is posting under their good name. And I doubt HE is the real Carol Stream.
From his first post here–easily the dumbest fuck we have seen around these parts and that is not an easy task.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Hey, talk to MandaJo, she’s the one who said it.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Miller]
Gosh, you’re dumb.
[/QUOTE]
Gosh, you’re dumb. Equating selling cigs to minors to rape, is really, really, dumb, not to mention offensive.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
A typical 12 yr old doesn’t have the ability to make the proper decision about what video game system to play, let alone anything else. That’s what his parents are for.
How do you translate that into a 7-11 clerk somehow being responsible for 25 yr olds smoking?
[/QUOTE]
In my opinion you have to draw the line somewhere, and if there were no age restrictions on selling cigarettes, I think we all agree that there definitely would be 12 year olds buying and smoking cigarettes. Its also obvious that some 12 year olds still are able to aquire cigarettes, but I think its safe to assume that requiring ID for purchase does make it significantly more difficult for them to do so, and therefore reduces the amount of minors who smoke. So, in order to prevent (or at least reduce) minors from smoking, there are laws prohibiting anyone under 18 from purchasing tobacco products. There are valid arguments that 18 may older than necessary for someone to make a decision about smoking and to understand the consequences, but 18 is the age we’ve chosen, that is what’s enforced.
The only reason a 25 year old enters into the equation is because of the specific policies of some businesses, who in order to ensure compliance with the law, chose to err on the side of caution in selling age-restricted products. In this case, the business has decided that by carding anyone who appears to be 27 or younger, will reduce the chances of them mistakenly selling cigarettes to a minor to an acceptable level. The main downsides of this policy is that they will end up carding a certain percentage 18-27 year old customers, and possibly forgo sales to someone who could legally purchase tobacco but doesn’t happen to have ID on them. The main upside would be avoiding significant penalties for selling to minors. I’m sure they’ve evaluated all the upsides and downsides when implementing their policies.
I guess the bottom line is that, the business or their policy, is in no way intentionally trying to take responsibility for a 25 year old’s smoking. They are only taking responsibility for a minor’s smoking, and having to refuse a sale to the occasional 25 year old, is just an unfortunate byproduct of that.
[QUOTE=Blunt]
I guess the bottom line is that, the business or their policy, is in no way intentionally trying to take responsibility for a 25 year old’s smoking. They are only taking responsibility for a minor’s smoking, and having to refuse a sale to the occasional 25 year old, is just an unfortunate byproduct of that.
[/QUOTE]
How is it their responsibilty at all? Unless you believe in the Nanny State.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
How is it their responsibilty at all? Unless you believe in the Nanny State.
[/QUOTE]
I guess you’re right, and preventing minors from smoking isn’t directly the responsibilty of the business. It is only their responsibility indirectly, in that there are laws they must follow or face consequences. In fact, it would be in their best interest for minors to be allowed to smoke because it would create more customers. But, the government has taken responsibility for preventing smoking among minors, which is why there are age restrictions on the sale of tobacco. It is a business’ responsibilty to comply with the law.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
A typical 12 yr old doesn’t have the ability to make the proper decision about what video game system to play, let alone anything else. That’s what his parents are for.
How do you translate that into a 7-11 clerk somehow being responsible for 25 yr olds smoking?
[/QUOTE]
So you agree that there has to be some set age where you can legally make decisions on things like sex, or cigarette purchases. Your challenge: without creating a “nanny state,” what is the best way to determine the age of the individual to make sure that they have reached an age where they can make a proper decision regarding such purchases bearing in mind that people may lie.
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
Say, do they still have cigarette vending machines in the US? With these laws restricting sales of tobacco, it seems like those would have been done away with.
[/QUOTE]
Once in a while I see one in a bar. Anyway I was off yesterday so today was the first time I spoke to my manger in person. He reviewed the tapes and agreed that he’d have made the sale too. That was the extent of the “counseling” corporate policy requires he given. Nonetheless it’ll still be in my file that I flunked BARS. Which by the way is a private business that retailers pay to come into their stores and audit compliance . Now regarding carding, my manager told me that I’m well within my rights to card anybody if I choose to and he’ll back me. He also restated company policy that I have the right to refuse service to anyone. However since we’re not actually required to card everybody (yet) I’m just going to card anyone who looks like they could be under 30, but I will ask every customer for their birthdate instead of just hitting the overide button from now on. This means whenever loss prevention does an audit it will be on record that I either scanned an ID or entered an actual birthdate for every tobacco sale intead of hitting overide. Again my maneger is fine with that. Most customers just rattled off their birthdate (in numeric form) without thinking (which makes me think that alot of other stores do the same thing). A few people asked why or made a comment, but they were understanding and not upset. One woman got upset and told me she wasn’t telling me her birthday to get cigarettes. She cut me off when I attemped to explain so I refused her sale (manager was present and didn’t overule me) and she left.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
I really don’t care, when they are infringing on everybody else to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Private enterprise - you don’t like it, don’t shop there.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
But there is a certain “knowingly” element to most laws. I can’t murder someone. You and I both know what that means.
But I can’t sell cigarettes to someone under 18. People don’t have age stamps on their forehead. Maybe he looks 20 to me, and looks 16 to someone else.
[/QUOTE]
What happens if you fire a gun through a wall and kill someone, not even knowing anyone is there, but just firing it off for fun? With a great lawyer, that’s likely manslaughter.
Screw a girl who is 14 but looks 18 and you are also going away.
If you sell cigs- or any other addictive drugs- to a minor, you have commited a crime and deserve punishment, even if you say, like Jeevs on MiB “He looked Ok to me”.
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
Say, do they still have cigarette vending machines in the US? With these laws restricting sales of tobacco, it seems like those would have been done away with.
[/QUOTE]
I remember about 20 years ago, they were everywhere. Then about 10 years ago, they were in a few places where kids GENERALLY didn’t go by themselves. Now, at least in the state of Florida, cig vending machines can only be inside of places that children are already banned, like bars or private clubs. I still see them there, but damn are they expensive there. All of the smokers I know stop at the convenience store before hitting the bar…
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
What happens if you fire a gun through a wall and kill someone, not even knowing anyone is there, but just firing it off for fun? With a great lawyer, that’s likely manslaughter.
Screw a girl who is 14 but looks 18 and you are also going away.
If you sell cigs- or any other addictive drugs- to a minor, you have commited a crime and deserve punishment, even if you say, like Jeevs on MiB “He looked Ok to me”.
[/QUOTE]
If you fire a gun through the wall, for fun, then you are an idiot and have broken the law just for doing that. You are responsible for making sure of your target. The “knowing” element is here. A “reasonable” person knows to not fire gun shots in a residential home for pleasure.
And the reasonable person standard would come into play if you had sex with a 14 year old who looked 18. Show the jury a picture of the girl, and if those “reasonable” jurors would side with you, then you go home.
Same thing with cigs. If me, you, the dog, and 12 jurors would SWEAR that the kid looked every bit of 20, then you have a valid defense. My problem is that the cops send these underage kids in there to incite, or entrap a poor clerk making a meager salary into committing this crime.
I could almost sympathize if a parent caught his 17 year old kid with smokes and said that Mr. Cashier at the convenience store sold it to him. But these cops on these stings just manufacture a crime out of thin air. It wasn’t there until they sent the underage agent in.
Do you have a job where the police routinely try to get you to commit a crime which could make you lose your job, pay a fine and/or go to jail?
I’m sorry, I’d like to get us back to the salient point. To whit: tell us about these “cleavage girls”.
Sorry I’m a little bit dense here, but I don’t quite understand a couple of things.
I can understand and agree with public policy making it illegal to sell ciggies to anyone under 18. And I understand that to be the law (at least most places - being well over 18 and a non-smoker, I don’t sweat the details.)
But I really don’t understand a legal requirement that vendors card everyone up to 7-9 years over the legal age.
And I especially don’t understand a legal requirement that vendors card everyone appearing up to 7-9 years over the legal age.
First of all, I’d have a difficult time imagining such legislation could be written as to be enforceable. As others have observed, how do you define “appearing” a certain age in a manner that allows consistent enforcement?
I’m also not sure I understand a necessary connection between the goal of the public policy - preventing the sale of baccy to kids under 18, with a legal requirement of carding customers who everyone agrees appears older than 18 (assuming it is possible to get such agreement.) A requirement that you “card everyone who appears to be under 18” is at least related to the desired policy goal.
ISTM that carding people who appear and actually are above the legal age seems to be - at best - tenuously connected to the goal, which is to not sell to underaged folk. Am I missing something here? I would be interested in seeing legislation stating that it is illegal to sell smokes to an adult if you did not ask for ID.
I think a statutory rape analogy might hold water. As I understand that offense, it is illegal to screw someone under the legal age, no matter how old he/she looked, or even whether you believed he/she was underage. In other words, no specific intent is required. I could think you were 20, you could show me a birth certificate showing you are 20, but if it turned out you were 16, I’m the one who can get screwed. The question isn’t whether or not I asked her her age or even required documentation. No, the sole question is whether or not I fucked her.
So what is the goal here? Stopping sales to 17 year olds. It doesn’t matter how old/young a customer “appears,” or even whether or not a specific individual gets carded, so long as the desired result attains - keeping smokes out of the hands of kids.
I read the linked NY info, and while it did use the word “must,” I’m not sure it did so in a manner that necessarily set forth a legal requirement. Further down it mentioned the penalties for selling to minors, but did not mention any penalties for failing to card adults.
Now, having said all of this, I can imagine a store having some goofy ass policies about carding people who “appear” a certain age, and contracting with a non-governmental entity such as this BARS to enforce it, but in my mind that is a far cry from state action.
I overheard a somewhat heated exchange between a manager and an employee in a Walgreen store last night. The manager was berating a cashier for not carding someone the cashier had previously carded. The manager maintained that carding people every single time they attempted to buy cigarettes was company policy; employees who flouted that policy could be terminated along with their immediate supervisors.