Does Asking For ID To Purchase Alcohol/Tobacco Imply The Purchaser Is A Criminal?

I am just curious if anyone else has thought this way. Up until your ID is presented, the store clerk must assume you are underage. If you consume or possess alcohol as a minor it is a criminal act. Thus, is asking for ID asserting that the person is a criminal?

No it is preventing yourself from a criminal act. As the sale of said substances to a minor is a far more grave crime. A lot of stores have a policy of looks under 30 be sure to id, some have a policy of id everyone regardless of age. The ones who id everyone are the ones that have had to pay the fine and faced charges already.

ThoughtEx. said:

No it is preventing yourself from a criminal act. As the sale of said substances to a minor is a far more grave crime. A lot of stores have a policy of looks under 30 be sure to id, some have a policy of id everyone regardless of age. The ones who id everyone are the ones that have had to pay the fine and faced charges already.

Click to expand...

I don't see how the clerk is not presuming guilt. If I were to present my ID without being asked, I would agree that I prevented myself from being considered a criminal. But if the clerk were to ask me, I think they must consider me to be suspect of being criminal.

Pozessed said:

I am just curious if anyone else has thought this way. Up until your ID is presented, the store clerk must assume you are underage. If you consume or possess alcohol as a minor it is a criminal act. Thus, is asking for ID asserting that the person is a criminal?

Click to expand...

No. It's merely a way for retailers to comply with the law.

If it's illegal to sell certain products to a customer then the retailer must exercise some reasonable form of due diligence. Requesting an ID facilitates that requirement in a reasonable manner.

According to those opposing voter ID "it is racist" :roll:

Lutherf said:

No. It's merely a way for retailers to comply with the law.

If it's illegal to sell certain products to a customer then the retailer must exercise some reasonable form of due diligence. Requesting an ID facilitates that requirement in a reasonable manner.

Click to expand...

If my assumption is correct, the law is requiring retailers to presume people are guilty until proven innocent.

Pozessed said:

If my assumption is correct, the law is requiring retailers to presume people are guilty until proven innocent.

Click to expand...

No. The law requires retailers to exercise due diligence in complying with certain laws. There is no presumption of anything on the part of the retailer as long as they perform that due diligence in a consistent manner, reasonably construed to be effective in complying with the law.

Pozessed said:

If my assumption is correct, the law is requiring retailers to presume people are guilty until proven innocent.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with presumption of guilt. It has everything to do with if no ID was asked for thousands of under aged people would be buying liquor.

Of course, voting is not quite like buying liquor since a single vote is about as useful as buying a powerball ticket but without the possibility of a million-dollar payout. Buying a six pack otoh is a good buzz, especially if you are 14.

Pozessed said:

If my assumption is correct, the law is requiring retailers to presume people are guilty until proven innocent.

Click to expand...

It's more about the employees selling cigs and alcohol not going to jail themselves.

WCH said:

It's more about the employees selling cigs and alcohol not going to jail themselves.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't be much of a requirement if there was no way to discipline.

Lutherf said:

No. The law requires retailers to exercise due diligence in complying with certain laws. There is no presumption of anything on the part of the retailer as long as they perform that due diligence in a consistent manner, reasonably construed to be effective in complying with the law.

Click to expand...

It is easy for me to replace the way you used due diligence with presumption of guilt. Just because the law declares everyone should be suspected of guilt does not mean that we should idly comply.

calamity said:

It has nothing to do with presumption of guilt. It has everything to do with if no ID was asked for thousands of under aged people would be buying liquor.

Of course, voting is not quite like buying liquor since a single vote is about as useful as buying a powerball ticket but without the possibility of a million-dollar payout. Buying a six pack otoh is a good buzz, especially if you are 14.

Click to expand...

If kids want to get drunk, they will find a way.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+to+make+alcohol

Pozessed said:

It is easy for me to replace the way you used due diligence with presumption of guilt. Just because the law declares everyone should be suspected of guilt does not mean that we should idly comply.

Click to expand...

Just because it's easy for you to do that doesn't mean it's correct.

Lutherf said:

Just because it's easy for you to do that doesn't mean it's correct.

Click to expand...

Doesn't make me wrong either. How does asking for ID imply the buyers innocent of criminal activity?

Pozessed said:

Doesn't make me wrong either. How does asking for ID imply the buyers innocent of criminal activity?

Click to expand...

It doesn't imply anything other than performing reasonable due diligence. It's no different than asking for ID when you write a check or use your credit card at a store.

Pozessed said:

Wouldn't be much of a requirement if there was no way to discipline.

Click to expand...

No one is required to check ID.

They do it to make sure they're complying with the law -- the law that they may not sell to underage people.

They don't have to sell you alcohol at all. They're willing to do so only if they know they're in compliance. Thus, they ask.

Why you think that's some kind of assumption of guilt is baffling.

But even if it was, so what? They're allowed to think whatever they want about you.

Lutherf said:

It doesn't imply anything other than performing reasonable due diligence. It's no different than asking for ID when you write a check or use your credit card at a store.

Click to expand...

There would be an implication that I am not who I am assumed to be. That is an implication of guilt as well. though a mutually appreciated one. Prohibiting alcohol is not mutually appreciated by myself, and possibly many others. Treating me like a criminal because I forget my ID or have my son with me is not a fair treatment in a country where it is presumed that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Pozessed said:

I am just curious if anyone else has thought this way. Up until your ID is presented, the store clerk must assume you are underage. If you consume or possess alcohol as a minor it is a criminal act. Thus, is asking for ID asserting that the person is a criminal?

Click to expand...

No its asking if the person is underage.By law stores can not sell certain products to people under a certain age.

Harshaw said:

But even if it was, so what?

Click to expand...

Because it would be a law presuming all people purchasing alcohol are guilty of underage possession, consumption, or sale of alcohol until proven innocent. In a country that is supposed to treat its citizens as innocent until proven guilty, it is unethical.

jamesrage said:

No its asking if the person is underage.By law stores can not sell certain products to people under a certain age.

Click to expand...

And the only way to obey that law is to presume everyone is guilty of underage consumption, possession, or sale of alcohol until ID is shown. Guilty until proven innocent.

Pozessed said:

I don't see how the clerk is not presuming guilt. If I were to present my ID without being asked, I would agree that I prevented myself from being considered a criminal. But if the clerk were to ask me, I think they must consider me to be suspect of being criminal.

Click to expand...

Many suburbs around Chicago require a license from everyone to purchase smokes. It's the law. That's my first point.

My second one is that a stores can lose their license to SELL cigarettes if they sell to under-age people. They can also face heavy fines.

Since we don't know the workings of another's mind, it would be impossible to know WHAT they're thinking. And what do you care anyway?

If you wish to look at it that way, then you're always looking at a half-full glass. And while you're doing That, I'm drinking it.

Pozessed said:

There would be an implication that I am not who I am assumed to be. That is an implication of guilt as well. though a mutually appreciated one. Prohibiting alcohol is not mutually appreciated by myself, and possibly many others. Treating me like a criminal because I forget my ID or have my son with me is not a fair treatment in a country where it is presumed that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Click to expand...

Your assertion is that asking for ID is some kind of 4th Amendment violation. It isn't. The 4th Amendment is VERY clear regarding "unreasonable" searches. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable regarding asking for an ID incidental to the purchase of a legally restricted item.

Pozessed said:

Because it would be a law presuming all people purchasing alcohol are guilty of underage possession, consumption, or sale of alcohol until proven innocent. In a country that is supposed to treat its citizens as innocent until proven guilty, it is unethical.

Click to expand...

Checking ID may imply suspicion that the customer is underage, but that is not the same as presuming that he is underage. If suspicion were the same as presumption of guilt, we could never constitutionally charge anybody with a crime. A suspect is not the same as a convict.

Pozessed said:

Because it would be a law presuming all people purchasing alcohol are guilty of underage possession, consumption, or sale of alcohol until proven innocent. In a country that is supposed to treat its citizens as innocent until proven guilty, it is unethical.

Click to expand...

I just told you, there's no law requiring anyone to ask for an ID, except in a few places. And where there is, the requirement is to check everyone who buys. Everyone, regardless of obvious age. This does not presume guilt. No one thinks a 50-year-old is underage, but they check ID anyway.

You really need to calm down.

Harshaw said:

I just told you, there's no law requiring anyone to ask for an ID, except in a few places. And where there is, the requirement is to check everyone who buys. Everyone, regardless of obvious age. This does not presume guilt. No one thinks a 50-year-old is underage, but they check ID anyway.

You really need to calm down.

Click to expand...

Or 40 year olds who look like college students. Its ambiguous at best.Sure its frivolous to a degree. But in a country that has a large base of citizens who feels there are many inconsistencies with our laws, the small things can make a difference if there is any significance. If I am 40, and have a child with me, of any age, it is the store clerks discretion whether I may be suspect of a crime, and choose to sell to me or not. If I was not suspect of a crime, why would they not serve me?

We have this stigma where drinking is bad and drugs are bad. We push push for more regulation and more prohibition and hope the curse of addiction does not find its way into our homes. Education and regulation are the best deterrents. Acting as if we are all suspect because we "look" a certain age bothers me. People grow differently. Our children are going to grow up in a world where they can learn how to make any drug they choose. Its time we start working together to educate rather than prohibit. People do what they want. Suicide, murder, addiction, self mutilation, pedophilia, these are things we can't control. We can educate parents, and do our best to avoid these things. But making each other paranoid does not seem to be working.

And how is this for consistency. If alcohol, tattoos, and tobacco are restricted nationally to a certain age. So should dependency to ones parents, and any life risking activity. Such as enlisting and driving be that same age. All across the board. If alcohol is not safe because a persons body is not matured enough to cope with the chemicals, or because they are not responsible enough to drive. Then based on the principle of responsibility, all of these things should require the person to be 21.