• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments


Are legislators going to try to fix something that doesn't need to be fixed?

Legislators of both parties say they are ready to revamp a state law that took effect this summer requiring anyone buying carryout alcohol in Indiana to show a photo ID.

[. . .]

Democratic Rep. Charlie Brown of Gary tells the Post-Tribune that all legislators must have been asleep when they passed a law requiring a 70-year-old like himself to show an ID at a liquor store.

Republican Sen. Jim Merritt of Indianapolis says he would propose changing the law to have clerks check the ages of customers who appear younger than 40.

Common sense and my experience with the law so far tell me those who sell liquor like the law just the way it is. Requiring ID from everybody takes all the guesswork out of it and reduces the chances of mistakenly selling booze to minors. If you bring subjective judgment back into it, even the benchmark of "appearing 40," there are going to be lapses.

I know there are some, shall we say, super adults, who object crankily to the dumbness of having to show ID; we've printed a couple of letters to the editor from them. And I have to admit I've felt a little silly from time to time for having to flash one. But, really. I go into the liquor store with both my ID and debit card in hand, and it must add, oh, gee, 10 seconds to the whole process. Of all the things that complicate our lives, this one has to be near the bottom of the list.


tim zank
Mon, 09/27/2010 - 11:38am

"Of all the things that complicate our lives, this one has to be near the bottom of the list."

Granted, the extra few minutes or seconds isn't gonna kill anyone. It's the underlying need, belief, or desire if you will of the state to completely eradicate all shreds of common sense and personal (as well as corporate) responsibility.

Another layer of perceived "safeness" needed to protect us from making any mistakes.

Just further proof we'll all one day be compliant little zombies.

William Larsen
Mon, 09/27/2010 - 1:01pm

I can see both sides to the debate. An ID for the sake of an ID so that the person you are showing it to can make a copy of it, does not thrill me. I have a Government Issued VA photo ID card. It does not have my DOB, Address or signature on it. I have never had trouble using it when I enter a Federal Building, board an plane or vote.

I have had been denied getting my medical information from Parkview though. Parkview wants to see a signature on the ID.

I have many people say presenting an ID is no problem, everyone does it to cash a check (I don't write checks to present in person, so I never present ID for this type of transaction. I do not use credit or debit cards.

In a short period of time I will no longer be able to drive a car so I will not be having a need for a Driver's license. I certainly have no need for a State ID.

As for the Smart Social Security Card that may be issued to everyone in a few years. I will refuse it as well as any national ID card.

Lewis Allen
Mon, 09/27/2010 - 8:10pm

The point about taking the guesswork out of it is the main reason I've got no trouble with this law. It levels things out, and (eventually) makes the clerk's job a lot easier.