Current Events > A 19 year old buys alcohol from a store; who gets in trouble?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Note: this is in the US, where 18 = legal adult but 21 = legal drinking age.

I think the teenager usually gets a free pass in this case, and the store gets in big shit.

Its both
Source: I work at a grocery store
---

Turbam posted...

Its both
Source: I work at a grocery store

huh... what happens to the teenager? What happens to the store? Just a fine?

IdiotMachine posted...

Turbam posted...

Its both
Source: I work at a grocery store

huh... what happens to the teenager? What happens to the store? Just a fine?

Yeah, a fine for both. Possible termination for the employee
---

Reality is teenager gets taken home and punished by parents, no fine. Store employee probably gets fired and the store may or may not get fined depending on how many times its happened. They very rarely fine the person buying the alcohol cause if the store was doing their job and checking ID that shouldnt happen in the first place.

Card everyone you suspect. People would get pissed off at me but fuck em. I'm protecting my job. I've never in 6 years working at a convience store ever heard a store or employee punished if a fake ID was used. So to protect yourself card everyone if you have to. It sucks. But it is what it is.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

No kid is gonna be able to have both the means and transportation necessary to go and buy a bunch of alcohol. And if they, it's because they have a job.

lol
---

Nobody, the legal age is 18.
---

Lol. Here in Scotland we can buy alcohol at 18.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Cal12 posted...

Reality is teenager gets taken home and punished by parents, no fine. Store employee probably gets fired and the store may or may not get fined depending on how many times its happened. They very rarely fine the person buying the alcohol cause if the store was doing their job and checking ID that shouldnt happen in the first place.

If the person buying the alcohol was doing their job (AKA following the law) then that wouldn't happen in the first place, either.

That's what pisses me off about sting operations where they have 19-20 year olds use purposely deceitful looking IDs .Even if it was setup as a sting...they attempted to purchase alcohol. It's bullshit.

Not really. Parenting is one half, being law abiding citizens the other. The kid trying to buy the alcohol is just that, a kid trying to buy alcohol. The person behind the counter allowing it without checking the ID owns the fault for selling it, though. Even in this instance the severity is different for each party.

Well, the store or establishment will definitely get punished if the police can prove a minor was sold alcohol. Thats unquestionable these days. In most cases the minor probably wont get punished, especially if theyre already out at a club or party. Now if theyre actually caught in the act of buying alcohol from a store (so they arent undercover)...then I guess its up to the discretion of the officer. If the minor is in high school, at least, Id guess the officer would probably just hand them off to the parents for discipline. The thing is, Id imagine thats uncommon to catch cases like that red handed without an undercover buyer, who clearly is in on the plan.

There are also zero tolerance alcohol testing laws for underage drinkers in places. So if a person under 21 is driving or whatever and blows anything over 0.0, theyre fucked.
---

i live in saskatchewan where the drinking age is 19
---

Both are punished but the store is punished more harshly. The clerk is fired and fined. The store's liquor license is suspended and fined.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

I like this topic.

We really do a lot of things ass backwards in this country. Putting the burden on the seller instead of the buyer sends the message that the buyer is not the problem, even though the entire premise for these laws is that we don't want underage people *consuming* certain substances. Consuming = voluntarily putting the substance into your own body.

But we don't police *consuming* even though it's the basis for these laws. We police the seller because it's easier. In other words, it's pure laziness. Also, sellers have money that can be extracted in the form of fines, etc, and are generally easier to deal with because they are coming from a position of employment and/or business ownership. Cops and courts don't like dealing with your average delinquent 19 year old dipshit who tries to actually go and buy alcohol.

But we could fix all this. Instead of sending in some worthless piece of shit to do a sting operation on a bartender or server while an officer waits outside, they should just have the officer randomly go into restaurants and bars and card everyone who looks young. If they don't have an ID, or they are underage, then issue them a citation unless they can provide ID as proof. And of course, let the officer use discretion as necessary since all situations are different.

Is it more work? Sure. But if there's one thing I've learned in life, it's that there are no shortcuts to success. If you want to do a good job, then you gotta put in the work. It's time for us to stop sacrificing principles to get out of doing a little extra work, or spending a little more money.

Though personally, I'd say just get away with all underage drinking laws. No kid is gonna be able to have both the means and transportation necessary to go and buy a bunch of alcohol. And if they, it's because they have a job. And if they have a job, it's because they're probably at least 15...and you know what? I don't give a fuck if a 15 year old wants to crack open a beer after washing dishes for $9 an hour for 4 hours. It's not like drinking laws actually prevent teens from drinking. They want it, they get it. It's just like drugs.

Edit: Was mostly talking about sting operations and such. If an underage person actually gets caught with alcohol, they also get in trouble, but nowhere NEAR the amount that the store/employee gets in. Where I live, an employee is automatically terminated, fined up the ass, and can even be sentenced to do jail time and community. Really, really fucked up. The 19 year old would just get a hundred dollar fine .

So accountability means nothing at all to you then? Unless were talking about the kid of course, then it means everything to you.
---

19 is the drinking age here so no one.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

I like this topic.

We really do a lot of things ass backwards in this country. Putting the burden on the seller instead of the buyer sends the message that the buyer is not the problem, even though the entire premise for these laws is that we don't want underage people *consuming* certain substances. Consuming = voluntarily putting the substance into your own body.

But we don't police *consuming* even though it's the basis for these laws. We police the seller because it's easier. In other words, it's pure laziness. Also, sellers have money that can be extracted in the form of fines, etc, and are generally easier to deal with because they are coming from a position of employment and/or business ownership. Cops and courts don't like dealing with your average delinquent 19 year old dipshit who tries to actually go and buy alcohol.

But we could fix all this. Instead of sending in some worthless piece of shit to do a sting operation on a bartender or server while an officer waits outside, they should just have the officer randomly go into restaurants and bars and card everyone who looks young. If they don't have an ID, or they are underage, then issue them a citation unless they can provide ID as proof. And of course, let the officer use discretion as necessary since all situations are different.

Is it more work? Sure. But if there's one thing I've learned in life, it's that there are no shortcuts to success. If you want to do a good job, then you gotta put in the work. It's time for us to stop sacrificing principles to get out of doing a little extra work, or spending a little more money.

Though personally, I'd say just get away with all underage drinking laws. No kid is gonna be able to have both the means and transportation necessary to go and buy a bunch of alcohol. And if they, it's because they have a job. And if they have a job, it's because they're probably at least 15...and you know what? I don't give a fuck if a 15 year old wants to crack open a beer after washing dishes for $9 an hour for 4 hours. It's not like drinking laws actually prevent teens from drinking. They want it, they get it. It's just like drugs.

Edit: Was mostly talking about sting operations and such. If an underage person actually gets caught with alcohol, they also get in trouble, but nowhere NEAR the amount that the store/employee gets in. Where I live, an employee is automatically terminated, fined up the ass, and can even be sentenced to do jail time and community. Really, really fucked up. The 19 year old would just get a hundred dollar fine .

So accountability means nothing at all to you then? Unless were talking about the kid of course, then it means everything to you.

On the contrary. Accountability means *everything* to me, and that is precisely why the person who is actually committing the act of ingesting alcohol against society's wishes should be the one who is punished. A seller can only sell. Sellers can't force alcohol down an underage person's throat.

Lol, well I'm sure I speak for the majority when I say we're all glad you don't make any decisions.
---

Other: Donald Trump
---