Bottle Conditioned

Well, our lovely legislature in this state has done it again. They’ve created yet another pointless and obtrusive law that will probably have zero benefit for the public.

According to this article, persons buying beer in the state of Tennessee will now be carded, regardless of age. So, whether you’re 21 or 71, it won’t matter. A few interesting points to note before I get into my rant.

• This law only applies to beer, not wine or liquor
• This law only applies to beer bought for off premises consumption, so it doesn’t apply to bars and restaurants

In a nutshell, this bill has been passed to try and curb underage drinking by requiring that all stores card all customers who buy beer, regardless. While I agree with the effort to prevent underage drinking, I certainly don’t see this as an effective method for doing so.

Let’s look at the actual implementation of the law. According to the bill, clerks selling beer must card everyone, and will be fined $1000 per infraction for underage sales.

Ask yourself this: Do you think that the passing of this bill is going to change the habits or actions of someone who is already irresponsible enough to sell beer to a minor? Already in this state, persons under the age of 27 must be carded (or 30, I can’t recall now). If a clerk that sells beer in a store now isn’t checking IDs of people who look under 27 (and most don’t), how is the passing of this law going to make any difference? Stupid people don’t change because the state capital tells them to. If anything, it irritates and inconveniences the older patrons who are clearly not underage, while making no difference in the areas where IDs already aren’t being checked.

Also, the restrictions on the bill are oddly puzzling. First, the bill doesn’t apply to wine or liquor, only beer. Aside from giving beer an unjustified bad name as the only thing that underage people drink, it also has zero base in logic. Why should a beverage that averages at 5.5% alcohol by volume be so strictly controlled, while 13% ABV wine and 40% ABV liquor are generally ignored? Don’t think that I’m suggesting that we impose restrictions on wine and liquor - I’m not. I simply want to understand the logic behind such a targeted measure.

In addition to the ‘beer only’ restriction, the restaurant and bar exclusion in the bill is even stranger. With this law, a 70 year old man will be carded every time he walks into the grocery store to buy beer, whereas a 22 year old (or perhaps worse, a 20 year old) won’t be carded in a restaurant. This is especially puzzling when you consider this fact: Under these two circumstances, which individual (the grocery store patron, or the restaurant/bar patron) is more likely to drive after they’ve consumed a beer? Rhetorical, I know, but somehow the legislators in the state missed this glaring error. If you aim to prevent underage drinking, and subsequently underage DUI deaths, then targeting the people who drink their beer at home seems to be a step in the wrong direction - just my opinion.

I know it sounds like I’m being unfairly hard on this bill, but I don’t think it’s without reason. If you’re interested in preventing underage drinking, it starts elsewhere than at the counter of a convenience store. Simply passing a measure isn’t going to deter folks who already break the law, it’s only going to irritate the ones who already comply.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to get automatic updates of new posts!