|
Socoder -> Off Topic -> America, Society, and stupid policies (long rant) |
|
| Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 03:28 | |
Mog
|
Tonight, me and my roommate were bored and hungry. Looking around, we decided we wanted to grill, and decided to leg it to the local grocer. We get there, walk around, pick up a few items, My roommate grabbing a bottle of wine. We proceed to the checkout, and while I'm paging through some things counter-side, my ears perk to... "Both of you, IDs" ...What?! I'm in a separate line, also there not for wine (I can't drink the stuff, sulfides and bad kidneys don't mix) but rather my hunger, immediately turned for a nice long talk. We both went on the offensive, even as far as me pulling up my shirt to show proof of my medical history with the prolific huge scar on my side where they had to operate on my kidney once due to a blockage. It's not the fact I was being a dick, it's the fact of what came next. "I'm sorry, but anyone accompanying an adult must show their ID, even if they're in seperate lines" .. This means any child <21 must have an ID or else the sell of anything alcoholic cannot happen. This means if you had your 3 year old child, and you were a 40 year old buying wine for a dinner party, No. But we stood stoic, seeing as how the flaw of this little stipulation is, I could just wait in the car! If it were a proxy buy, IT CAN STILL HAPPEN AS EASY! THE KID JUST WAITS OUTSIDE. It's just a stupid inconvenience to us both! What if we were on our way home from work, and both needed something from inside? For christ sakes, we live in the same damn household, couldn't i just wait until he got home and drank the bottle? I feel like messing with this hardcore now, like really bashing the logic behind this every chance i get. Maybe I'm just being difficult and easily offended, but who else sees the flaw in this logic? It's a huge hassle! I can understand if we looked a bit younger, and were touting cases of beer under each arm while rambling about getting piss-drunk, but it was a 25$ bottle of wine, how can you get even a buzz off of that? Overall, the manager was called, and he let it slide with a warning, but it's an ordeal none-the-less. I know this is trying to protect kids, and I like the thought of keeping little bastards from getting drunk and acting stupid, but going as far as harassing everyone just because they entered together over alcohol is a bit much. This isn't the first time We've been hassled, either, it seems to be a regional policy for any grocery. Once we were even confronted by security because "They saw us enter together but split up, and they suspect it's a proxy buy". I'm angry at the system, and I'm angry at all the safety nets that are being thrown up in today's society. When i was a kid, there wasn't all this politically correct passive-aggressiveness plaguing the works. Is society really this lazy that they need to guard everything? I'm going to go on a soapbox for a moment and say this: I trace this to irresponsible parenting. Another part to what i said earlier about that rule is, the cashier explained it wasn't 20-somethings buying booze for 15 year olds, it was parents supplying their kids with alcohol! It's because of this shit, honest people have to suffer. Parenting in this age seems to be a sick joke. No one shows morals, and no one disciplines their kids anymore. When I was a child, it wasn't like this. If I did something wrong, I very well knew it was wrong from being swiftly punished. My parents weren't mean, they were quite lenient about alot of things, which is something i cannot say for alot of new parents I've encountered. A perfect example is a young couple next door. Their kids run wild, shoot at cars, destroy things, and torture their animals... and their parents ignore it completely. I wouldn't doubt it if the reason why said parents could be the ones buying alcohol for their kids because they don't want to deal with their kids, so maybe getting them tanked will calm them down. Think about that, and think about the cases you've heard where single working mom plops her kid down in front of the TV while she clings to what little social life she has left and it's easier to set things to auto-pilot rather than spend time that you could use having fun. People like that seem afraid to own up to what they've carved for themselves, and because of this, We're all paying the price for their fuck-ups. ...that's all i have to say. -=-=- I am Busy Mongoose - My Website Dev PC: AMD 8150-FX, 16gb Ram, GeForce GTX 680 2gb Current Project: Pyroxene 
|
| Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 03:43 | |
Jayenkai
|
Being the guy on the other side of the counter, the whole double ID is there as a double check. God only knows the number of "parents" I've sold beer to, knowing fully damn well that "Their child" isn't even vaguely f'ing related to them, and that it's just some old bloke who got dragged in off the street to buy beer for the kiddies.. To have the option of asking both for ID would be a godsend, and we could finally put a stop to the amount of bollocks going on in that department. . Of course, I'm in the UK, and if we tried doing that we'd probably get knifed, or something. -=-=- ''Load, Next List!''
|
| Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 03:49 | |
|
Mog
|
I can understand that, Jay, since that is a clearly suspicious buy, but would you expect 2 20 year olds, both carrying food at 10pm, in SEPERATE LINES, to be up to no good? I think it should be under personal discretion. As i said, if we were buying a giant case of beer and both looked eager for mayhem, then yeah, right on, full ID check and all that jazz. But it's an enforced policy for EVERYONE. -=-=- I am Busy Mongoose - My Website Dev PC: AMD 8150-FX, 16gb Ram, GeForce GTX 680 2gb Current Project: Pyroxene
|
| Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 04:21 | |
flying_cucco
|
 But it's an enforced policy for EVERYONE. If it wasn't, it would be totally unenforcable. Not that I particularly agree with the policy. At least over here it is easier to buy alcohol than firearms. 
|
| Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 04:43 | |
Orion Pax
|
I agree with you mog. It is a hassle for the innocent. There has been plenty of times I was buying alcohol for myself and had a younger friend with me and they would not sell to me because he was with me. I dont remember what I had on me as it was some time ago but I know I did not have anything hardcore and did not have a lot of it. Maybe a six pack of something. Or a 4 pack of some malt beverage. Either way, I see their point on why they are doing it and cucco is right. Unless they enforce it on everyone its basically unenforcable. Then the proxy buys would still have a chance of going through if you got some stupid air head for a cashier that isnt paying attention. If you were a parent and had your child with you while buying they would not ask for the childs ID as that child would look like they belonged to you. On the flip side if you were an adult (over 21) with a 19 year old friend in the store, of course it would look like you might be buying for that guy! So I am teettering on this subject.
|
| Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 04:49 | |
Afr0
|
Hmm.... I'm a bit mixed on the issue, to be honest. If I were to be completely objective, I probably would agree with you (Mog) completely. But I have to say that with my experiences as an underaged kid in Norway (underaged here being 18), not having a very developed social life, not knowing many people over 20... let's just say it wasn't very easy for me to get alcohol when I wanted to. The result? 4 years of getting completely stone-drunk (I started when I was at the end of 16, almost 17... and that was only because I managed to buy a sixpack in Sweden where they didn't check my ID), and now having gone through almost a year worth of therapy sessions at the age of 20 to recover. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
|
| Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 05:34 | |
|
Mog
|
The issue really isn't underaged drinking, that's purely unavoidable seeing as how you can just send someone to a shop to pick up as much beer as they can. There are laws, however, in place for that too, where one individual is only allowed to buy 2 cases at a time, but then you get store-hoppers that will just go down the line, 2 cases at a time. I think it's stupid, because alcohol will infact reach kids if it reaaaalllyyyyy wanted to happen. I'm more offended over the fact that I was hassled simply by association. I was there purchasing my own goods. It's ostracizing to know that i can't even go into a grocer now without feeling like im being hawked over. Secondly, it's enforced unfairly. Say a guy was buying beer for a sporting event on TV, and he happend to have his kid with him. They will not allow you to purchase any alcohol, simply because the kid isn't old enough. -=-=- I am Busy Mongoose - My Website Dev PC: AMD 8150-FX, 16gb Ram, GeForce GTX 680 2gb Current Project: Pyroxene
|
| Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 09:22 | |
|
Orion Pax
|
I really doubt they would deny him purchasing alcohol because he has his kids with him. You can tell when the kids belong to the parent they are with. If that was true then they would just ban alcohol for any parent because for all they knew, the parent would give it to the kids when they got home. I have purchased alcohol with my kids with me plenty of times. Its just when you have some one that is obviously NOT your child, that is under age, is when they question it.
|
| Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 09:35 | |
blanko1324
|
I had a similar situation once. I accompanied my mom to "WINE WORLD" before a family party to pick up a few bottles of wine and various drinks. (I'm underage in the US) They still let my mother purchase them, but they wouldn't let me help her carry them out the door, as if the alcohol would seep through the glass and into my arm! That was ridiculous; it was a lot to carry!
-=-=- My Twitter
|
| Sat, 27 Sep 2008, 19:43 | |
|
mindstorm8191 |
I haven't seen any of what Mog is talking about - but I don't drink any alcohol. But I can agree with alot of what Mog is saying. All this coming around from poor parenting. Have you ever noticed how every single plastic bag anymore has a warning about suffocation of babies? Do people even read these things anymore? I understand how much of a hassle all this is. But on the flipside, if you were the cashier and you didn't do the job, your store could be fined thousands of dollars, just by a single act. I have heard of groups that make sure people ask for IDs when they buy alcohol. Its serious business to these people. But then these new measures aren't amounting to anything. If the parents were buying alcohol specifically for their underaged kids they could let them stay in the car, or even have them stay home while they went to get it. These new laws aren't going to change anything about what it is ment to control. It all comes down to poor choices from their parents. Ya know, can you imagine how many years this has been going on before now? Parents could have been giving beer to underaged kids long before the US even started. But apparently, some people think a new law, new procedures are going to fix all that. I'm not saying something can't be done, but this isn't something new we're trying to control. And here I'm wanting to say proper education will fix this. Educating the people about the problems and their consequences will change matters. But it seems like all this important information is hammered into the kids' minds, when it should be the adults. The kids aren't bold enough to refuse gifts of alcohol from their parents. The kids brush it off as being okay to drink - which comes directly from their parents' additudes towards it. No matter how much you try preaching to the kids. These issues have to be brought to the parents if anything is going to change. ...(wow that was a lengthy post, lol) -=-=- Vesuvius web game
|
| Sun, 28 Sep 2008, 18:04 | |
|
Orion Pax
|
Its not a new law. Its something that certain grocery stores are doing on their own to prevent children from proxy buying. Its not America. Its businesses. Businesses no longer care that they are hassling their customers!
|
| Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 01:23 | |
spinal
|
America is FUBAR I agree, but we have a much bigger problem than America having daft policies and notions. The UK is copying their methods more and more (like this stupid notion thet you should sue anyone who looks at you funny). Anyone with a pair of eyes can see that a lot of European countries have much more success in many of the this America is failing on, but who do we get our ideas from?... that's right, the country that's getting it wrong  Here in the UK, we've started a 'if you look under 21 you need id, even though the legal age is 18' eh?? so to avoid getting id'd you need to look older than you are? bit of an insult if you don't get id'd 
-=-=- Check out my excellent homepage!
|
| Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 12:51 | |
|
Orion Pax
|
We have been doing that for years Spinal. Here it was IF you dont look 25 then we ID you. Legal drinking age is 21. Then they increased it to 30. And now its 40. If you look younger than 40 they ID you! And like I said before its not AMERICA. There is nothing AMERICA about ANY of these statements. Its the ignorant BUSINESSES! The grocery stores are the ones doing this. NOT AMERICA as not EVERY grocery store does it. And as far as getting it wrong? Its not the country ONCE again. Its corporations. Businesses. Not our government. There is no law that says that they have to ID you if your under 40 years of age. That is the preference of the business from which you are doing business. And last but not least. Its a well known fact that the reason why AMERICA (and this is the only time you will hear me say something like this) has higher crime rate and under age drinking, is because AMERICANS HAVE to break the laws. We have more laws than any other country. Every time someone does something just the slightest bit off sight we have to make a law against it. You wouldnt believe all the STUPID laws we have here in the US. And you know just because they made a law against it, that some stupid soul had to have done it before!
|
| Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 15:59 | |
|
mindstorm8191 |
Orion, sometimes I think you're right about there being too many laws in america. I remember hearing about this law in some far-away town, saying that you can't put icecream in your back pocket. Sound crazy? There was actually a good reason for it - back when horses were used to get around, someone could put icecream in their pocket and walk up to a horse, let them find it, and casually coax the horse to walk away with you, because horses like icecream. Of course I can't imagine anyone being charged for that crime anymore. It is surely not a law needed anymore, but maybe people have just not taken the efforts needed to do away with it.
-=-=- Vesuvius web game
|
| Mon, 29 Sep 2008, 17:07 | |
|
spinal
|
I think a lot of brits just don't understand why america has so many (enforced) laws, I for one see no point in having a law against j-walking. I know a bunch of european countries has stiff penalties for it also, but, like i said, i don't understand why you NEED a law for it, if you cross the road in the wrong place and you get ran over, its your own stupid fault for crossing there, now law needed. Orion - perhaps you're right, but in other parts of the world, we don't often hear about when americans do something right, only when they do it wrong, so we are under the impression that americans are, well, a little stupid and more than a little money hungry.(also on the same note, french are arrogant canadians are very friendly etc.) -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage!
|
| Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 13:32 | |
|
Orion Pax
|
Mindstorm that is exactly what I am talking about. I use to know a crap load of stupid laws like that and cant remember any of them any more or where to find them. And the same for the j-walking spinal. There is a law for it but I dont think any cop will give you a ticket for it anymore. You are more likely to hear about the FAULTS and MISTAKES of others before you hear about their ACCOMPLISHMENTS. Thats just how people are. People would rather point fingers at you and laugh at you rather than pat you on the back and congratulate you. And I will admit americans are money hungry. Every damn one of us. Even me! And why is it that all these countries are so anti-american? Just because our government and corportations stick their noses where it dont belong, doesnt mean that this is how the majority of its citizens act. It pisses me off when people start bashing on us americans just because of what someone else is doing. They think that is how the general population feels/acts!
|
| Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 18:10 | |
|
spinal
|
However, you can't point the finger solely at the US government. It was, after all, the american people who elected a buffoon like Bush to office. Not just once, but incredibly, twice. Apparently not the first time, didn't rig a recount or something? -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage!
|
| Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 20:30 | |
|
Orion Pax
|
Agent smith your right about most of that except for the part about who elected him. BOTH elections where rigged. The first one was rigged as Bush's brother is the govenor of florida. As far as the votes of the american people in florida they voted for Gore. But since our votes dont are not enforced the governor of florida voted for Bush against what the people wanted. Unfortunately this is how our voting system works. Our reps NORMALLY vote by the popular vote of their state. In that case he did not. He voted for his brother. This is why florida was ridiculed for screaming recount. As they could not believe that their governor purposely voted for him. The second one was a recount as well but in the state of Ohio! I dont know the specifics but this is what I was told by my best friend as his family is from Ohio. Basically it was just one big fiasco. It should have never happend. Our supreme court abused their powers as well and stopped the florida recount and passed bush into presidency!
|
| Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 04:35 | |
|
Orion Pax
|
Yeah I am very much pulling for Obama my self. My dad might roll over in his grave that I am voting for a Democrat, but bush basically ruined America. And as far as I am concerned McCain is just another bush. He owns oil wells and shit and his advisors or what ever they are. I hate to say it but we need Obama. He has stated that he is not affiliated with ANY Lobbyist and has never been. And wants to put limitations on their influence in our government. And your right, I dont think 9/11 would have happend either if it wasnt for bush. We would be in a better situation right now.
|
| Thu, 02 Oct 2008, 19:17 | |
|
Orion Pax
|
Damn I wish. Then I would have nothing to worry about. I know then Obama would get in no doubt. As I know a lot of european countries want obama in! |edit| Ok we've hijacked his thread long enough! Lets give it back! |edit|
|
| Sat, 04 Oct 2008, 18:44 | |
|
mindstorm8191 |
I've never heard of someone getting a ticket for j-walking, though from what I know if you get hit from j-walking, it's your fault and you can't get health coverage from the driver's insurance. I could be wrong about that though... would certainly not choose to find out. edit: Oh, and smith, I kinda agree with you on some of those things. Bush didn't make to be a very good president, and I am pulling for Obama myself. But in Bush's second election, I am not sure how decent a man John Kerry really was. But it seems nobody had much of a choice in who was to be the democratic nominee. -=-=- Vesuvius web game
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||