IBJNews

Daniels signs measure changing Indiana alcohol ID law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has signed several new more bills into law, including one that will no longer require everyone buying carryout alcohol to show identification regardless of age.

Daniels signed the law Friday that states only those appearing younger than age 40 must be carded, starting July 1. Current law mandates carding of all individuals.

Daniels also signed a bill requiring Indiana retailers to use a computerized tracking system to identify those buying cold medications used in making methamphetamine. Stores selling ephedrine or pseudoephedrine products will enter the identity of customers into a multistate database that limits how much a person can buy.

Daniels vetoed a bill dealing with forfeitures, saying it went against the state constitution to take much of the proceeds collected through forfeitures and use it for purposes other than a school fund.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Sick of big brother
    It's all about how you can't be trusted, your neighbor can't be trusted, you're too stupid to do anything right... So quit using your brain, do as you're told; you live in a prison, so GET YOUR ID OUT! And while you're at it, let's see your "loyal shopper" card.
  • As for the Id matter 40 years Old Come on!
    As for the ID thing....I think it should be sided with say Selective service if anything at All...old enought to Kill for your nation your old enough to Buy..this is to me is like Gun Control if the seller see's a problem they can refuse you...Besides again i think this case about buying Goods as I understand can only be done by a Act of Congress... Gibbons V. Ogden} 9 Wheaton 1 (1824). Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall, Upholds Only Congress can regulate Inter States Commerce.
    Commerce in this case is more for the fact of Money and the federal Standard of , this view is a part of the views of what became the civil war and the fall out of !




    Filed January 01- Day 04 2011, a $33 million Dollar Tort Claim to Suit City of Bloomington Monroe County Indiana Elected & Appointed part of Tort Claim / Lawsuit is to Challenge Constitutionality of the City of Bloomington May 17,2010 letter to Arizona for Incitement of Boycott of Arizona self defense. Lawsuit filed May 2, 2011 Summons service date May 4th 2011, Cause # 53c061105ct000811
  • I say No
    Daniels also signed a bill requiring Indiana retailers to use a computerized tracking system to identify those buying cold medications used in making methamphetamine. Stores selling ephedrine or pseudoephedrine products will enter the identity of customers into a multistate database that limits how much a person can buy....



    I Understand the need to been Watchfull of things...But this Move is not Constitutional, Not Ever one Buying this Stuff is in the Event seeking to carry out a crime, there for tracking such is using a law to say your guilty for a crime with out being proved to be do ing so, So this would Fall under the Guied lines of a Violation of the 5th Amendment! http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/5th-amendment.html

    I also thing think this could be so challenged thru a tort Claim suing using Direct or Indirect Constitutional Contempt them suing a suit and laws as such as US title 42 usc section 1983, I say under the Indiana State Constitution section 12 Section 12. Openess of the courts, Speedy trial
    Section 12. All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay. Could file such a case free then so fight the matter of such mised views of laws.

    Gibbons V. Ogden} 9 Wheaton 1 (1824). Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall, Upholds Only Congress can regulate Inter States Commerce.
    Commerce in this case is more for the fact of Money and the federal Standard of , this view is a part of the views of what became the civil war and the fall out of!


    Anderson of bloomington Indiana
    • Priorities
      I guess the ability to sell to minors is more lucrative to the alchoholic beverage lobby than the right to sell on Sundays. Or, at least, it's something that big boxes and mom and pops can agree on!
    • Stupid
      Oh, another stupid law defining the age to buy alcohol. We have one defining the age at 21. That should be enough. Showing an ID to prove you are over 40 is further proof that our state legislature is incompetent. So now the clerk is to determine if you look to be over 40 and he won't have to ask for your ID. Personally, I would like to have a job but any help from the state legislature or the governor to help increase employment opportunities is beyond their abilities. They are only capable of passing laws that deal with their social agenda. (At least this new law is meaningless as a clerk can alway say he thought the person looks to be over 40 and it eliminates people like me who are well over 40 from ever having to show my ID again.)

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

      2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

      3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

      4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

      5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

      ADVERTISEMENT