Deal would set 40 as Indiana alcohol ID age

Associated Press
April 27, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State legislators have reached an agreement on changing Indiana's much-ridiculed law requiring everyone — regardless of age — to provide identification when buying carry-out alcohol.

Bill sponsor Republican Sen. James Merritt of Indianapolis said Wednesday that he would accept a proposal to no longer require store clerks to card customers who appear older than 40.

Merritt had backed making the carding age 50, but he said setting it at 40 had the most support among legislators.

The proposal would revise a law that took effect last summer and immediately generated complaints from senior citizens and others who said it made no sense. Liquor store owners support the current law, saying it has discouraged minors from trying to buy alcohol.


  • Pointless
    The funny thing about this is that there is no law in Indiana requiring an ID to drink in a bar. The law states that the bar MUST KNOW that you are 21. This means that if a friend of mine comes into my bar and forgot his or her ID, yet I know for a fact that they are of age, then they can drink legally with no ID. Therefore, I just don't get why they would make this a law for off premise (carry-out) alcohol. Just severely punish anyone who serves an underage person, rather than make a senior citizen prove his or her age.
  • When did buying alcohol become a "right"?
    So when did buying alcohol become a "right" in our country? Some people better learn the difference between what a right is, and what a priveledge is. Seriously. If you dont know, look it up. And who are the people roaming the streets without a form of identification? Who doesnt have a form of ID, and what would be the reason for not having one? Such simple little things in this country absolutely puzzle me. Drinking age is 21, you should simply show a form of ID when buying your damn liquor, regardless of age. End of story. Im literally surrounded by idiots!
  • Let me understand this
    We are in the last week of the legistlature and they are taking time to pass a law that makes sure anyone who appears to be less than 40 must show an I.D. to buy a beer in a store on any day except Sunday.
    Nice work. What was that about the 10 percent unemployment?
  • Stupid
    This law is a prime example of the stupidity of the Indiana State Legislature. We have a law the does not allow anyone under 21 years of age to buy liquor. That is the law the state should uphold. Asking anyone who is clearly over that age for an ID is complete unadulterated stupidity and an infringement of a person's rights. Why not have everyone show their ID when they buy gas? You have to be over a certain age to drive a car and we know how dangerous unlicensed drivers can be. Maybe we should just have a law to have the Indiana State Legislators show that they have an IQ over 100. That should get rid of most of them.
  • Rights
    You are in error, Buying booze is a right. This is still a free country, and for someone over 65 to have to show ID to prove he/she is over 21 in an infringement of my rights. Until this law changes, we buy booze in Illinois
  • too many exemptions
    My litmus test for all new laws is if this:

    if there is an exemption to the a it is a bad law.

    Seriously, buying booze is not a right. Show you flipping ID it aint hard and cleans up any abiguity.
    • Seriously Folks
      Checking everyone's ID seems to be the most fair and undisputable measure of a person's age. What does 40 years old look like. If I am not mistaken, there is theatricle makeup that can make someone look like an old man. Adults are supposed to always carry identification anyway. I applauded the always card rule. This rule makes sense. It just takes an adjustment period. I was a server/bartender in a restuarant. With the law being card everyone, that protected me from discussions from patrons claiming no ID. Simply I must card everyone. Seriously folks, is it that hard to show your ID? I gladly show mine everytime.
    • Great work! Why bother trying to fix gas prices or unemployment when they can card 40-year olds
    • It's great to see...
      this is a priority for the session. Great work, everyone.
    • Step in the right direction
      Thank you, Indiana State Legislature, for making a small stride towards common sense.

    Post a comment to this story

    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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

    2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

    3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

    4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

    5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.