ID Check at Dan Murphys Rant

Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 09:43
Last edited 01/03/2015 - 10:28

Hi

I went in Dan Murphy's with my friend. I took a bottle of sparkling wine to the counter with my friend next to me. The sales person asked for my ID. I handed my ID and it was fine. The sales person then asked for my friends ID. My friend handed in the ID and it was fine and I paid and bought it. I bought the drink fine, thats not the problem but a thought struck me. We then had this conversation:

Me: why do you have to check my friends ID?
Sales: Yes we have to because its the store policy, we cant sell to people whos accompanied by an under 18.
Me: Er, so if my friend didnt bring her ID, I can't buy this?
Sales: Correct
Me: Then if my friend walks out of the shop, can i buy it then?
Sales: No
Me: Then when can I buy it. The next day?
Sales: Yeah, you'd have to come back the next day without your friend.

This raises several questions.
If my friend had just walked out and didn't stop at the counter with me, I would have no problem buying the sparkling?

Why have to wait 24 hrs? Why can't I just go out of Dan Murphys straight away then come back in by myself? I can just say my friend went back home?

What does 'accompanied' even mean. Just because i'm talking to the person standing next to me, they are accompanying me?

What happens to a family's day out to grab a six pack of beer? They can't buy it because their 4 yo kid is accompanying them?

This policy in my opinion is flawed and not effective in serving its purpose. If this really is their policy, then its not doing a very good job because it can be avoided very easily. Similar to guilty unless proven otherwise, they would have to prove the 'friend' is really my 'friend'. Can't they make this policy more efficient? I fail to comprehend.

Poll Options

  • 111
    This policy is flawed
  • 241
    This policy is not flawed
Food & Grocery

Related Stores

Dan Murphy's
Dan Murphy's

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2015 - 09:54
    +60

    You're describing an acceptable negative result from a broad-spectrum policy. The plan is to minimize teen drinking and rejecting someone because their companion has no ID is a better-safe-than-sorry attitude, one most adults would agree with.

    And fear not, Dan's staff (as with most bottle shop staff) most likely knew about your companion before you approached the register. Had he/she left before you piad, the staff would have insisted he/she return with ID before allowing the transaction to proceed. They were kids once too, remember.

      • Jesmond on 01/03/2015 - 11:55
        +40

        Dan Murphys will also ID people waiting out the front of the store for a friend at the counter.

        Two things: If there is a reasonable assumption to be made that the alcohol is being given to minors, the store must ask for ID. It's the law. Your example of a family with an infant child is not a reasonable assumption.

        Police and enforcement agencies randomly send mystery customers to stores to check for this exact thing, and they are fined a minimum of $5,500 if they fail for check for ID.

        Last thing: alcohol kills people. In Australia we have one of the worst track records for underage drink driving and alcohol-related violence. People actually die because of this. So if you think the law is too harsh because you couldn't get a 6-pack one day, somewhere out there a life is actually being saved.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2015 - 15:10
          +31

          Dan Murphys will also ID people waiting out the front of the store for a friend at the counter.

          Indeed. In my days of working there, I always kept an eye on the car park - many times I 'dobbed in' young teens waiting in cars (always easy to spot as the driver will have a nice P-Plate hanging off their car), while their 18+ year old mate/s go in to buy the alcohol. Security (which my store had, but most don't) or the managers would then go out and ask all the people waiting for identification. More often than not, they were underage. The sale would then be denied to the person in the store with ID.

          I'm usually never one to want to spoil people's fun, but this shit is a different matter. A car full of kids, plus a Provisional driver, plus alcohol = not cool. I have no doubt that those kids still managed to acquire the alcohol they wanted elsewhere but at least things are made slightly harder for them. Hopefully. You just want them to be safe, is all.

        • brokenxsmile on 02/03/2015 - 09:25
          +9

          @z3289598:

          No, it boils down to risk. A family with an infant is not likely to give their infant alcohol. A young person accompanied by underage friends is more likely to give their friends alcohol and Fan Murphy's, to minimize the risk of being fined for selling alcohol to minors, checks ID of all present / keeps watch for friends waiting out front.

        • nikey2k27 on 02/03/2015 - 10:10
          +1

          @z3289598: Come Down to know people. if girl come in baby or small kids that cool. if 21year old come in with 16year old he pointing and asking for this then you know he wait it. i did alcohol retail for woolworths for a few years. i know all the tricks.

        • r2160 on 02/03/2015 - 12:48
          +1

          Actually, that is not the case. I can go to a liquor shop with my kids, and purchase liquor for my own consumption.
          I recently completed an RSA which identifies different licencing requirements.
          What you are saying is partially correct. If a drink in a pub was for a minor you would be correct.
          However, purchasing alcohol in a liquor shop is completely different.
          They have no right to ask for ID for somebody who is not completing a purchase.
          They are not allowed to sell a minor alcohol, but they are not allowed to stop a person of age purchasing alcohol if they are with a minor at a liquor shop.

        • cowiie on 02/03/2015 - 20:39
          +1

          @r2160: you say they are not allowed to stop a person of age purchasing alcohol, yet they do this often. I've seen this happen at bws, with the staff calling other bws stores in our area to refuse sale if they saw us. The other store didn't care, but told us this

        • dlakers3peat on 02/03/2015 - 23:25
          +2

          The law is not the problem. It is the Australian culture of not just drinking but getting pissed at every opportunity. People are encouraged and glorified for getting pissed. That's the problem.

        • froggym on 03/03/2015 - 00:36
          +2

          @r2160: I'm pretty sure stores have the right to refuse service for any reason. They are well within their rights and (from what I remember of training) encouraged to refuse to sell alcohol to someone who they believe is going to give it to a minor.

        • r2160 on 03/03/2015 - 07:50
          -7

          @cowiie: What I am saying is that under the LAW, a person not under the effects of alcohol, cannot be refused the sale of alcohol in a bottle shop.

        • LiamF on 03/03/2015 - 08:38
          +7

          @r2160: And you are wrong. A business does not HAVE to sell you anything and has protected, legal rights to refuse service FOR ALMOST ANY REASON.

          The reasons that they CAN'T use include membership of specific ethnicities, sexual orientations, genders and disability. In general, age is also on this list - but sale of alcohol is a specific exemption to this. They also run into problems if the policy is applied unevenly, which is the legal basis for the 'no exceptions' part of the policy.

          EDIT: For example, Coles could demand that everyone that shops there pays them money to do so, and must present their Flybuys card at time of purchase. They'd be well within their rights to refuse service to anyone without them. While this sounds far-fetched, it's basically how Costco works - it'd be entirely legal, even if it was a stupid business decision.

        • r2160 on 05/03/2015 - 08:02

          @LiamF: I think you need to read exactly what I said.

          "UNDER THE LAW" they are not allowed to refuse the sale of alcohol to a person of age not under the effects of alcohol.
          Whether the shop keeper CHOOSES not to is a different matter.
          Be nice if people didnt distort what others say …

        • Baysew on 05/03/2015 - 08:28
          +1

          @r2160: So if a shop keeper CHOOSES (to refuse the sale of
          alcohol to a person of age not under the effects of alcohol), which LAW are they breaking ?

        • dr on 05/03/2015 - 09:11

          @r2160: My thoughts exactly, if I go shopping with my kids in tow the shop has no right refusing me to sell alcohol. I can even allow my own underage kids to drink alcohol - that is the law, parent/legal guardian can permit their underage children to consume alcoholic drinks at home.
          Not sure why your comment was negged.

        • Ughhh on 05/03/2015 - 13:27
          +1

          @r2160:

          The sales of alcohol differ to the sales of other goods? As far ad I know, stores can legally refuse to serve you for no reason.

        • LiamF on 05/03/2015 - 18:07
          +1

          @r2160: I read exactly what you said - you're still wrong. I am not trying to distort what you're saying, simply to help you here…

          The mistake you are making is this: The law says that someone that is not a minor and is not intoxicated is someone that you CAN sell to. It does NOT say that they are not (EDIT: whoops, double negative there) someone that you MUST sell to.

          In this case, Dan Murphys are implicitly making the customer an offer: they will sell them liquor on the conditions provided that they are legally able to buy liquor, they agree to the various policies (the ID policy is prominently displayed…) and that they pay the asking price.

          You could try and negotiate here, just like you can try and negotiate on price. There is no law that compels them to accept your counter-offer. Some terms of contract are illegal - it is not illegal to require the production of ID.

          They could quite literally refuse to sell you anything unless you ran backwards around the shop screaming 'ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY OZBARGAIN', and it'd be perfectly legal (there may be a few occasions where this might fall foul of discrimination against people with disabilities, now I think about it).

        • McFly on 05/03/2015 - 19:22

          it is not illegal to require the production of ID.

          So a business (or anyone for that matter) can just ask some random person for ID (before accepting a transaction with someone else?)

        • Ughhh on 05/03/2015 - 19:32
          +1

          @McFly:

          Is it against the law to ask?

          I could ask you for your ID right now, doesn't mean you have to, nor (correct me if Im wrong) am I doing something against the law.

          BigW staff: I'll need to see some ID for this click and collect item
          you: WHAT?? Im calling the police on yo ass!

        • LiamF on 05/03/2015 - 21:33
          +1

          @McFly: That's actually a trickier question than it seems at first glance.

          If the business wanted to make that a condition of sale, I suspect they could, but they'd have to be very careful to make sure it was applied to all customers/transactions evenly and clearly sign it on the entrance as a condition of entry/T&C.

          If they didn't, and it was applied unevenly, they could get into trouble for violations of anti-discrimination law (if they denied service in a way that could be interpreted as discriminatory).

          I don't think that's where you were going with the question, but anyway. I agree that it doesn't make any sense outside of sales of restricted goods - in this case though, there's the whole 'supply to minor' issue and associated liability/complicity.

        • McFly on 05/03/2015 - 23:12

          @JLove: lol, yes a private individual could ask anything of anyone (short of being threatening, etc.) and a business could certainly ask the person directly involved in the transaction for ID.
          I find it more than strange though that a business can refuse someone service solely because of the status of someone else unrelated to the transaction, and maybe even unknown to either of the parties involved.

          So your example would be more like:
          BigW staff: I'll need to see your father's ID for this click and collect item
          or even
          BigW staff: I'll need to see that guy over there's ID for this click and collect item
          you: WHAT?? I'm telling my mum on yo ass!
          or maybe a more civilised
          you: That's quite silly and rather a bother. Good day to you sir… I said good day!

        • Ughhh on 05/03/2015 - 23:32

          @McFly:

          Ah, so you did know the answer!

          Well if that certain service/business/transaction could potentially get the business into legal trouble/fine/damaged community reputation (eg. Todays headline: Dan Murphy caught supplying alcohol to a 16 yr old who later died), you would want to have strict policies and ensure staff are trained to be able distinguish whether this bottle of alcohol is purchased by and/or for an underaged kid. Unfortunately, because there's so many scumbags, risk takers etc out there, businesses need to protect themselves too, this includes having a 100 page T&C that we love, warnings for obvious dangers from plastic bags for toys about suffocation from Maccas and policies such as these. In terms of 'efficiency', alcohol isn't a life necessity for customers and in a business point of view, refusing a service which could get them into trouble or holding a customer up and extra 15 seconds is probably worth it.

        • McFly on 06/03/2015 - 00:17

          @JLove: Policies, training, 'worth it' don't really matter. This is about the law, which seems to assume guilt - actually it's guilt by association, and maybe even guilt by association-which-doesn't-even-exist!

        • r2160 on 06/03/2015 - 08:05
          -3

          @Baysew:
          Anti Discrimination Act:

          It is unlawful for a person who provides (whether or not for payment) goods or services to discriminate against another person

          (a) by refusing to provide the person with those goods or services

        • LiamF on 06/03/2015 - 08:21
          +1

          @r2160: Can you provide act name and full references? I can't find that statute.

          The acts limit who they apply to, either in the definition section or in the statue itself; eg Section 19 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW):

          19 Provision of goods and services
          It is unlawful for a person who provides (whether or not for payment) goods or services to discriminate against another person on the ground of race:
          (a) by refusing to provide the person with those goods or services, or
          (b) in the terms on which the other person is provided with those goods or services.

          A good summary of anti-discrimination law and who it protects is at: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/guide-australias-anti-discrim…

        • LiamF on 06/03/2015 - 08:50

          @McFly: It's actually about the behaviour of a business trying to minimise the chance of a breach of the law happening.

          The fine for supplying to a minor is on the order of $30,000 for the licensee and $9,000 for the attendant/server (using figures from QLD - https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industry/liquor-gaming/liquo…).

          Policies like this are designed to minimise or eliminate the chance of selling liquor to a minor in breach of the law when followed. This makes sense from a business perspective because the amount of money that they lose from people walking away because of the policy is small relative to the amount they lose if they breach the law - a single breach costs roughly the -revenue- from selling 150 bottles of Krug (not profit, so either double or treble that to account for item cost). This is per-incident - the cost of a loss or suspension of license (in QLD, this happens after two offences in a two year period) is on top of this.

          EDIT: Just addressing another comment you made - some of your comments seem to disagree with the law with respect to sale to a minor/complicity in selling to a minor. If you think the law should be changed to reduce/eliminate penalties for sale to a minor, that's hardly Dan Murphy's fault…

        • Ughhh on 06/03/2015 - 13:26

          @r2160:

          Wow, why don't you quote the whole act rather than picking words and cutting off words as you see fit. You're worser than ACA and today tonight combined.
          This isn't even about race if you haven't noticed.

    • ncher95 on 02/03/2015 - 09:18
      -3

      Had he/she left before you piad, the staff would have insisted he/she return with ID before allowing the transaction to proceed.

      Not really, I just used to pretend that i got a phone call and walked out of the store to answer it when my older mates used to buy alcohol for me

    • edgar28 on 02/03/2015 - 13:31
      +4

      it's called duty of care, you do what you can do. Till the end of the day, you are fine with your conscience.

    • RefusdClassification on 03/03/2015 - 23:29
      +2

      "The plan is to minimize teen drinking". What's the point? Our society promotes drug and intoxicant use. Teenagers who refuse to partake are ridiculed by their peers. Nanny state loving bureaucrats can try to prevent such behaviour, but as long as psychoactive substances and addiction are perceived as being cool, they are fighting a losing battle. So much effort and money has been spent on trying to just stamp out illegal drugs and yet they are still just as popular and in demand as ever. Plain packaging, high taxes and a ban on advertising hasn't stopped people from smoking either. The fact is, people love being addicted to things.

      I know several people who have caught the ayahuasca craze and been to Brazil to find enlightenment through this DMT containing hallucinogen.

      • garetz on 04/03/2015 - 05:03

        I agree it is a nanny state, what kind of country that is supposedly democratic can fine you for not voting ? The act itself of voting is mandatory, which refutes being a free democracy. Australia should now be known as a Democrazy state. Plus instead of laws, there is fines, everything is fined now, like some kind of financial disincentive to follow the rules, most of which are ridiculous to start with.

    • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 10:19
      -1

      Nope, dressed casually. I'm an adult but I do look young.

      • allegiance86 on 02/03/2015 - 09:08
        +3

        It's called the "Responsible Service of Alcohol" - All staff go through training to address the responsibility of serving alcohol. If the staff member served you, you and your friend both got drunk and then your friend stumbled out onto the road and got hit by a car. Guess where the police would head directly to! You guessed it.

        It's the law to check anyone who may seemingly be consuming said alcohol, and responsibility of the staff to check, otherwise hefty fines apply.

  • nailsforlunch on 01/03/2015 - 09:58
    +27

    Common sense policy to help prevent rather common purchasing of drinks for people underage. Can't really see how you have a problem with it.

      • verio on 01/03/2015 - 10:44
        +8

        Well, suggest a better policy then.

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 16:43
          -1

          Good point. This is getting ahead of ourselves. The first point of action is to first admit its a flawed policy which needs improvement. Hence this vote. Though from the look of the poll, looks like most people think this policy is working well towards in achieving its purpose and theres no need to suggest a better policy.

          I still think otherwise.

        • Ughhh on 01/03/2015 - 17:01
          +6

          @z3289598:

          What is the purpose of the policy though?

          To cause an inconvenience for underage kids, thus reducing the amount of kids drinking? Also to protect their ass legally.

          Or to completely stop kids from touching alcohol?

          If the first, I think it's effective. But if the latter, then yes it's flawed (but then again, that's not really DMs job to save the world).

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 17:10
          +1

          @JLove: If the first is "to cause an inconvenience for underage kids ONLY, thus reducing the amount of kids drinking" then I would agree its effective. I dont think this is the case.

        • Ughhh on 01/03/2015 - 17:12

          @z3289598:

          What do you believe the purpose of the policy is? Whether the policy is effective or not, depends on whether it satisfies the purpose.

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 17:39

          @JLove: to reduce the occurences of underage drinking

        • JDogg1329 on 04/03/2015 - 23:46

          Education.

      • Munificent on 01/03/2015 - 10:49
        +1

        they would obviously let a very young kid in without needing their ID, its only when your accomplice is near drinking age would they insist on check both of you guys

      • Charity on 01/03/2015 - 16:45
        -4

        You are correct. It is flawed.

        BTW, you aren't going to get the pro-freedom response you are looking for on this site. Sadly, most folks like the idea of submitting to an authority. And any authority will do. For any reason.

        Alcohol problems are irrelevant… its about conditioning. Showing your papers. Getting permission.

        They just want you to show something.

        The checkout operator probably didn't even look at your date of birth.

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 16:47
          +2

          I like your point about "you aren't going to get the pro-freedom response you are looking for on this site."
          Sadly that is the case, as the poll suggests

        • tonyjzx on 01/03/2015 - 17:37
          +1

          @z3289598:

          this is called ozbargain

          i dont come here for anyones' thoughts on democratic process

          you're preaching to the wrong crowd

          i actually do support your line of thinking and things like the alcopops tax is a perfect example of something not working but this isnt the time or place

        • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2015 - 18:07

          @Son ofa Zombie:

          You are a very, very unsophisticated pseudo-anarchist, man.

          (and I know intellectual anarchists. You just come across bitter with poor arguments that sound more like you've been listening to too much of the Sex Pistols)

        • Charity on 01/03/2015 - 18:15
          -5

          @waterlogged turnip: it must be bliss to be so naive. definitely not an anarchist, rather a student of history, my communist/socialist friend. Sounds like you have been listening to too much Top 40 stuff, that no one but 13year olds can remember.

          I see you are so sophisticated you have resorted to insults.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2015 - 18:26
          +8

          BTW, you aren't going to get the pro-freedom response you are looking for on this site. Sadly, most folks like the idea of submitting to an authority. And any authority will do. For any reason.

          lol

          Alcohol problems are irrelevant… its about conditioning. Showing your papers. Getting permission.

          Ever spent any time in a hospital emergency department? Or had to help in the management of patients in ICU, knowing what landed them in there? Have you ever actually dealt with anything real world, instead of sitting at your computer typing rebellious mantras with no offer of intelligent practical solutions? I've seen enough mangled bodies of minors as the result of alcohol and the stupidity that ensues (eg. thinking that your P-plater or even unlicenced buddy is the next (profanity) Schumacher), to be pretty passionate about trying to put in whatever obstacles we can to stop (or at least make it more difficult for) kids to get hold of the shit that can end up wrecking them.

          Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. You do, sometimes, have to overprotect the majority to make sure that those who need that protection do get it.

          If you've got a better idea, feel free to outline it for us.

          This isn't about bending over and taking it from authority. Perhaps try looking at it from a more human perspective rather than some cold political one.

          And no policy (go on, cringe here), ever, anywhere, is ever perfect either. You can't expect it/them to be. But do you just go '(profanity) it!' and do nothing at all, or still try even if there are loopholes or flaws in it? That doesn't make it invalid or pointless.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2015 - 18:54
          +2

          @Son ofa Zombie:

          Why are you getting so emotional?

          Because your post was bizarre.

        • DrStinge on 02/03/2015 - 08:06
          +2

          I love OzBargain because the crowd mentality is on logic and fairness. You won't get downvoted for common sense - patience and virtue prevails here.

        • r2160 on 02/03/2015 - 13:11
          +1

          @waterlogged turnip:
          While I can appreciate your point of view, this thread isnt about the effects of alcohol, good or bad. It is about whether a person not purchasing alcohol should be asked for ID because somebody they are with is legally purchasing alcohol.

        • Thenarrator on 02/03/2015 - 19:45

          @r2160: ..

    • macrocephalic on 02/03/2015 - 22:29
      -1

      I have a problem with it. I think it's disgusting that a reasonable person is prevented from making a reasonable purchase because of the presumption of guilt made by others. I've never seen this take place, but I'd be livid if I was disallowed to make a purchase because of the company I kept on that particular day.

  • rogsamsy on 01/03/2015 - 09:59
    +4

    Take it as a compliment.

  • captain fatguts on 01/03/2015 - 10:23
    +4

    There's this really cool thing called Google!

    https://www.danmurphys.com.au/help/rsa-commitment-content

    Did you know supplying alcohol to a minor can incur a fine of up to $27,500 and/or 12 months imprisonment? The ‘Don’t buy it for them’ campaign is aimed at making adults aware of their responsibilities regarding secondary supply. We will refuse service if we believe that an adult is purchasing alcohol for a minor or a person who is intoxicated. No offence is intended and we will always err on the side of caution in the interest of safe and responsible service of alcohol.

    • rowenaduncan on 01/03/2015 - 10:43

      I'm not saying that all bottle shops do it, but I have seen someone who is clearly drunk being sold alcohol. I can only assume the cashier was reluctant to be abused by this guy for saying no…

  • cypher67 on 01/03/2015 - 10:30
    +9

    I've had this happen to me, whilst at first I was outrage I came to realize that it is a fair policy. If you are over 18 you really should have ID on you, especially if you are in an alcohol store regardless if you intend to purchase. Any means to prevent underage drinking is fine by me provided it is reasonable and I think this is 100% reasonable. The only real loser is DM, as the customer would just go up the road and buy from someone else.

    • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 16:32
      +1

      Fair enough.

    • cloudy on 02/03/2015 - 09:28
      +2

      That's exactly right.

      Such a policy is only of benefit for society by trying to stop one less under age drinking. And the only loser, as you mentioned is DM, themselves.

  • Ughhh on 01/03/2015 - 10:32
    +1

    With out checking your friends ID, how do they know for sure you aren't buying alcohol for a minor? No staff with half a brain would risk being fined and getting fired over some stupid teenagers. This is law rather than policy. Sometimes, being safe means being less efficient, get over it.

    • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 16:18
      -7

      a family with an infant going to a liquor store cant buy anything then?

      • iridiumstem on 01/03/2015 - 16:25

        I am sure the infant knows how to drink, I owe first few years of drinking milk to my mother, but I've never started drinking alcohol til I was 18. Though I know that some kids want to drink alcohol early as 15, isn't it why they don't allow buying alcohol with photo ID for people who look like they'd want to drink and look underage?

      • umamandy on 01/03/2015 - 16:28
        +1

        I think the thing is most parents do know that alcohol isn't the best milk for the bub.

        The thing its meant to stop is the kids who hide their drinking from their parents and so go ask slightly older friends.

      • Ughhh on 01/03/2015 - 16:33
        +8

        Bloody hell. Are you seriously comparing a family with a baby to a group of teenagers?

        What's the chance of a mother buying alcohol for a baby and/or having a baby alcohol drinking party? You clearly don't understand the issue here. Babies don't know what they're doing, teenagers do.

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 16:37
          -2

          Mate, whats the bottom line? An unflawed policy is one which is able to clearly divide who can and can not. A policy such as this one is totally flawed because there are many loopholes and can be easily avoided. They (or society) should reinvent.

        • Ughhh on 01/03/2015 - 16:49
          +1

          @z3289598:

          Should we petition them to completely halt this policy until a new 100% effective policy is "reinvented"?

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 16:52

          @JLove: Nope. That will be beyond the scope of this poll. The poll is merely a vote on whether our current policy is effective or non-effective. It seems it is currently effective as voted by most here. There is no need for a change . Did you vote effective or non-effective?

        • iridiumstem on 01/03/2015 - 16:57
          +1

          @JLove: :P Nirvana fallacy, I love the band Nirvana and I love pointing out fallacy. So it's match made in heaven for me ;).

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 17:46

          @AznMitch: though in this case, pointing out the fallacy is not easy amongst this crowd, it seems…

        • iridiumstem on 01/03/2015 - 17:59
          +8

          @z3289598: No, your argument is faulty. It's not the perfect solution, but it's the best solution we have that allows sales of alcohol with reduced chance of minors getting their hands on it. Simply because it's not the perfect solution doesn't mean that it has to be wrong. There are limitations to what we do and what we can do, and more, that stops us from implementing the perfect solution. That's Nirvana fallacy, complaining that a solution is not perfect (and condemning it to be abolished) when there are no alternatives that are better.

          Yes, it can easily be circumvented, but not enforcing these sends different messages compared to enforcing these potential ways that underage kids can get alcohol.

        • umamandy on 01/03/2015 - 18:02

          @AznMitch:
          This. Exactly. A perfect policy would be a brain-reading device that shows the exact age of a person and their intent in buying the alcohol. Unfortunately, we're not there yet.

          So go with theory of the second best. Find the next best thing and use it until you can find a better one. :)

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 18:22
          -3

          @umamandy: the second best thing would get everyone associated with the buyer to have their id check. no matter if its a family with infant. the family would need to buy without the infants presence. this is the second best. Anything based on personal judgement is ineffecient (as is this case), automity is efficient..

        • iridiumstem on 01/03/2015 - 18:26
          +3

          @z3289598: No, that would be too time consuming. That's why they are relying on "the common sense" of the counter personnel to determine whether the company that the person is with looks like potential underage drinker.

          As underage drinkers are likely created with peer pressure and this is likely to occur around 15ish and above (over simplification, it probably has research papers dedicated to it), it's likely that:

          1. they are with someone who looks like they are in their circle
          2. they are not as young as prepubescent kids

          Yes, it's relying on something that is not set in stone, but it reduces the time/resources it takes to check every single one of the people and also it reduces chance of rejecting potential customers who are just simple parents who'd want to get drinks from the store after picking their kids up for dinner.

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 18:32

          @AznMitch: as the famous words go, better be safe than sorry.. In addition staffs prejudice may be liable for discriminatory offences

        • iridiumstem on 01/03/2015 - 18:39

          @z3289598: Yes, but then it goes back to Nirvana fallacy. In the perfect world, there would be no discrimination. As long as there is ingroup and outgroup, there always will be one, that's why we educate people to not to. It's not completely avoidable. Something like length of exposure in youth to different ethinicity actually have impact on how well you recognise people as an individual from that said ethnicity. Don't give me the naturalist's fallacy on this btw.

          So what should they do, hire members based on potential ethnical group coming to the liquor store? That in itself is a discrimination and it's forbidden by the law I think. (Not meant to discriminate on the basis of gender and ethnicity when hiring, am I correct?)

          So even though I do get ID checked, meaning that I have to carry around my passport, I don't mind. I actually take it as a complement that I look young. I know that that is the best they can do in terms of ID checking and I go along with it.

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 19:13
          -3

          @AznMitch: your final paragraph is irrevelent so i will be ignoring that.your first paragrah says there is discrimination everywhere. this is no excuse to not id check every single family member including the infant. this is to be done in fairness AND to be better safe than sorry. your second paragrah was never opted as an option

        • iridiumstem on 01/03/2015 - 19:40
          +4

          @z3289598: I think I've pretty much given enough information beforehand so I am not gonna write, but rather copy and paste.

          this is no excuse to not id check every single family member including the infant

          That's why they are relying on "the common sense" of the counter personnel to determine whether the company that the person is with looks like potential underage drinker.

          As underage drinkers are likely created with peer pressure and this is likely to occur around 15ish and above (over simplification, it probably has research papers dedicated to it), it's likely that:

          1. they are with someone who looks like they are in their circle
          2. they are not as young as prepubescent kids

          I am going to add this, however. Your sense of fairness sound irrational. To be honest, your idea of "it's better to be safe so we should check the infant's ID as well" looks ridiculous as well; the risks of the infants who are with their parents being underage drinkers are fairly slim and almost non-existant. There are things that we assume as socially acceptable and as normal, we call that norm. We expect parents to not expose their children to alcohol because it's damaging to the children. That's why some parents who look like they don't follow the norm gets called out and get questioned, i.e. those who look like they are deliberately putting their kids in danger. If you think fairness is a simple application of the same thing to every single person, it's simply ridiculous. What? Because your friend looked like a potential underage drinker those who don't look like an underage drinker should be questioned as well?

          I am going to stop here because I think I've given enough explanations, if you think your idea of checking every single family member for ID is legitimate, fair and logical solution to this, that's fine by me. It's your opinion. Here was my opinion on your opinion.

        • Ughhh on 01/03/2015 - 20:35

          For some reason, this reminds me of The Daily Show - John Oliver on gun ban episode.

  • spychiatrist on 01/03/2015 - 11:52
    +5

    A small inconvenience to ensure no underage is served alcohol. What's the problem with that?

    • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 16:33
      +3

      The problem is with the effectiveness of the policy.

      • Ughhh on 01/03/2015 - 16:36

        So unless it's 100% effective, there's no point in trying/putting a policy (and law)?

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 16:38

          playing with words here. Same logic, if a policy is 10% effective, theres no need to reinvent?

        • Ughhh on 01/03/2015 - 16:46
          +6

          @z3289598:

          There's always room for improvement (I would say "reinvent" isn't the correct term here). But there are many things that need to be factored in, complainers would be one of them. But until there is a better way, this will do, stopping 20% of kids obtaining alcohol from liquor stores is better than 0%. No one's saying this policy is perfect, but this inconvenience does make a difference.

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 16:51

          @JLove: Sounds fair. From the look of the poll, most people have likely misinterpreted the message behind the story, saying its a policy without flaw. Interesting how the wording or the context of the story can change the underlying idea so much.

        • Ughhh on 01/03/2015 - 17:09
          +1

          @z3289598:

          Imo, the current poll is basically black or white. I don't believe it's an accurate representation of what people believe.

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 17:12
          -1

          @JLove: True, though I think it will be silly to add options for 10% flawed, 30% flawed, 50% flawed etc.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2015 - 18:37
          +2

          @z3289598: Poll is flawed. lulz

        • Baysew on 01/03/2015 - 19:16
          +2

          @waterlogged turnip: Any Ozbargain poll that doesn't have a bikies option is flawed.

      • xsacha on 01/03/2015 - 17:58
        +3

        Of course you can bypass the policy by having your underage friend wait outside. That's not the point. The point is that if there is any suspicion that someone is buying alcohol for an underage person, they have to refuse the sale. If there is an underage person next to them, there is reasonable suspicion. So it makes a lot sense.

        • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 18:18

          if something is very easily avoidable, its useless and we should either abolish the whole dam thing or find a way to make it better. either way there is a need to make it more efficient.

        • xsacha on 01/03/2015 - 20:11
          +3

          @z3289598: It's very easy to avoid visible speeding radars / traps too. Does that mean you stop using them?

          If someone does something to obviously break the law, do you ignore it because someone could have avoided it if they wanted to break the law?

  • iridiumstem on 01/03/2015 - 12:10
    +1

    I've found Dan Murphy to have stingier policy (which depends on cashier too), than the non-specialists, i.e. Aldi, SupaBarn etc. I think it is reasonable but it's inconvenient as well. I think it would stop some adults who would supply alcohols to minors (i.e. a kid who just turned 18 might want to get alcohols for his friends waiting outside etc.). Though, I think the main thing it's doing is emphasising that Dan Murphy doesn't approve the supplying alcohols to minor at all.

    It's annoying though, my younger brother gets away with no ID, but I have to get the ID all the time.

    • retiredfeline on 01/03/2015 - 12:27

      * more stringent, stingier means what we OzBers do, try to save money.

      • iridiumstem on 01/03/2015 - 12:28

        Maybe this is why they ask for my id…

    • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2015 - 15:15
      +3

      It's annoying though, my younger brother gets away with no ID, but I have to get the ID all the time.

      I used to never get asked for ID when I was 18… now I'm 27, if I'm alone, I almost always get asked for ID. Doesn't bother me that much since they do have to check if they suspect you're anywhere up to 25 years old, just to be safe… but I was joking around with the person serving me once and they said "I thought you were about 18!" o_O Goddamn. Maybe I act immature LOL

      • iridiumstem on 01/03/2015 - 16:05

        Or maybe you are one of the type who looks younger as you age… Like Benjamin Button ;)

        Or it might be that you looked like those kids who just turned 18 and is eager to get your iD checked when you were 18. I've always had my ID ready when I was 18, because it made me feel older.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join