Click here to listen to Mike Hicks, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research, discuss the study.

Somehow we need to put common sense into this debate on the mandatory carding law.

Virtually everyone who shops for liquor drives an automobile to get to the store whether it is a grocery, big box chain, convenience store or liquor store. Driving should involve having a license on your person and likely in your wallet. And virtually every customer gets out a wallet for a credit card or cash.

I’ve been a package store owner since 1973, and I can tell you this is a law that is working.

Without mandatory carding, our clerks carded everyone under some arbitrary age. But judging age is very subjective and you anger the customers that are slightly under or over the required legal age, especially if they are regular customers or look young for their age. Consequently, clerks can let younger and younger customers slip by and then the system fails.

How do we know this?

Before the carding law was implemented, the Indiana State Excise Police did a statewide survey to check on who was illegally serving minors. Every industry sector that sells and serves alcohol failed the test.

If we go back to carding people under a certain age, history tells us that industry will start having problems with serving minors. Is a minor inconvenience worth keeping alcohol from minors?

When the mandatory carding law was first implemented, it was not pleasant for any retail clerk. But now our customers accept the law and we are having virtually no problems.

We also used to be inundated with minors trying to be served. When asked for an ID, the minor would say that it was in their car and would not return. Now, they don’t even try because everyone must show identification.

The carding law was done for some very important reasons. Unlike other retail associations who opposed the measure, our industry has always supported mandatory carding.

I find it incredible that legislators are considering changing a good law because of an occasional minor inconvenience.

I am 63 years old—and my ID is at the ready every time I make a purchase.

We’re asking our customers to get behind the law, and most are not complaining.

The notion represents the kind of conundrum special interest groups can get into when reviewing any legislative or policy change in asking this simple question: What’s in it for me?

For groups that would normally oppose expanded sales, they’re also thinking about their own pockets books.

What keeps their doors open?

If revenue from “sin” taxes, such as alcohol, are key to their operating expenses, then they could turn a blind eye to out-0f-state corporations sweeeping Indiana with new points of sale.

Is that just practical or a conflict of interest? Hard to say. But the public might not be persuaded that such a horse swap is good for their pocket books or good for Indiana.

The even odder notion raised is that to avoid a public outcry over a higher tax on the six-pack, they simply call it a “user fee.”

Something to think about …

Patience Bartunek, assistant dean of Student Conduct, said these incidents, reported to the office by professors, resident assistants and others, are not reported. They are kept confidential under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). According to the U.S. Department of Education website, FERPA is a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records.

Bartunek said she estimates that she has dealt with over 60 student conduct cases involving underage drinking since the beginning of the semester and only three have been associated with a fraternity. This is not an unusual quantity, she said, because students at the beginning of any semester have a normal learning curve regarding the Standards of Student Conduct.

“I wouldn’t say we have a bigger [underage drinking] problem [with fraternities] proportionally,” she said. “Our biggest problem is poor decision making.”