To put that 50% into perspective. Approx price of tobacco per kilogram: USD$2 [0]. Australian excise on tobacco per kilogram: USD$1000 [1].

[0] https://staragritech.com/crop-report/

[1] https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Excise-on-tobacco/Excise-obl...

It's fucking nuts, 40, looking 50, got IDs buying a pack of beers in Walgreens I think, just stopping two night usa back to Europe. She wasn't happy that she couldn't scan the EU driving license but eventually she relented, same next night, I was perplexed, do they not enpower their workers? Uk is over 18, but ask for id if you have any doubt less than 21, 3yr margin, common sense

> do they not enpower their workers?

The US is pathologically concerned with blame, and with avoiding blame. Everything about the US makes a ton more sense if you understand that.

If you don't empower workers, then anything they do is their fault. If you do, then anything they do might be your fault, for failing to restrict them ahead of time. It's as simple as that.

So you let them make as few choices as possible (then, if they do and it's bad, you're off the hook).

> I was perplexed, do they not enpower their workers?

No, big chains like that in the US don't even empower middle management.

>>>Uk is over 18, but ask for id if you have any doubt less than 21, 3yr margin, common sense

People are much worse at estimating ages then they think. If the policy is "ID anyone that looks <21" many 16/17 year olds will look 23 and not get asked. I worked for a chain of liquor stores that had an "ID 25 and under" policy - and to check it, they would send in 25 year olds. Lots of time staff would fail those checks. In my jurisdiction the penalties for selling to minors are strong enough that I'd consider a blanket "ID everyone" policy, or at least "ID everyone <40" or similar.

>to check it, they would send in 25 year olds

Well, not sure if typo, but the margin of error is the point surely? It's fine that 23 year olds who look 26 slip through as long as 17 year olds who look 23 don't. Otherwise the store is effectively saying "we expect your judgement to be up to 7 years too high and account for that" but also "you're in trouble if your judgement is 1 year too high"

Two things - first, no typo, but in my jurisdiction legal alcohol age is 19, so +6 years is the margin of error (at that particular set of stores, anyway). Second, it's more about changing how the question is framed in the mind of the clerk. Instead of "is this person definitely over 19?" it's "is this person definitely over 25?" - which has a much safer error rate if there's a big penalty for selling liquor to minors and a small penalty for asking for ID when you don't need to.

UK actually went from "Challenge 21" to "Challenge 25" a few years after the former was introduced, so most places have a policy of asking for ID if you look under 25 now - a 7 year margin.

Though the extent to which staff really do challenge anyone who looks under 25 obviously varies considerably, even in businesses where Challenge 25 is the official policy (which afaik is a recommendation that most chains, including pubs and supermarkets, and many small businesses follow, but not a legal requirement).

In many states the cashier can face a $500-$1000 fine for selling to someone underage, risking being fired. The company pays a similar or larger fine. With a few of these fines that location can have alcohol sales suspended for 6-12 months. So many companies require ID for all sales regardless of age. Losing a few sales here and there from people without ID isn't worth risking it

I was in Virginia with a California drivers license and they wouldn’t let me use my California ID. Workers are paranoid about getting busted for selling booze to a minor. I guess no one ever gets fired for blocking an alcohol sale, but if they cause the store to loose their license they might be out of a job.

No empowement. Mistakes could lead to too much bad PR, court cases, or fines. It also means that if anything bad happens, they can fire the employee that didn't follow corporate's rules and claim it was a mistake by the employee and totally not the company's fault.

>3yr margin, common sense

I cannot guess ages with anywhere near that precision. In California the usual standard is if you look under 30.

Fair enough, but I closer 50 than 30, and look so, and the same girl did the next thing the next night, it was a store near an out of town Airbnb so I doubt my first interaction was forgetton

Could she have been under 21? I remember when I spent a summer working grocery that my under-21 coworkers were required to id on all alcohol purchases.

I'm not sure on the 50%. I didn't even know there was a separate tax. It seems unlikely to me as weed is still 'illegal'. The police won't look your way if you use it or sell it in shops. But everything that happens before the shop (growing and transport) is still very much illegal and you will get a big fine if you get caught. You are only allowed to have 5 grams or a small amount of plants.

The government together with a few selected municipalities is starting an experiment to grow it in selected growing facilities. As far as I know no municipality has started selling those yet.

In California, medical marijuana is taxed differently than recreational: if you have a prescription you pay 15% tax, instead of 23-38% tax. The variation in recreational taxes is based on municipality; medical tax is a flat 15% everywhere.

The tax is probably still too high, but it's better than not distinguishing between the two. I suppose if the variation was large enough people might go back to paying sketchy doctors to prescribe them weed for "back pain" (which was fairly common in CA when weed was medically legal but not recreationally; the going rate in SF was somewhere around $80 for a host of back-alley doctors to write you prescriptions), but who knows.

> But for those for whom it's more than merely recreational (e.g.: medicinal use), I wish they'd sell a tax-free version.

(I'm not Dutch but) Are you sure they don't? Obviously not claim tax back having bought on the street corner, but if it's medicinal as in actually prescribed, not just 'self-medicating', then surely it's tax free just like I assume anything else would be?

> they've NEVER asked me for an id at any of these places

Nobody ever carded me in Amsterdam coffee shops when I was 14-15, I don’t think it’s a common practice.

Same actually. But this was 25+ years ago. Oddly think we got IDs for the sex museum though and was it beers in McDonald's at lunch, there some oddities that trip.

>It surprised me in the US that even to sell alcohol to someone clearly over 40, they still ask for an id.

it's weird, some american states are like that, others are not. also, it depends on the bar.

seattle, for example, always asked for id. new york was suuuuper chill with ids.

sf was hit or miss, some bars would ask, some other wouldn't.

My limited understanding is that for most states, if a store, even if accidentally, sells to a minor and gets caught a certain amount of times, the store will lose it's liquor license.

This results in the following problems:

* Underage College students and teenagers are very creative at appearing way older than they are if it means getting booze

* People who are of legal age, particularly older men, will often get offended if carded since it implies the person asking thinks they are young looking

Making it a policy to just check the ids of everyone decreases the amount of people offended and decreases the risk of losing your license which could destroy your business.

I imagine your varying experiences across multiple states is a combination of individual business decisions and how strict that state is with enforcement.

There is no tax on weed in the Netherlands, and I always have to ID myself (mid 30, Rotterdam)