Let it ride

Now, I don't want kids striking that Marlboro Man pose any more than you do. And licensing the stores that sell tobacco is a positive step in making the stores, rather than the $5-an-hour convenience store clerks, responsible for what they sell. But would someone please ask them to temper their zeal with some common sense?

I smoke. Yes, it's terrible and sad and gross and all that. All the same, I smoke, and occasionally I need to purchase more cigarettes. Now, lately, I've been writing checks. I guess I'm taking my last stab at enjoying paper currency in all its forms before it's all replaced with debit cards and smart cards and so on.

So here is our intrepid heroine at the local convenience store, writing a check to pay for her cigarettes. All convenience stores in this town require, at the very least, a driver's license when one is paying by check. The clerk will inevitably see my driver's license during the course of this transaction. Yet, before I have laid the check on the counter, in fact, before I have even finished writing the check, the clerk asks, "ID?" This is not an isolated incident. This has happened to me at least four times in the past week. I can't decide if this is a subtle protest by the clerks at having to ID anyone under 27, or if they really can't see how inefficient this is.

Speaking of Marlboro, my beloved "Dateline" tells me that Philip Morris is in trouble again. It seems that documents have been released that show it was developing a cigarette aimed at 16- to 25-year olds. Oh my, 16-year olds smoking? Can't they wait two stinkin' years? But the cigarette, called Magic, was being developed for the European market, where 16-year-olds can legally buy cigarettes in many countries.

So we're upset that Phillip Morris was trying to sell cigarettes to kids who can buy them. Looks to me like the United States is trying to regulate European minimum ages by going after the companies making the products. I'm assuming that the next target is going to be American liquor companies that sell alcohol to European nations with drinking ages under 21. But really, who in Europe would buy American liquor? (Aside from good ol' Kentucky bourbon, which is making a stronger comeback than tuberculosis.) Or beer? Ha.

So 18 is the magic age, huh? Think again. The Arizona House just passed an amendment to the minimum gambling age law, raising that age to 21. No longer will elated 18-year-olds run to Circle K on their birthdays to buy that first lottery ticket, thinking "I can't win if I don't play!"

The beauty of this law is it won't go into effect until the year 2000, which means the first batch of kids to be affected is now 15. Like they care. The kids this affects won't even be able to vote until the new law goes into effect.

So with the gambling age at 21, do we expect these mere infants to grasp the complexities of handling both alcohol and wagering in a mature fashion at the same time? I'll bet that first batch of kids gets drunk and blows what's left of their financial aid at Casino of the Sun the first chance they get. The casinos will love it; they already provide the essential community service of cashing paychecks. They'll probably start a shuttle service from campus and the malls to the casinos, so no one has to drink and drive to get their Keno fix.

In light of this, our wise and kind legislature will more than likely raise the drinking age to 25, giving us a couple years to get our gambling under control before they throw alcohol into the mix. And just to make sure that no one tries to question their wise parenting of our state's children, they'll raise the voting age to 30. After all, if you can't be trusted with a PowerBall ticket, you obviously can't be trusted with a vote.

M. Stephanie Murray is a junior majoring in English literature. Her column, 'What Fresh Hell?', appears every other Wednesday.

By M. Stephanie Murray
Arizona Daily Wildcat
March 12, 1997