You don't need to see his identification

Does anybody know how old you actually have to be to buy alcohol and tobacco these days? I know the law is different from country to country and I’m not talking about America where you have to be 54 before you can legally drink, or Mexico where your head just needs to be big enough to fit into a sombrero. I’m talking about good old Blighty.

The only reason I ask is because there are signs plastered all over my local supermarket that state if people look under 25 they will be asked for ID. This has recently gone up from 21. Similarly, there are notes in most of my local pubs stating that anyone suspected of being under the age of 21 will be asked for ID. Likewise, there are signs everywhere stating that cigarettes and tobacco products will not be sold to anyone under the age of 18.

I am making an assumption that the minimum age is still 18 for booze and 16 for tobacco but shops and pubs are covering themselves because if someone looks 18 but isn’t, stating they look old enough won’t stand up in court.

This is fine except for one flaw. If a 17 year old happens to look 25 – and believe me, when I was 17 I had similarly aged friends who looked like balding 40 year olds – that won’t stand up any better in court.

Whilst I agree it is right to have laws prohibiting the sale of such products to children, I think it has gone a bit far. For example, a few years ago my girlfriend was asked for ID when she bought Christmas crackers. Christmas crackers for Christ’s sake. Either the numpty at the till just wanted to exercise the only power they would ever get in their life, or they genuinely believed it possible to make a bomb out of one.

Of course, my girlfriend was also once asked for ID when she purchased a DVD rated 12. This made me laugh until I realised that if people thought she looked that young, they might also think I’m a paedophile.

I have to confess, I still get asked for ID occasionally and I’m 30. Of course I accept that, although being over 6 feet tall, I look quite young for my age and may look under 25 to some, most of the time it is a perception thing.

For example, I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve been asked for ID in pubs and I started going to pubs when I was 15. The only time I’m ever asked for ID is when I go to a supermarket and only buy alcohol. And I’m with my girlfriend. However, when I go into the supermarket to do my weekly household shopping and buy alcohol with it, I am never asked. This suggests to me that the lord of the checkout person assumes that if I’m buying products like cleaning sprays, detergents, toilet products and ingredients for food, I must therefore have my own house – which I do – and must therefore be old enough to by alcohol – which I am. It never occurs to them that I am making a bomb out of the detergents and chilli powder.

The thing is, I really think the nanny-state is going about this the wrong way. Raising the age limit and making drinking and smoking less available is only going to encourage underage people to try their luck. It’s a natural human instinct to do the exact opposite of what someone in a position of authority asks you to do.

Just look at America. They are able to draw their pension before they are allowed to drink and what is the result? They are all fat people who shoot each other, sue each other and invade other people’s countries.

We’re not quite as stupid as the Yanks in this country yet but our laws are extremely illogical. Over here, people can have sex and get married at 16. So this means that a guy can shag his missus but can’t get drunk or visit a strip club on his stag night and can’t drive to the airport for his honeymoon.

I truly believe the answer is to lower the minimum age of such things. I am not talking about allowing 6 year olds get hammered or anything insane like that but just making things less alluring for youngsters by having them more available at a younger age. When I eventually rule the world, I would make the minimum age for smoking and drinking the same and I would make them both lower than the minimum age for driving. All 3 would be lower than the age of sexual consent and that would be lower still than the age of marriage. This, to me, is a much more logical progression of responsibility.

Of course the argument for this is not all people are responsible. This is largely due to the parents. Very few of the unfortunate souls who are the illegitimate and usually accidental product of couples who really shouldn’t be allowed to breed are going to grow up to have very good moral values.

I was fortunate enough to be brought up by parents who had the right combination of intelligence, compassion and trust to raise children. Because I was sensible and occasionally listened to what they said without throwing a tantrum, they trusted me enough to introduce me to alcohol at a young age. As a result, I’ve never seen it as a big deal. I’ve never taken up smoking and I’ve never touched drugs either. Yes I have woken up with my fair share of traffic cones over the years. I’ve woken up in strange locations, I’ve decorated pavements across the country and I’ve done many other shameful things that I just don’t have the space – or indeed the inclination – to write about.

Anyway, the point is that the nanny state Nazis, as always, are making a complete hash of things because they are all tree-hugging, fair trade tea drinking, sandal wearing, bearded lesbians with nothing better to do with their lives. So when my master plan for world domination falls into place, there will be some radical changes to these silly age laws. Of course, I will also bring back capital punishment so the Gary Glitter’s and Ian Huntley’s of this world will get what they truly deserve.