<<<Or at least, that will do for an excuse.>>>

That and a nickel will get you a cup of coffee, as my mother used to say (a long time ago, obviously) :-)

Clubs and restaurnts serving primarily young people will generally be stricter - because they are checked by the liquor authority more often (the police don;t get involved in this unless it causes a crime of some sort). And often the liquor authority is there because of complaints from neighbors about drunk kids and too much noise in the street.

In a restaurant it can vary - very upscale places may not card - casual places are more likely to.

Dance clubs are strictest - since it's very difficult to et both a liquor and cabaret license - and if they are lost the owner is out a huge investment. (But many underage kids do get i - with fake ID. My step-daughters both went clubbing from 18 on - I didn;t ask where they got the ID - but had no objection -since in Manhattan there are no cars involved - just a cab home.

> I prefer to look at it as an opportunity to practice civil disobedience,
> in the great tradition of Thoreau and Gandhi.

Then I suggest you take the time to read what "civil disobedience" IS. It is NOT violating a law and then trying to hide the fact in order to avoid the consequences of it. Civil disobedience means violating the law and being VERY public about that fact, and then daring the authorities to impose the consequences for your violation. Gandhi didn't secretly make salt with the hope that he wouldn't get caught -- he VERY publicly stated he would disobey the law, VERY publicly did so, and VERY publicly accepted arrest for doing so.

You think the law is so unfair that you don't think you should pay any attention to it? Fine. But don't call this "civil disobedience." Unless you contact the authorities in advance of your doing so, and accept whatever punishment they impose on you, it isn't.

Blue noses have no sense of humor.

Ascribing the 21 drinking age laws to "puritanism" simply flies in the face of current realities. YOu need only have a look at the TV commercials of companies such as Budweiser, Miller, et al to realize that they are selling drinking as just a fun thing to do. Companies are wise enough not to promote their product in a way that flouts prevailing mores. What was true in the 1920's and before just doesn't apply today. And to ascribe the lack of drinking regulations in Europe to their dedication to "freedom" is a hoot. The reason millions of Europeans came to America was to escape the onerous conditions prevailing in various areas of Europe.

Here in Europe, we have a long philosophical tradition of freedom and civil rights. We think the state should not interfere in the lifes of the citizens
__________________________________________________ ____

This tradition must be at least 35 years old considering the deaths of Salazar in Portugal and Franco in Spain.

Or myabe it was 1991 with the fall of the Societ Union and the now many independent European states.

Or maybe the tradition is yet to start with the EU imposing laws on different countries and cultures that they never had before.

Although the OP seems to be under the impresion that regulating drinking is an American phenomenon and an aspect of "Puritanism" - it is worth looking at the historical facts. First- the Puritans were not opposed to imbibing alcohol - and they did their share. Second - The Temperance Movement of the 19th century (this is the movement that started anti-alcohol sentiments and wound up with the 18th Amendment) - started in EUROPE - Scotland, Britain, Norway, Sweden - so much for European attitudes towards "civil rights" and "freedom:. The movement was picked up in the 19th c. by outfits like the WCTU in the U.S. - but they had nothing to do with Puritanism.