Wouldn’t surprise me if the NYT favored doing away with the age restrictions on voting.

In any case I rather doubt that they see a few brave minors voting as a problem.

Voting might be a Good Thing, but we do age-restrict it, so…

“Ah, the New York Times. Aghast at requiring ID to vote but demanding it to buy soda.”

Strangely enough while I disagree with the NYT on both issues, I do think that there positions are at least internally consistent.

Good Thing = no ID.

Bad Thing = If you can ban it outright, Sometimes adults can’t be prohibited from doing Bad Thing. However we should still prevent minors from doing Bad Thing so require ID as proof of age.

Voting = Good Thing
Soda = Bad Thing

Bittman has complained in the past about “near-random incarceration.” I’m not sure making buying a soda without an ID a crime is the best way to go about fixing that. Incidentally, he says he REALLY wants the age to be 20, but is aware of how “far-fetched” (meaning absurd) the idea is that he’s willing to compromise at 16. My, how generous. Right now we have the rather comical reality that men and women can’t legally drink alcohol at their own weddings or while serving in the armed forces. This genius wants them to be protected from sugary drinks, too.