Increasingly ruled by rules

Obama is taking away our civil liberties beginning with our right to ask questions. What happened to my country?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Obama is taking away our civil liberties beginning with our right to ask questions. What happened to my country?[/QUOTE]

What does this have to do with Obama? Or were you being "clever"?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Obama is taking away our civil liberties beginning with our right to ask questions. What happened to my country?[/QUOTE]

No one said you couldn't ask questions. You just can't buy mass quantities of Sudafed. It doesn't take a ridiculously long time unless you act like a douche and piss off the cashier/pharmacist.

Here's another story of unacceptable government intrusion. I went to the liquor store and they asked for an ID. Don't they know I'm not a criminal and they should just sell me alcohol anytime I want?
 
Well, the guy that wrote the article seems like kind of a douche for acting like buying it is a huge inconvenience for him and the clerk is looking at him wrong in his little story (and the article isn't edited very well).

But in this case I don't think regulating pseudophedrine is really helping anything. And it is the only shit that works for me, personally. I'm all for getting rid of other arbitrary time-wasting shit mentioned in the article, too.
 
Despite the fact that it's a whiny blog post I think there's a point under all the petty complaining.

Govt should be regulating the hell out of Wall Street crooks, and leave the culture war bullshit alone. Of course, standing up to Wall Street takes guts, smarts, and perseverence whereas you can get any old hick police dept to enforce no drinking on a beach.
 
LOL, someone actually checked ID for buying Sudafed? Oh wait, I see...it was in California, the land of too many rules.

*pops a Sudafed in her mouth for her allergies*
 
[quote name='Spacepest']LOL, someone actually checked ID for buying Sudafed? Oh wait, I see...it was in California, the land of too many rules.

*pops a Sudafed in her mouth for her allergies*[/QUOTE]

During the end of my time as a cashier in New Jersey, there were added rules for buying anything containing the chemical that's in Sudafed. DXM, or DMX, or something. We didn't need to take down personal info, but we did have to check ID and explain how the medicine can be used in the production of meth.

I had more than one person stare at me like I had two heads.
 
I just bought some Triaminic for the boy. My wallet was already open and the years of parenting have given even my shaved face the look of an adult.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/government-222563-down-people.html

Do you think it's fair to be treated like a criminal because you want to buy some Sudafed?[/QUOTE]

The author of that op-ed clearly doesn't know what a community/area devastated by meth use looks like.

He also doesn't understand what environmental criminology/target-hardening policies are, or how effective they are.

Meth use is down precipitously across the US because of the laws that restrict and monitor the sales of products with pseudoephedrine in them. Now, you'd be right to point out that drug use hasn't dropped as much on the whole, since by and large, heroin use has gone up to replace the meth people can't get anymore. But that's another thing entirely in the war on drugs.

This op-ed is the kind of myopic, self-centered and short-signed pablum I'd expect from a local paper op-ed. This "get off my lawn, you brats!" stuff is fine to rile the local folks, but I'm not sure what your overall point is, elprincipe. "Laws are wacky and out of control?" Well, you can find a far better source to serve as the foundation for that claim, dude.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The author of that op-ed clearly doesn't know what a community/area devastated by meth use looks like.

He also doesn't understand what environmental criminology/target-hardening policies are, or how effective they are.

Meth use is down precipitously across the US because of the laws that restrict and monitor the sales of products with pseudoephedrine in them. Now, you'd be right to point out that drug use hasn't dropped as much on the whole, since by and large, heroin use has gone up to replace the meth people can't get anymore. But that's another thing entirely in the war on drugs.

This op-ed is the kind of myopic, self-centered and short-signed pablum I'd expect from a local paper op-ed. This "get off my lawn, you brats!" stuff is fine to rile the local folks, but I'm not sure what your overall point is, elprincipe. "Laws are wacky and out of control?" Well, you can find a far better source to serve as the foundation for that claim, dude.[/QUOTE]

Meh, just another example of ever-pervasive government becoming even ever-more-pervasive.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Meh, just another example of ever-pervasive government becoming even ever-more-pervasive.[/QUOTE]

But it's not. Wall Street crooks own the joint. The govt only goes after the low hanging fruit. It's the worst of both worlds.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Now, you'd be right to point out that drug use hasn't dropped as much on the whole, since by and large, heroin use has gone up to replace the meth people can't get anymore. But that's another thing entirely in the war on drugs.[/QUOTE]

FLAWLESS VICTORY

And you could probably squeeze a fatality somewhere in there, too.
 
I do wonder - though... are the same ones that are okay with being carded to buy Sudafed ones that would complain about being carded to buy a video game?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Meh, just another example of ever-pervasive government becoming even ever-more-pervasive.[/QUOTE]

You can do better than that. This is the equivalent of the foolishly vague-yet-still-incorrect "when we were kids we didn't do those sorts of things" claims.

EDIT: You can make crystal meth with video games, Bob? I hear the ones from the 360 are better, though; too many jaggies on the PS3.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']EDIT: You can make crystal meth with video games, Bob? I hear the ones from the 360 are better, though; too many jaggies on the PS3.[/QUOTE]

Poor deflection? Check.
Lame joke? Check.
Post by Myke? Check.
 
Well Bob, one could think that carding in one case is valid and in another is not, so if you're genuinely wondering then the answer is probably that it depends on the reasons behind why the person is complaining.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The author of that op-ed clearly doesn't know what a community/area devastated by meth use looks like.
[/QUOTE]

agreed.
I was going to ask...so I see most people on here have never lived in a small mid-western town eh?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well Bob, one could think that carding in one case is valid and in another is not, so if you're genuinely wondering then the answer is probably that it depends on the reasons behind why the person is complaining.[/QUOTE]

The root of the complaint, though, is "Why am I being carded in order to buy a legal product?"

Is it really fair to "treat everyone like criminals" because some folks don't know how to control themselves - either via Meth usage or becoming violent from violent games?
 
[quote name='gareman']agreed.
I was going to ask...so I see most people on here have never lived in a small mid-western town eh?[/QUOTE]

The worst part about it is those horrible billboards that they put up. They're disgusting, offensive and I'm sure they do next to nothing to stop someone from using.

Seriously, if someone wants to be an idiot and use meth, go for it. I wouldn't recommend it, but I'm not here to tell you what to do to your body.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The root of the complaint, though, is "Why am I being carded in order to buy a legal product?"

Is it really fair to "treat everyone like criminals" because some folks don't know how to control themselves - either via Meth usage or becoming violent from violent games?[/QUOTE]

Would you be carded to buy an illegal product?

But anyway, it seems you would complain in both instances.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The worst part about it is those horrible billboards that they put up. They're disgusting, offensive and I'm sure they do next to nothing to stop someone from using.

Seriously, if someone wants to be an idiot and use meth, go for it. I wouldn't recommend it, but I'm not here to tell you what to do to your body.[/QUOTE]


To extend I agree with you, but I think the carding and monitoring of buying certain over the counter meds is a very good thing, because it stops teens from "robo-tripping" (I grew up in the worst possible time when everyone was doing it and the general public was none the wiser--seeing friends going into Wal-mart and buying 6-10 bottles of cough medicine), and it also stops the mass production of said drug.

Really I never understood people getting mad at being carded.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Would you be carded to buy an illegal product?

But anyway, it seems you would complain in both instances.[/QUOTE]


Also it is an illegal product if its say alcohol and you are under 21.

UncleBob- So one is being carded to determine if said product is legal or illegal.
 
Because in Bob's fairy tale land, criminals don't try to buy guns and kids don't try to buy alcohol. Everyone should just walk into a store and say "Trust me. I won't do anything illegal with these thirty boxes of Sudafed."

Maybe we should let 11 year olds drive until they get into a car accident. It's not fair to treat them like irresponsible kids until they prove to be right?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Because in Bob's fairy tale land, criminals don't try to buy guns and kids don't try to buy alcohol. Everyone should just walk into a store and say "Trust me. I won't do anything illegal with these thirty boxes of Sudafed."

Maybe we should let 11 year olds drive until they get into a car accident. It's not fair to treat them like irresponsible kids until they prove to be right?[/QUOTE]

Kids don't buy alcohol. I buy kids alcohol.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Kids don't buy alcohol. I buy kids alcohol.[/QUOTE]

I thought you gave them candy from the back of your A-Team van?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Because in Bob's fairy tale land, criminals don't try to buy guns and kids don't try to buy alcohol. Everyone should just walk into a store and say "Trust me. I won't do anything illegal with these thirty boxes of Sudafed."

Maybe we should let 11 year olds drive until they get into a car accident. It's not fair to treat them like irresponsible kids until they prove to be right?[/QUOTE]

Folks, watch your step - Someone greased the slope with some KY Jelly. It's awfully slippery here.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Quick answer-Because its easier to limit drug dealers' supplies than to actually work at catching them.[/QUOTE]

Even if you catch them, it's a lucrative business in poor areas. So new dealers pop up pretty quickly.

Fighting demand is the only way to try to really deal with the problem. Decriminalize and focus on prevention.
 
The story comes from the OC Register (Orange County, California). Meth use and production is quickly becoming a huge problem in Orange County and the Inland Empire (a mere 30 minutes away or so).

Not a coincidence.
 
Yep. Was working on some crime data from a city in the Inland Empire today, and Meth was the most reported drug possession charge in the data.
 
So... what you're saying is that this ID checking law isn't really stopping criminals from taking part in illegal activity?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... what you're saying is that this ID checking law isn't really stopping criminals from taking part in illegal activity?[/QUOTE]

It forces criminals to take another path before taking part in illegal activity.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']It forces criminals to take another path before taking part in illegal activity.[/QUOTE]

Ah. And here I always thought that criminals were law-abiding citizens and that it makes sense to create more laws to try to deter activity that is already illegal.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Yeah, I don't even know why laws exist, they really only restrict those who will follow laws.[/QUOTE]

A few years ago, I was driving a clunker. One of the many problems it had was that the driver's side door didn't lock. The parking lot I kept it at while staying at my GF's apartment got hit by some street punks. Five cars were broken into, including my own. Four of the car owners had to get their windows replaced.

The activity is already illegal. Creating more hurdles doesn't really seem to be stopping the illegal activity and only makes things harder (although, in this case, to a very minor degree) for citizens that want to abide by the law.
 
I agree, things also shouldn't be locked. If somebody wants to break in to something, they're going to do it, regardless of any barriers. Maybe every building should just be made of glass so it puts up the least resistance to anyone who wants to break in (although the door should really just be open), and all the mass production of glass would make it much easier and cheaper to replace the glass when someone eventually breaks in, unlike now when they might destroy locks and doors in addition to breaking glass, etc., which I'm sure is pretty expensive to replace.
 
There is idiom which goes something like "Locks don't keep criminals out, they keep honest people honest." I think some of these laws work a lot like that, when something is easy to do, more people will do it, make it more difficult and most people won't bother.

I don't really see how showing ID to buy something is all that big of a deal anyway. I certainly wouldn't want just anyone to be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun without showing ID. Of course iv'e seen first hand that gun shows are an easy way around that.
 
Switching from meth to heroin may seem like a lost cause, but there are some indirect, but meager, benefits of the psuedoephedrine laws (limits on purchases, purchases recorded by ID, etc.)

Given that heroin largely enters the US ready for consumption, if more people use that instead of meth, fewer households (the building itself as well as the families who live in it) are exposed to the risk of fire, chemical burn, or chemical exposure. So fewer child burn victims from being in a house when the meth that was cooking exploded. That's a positive.
 
It can be more than just having to show ID.

In Illinois, for example, the register jockey gets to record your Driver's License info. It might sound minor, until you get into the nasty details if Identity Theft...

http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/numbers/dl_us_shared.html

Also, if you've forgotten your ID at home - or - *gasp* don't have an ID at all, you're SOL. Many lower-income and minority individuals do not have a state issued ID card. Isn't this the same argument used against any kind of ID laws at the poll?

Also, in Illinois, if you're pulled over and ticketed, you have the option of posting bond on-site (and, seriously, who carries $75 in cash on them anymore?) or handing over your license. Since the ticket you've been issued isn't a legal, state issued, photo ID, you won't be able to purchase the product using it (although, for those interested, you can still drive with the ticket).

Now, combine that with the fact that Sudafed has to be locked behind the pharmacy counter - meaning that if you don't live in an area with a 24 hour pharmacy, there are times when you may not be able to get what you need.

Also, the limits on what one can buy are fairly reasonable, unless you live in a rather large family and everyone gets hit around the same time.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Also, if you've forgotten your ID at home - or - *gasp* don't have an ID at all, you're SOL. Many lower-income and minority individuals do not have a state issued ID card. Isn't this the same argument used against any kind of ID laws at the poll?[/QUOTE]

Quick Google search...

http://www2.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=115963
Opponents claim the motivation behind the photo ID requirement is partisan and meant to purposely disenfranchise poor, elderly and minority voters who are less likely to have a driver's license or other valid government-issued photo ID _ or vote Republican.
Click to expand...
 
I imagine the argument would be that one is voting and one is buying a particular type of drug when others are available for the same purpose, but I'm all for making it easier for everybody to get their IDs.
 
[quote name='camoor']What are you saying - that the government doesn't want poor people to get the same relief from stuffy nose, allergy and headache that rich people enjoy?[/QUOTE]

I'm saying there are legitimate reasons to oppose a law requiring one to show photo ID.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. Was working on some crime data from a city in the Inland Empire today, and Meth was the most reported drug possession charge in the data.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing Lake Elsinore or Perris. It's been a massive problem for over 20 years out here. There were almost constant drug raids on the street I grew up on when first moving out here twenty years ago. There was a daycare bombing incident a couple of months ago out here... a woman was interviewed about it on the nightly news, and she said something along the lines of "... I just thought it was another meth lab that blew up". It was in a nice neighborhood, too.

I've had several friends fall prey to it. The people who run the meth trade out here make quite a bit of money, there's some gang elements involved, and they all carry weapons. Not a good combo. The only viable option to combat this is to take away the financial incentive to run this kind of operation with decriminalization.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm saying there are legitimate reasons to oppose a law requiring one to show photo ID.[/QUOTE]

I thought I was going down the slippery slope. I assume you're OK with showing an ID to buy a gun or a 40 of Ol' English but it's not OK to show ID when buying something that is commonly used to manufacture crystal meth?

Why the difference or are you just against anything the government does period?

Then, I would suggest a move to sunny Somalia. No pesky government to get in your way of your pursuit of life, liberty, and riches/happiness. Remember, parrots are just for show. First thing you gotta buy over there is an AK-47.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm saying there are legitimate reasons to oppose a law requiring one to show photo ID.[/QUOTE]


Are you implying that your previous reasons were not legitimate?

Also I thought the real issue with having to present an ID at polls was because some places require a 5 to 20 dollar charge for any state ID, thus presenting an indirect cost to anyone wanting to vote which is illegal to have any charge in order to vote . The answer most opponents of poll IDing is to offer a free photo voter ID, and still have people present an ID to vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top