Carded at Walmart for Buying Paint.

All Categories >> Politics

09/15/2008 12:03 pm

Jeremy's Archive

Rate this Blog

Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.

I know what you're thinking already, "Here comes a boring 'Jimmy Johns' story."

Well, in this case the story isn't much of anything. Sarah and I took an infrequent trip to Walmart and bought some paint and primer for the trim on our garage door. We were caught off guard when the cashier asked for ID for the primer. According to the cashier it's one of the many things you can make meth out of, so they are forced to ask for ID.

In and of itself this really doesn't matter. It takes 2 seconds to show ID. I just feel like there's a lot of compromises we're making as a society to cater to the lowest common denominator. We seem to have a lot of not-all-that thought out, very reactionary "solutions" that only seem to serve to placate which ever small group is most upset.

In many cases, the solution doesn't even make sense. How many 15 year olds are cooking up meth in their parents' bathtubs? What does this REALLY do to curb anything?

Most importantly, why is it that we as a society choose to "combat" the dregs of society, in this case the meth users, by assuming EVERYONE is a meth user?

The cashier didn't seem to type all that long once he had our IDs, so I think he just verified the ages. Sarah thought maybe he typed in the license number to track it so that if we bought primer in 5 places it would raise a red flag somewhere. While that would move a step in the direction of actually doing something worthwhile, it would take 10 steps back in the "assume everyone is a criminal" approach.

Am I alone on this, or is anyone else annoyed by this trend?

	Matt - Ombudsman 09/15/2008 @ 12:12:49 PM
Maybe they should start asking for ID at Jimmy John's. That way people wouldn't be able to steal other people's sandwiches.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 3 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 09/15/2008 @ 12:44:52 PM
I know they've been doing this with cold medicine for a while now, but this is the first I've heard of for paint. While I've yet to be "carded" for buying things like this, I share your annoyance.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/15/2008 @ 12:50:19 PM
not annoyed, but I suppose I should be. It's just another case of treating the symptoms and not the problem. -edited- I wrote "could be" instead of "should be"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 09/15/2008 12:56:34 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/15/2008 @ 01:17:11 PM
Things like this totally piss me off. Get your crazy laws out my face! Like you said, this most likely prevents nothing and wastes everybody's time as well as takes away your privacy if they really are tracking your purchases.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/15/2008 @ 01:38:27 PM
Thanks for getting me fired up, Alex. Your post/rant reminded me just who I am. A Libertarian! five nuts.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 09/15/2008 @ 01:51:49 PM
I could care less. If you don't have anything to hide, what do you have to worry about?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/15/2008 @ 02:10:59 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:51:49 PM I could care less. Again? Really? Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:51:49 PM If you don't have anything to hide, what do you have to worry about? Well, lets say the government was investigating a murder by bringing in every person who lives in the neighborhood for questioning. It would be a nerve wracking bother even if you have "nothing to hide." Now this is extreme, but where's the line? What if we all had to have fingerprints and DNA on file, but they came door-to-door and it took 2 seconds. It's not about "worrying" it's about the fact that someone is assuming we're all criminals, drug users, terrorists, shop lifters, etc, even though the tiniest percentage is. It's about some sick person being denied cold/allergy meds because a small small SMALL fraction of use of those meds was to get high. If in exchange for data on what mid-late 20s, married, couples buy the grocery store offers a discount on some items, that's different. That's an "agreement" between me and the store, and I can shop anywhere. I shouldn't have to enter into some implicit agreement with the government that they will know about any and all purchases of items that could possibly be used to get high.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/15/2008 @ 02:37:02 PM
Also, even to look at it in not such a "Libertarian" "The Government has no right" angle, I would say a good 50% of the time it's a complete non solution that wastes everyone's time involved in which no one at any level is allowed to have any sort of discretion. The disheveled guy buying 5 gallons of every ingredient used to make meth is treated the same as someone buying a gallon of paint, painting bibs, paint brushes, and a ladder, Besides that as long as the first guy is 18, nothing is done anyway. Anyway, in this specific case, we're dealing with people who are mixing, drinking, cooking, huffing, whatever anything and everything they can to get high. They'd just move onto some other ingredient no matter what you did. They keep using more and more things and before we know it you're going to have to be 25 and take a drug test to be able to buy mouthwash and shampoo.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 09/15/2008 2:39:06 pm

	Matt - 3875 Posts 09/15/2008 @ 02:52:44 PM
Well, everybody knows that mouthwash has no legitimate use besides getting drunk cheaply. And don't even get me started on vanilla extract.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/15/2008 @ 06:05:23 PM
Are they assuming we are all criminals? Or are they protecting our neighborhoods from becoming meth labs? I see your point though. I've just never been much worried about "big brother", if that's what you are getting at. I'm not sure if it is, but either way, I've never been too concerned.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/15/2008 @ 07:49:13 PM
Well to back off of my usual "big brother is the devil" standpoint for a minute, I realize there is often a very fine line between privacy and rights and the government being able to enforce laws. It's pretty hard to investigate crime without any data at all. But anytime individuals give up that data they are losing privacy. So it's an endless tug of war tradeoff, with some people like yourself content to have your entire life tracked on one end (+ politicians who pass these laws to pander to some group) and total conspiracy theorists who spend their entire lives trying to stay "off the grid" (+ a few people who actually care about their rights enough to do something about it) on the other end. That being said, all these preemptive strike type laws generally are more harmful then helpful, for the reasons previously stated by Jeremy. The only people this stops are people that are really dumb, who probably aren't going to get very far in their meth-making empire anyway, or people who are super lazy who decide that since Walmart won't sell them paint they'll have to find a new hobby. So great, we stopped those drugs kingpins with the tradeoff being that countless people are wasting their time creating this law, training people to obey the law, asking people for ids, showing people ids, not having your id with you and having to go home get it and come back, etc. plus it probably pisses more people off than it makes happy. As you can see, the price is much too high and far outweighs any benefits (which are conveniently hypothetical and fairly unmeasurable). Which means that this law is actually degrading society by lowering the happiness and productiveness of 99.9% of the population. Therefore, even if this specific law itself doesn't bother you personally, surely you can acknowledge this flawless logic and realize that your country suffers under the weight of her own pessimistic and short-sighted oppression. More to your point, they are not assuming that we are all criminals, they are assuming that we are all willing to be inconvenienced and deprived of our privacy in the off chance that someone went to Walmart to start a meth lab and will actually be thwarted by this law. I, for one, am not willing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex messed with this at 09/15/2008 7:51:14 pm

	Jon - 3375 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 11:03:29 AM
Obviously Jeremy, the cashier saw your missing teeth and Sarah's scabs from constantly picking at her skin, and rightly assumed you were both meth addicts. Little did he know, you guys are consumers but not producers or dealers. The thing is, if they're just entering the birth dates, it's not that big of a deal for us because it's mostly just annoying, but it also is incredibly lame because it does little to actually fix the problem, as many of you have pointed out. If they are tracking you by putting in your actual personal number, that might actually be effective to catch people at least, yet it's incredibly invasive and really gives me the creeps almost. I don't like that idea at all. Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:51:49 PM I could care less. If you don't have anything to hide, what do you have to worry about? I believe you just gave a government agent the go-ahead to tap all your phones and put a tracking device on your vehicle.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 11:24:13 AM
Right, it's bad either way. Either Walmart wastes everyone's time for no reason at behest of the government, or, it's not a waste of time, it might actually do something positive, but Sarah is in some Walmart/Government Meth database because the paint on our garage is flaking off.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 09/16/2008 11:27:57 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 04:31:14 PM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 12:03:29 PM Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:51:49 PM I could care less. If you don't have anything to hide, what do you have to worry about? I believe you just gave a government agent the go-ahead to tap all your phones and put a tracking device on your vehicle. Are you saying you oppose Bush's warantless wiretapping policy (aka "spying")?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 04:49:14 PM
Well you don't, apparently. .....unless you have something to hide....		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 05:13:44 PM
I'm not 100% sure how I feel about the current topic at hand, actually (I was joking about the Bush thing, of course that's an impeachable offense). There is a girl that works with me says she refuses to give her fingerprint for any reason whatsoever (Busch Gardens requires a fingerprint to be associated with your pass). So I'm kind of annoyed when people think that EVERYTHING is an invasion of privacy. Something as simple as buying certain supplies that could potentially be used to make an illegal drug, I don't see that as necessarily such an aggregious offense. If something like this is an attempt to keep meth off the streets and it works, than I don't have a problem with it. I guess I would have a problem if they are keeping a permanent record of things that people buy. If they have some way of associating me with a number that cannot techincally being traced back to ME, just my "account", that would probably be better, if it isn't already the case. But at some point, isn't it good to know that they are doing something to combat a problem? Maybe, maybe not.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 09/16/2008 5:14:54 pm

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 06:01:33 PM
just because he said that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't worry doesn't mean he is FOR these things, it just simply means that good law-abiding people should not allow needless worry to keep them up at night. That is, I think that's what he means.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 07:12:59 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 05:13:44 PM I guess I would have a problem if they are keeping a permanent record of things that people buy. If they have some way of associating me with a number that cannot techincally being traced back to ME, just my "account", that would probably be better, if it isn't already the case. But at some point, isn't it good to know that they are doing something to combat a problem? Maybe, maybe not. Well, if they can't trace it back to you what's the point of keeping records? They can probably already subpoena the store's records without justifiable cause. Doing something that arguably does nothing is not better than just doing nothing. Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 06:01:33 PM just because he said that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't worry doesn't mean he is FOR these things, it just simply means that good law-abiding people should not allow needless worry to keep them up at night. That is, I think that's what he means. In a way, it's an important distinction, namely I don't need to worry about those people trying to get new laws passed. But even if you aren't "for" the law allowing it to remain a law is still basically giving your consent that it is indeed a good law.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 09/16/2008 @ 07:26:16 PM
How do you know it does nothing? They can't track electronic voting records to any one person, but they can make sure that a person doesn't vote more than once. That's how it would work.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 07:27:21 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 07:01:33 PM just because he said that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't worry doesn't mean he is FOR these things, it just simply means that good law-abiding people should not allow needless worry to keep them up at night. That is, I think that's what he means. This is more or less what I meant. 4 nuts for you.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel 09/16/2008 @ 07:30:33 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:26:16 PM How do you know it does nothing? They can't track electronic voting records to any one person, but they can make sure that a person doesn't vote more than once. That's how it would work. Well if no one knows it's you, you can buy 50 containers of primer without worry since nobody knows who bought it. Unless you're proposing that primer should be sold on a ration, limit one container per day or something.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 07:34:24 PM
Well, it would be this, say ME, Scott, is assigned the "Meth_Ingredient_ID" of 4321. That number is not associated with my name or anything, it is an encrypted ID like a password that cannot be traced back to me. I'm not sure how it would work, and maybe it would require some sort of quota. Assuming that this system does indeed work to reduce the meth trade on our streets, is it worth it to deal with a little annoyance?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/16/2008 @ 07:39:37 PM
Here's a question for everyone here. If you have learned of several common household items that oculd be used to create meth, wouldn't you want to do something to ensure that people aren't buying these things for malicious purposes? Maybe my Meth_Ingredient_ID would associate all the different household ingredients so that if a person happens to purchase all 10 components (or whatever) for making Meth the red flag would be raised. In other words. How does everyone propose striking down on Meth? Let's not be like politicians and just say everything is wrong; come up with solutions.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 09/16/2008 7:41:29 pm

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 07:42:09 PM
by annoying Jeremy at the cash register. That's how. Kidding aside, I propose we find out why people are resorting to using meth- and I don't mean that they can't afford "real" drugs. Treat the reasons people use them in the first place,take care of that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 07:52:07 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:34:24 PM Well, it would be this, say ME, Scott, is assigned the "Meth_Ingredient_ID" of 4321. That number is not associated with my name or anything, it is an encrypted ID like a password that cannot be traced back to me. I'm not sure how it would work, and maybe it would require some sort of quota. Assuming that this system does indeed work to reduce the meth trade on our streets, is it worth it to deal with a little annoyance? Somehow or another you would have to be tied to that id. Maybe 99% of the world would not have access (or 100% if it was somehow buried in a computer system, which can still always be hacked) to the association, but somehow you have to be tied to it. Otherwise how do they add your next purchase to the same id? Plus, you just said you were assigned to the id. No it's not worth it, and it's a faulty assumption anyway. Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:39:37 PM Here's a question for everyone here. If you have learned of several common household items that oculd be used to create meth, wouldn't you want to do something to ensure that people aren't buying these things for malicious purposes? Maybe my Meth_Ingredient_ID would associate all the different household ingredients so that if a person happens to purchase all 10 components (or whatever) for making Meth the red flag would be raised. In other words. How does everyone propose striking down on Meth? Let's not be like politicians and just say everything is wrong; come up with solutions. No, I think people should be able to buy whatever common household items they want, whenever they want, and how ever many they want. Otherwise you end up with the family of 10 that goes to Sam's Club to stock up for a couple months and 2 days later the ATF comes barreling through the front door with a warrant. I don't propose striking down meth at all. That's the first problem, setting unrealistic goals.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/16/2008 @ 07:59:06 PM
Wow. So if you have the option, you wouldn't do ANYTHING to try and reduce the amount of Meth on the streets? NOTHING? Just start selling it at Wal-Mart? I guess my use of "striking down" probably implied "completely rid of". I'm just talking about reducing it. Also, in response to my " don't just say something sucks and come up with a suggestion to reduce meth", you just said "No, your idea sucks" and "we can't (and apparently shouldn't) do anything to reduce it."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 08:34:19 PM
Your starting off from a position that I don't agree with isn't my fault. I never said they should sell it at Walmart. It's illegal to make, distribute, transport, and use meth. Shouldn't that be good enough as far as laws go? I can't find any mention of this law. But this site says that the majority of meth in Wisconsin comes from Mexico via "the west", as well as the Twin Cities (for northern Wisconsin anyway). http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dci/narcotics/meth/index.asp		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 09:01:53 PM
Here's a good quote, "It is easier for the government to manipulate the behavior of law abiding citizens by creating regulations that criminals will ignore, than it is to focus efforts on the specific problem individuals." There's not much else here, just provided the link so I'm not accused of plagerism http://random10.blogspot.com/2005/05/wrong-solution-to-meth-problem.html		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 09/16/2008 @ 09:28:20 PM
I can't find anything else, I think the cashier was just trying to steal your identity.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/17/2008 @ 12:40:20 AM
I agree with Alex. You're beginning the "debate" on a faulty premise. 1) That something HAS to be done, period. 2) That we should address the situation by attempting to make the supplies harder to get. However, beginning from that premise: a) If they are merely carding people for age, that needs to stop yesterday. 13 year olds aren't running meth labs out of their bedrooms and the adults that are have ID's indicating their adulthood. This is just some moron politician's plan to placate other morons into thinking he/she is "fighting the war on drugs." b) If they are building a database it has to be tied to you somehow, otherwise it would do no good. If they don't know to go investigate further into 123 Fake St what good does any of it do? There's no way around tying it to you. They could tie it to a meaningless number that could be re looked up, but not in reverse. So your drivers license number of L234-5678-9333 could be hashed into a123b53c2ca42, but you couldn't "reverse" a123b53c2ca42 into L234-5678-9333. (This is one way to store passwords, and if you've ever visited a site where you can't recover your password, you just have to have it reset, this is likely what they are doing. They couldn't look up your password if they wanted to.) However, the database is meaningless without being tied to a person, or address, at which point it starts to cross over into a creepy breach of privacy. Issues with "b" 1)Meth users likely know how to beat the system anyway. Local "mom and pop" places don't have the technology installed to be able to turn over such a database to anyone. 2)Even if taken to it's extreme, the government knows everything that everyone is buying everywhere, that STILL doesn't necessarily help, and certainly doesn't solve, the problem. You get the primer and I'll get the whatever and Sam will get the other thing, next week we'll switch. Improvements to "b" 1)"Red flags" (ie whatever the system in place is) should only go up if you are buying a "significant" amount of 2-3 ingredients at once. I have no idea what chemical they need from the paint primer, but I highly doubt that a pint, the smallest amount of primer they sell, is going to keep a meth lab in production for a month. The problem with this is of course it assumes someone with reason will define what a significant amount is, and it will most likely be the person least qualified to make that call. 2) Again, I have no idea how to make meth, but I'd be willing to bet there are many items, like primer, that "can be used" and a few staple ingredients that you always need, and need in larger quantities, that they could focus on. If you were trying to shut down underground cookie factories it wouldn't make sense to hassle everyone who bought chocolate, peanut butter, or nuts, because they could in theory wind up in a cookie. There's a million ways to make cookies, focus on the guy buying the conversion van full of flour and sugar. All that being said, I'm not sure how much I want time and effort being spent here. There's just nothing you can to do stop it. If the cops stumble into, or get a solid tip, about a meth lab, then fine. For the most part there's just nothing you can do, other than make it .01% harder to make, at the expense of being a bother to everyone. You're talking about a group of people so hard up for a high that they are mixing chemicals meant for cleaning and all sorts of crap to make a drug that quickly rots your teeth and melts your face off. There's no stopping those people, and I don't think it's ridiculous, or "evil," to discuss the possibility that maybe doing nothing is a reasonable approach. We can all agree there's no perfect solution. There could be debate if anything is even a decent enough solution. The problem with starting from the premise "Well, we HAVE to do SOMETHING" is that a room full of people churn out idea after idea, none of which make any real world strides, but they pick the "best ideas" because "at least they're something." Maybe this is just the computer programmer in me talking, but sometimes when there are no good solutions to a problem it simply means there's no solution, and THAT should be an acceptable solution, or at least on the table. I'm not paranoid of the government, and I don't even mean to be taking a "libertarian" stance that "hey, we should be able to do what we want with our bodies." It's just not realistic that anything CAN be done, therefor, in my long winded opinion, not doing anything is a "solution" worth debate as much as anything else.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 09/17/2008 12:43:53 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/17/2008 @ 12:06:38 PM
You probably are both correct, more or less. I was just really bored last night and wanted to spark discussion. I guess the real question is "should we do something to curtail Meth production/use, and if so, what steps should take. If not, why."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 09/17/2008 12:07:36 pm

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 09/17/2008 @ 01:01:04 PM
From what I found on the interwebs last night, it sounds like 80% of the meth in the US comes from Mexico, so maybe efforts should be focused on stopping that. Plus, there's already been a ton of laws passed about buying pseudoephedrine or ephedrine in any quantity, and I'm not sure that I'm really on board with those laws either but they at least make more a little more sense.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/17/2008 @ 01:23:42 PM
The problem with restricting certain things, like allergy meds, is that people "need" those. Making me show my ID for primer is lame, but I'm not out anything except 2 seconds and possibly some privacy. Regulating the amount of over the counter meds a person can buy can effect someone's quality of life much more. Likewise, we're all affected by the fact that in many cases in an effort to stay out from behind the counter medicines have been changed to less effective alternatives. All this means is that once again it's only slightly more of a pain for meth producers (who FYI don't NEED those ingredients) to get them, but you're really effecting other people's lives. Those pharmacy lines can be long, and forget about buying enough for 2-3 people if you, your spouse, and/or a couple children have allergies. People are having to make multiple stops just for allergy meds.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 09/17/2008 1:33:00 pm

	Carlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo? 09/17/2008 @ 03:11:13 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:01:04 PM From what I found on the interwebs last night, it sounds like 80% of the meth in the US comes from Mexico, so maybe efforts should be focused on stopping that. Plus, there's already been a ton of laws passed about buying pseudoephedrine or ephedrine in any quantity, and I'm not sure that I'm really on board with those laws either but they at least make more a little more sense. I propose a 10 foot wall and writing new laws that give people living within 10 miles of the border rights to carry automatic weapons. Sure, we'd stem the flow of drugs, but then who would we dump all of our old rusty busted up cars to?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec messed with this at 09/17/2008 3:11:32 pm

	Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 09/17/2008 @ 05:45:44 PM
Build the wall out of the cars, problem solved.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - She's just a woman. Never again. 09/17/2008 @ 10:47:56 PM
Matt Wrote - 09/15/2008 @ 02:52:44 PM Well, everybody knows that mouthwash has no legitimate use besides getting drunk cheaply. And don't even get me started on vanilla extract. I used to walk by these Indian guys on the way to work on Hennepin Ave and they would be chuggin Scope. It was awesome. I think we have lost the war on privacy years ago. I find it sad at best.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/18/2008 @ 07:30:48 AM
Scope? Nasty.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 10/05/2008 @ 09:45:00 PM
Scott Wrote - 09/15/2008 @ 01:51:49 PM I could care less. If you don't have anything to hide, what do you have to worry about? Maybe being arrested because you suffer from chronic nasal congestion?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/05/2008 @ 11:14:29 PM
The precursor article is pretty good, and has equally unbelievable charges at the bottom. http://reason.com/news/show/36025.html Apparently it's illegal in some areas to sell the ingredients, if it's clear the person intends to make meth. Of course the definition of "It's clear" is open to wild interpretation varying from them hinting at it to you just knowing exactly how to make meth. Not to mention, should it even be illegal to sell charcoal and matches if the person flat out says "I'm going to take these items home and use them to cook meth"? If I was buying beef jerky and joked to a clerk I was going to make meth with it, he would face 25 years for selling it to me? I think it's definitely time to refactor the government. I wonder how much better things would be if us Americans, as a group, could see through transparent pandering.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1 bajillion posts 10/06/2008 @ 01:05:36 AM
Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:45:00 PM Scott Wrote - 09/15/2008 @ 01:51:49 PM I could care less. If you don't have anything to hide, what do you have to worry about? Maybe being arrested because you suffer from chronic nasal congestion? I'm not one to go "sue happy" in most situations, and I'm not sure the guy would have a case, but I could easily be in favor of this guy suing someone in the government. That way the ridiculousness could at least have some attention brought to it in a way that would get the politicians and/or bureaucrats to take notice.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon screwed with this at 10/06/2008 1:06:53 am

	Carlos44ec - You had me at "Hello" 10/06/2008 @ 07:35:35 AM
Sue the government for what, money? Great, add that to the 700 billion I can't pay for now.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/06/2008 @ 10:50:31 AM
Here's the other thing. If there exists such a log of your purchases, the whole point of which is to stop meth makers, why were the meds sold to this guy in the first place? Wouldn't the system be infinitely more helpful if it was an active system instead of a reactive system? The sad fact is they are probably talking about a paper log that we have to pay someone to tabulate. If that is the case a big reason this guy was caught was he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, and thus didn't try to skirt/forge the log, or at least make things hard by shopping all over. I have to imagine a good 98% percent of the population thinks stuff like this is crazy. Why do we put up with it? Why don't we connect the dots when a politician says that they "have passed initiatives to fight the war on drugs" they are talking about do-nothing nonsense like this, and not about some detector that can find a even a gram of cocaine on any incoming ship from a mile away?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich 10/06/2008 @ 12:11:27 PM
The whole concept is reactive. If it were proactive or just active, as you put it, we'd be addressing the socio-economic issues and not the supply issue.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/06/2008 @ 01:07:17 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 07:35:35 AM Sue the government for what, money? Great, add that to the 700 billion I can't pay for now. Maybe he can "sue" to have the incident permanently removed from his record. And throw in court costs.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/11/2008 @ 07:01:24 AM
Matt Wrote - 10/05/2008 @ 10:45:00 PM Scott Wrote - 09/15/2008 @ 02:51:49 PM I could care less. If you don't have anything to hide, what do you have to worry about? Maybe being arrested because you suffer from chronic nasal congestion? Well, it's one thing to track this sort of thing, and it is wholey another thing to arrest people on the spot for it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/24/2009 @ 04:41:18 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_on_re_us/us_meth_s_new_method		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.