It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Your Papers Please....for drain cleaner??

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
First it was ID to buy Alcohol. Okay, that made sense. Then it was ID to buy Cigarettes. Alright, I'm still with 'em. It makes sense. Then California started the trip into madness with locked, armored cages protecting Spray Paint and requiring ID to buy some. Umm.. Houston? We have a problem. Now? Oh... Now, it's taking a side trip into Crazytown. Oh wait, no, it's just Chicago.



CHICAGO (CBS) – A new state law requires those who buy drain cleaners and other caustic substances to provide photo identification and sign a log. It’s getting a rough reception from customers and merchants alike although perhaps none more than a cashier at Schroeder’s True Value Hardware in Lombard.


The article goes on at this point to discuss a bit about just how severely some people are reacting to this latest imposition on our sense of freedom and basic privacy.


“They’re not very happy about it at all,” said Don Schroeder, one of the store’s owners. “One of the customers actually threatened the (cashier) and threatened to throw the acid on her.”


That last part is ironic given the stated purpose of the law and requirement....


The law, which took effect Sunday, requires those who seek to buy caustic or noxious substances, except for batteries, to provide government-issued photo identification that shows their name and date of birth. The cashier then must log the name and address, the date and time of the purchase, the type of product, the brand and even the net weight.

State Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock) obtained passage of the new law following attacks in which drain cleaner was poured on two Chicago women, badly scarring them.
Source Article

Now just when is enough, enough? It's a tragedy that a couple women had acid thrown on them and I would hope the people who committed such an atrocious crime are handled appropriately. When did we start looking to pass laws which demand new impositions and hassles from EVERYONE to handle the problems of a couple?

Furthermore, what precisely is this meant to accomplish? If I were so evil as to actually want to attack another human being in this way, wouldn't I just drive 20-30 miles into Indiana or even into a neighboring area within Wisconsin? I wonder if there aren't other reasons for this extreme measure of tracking people who might want to clear their kitchen sink for goodness sake. I thought it absurd when they began keeping registries and ID requirements to get cold medicine. This goes beyond that though. This is just tyranny by baby steps...and the strides are growing longer all the time.

What say everyone else? Is this a reasonable reaction to a couple horrible attacks or a case study in radical over-reaction from a Nanny state mentality?




edit on 7-1-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: minor correction.




posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
You have to admit humans over use caustic/toxic chemicals.

The energy we waste making wasteful chemicals as these that pollute the Earth, we could power an entire city for a year if we didn't make them.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
What's the big deal, it's not like it effects us so bad that it hurts....

Takes not even 10 seconds to show your ID...Sounds harsh...



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
You have to admit humans over use caustic/toxic chemicals.

The energy we waste making wasteful chemicals as these that pollute the Earth, we could power an entire city for a year if we didn't make them.



Although what you say is true, that is not the point of this thread if I understood it correctly.

This is about the US becoming a nanny/Fascism state if I am correct.

The OP is spot on with his rant (no offence intended).



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TRILL
 

According to the story there, the law is much more than a simple flash of ID. It's your Name, Address, Phone number, product type, description and net weight of the container and then your signature. That is for *EACH* container of "noxious or caustic" substances sold at any retailer in the State of Illinois.

Imagine you're deep cleaning your house, for example. How many various cleaners and other things might you throw in your cart? Now...you're waiting for the cashier to make that long entry in the logbook for each and every separate container you threw in your cart that might qualify under the new law.

ID to show age or something would be annoying, but tolerable....I guess. However, logging everything about me and taking the time to do it for each product I buy, every time I do it isn't reasonable it's outrageous to an extreme that we've never quite seen before. Illinois has taken Nanny State to an art form with this.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TRILL
What's the big deal, it's not like it effects us so bad that it hurts....

Takes not even 10 seconds to show your ID...Sounds harsh...


sarcasm understood....

It takes none of your time if you wear a symbol either....like a star of David for example, or maybe simple 666 tattooed on your wrist/fore..



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
Firstly, I just want to say that I always enjoy reading your threads. They're well thought out, backed up with verifiable reference materials and then closed with your own personal opinion about the topic at hand. This is how all of the threads should be and for that I give you an S & F.

This is a tough issue and I'm starting to find it harder and harder to come down on one side when it comes to the distinction between a restriction of our civil liberties and public health concerns. I've gone through the whole anti-government phase because I'm so angry at what's happened to this country, but on the other hand, we're talking about a law that was implemented in response to actual events or realistic concern over public safety and shouldn't that be the impetus for many laws? For instance, we have a law here in NYS called Timothy's Law which was enacted in response to one family's quest to change the system after their young son committed suicide seven weeks before his 13th birthday because he suffered from a mental illness that wasn't covered by the family's insurance policy. After their long quest, they had a law implemented that was the first step to ensuring that something like this doesn't happen again (although we have a long way to go before all loop holes are totally closed, it's a start).

With respect to this Chicago law, I found another article here, which also states:


The law was proposed after acid was used as a weapon to cause disfiguring injuries, according to the Illinois Senate Republicans' website. State Rep. Morthland said he heard committee testimony from victims of such attacks whose horrific injuries required multiple surgeries.


State Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline, and state Rep. Pat Verschoore, D-Milan, noted some chemicals on the list also can be used to make methamphetamine.

All three legislators said they did not like placing restrictions on residents or businesses, noting they believe most people use the products safely. They said they voted for the measure for the sake of public safety, either to minimize the potential of attacks or to make it harder for people to make meth.

There are also other reasons for limiting toxic substances and it appears that a majority of states are considering similar acts: Source


“The American public is demanding new chemical safety laws, and state elected officials – both Republics and Democrats – are responding,” said Andy Igrejas, Campaign Director of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition. “At some point Congress will wake up and realize it is better for the economy and public safety to make these changes at the federal level, as well.”

In 2011, legislatures in 30 states and the District of Columbia will consider initiatives to limit the use of toxic chemicals in everyday products, including:

Nine states, including Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington and Vermont, will be introducing or have introduced policies to change the way we regulate chemicals at the state level.

Seventeen states will be introducing or have introduced policies to restrict the use of BPA in infant formula cans, receipt paper, baby bottles and/or sippy cups including: Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and the District of Columbia.

Eleven states will be advancing resolutions calling on the 112th U.S. Congress to bring our federal chemicals policy into the 21st century: Alaska, California, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin.

Eight states will be introducing or have introduced policies to ban the use of cadmium in children’s products, including: Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey and New York.

Four states will be introducing or have introduced policies to reduce exposure to deca BDE, including: Alaska, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York and the District of Columbia.

Chemical safety legislation is also planned for South Dakota.

Also, they are now exploring the link between exposure to toxic chemicals are certain disorders such as Autism: Source

I think that with the passage of laws like the NDAA and the Patriot Act, we're losing perspective of the fact that there's a difference between a serious imposition on our civil rights and the role of our legislators to protect human safety. I realize that it's a slippery slope, but in this instance at least, there seems to be some viable reasons for this particular law.







edit on 1/7/2012 by timidgal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Yay nanny state laws!! The government can't trust those mere peasants with everyday houshold chemicals. They might hurt themselves! Oh noes


*Sarcasm off*

I'm in a good mood right now, so I feel like this crap will be repealed anyways. However that little nagging cynic that sits on my shoulder keeps saying "Don you know this is only going to escalate". To that I say shut up, I still have hope!



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Fine, will just let the serial killer who just uses acid, to get rid of the bodies, to get off scott free. I mean, why bother catching them? Not like, it's a big deal or anything. And don't they use caustic substances to build homemade bombs and all? And, their meth labs? Maybe they got a problem with those areas.

For 1 or 2. OK. A little harsh. But, for 3 or more, then you need to worry.

I saw a guy in line have his whole cart full of bleach. And I asked, "Do you really need all that?" He said, "He uses it for paint." Whether it's true or not. I don't know.


In a way, I support it, be easier to catch the criminals, in a way yes, it impedes on your rights.

Can't have it both ways.
edit on 7-1-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
Fine, will just let the serial killer who just uses acid, to get rid of the bodies, to get off scott free. I mean, why bother catching them? Not like, it's a big deal or anything. And don't they use caustic substances to build homemade bombs and all? And, their meth labs? Maybe they got a problem with those areas.

For 1 or 2. OK. A little harsh. But, for 3 or more, then you need to worry.

I saw a guy in line have his whole cart full of bleach. And I asked, "Do you really need all that?" He said, "He uses it for paint." Whether it's true or not. I don't know.


In a way, I support it, be easier to catch the criminals, in a way yes, it impedes on your rights.

Can't have it both ways.
edit on 7-1-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



And the next time you go to buy an item listed on the "list" I sure you will comply without question right....

May it will be bleach maybe it will be fertilizer or powdered milk, or maybe a pack of batterys for your flashlight.

The question is where do we/you draw the line on government control of our purchases?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
Fine, will just let the serial killer who just uses acid, to get rid of the bodies, to get off scott free. I mean, why bother catching them? Not like, it's a big deal or anything. And don't they use caustic substances to build homemade bombs and all? And, their meth labs? Maybe they got a problem with those areas.

For 1 or 2. OK. A little harsh. But, for 3 or more, then you need to worry.

I saw a guy in line have his whole cart full of bleach. And I asked, "Do you really need all that?" He said, "He uses it for paint." Whether it's true or not. I don't know.


In a way, I support it, be easier to catch the criminals, in a way yes, it impedes on your rights.

Can't have it both ways.
edit on 7-1-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)


Its a conundrum, sacrifice freedoms for safety. Whats the point of safety if you're not free? But whats the point of freedom if you're dead?

However, I fall in the freedom category. Might be my indifference to death itself, not a fully healthy thing to have mind you but whats the point of life if you can't live it?

Another argument would be though, is it right to treat everyone like a criminal in order to catch real criminals? Guilty in till proven innocent or innocent in till proven guilty? Is cruelty and freedom inhibiting existence with harsh laws a criminal deterrent? Is there even such a thing?

Life right? To many questions, not enough answers. I see more gray than I see black and white nowadays, but if it weren't for that color philosophy would be a dead practice.

Sorry for the tangent btw!
edit on 1/7/2012 by Mcupobob because: To embrassed to say



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by timidgal
 





I'm so angry at what's happened to this country, but on the other hand, we're talking about a law that was implemented in response to actual events or realistic concern over public safety and shouldn't that be the impetus for many laws?


According to that logic then we should have people do the same for kitchen knifes, strings or cords of any type, lamps, umbrellas and anything that can be used as a weapon against any human being which covers just about anything and everything. This is ridiculous ans smacks of some hidden agenda.

People will just start ordering this sort of thing in bulk on line or as someone mentioned go out of state if close enough. and start putting more local businesses out of business by so doing



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Just saying.

For 1 or 2 , no, I don't think you should have to show anything, but for an excessive bulk purchase, there's a problem. And, maybe that's what they are seeing. And, maybe that's why they passed the law.
edit on 7-1-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by timidgal
 





I'm so angry at what's happened to this country, but on the other hand, we're talking about a law that was implemented in response to actual events or realistic concern over public safety and shouldn't that be the impetus for many laws?


According to that logic then we should have people do the same for kitchen knifes, strings or cords of any type, lamps, umbrellas and anything that can be used as a weapon against any human being which covers just about anything and everything. This is ridiculous ans smacks of some hidden agenda.

People will just start ordering this sort of thing in bulk on line or as someone mentioned go out of state if close enough. and start putting more local businesses out of business by so doing


I hardly think that if the government were to have some type of hidden agenda, their first choice of restriction would be drain cleaner and you take great liberty with my words when you give specifics of other items that are used by a wide populace for everyday conveniences.

The majority of people who use drain cleaner, I would assume, use it or other toxic chemicals for valid reasons, but the fact remains that there is a small minority who use it to hurt, maim and kill others. Some are also used to manufacture drugs that hurt and kill people. The manufacturing of some of these chemicals is being studied as a possible link to certain brain disorders. Why would we, as a society, object to laws aimed at reducing the possibility of using these products for nefarious means? Have we really become so entitled as to believe that we should have access to anything and everything we want? Should we be able to walk into our local pharmacy and have access to any opiates of our choice? There was a time when these items were unrestricted as well. What would society be like if laws hadn't been enacted which made these substances available to those who truly needed them for the purposes they were intended? When I fill a prescription that's a scheduled substance, I have to show my ID and sign for the medication - what's the difference here? Have there not been instances when restrictions on attaining certain items has been for the benefit of society as a whole?

I have provided three specific reasons why these substances, used by a small portion of the population when all is said and done, can be dangerous and why there might be a feasibility for tighter control of their distribution. You speak of a hidden agenda. Now it's your turn to provide some scenarios in which restrictions on these particular products might be part of some hidden agenda and please don't say "today it's toxic chemicals and tomorrow it's umbrellas" because that's just silly; I think we can all discern between items the majority of society uses on a regular basis and other items that are not so central to our everyday way of life.

We can all choose to see hidden agendas and conspiracies in everything the government does. As I tried to explain, it's hard for me to not subscribe to that line of thinking myself sometimes, but to do so is to live in a state of perpetual cynicism and distrust which makes me the loser when all is said and done. Restrictions and the stripping of our liberties, like those included in the NDAA and the Patriot Act are of real concern; restriction on drain cleaners and other toxic chemicals is not. We need to use logic and common sense to distinguish between the two. So here is your opportunity. Convince me of some possible hidden agendas for restriction of these toxic chemicals. I promise to consider your scenarios with open mindedness and curiosity.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
This is nothing strange mate.

Here in South Africa, we have to produce documentation if you want to buy Menthalated Spirits.

It became a problem because many of the homeless people buy it to drink it. So this measure was introduced.

vvv



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Sounds like another overreaction and creation of a ineffective law that will only effect legitimate users of these products.

Has the same type of law regulating the sale of pseudoephedrine realistically done anything to curb the production of illegal methamphetamine?

How about gasoline?. Pretty easy to splash that on somebody and set them ablaze. Will we ever see a similar law for gasoline?
Of course not, that would effect big oil and the politicians cannot have any of that.

Many caustic substances can be made with common materials found in the average home. How far down the precursor chain are they going to make these laws?

I also wonder how having this information will prevent or even solve any crimes. Do these chemicals have a specific signature that can be tracked to store of purchase? Date of purchase?

Ineffective and unnecessary as far as I am concerned.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
Just saying.

For 1 or 2 , no, I don't think you should have to show anything, but for an excessive bulk purchase, there's a problem. And, maybe that's what they are seeing. And, maybe that's why they passed the law.
edit on 7-1-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)


What they are trying to do is, Track the people that go from store to store, buying one item at each place.

I remember reading a story a while back where, This couple was caught with in excess of 1000 boxes of pseudo ephedrine in their van, and they admitted that they had traveled all over the state, stopping at drug stores and grocery stores, buying, and sometimes stealing the drug to make crystal meth.

They also had quite the stash of drain cleaner in their home too...



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by timidgal
 



I hardly think that if the government were to have some type of hidden agenda, their first choice of restriction would be drain cleaner and you take great liberty with my words when you give specifics of other items that are used by a wide populace for everyday conveniences.


It's not their first choice its just another choice on a growing list of things that do nothing to protect people and penalize honest citizens for the actions of a few criminals. And I did not take any liberties with your words the justification for this law was a few scumbags used it to harm others. That is no different then using a kitchen knife to harm someone and by the way that happens much more then someone using drain cleaner yet no law is passed requiring people to give ID and be put on a list for buying kitchen knives. Why because it is ridiculous just as this law is.


The majority of people who use drain cleaner, I would assume, use it or other toxic chemicals for valid reasons, but the fact remains that there is a small minority who use it to hurt, maim and kill others.


How ironic that you actually point out the very reason that the law is ridiculous (a small minority who use it to hurt) and try to use it to justify said law that penalizes the majority.


Some are also used to manufacture drugs that hurt and kill people. The manufacturing of some of these chemicals is being studied as a possible link to certain brain disorders. Why would we, as a society, object to laws aimed at reducing the possibility of using these products for nefarious means?


Because said laws do not stop criminals who by the way DO NOT OBEY LAWS (which is why they are criminals) from using what ever means they can find to commit what ever crime they choose to commit. Do you seriously think this law will prevent a single criminal from harming someone if he so chooses? As I pointed out there are a myriad of ways for criminals to harm people, they will merely choose the most convenient method if they are hell bent on committing the crime.


Have we really become so entitled as to believe that we should have access to anything and everything we want?


Yes we are entitled to our rights to do as we please as long as we are not harming anyone or violating their rights. The vast majority of people use drain cleaner to clean their drains and harm no one with it so why should they be penalized for the actions of a few who choose to harm others? There is no justification for it. This mindset is a cancer that has beset society and allowed for the loss of freedom we are now experiencing. Why is it that people think they have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do? Please explain to me how this law prevents a single person from being harmed? It doesn't these laws never have and never will precisely because criminals ignore them. Gun laws do not prevent criminal shootings and drug laws do not prevent drug abuse never have never will. Alcohol laws did not prevent alcohol abuse and so they repealed them but apparently did not learn. However they realized such excuses could be used to transfer a lot more power and control to government and here we are today with things like the patriot act that a few decades agos people were ridiculing those of predicting the slippery slope to government infringing liberty. Oh that will never happen in America they said and here we are tolerating it and NDAA etc....


Should we be able to walk into our local pharmacy and have access to any opiates of our choice? There was a time when these items were unrestricted as well.


Yes and there was less drug abuse when they were unrestricted per capita then there is now. The war on drugs is a colossal failure and has created more drug users and allowed huge criminal empires to be created because of such insane laws. Prohibition has never worked and never will. Again a certain percentage of people will abuse things and ignore laws that is no reason to penalize the vast majority of people who do not it protects no one and gives government excuses to create laws like the patriot act etc.


What would society be like if laws hadn't been enacted which made these substances available to those who truly needed them for the purposes they were intended?


Much freer! They were available to anyone who needed them these laws restricted them and created an opportunity for criminals to make billions of dollars just like alcohol prohibition created the mob and made them billionaires.


When I fill a prescription that's a scheduled substance, I have to show my ID and sign for the medication - what's the difference here? Have there not been instances when restrictions on attaining certain items has been for the benefit of society as a whole?


There is no differen



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by timidgal
 


There is no difference neither should be restricted as I have pointed out above.


I have provided three specific reasons why these substances, used by a small portion of the population when all is said and done, can be dangerous and why there might be a feasibility for tighter control of their distribution.


And I have pointed out why none of those are valid reasons for penalizing honest citizens.


You speak of a hidden agenda. Now it's your turn to provide some scenarios in which restrictions on these particular products might be part of some hidden agenda and please don't say "today it's toxic chemicals and tomorrow it's umbrellas" because that's just silly; I think we can all discern between items the majority of society uses on a regular basis and other items that are not so central to our everyday way of life.


You would have to be living under a rock if you haven't seen the progressive actions of government to control and restrict our every move. First it was cold medicine and spray paint, and I am sure then you would have said it was ridiculous if someone had said next it will be drain cleaner. So to act like it could never be kitchen knives and umbrellas is just plain naive. The agenda is control and tracking of everything we do and spend money on so they can steal more of it in taxes fees permits and licenses etc. How are they going to pay for keeping track of whose buying drain cleaner? Oops guess they will have to raise taxes no won't they and if they catch someone or some store not complying they will fine them and steal more of thier money, they will need people to enforce that now wont they. It always boils down to more revenue power and control for government in the end if someone just uses a little reason and logic and direct observation of their previous actions and track records.


We can all choose to see hidden agendas and conspiracies in everything the government does. As I tried to explain, it's hard for me to not subscribe to that line of thinking myself sometimes, but to do so is to live in a state of perpetual cynicism and distrust which makes me the loser when all is said and done.


Why is that? Government has screwed us at just about every turn eaten us out of house and home with their insatiable appetite for the fruits of our labors, crashed our economy, killed are people in foriegn wars for banking and corporate interests etc. etc. They deserve to be distrusted for their perpetual actions of theft, abuse of power, and corruption. It does not make one a loser it makes one an honest observer of their actions. Ignoring them and spouting some crap about being a loser if you observe and point out their corruption does not help anything it allows it to continue unabated. Unfortunately people with that mindset are a majority so it does continue. People like me do not sit here and fume over it I accept that it is the way it is but try to educate others to it and eventually maybe enough people will wake up and put a stop to it and our children and grand children can grow up in a better world.



Restrictions and the stripping of our liberties, like those included in the NDAA and the Patriot Act are of real concern; restriction on drain cleaners and other toxic chemicals is not.


It is because people have ignored the smaller things like this that the mindset has become a prevailing mindset and set the table for things like the NDAA and the unpatriot act. Perhaps if the people seen their parents stand up against this at home when it was spray paint and cold medicine etc. they would not allow the politicians to think it was ok to do it on a national scale.


We need to use logic and common sense to distinguish between the two. So here is your opportunity. Convince me of some possible hidden agendas for restriction of these toxic chemicals. I promise to consider your scenarios with open mindedness and curiosity.


Agreed and I have given you the logic and reason so lets see if you mean what you say or will let your emotions prevail...



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 05:04 AM
link   
You are aware you can build bombs with certain ingredients in drain cleaners, or did you really not know that?
Yes i am serious.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join