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.
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.
“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.”
Source Article
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.
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.
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...
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.
“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.
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)
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)
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?
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
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)
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.