4 ms·

In order for a rate limit to be effective, at some point it has to apply, and at that point, I'm told "no." More concretely, in order to implement a rate l

In order for a rate limit to be effective, at some point it has to apply, and at that point, I'm told "no." More concretely, in order to implement a rate limit, you have to sign an electronic log book, and the government can view that log book whenever it likes, without any sort of review or auditing, of course. This isn't the primary concern anyways, the point was, in order to implement this seemingly simple action, many liberties have to be sacrificed and the boundary between innocent and criminal and government and private business become significantly marred. Perhaps those sacrifices are immaterial to most lives and could be ignored without consequence, but the originalist in me says this is folly, and as I've shown it's easy to think of the dangers that some innocent people might endure as a result. Worse, comparing these dangers to the outcomes of the system itself, the whole endeavor seems to have negative value. Finally, as we've seen in history many times, now that this electronic logbook exists, it's use will naturally continue to expand until the government has secured for itself the right to view nearly every single "questionable" purchase you make at a pharmacy. It's an entirely unaccountable act from the government. I'm not sure why anyone would expend effort minimizing it.

tptacek 3y ago
The only liberty being sacrificed here is showing an ID at a pharmacy counter to get Sudafed. I'll stipulate that's a liberty being sacrificed, but it isn't "many". This particular "logbook" has existed for almost 2 decades now, and its scope hasn't creeped from there, so your second argument is pretty easy to shoot down. I think the evidence pretty strongly suggests that this policy, which was put in place to create a rate limit on the purchase of a chemical that isn't so much a precursor to methamphetamine as it is a slightly tweaked version of methamphetamine, is in fact simply used to create a rate limit.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > The only liberty being sacrificed here is showing an ID at a pharmacy counter to get Sudafed. It would be interesting to know if the people concerned about the need to show an ID to vote share that concern about the need to show an ID for access to medicine. > This particular "logbook" has existed for almost 2 decades now, and its scope hasn't creeped from there, so your second argument is pretty easy to shoot down. The policy has proved ineffective at curtailing the availability of methamphetamine while inconveniencing honest people. That's not something the public is clamoring for more of. But it never really was. It came about to begin with as part of the Patriot Act. The lack of expansion is unsurprising given the lack of any 9/11-style crisis to use as an excuse in the intervening two decades. The test is when the next one comes. One of the failings of the existing style of government is that the "passage by both houses of Congress and signed by the President" system used to pass legislation is the same system required to repeal it, which rightfully makes it harder to pass bad laws, but wrongfully makes it harder to repeal them. And then they get passed during a crisis and inconveniently stick.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    You already need to show ID for most medicine! This is such a weird discussion.
    - lazide 3y ago
      Name an over the counter medicine you need to show ID for.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        Sudafed isn't an OTC medicine; it's a BTC medicine. Most medicines aren't OTC. But there are, obviously, OTC products that require ID; for instance, every alcoholic beverage.
        jccc 3y ago
        Purchases of alcohol at the grocery store are not individually logged and tracked by personal ID. I’m certain that is not what happens when I show my birth date to a cashier.
        kasey_junk 3y ago
        Most large retailers (e.g. Target, Walmart) now scan the barcode on your ID at the POS when buying spirits.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Because it's required by law, or because they want to track you for their own purposes and if you don't like it you can patronize someone who doesn't do that?
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        That's just begging the question. The only reason it's BTC is that you have to show your ID to get it.
Wowfunhappy 3y ago
> In order for a rate limit to be effective, at some point it has to apply, and at that point, I'm told "no." The alternative is you don't buy any Sudafed in the first place. So you've basically told yourself "no" anyway. I realize you dislike the government logging your purchases, but you haven't answered GP's question about why you dislike it.

tptacek 3y ago

The only liberty being sacrificed here is showing an ID at a pharmacy counter to get Sudafed. I'll stipulate that's a liberty being sacrificed, but it isn't "many". This particular "logbook" has existed for almost 2 decades now, and its scope hasn't creeped from there, so your second argument is pretty easy to shoot down. I think the evidence pretty strongly suggests that this policy, which was put in place to create a rate limit on the purchase of a chemical that isn't so much a precursor to methamphetamine as it is a slightly tweaked version of methamphetamine, is in fact simply used to create a rate limit.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> The only liberty being sacrificed here is showing an ID at a pharmacy counter to get Sudafed. It would be interesting to know if the people concerned about the need to show an ID to vote share that concern about the need to show an ID for access to medicine. > This particular "logbook" has existed for almost 2 decades now, and its scope hasn't creeped from there, so your second argument is pretty easy to shoot down. The policy has proved ineffective at curtailing the availability of methamphetamine while inconveniencing honest people. That's not something the public is clamoring for more of. But it never really was. It came about to begin with as part of the Patriot Act. The lack of expansion is unsurprising given the lack of any 9/11-style crisis to use as an excuse in the intervening two decades. The test is when the next one comes. One of the failings of the existing style of government is that the "passage by both houses of Congress and signed by the President" system used to pass legislation is the same system required to repeal it, which rightfully makes it harder to pass bad laws, but wrongfully makes it harder to repeal them. And then they get passed during a crisis and inconveniently stick.
- tptacek 3y ago
  You already need to show ID for most medicine! This is such a weird discussion.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Name an over the counter medicine you need to show ID for.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      Sudafed isn't an OTC medicine; it's a BTC medicine. Most medicines aren't OTC. But there are, obviously, OTC products that require ID; for instance, every alcoholic beverage.
      - jccc 3y ago
        Purchases of alcohol at the grocery store are not individually logged and tracked by personal ID. I’m certain that is not what happens when I show my birth date to a cashier.
        kasey_junk 3y ago
        Most large retailers (e.g. Target, Walmart) now scan the barcode on your ID at the POS when buying spirits.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Because it's required by law, or because they want to track you for their own purposes and if you don't like it you can patronize someone who doesn't do that?
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        That's just begging the question. The only reason it's BTC is that you have to show your ID to get it.

Wowfunhappy 3y ago

> In order for a rate limit to be effective, at some point it has to apply, and at that point, I'm told "no." The alternative is you don't buy any Sudafed in the first place. So you've basically told yourself "no" anyway. I realize you dislike the government logging your purchases, but you haven't answered GP's question about why you dislike it.