Thursday, January 12, 2012

Legislation of the Day

Beginning January 1, purchasing Drano in Illinois requires a photo ID:
According to the new law, any person seeking to buy a product regulated by the Federal Caustic Poison Act and identified on its package as "causes severe burns" must:
  • Display a government issued photo ID with the person's birth date.

  • Sign a log documenting their name and address, date and time of the transaction and the product's brand, name and weight.
According to the Illinois Food Retailers Association, among the products included are Drano Crystals, SnoBol Liquid Bowl Cleaner, The Works Drain Opener, KaBoom Bowl Blaster Toilet Cleaner and Vam-Sol High Acid Bowl Cleanse. Batteries are exempt from the law.
The Act was passed in response to some recent attacks in which Chicago-area women were burned with caustic drain cleaners.

Yet, although Illinois protects its citizens by mandating government-issued photo identification to buy Drano, it has no similar law to protect its electorate from voter fraud. Indeed, in 2008, Illinois rejected voter ID legislation, on a party-line tally.

Meanwhile, on December 23rd, Eric Holder's Justice Department blocked South Carolina's voter ID law, saying the state hadn't proved the requirement wouldn't discriminate against racial minorities attempting to exercise their electoral franchise (though the photo IDs were free). This from the same DoJ Civil Rights Division that retained a staffer who apparently leaked confidential internal memos to the press, then allegedly perjured herself to cover up.

Four years ago, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of Indiana's voter ID law as a legitimate check against ballot fraud that imposed minimal burdens on eligible voters. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). That decision was denounced as detrimental to those who are "poor, elderly, belong to racial minorities, or have disabilities." Yet somehow, it's not racist to demand a picture ID to clean your drain--though (except perhaps in Boston) no ID is necessary when purchasing a kitchen knife that also could be used to stab. And, what are Illinois police going to do with the mass of new "Drano reports"?

The nanny state is both absurd and internally inconsistent, as Steven Birn says:
I’m left wondering how blacks in south side Chicago will ever be able to clean their drains since obviously they’re incapable of obtaining one of these racist picture ID’s.

A photo ID is required in most states to purchase tobacco or alcohol. If it’s racist and burdensome for the poor to obtain picture ID’s, one wonders how black, other minorities or the poor obtain beer and cigarettes. Especially so considering how the left always likes to point out how the poor disproportionately purchase tobacco products. How do these people come up with a picture ID, what with all the red tape and burden placed on them, so they can buy cigarettes. Yet the poor somehow manage. Amazingly even blacks and other minorities manage to come up with a real, legal photo ID.

The whole notion that minorities and the poor are incapable of coming up with a photo ID is insulting to the intelligence of such people. It also flies in the face of reason. . .

With all of the other products and services that require a photo ID out there, it’s a wonder how only the requirement for voting is called racist. The reason is clear: The left wants to work minorities and the poor into a frenzy so they’ll vote Democrat. If Obama loses, then the left wants to taint the election and call into the question the results based on phony, non-existent racism. Reasonable people won’t buy this nonsense, unfortunately the far left has never been reasonable.
Yup. It's fine to force the hypothetical poor old Illinois woman without a driver’s license to pay an expensive plumber rather than unclogging a drain herself, but racist to require her to show ID to vote. Could it be that progressives want to help the poor only on election day?

(via reader Warren)


OBloodyHell said...

>>> A photo ID is required in most states to purchase tobacco or alcohol.

Uhhh, not to denigrate the underlying point, in FL, this is only applied when you're not rather visibly "of age". I suppose the law might require it technically of everyone, but I don't know of ever hearing its actual application short of potentially underage drinkers and smokers.


I'm just curious, why doesn't someone challenge these ID regulations for tobacco and alcohol as "racist"? Make for an interesting SCotUS case establishing the notion that there is anything racial about the idea itself.

KitWistar said...

The Nanny state IS absurd:
Re:the Illinois Drano* & photo ID law: making drain & toilet cleaners difficult to obtain isn’t going to stop women from being caustically burned; are car batteries going to be used next? As you say Carl a knife, or even a plunger, wielded by the same Drano-thowing assailant can do grievous harm. The horrifying thing is that the assaults WILL continue, law or no law, with different weapons, with or without government ID. Yet, by golly, let’s please not be racist [at the polls].
But is it REALLY a question , not of what the poor old Illinois woman is going to do about her drains or her government ID, or the progressives only wanting to help the poor on election days, but of what level of gross inhumanity & cruelty ----against women----the [progressive] state legislators can bear to address directly?
Does getting all excited about racism at the polls & making stupid laws about purchasing Drano somehow assuage guilt or absolve responsibility regarding far more heinous acts? ( Because we know, almost to a crime, which segments of society are perpetrating these kinds of crimes----and well, calling attention to THAT would be really rascist, wouldn’t it?)

*In addition to Drano: Sudafed, lightbulbs, Whiteout, Sharpies and tiny plastic bags for kids crafts ---- I have been asked for photo ID to purchase all of these items at some time or other in and around DC.

@OBH: re: "visibly 'of age' "?? ..WHENEVER I buy beer or wine at my local WholeFoods, Safeway or Target here in DC, I am asked for photo ID, and while I am far from elderly, no one could mistake me for being 21 or so.
You too, Carl?

OBloodyHell said...

Hmm, florida does not enforce it quite so ludicrously. Its specific laws require the photoid thing just to prove one is of sufficient age. If it's really obvious one is of sufficient age, they don't really check.

Now, one of the stupider things is that the law requires "everyone in your party" to prove age. So if I'm out with a bunch of 16yo (assume it's a youth group or something. don't ask), I can't buy beer or wine, even if I have not the least intention of letting them have any.

So the obvious thing is to "break off" from your underage friends when you go up to buy alcohol.

The really stupid thing is, there ARE idiots not bright enough to figure this out.

OBloodyHell said...

Hey, photoID is required to board a plane, right?

Is the TSA a bunch of racists, then?

We know they're morons. Just wondering if the libtard position is that they are racist, too.

Carl said...

OBH: Legally, unlike the right to vote, there is no Constitutional right to tobacco. And booze is a state law matter under the 21st Amendment (making the claim somewhat less likely to succeed). But there is a Federal Constitutional right to travel -- don't bother to look for any text; it was inferred from the Commerce Clause -- so I like your TSA idea.

Kit: Sadly, I rarely drink any more, but when I did, Safeway stopped asking for ID years ago. Plus, I'm at least twice the average age at my local Whole Foods, so was never "carded" or "proofed" (it's a regional thing) when buying booze there. Remember, by contrast, everyone in Florida is either over 21 or exempted from the law by virtue of playing college football.

Warren said...

California Pen Code § 594.1. Sale, Purchase or Possession of Aerosol Paint Container; Posting of Notice by Retailers

(a) (1) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, except a parent or legal guardian, to sell or give or in any way furnish to another person, who is in fact under the age of 18 years, any aerosol container of paint that is capable of defacing property without first obtaining bona fide evidence of majority and identity.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of 18 years to purchase an aerosol container of paint that is capable of defacing property.

(c) Every retailer selling or offering for sale in this state aerosol containers of paint capable of defacing property shall post in a conspicuous place a sign in letters at least three-eighths of an inch high stating: "Any person who maliciously defaces real or personal property with paint is guilty of vandalism which is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both."

(d) It is unlawful for any person to carry on his or her person and in plain view to the public an aerosol container of paint while in any posted public facility, park, playground, swimming pool, beach, or recreational area, other than a highway, street, alley, or way, unless he or she has first received valid authorization from the governmental entity which has jurisdiction over the public area. As used in this subdivision, "posted" means a sign placed in a reasonable location or locations stating it is a misdemeanor to possess a spray can of paint in that public facility, park, playground, swimming pool, beach, or recreational area without valid authorization.

(e) (1) It is unlawful for any person under the age of 18 years to possess an aerosol container of paint for the purpose of defacing property while on any public highway, street, alley, or way, or other public place, regardless of whether that person is or is not in any automobile, vehicle, or other conveyance.

KitWistar said...

@Carl--- purchasing alcohol ( ditto @ Warren on aerosol paint) assumes that YOU,the purchaser, are going to drink it. But should it? I probably average less than one glass of wine every 2 weeks, but buy 1) for others in my family OR 2) to take the obligatory bottle when I’m a guest.
In another instance : do/should sales people assume YOU are going to use a product you buy if it is clearly for your wife’s use? Of course not, unless they’ve got kinky minds…
(“Proofed”: you must be originally from NJ or NE PA…)
Oops, I forgot about Florida; remember I didn't play college football :P .

OF COURSE TSA --as an organisation--- is racist! It was established against [the threat of] a particular group of people. (Doesn’t mean that every TSA official is, tho’ as they are following orders for their job.)
To me, a more interesting question is: is all racism by definition bad?
( Liberals, naturally, would have it be….)

Carl said...

Kit: California (LA) born, lived lots of places but, yes, high school in northern New Jersey. They also say "proofed" in parts of upstate NY. But to know "proofed," you must have lived there yourself. . .

KitWistar said...

Yeah, though born in Phila, I grew up in the NE corner of PA. Used to go with friends over the line to NY & get a drink at 18( and were "proofed")because PA was always 21.
re: the topic of racism the other day...
Watching Tebow & Brady briefly this evening made me wonder why NFL QBs are so very often white?
( Please don't say its because their parents were white :P ) Not necessarily so with college ball, hmmm? NFL racist?

Carl said...

Kit: sorry, but I'm not going to address your last question.

KitWistar said...

OK. But do understand that I wasn't being a smart ass; I was not casting any aspersions( or nasturtiums ) on you, NOfP or the NFL in asking that. I'm not a huge football fan & I know very little about the ins and outs of pro ball & the hiring of QBs.

Anonymous said...

QB are very often white because they can't be Asian. Too short.