Voter ID

[Gilligan]

There is a point here that it is easy to catch any such voter fraud if a person claims to be some other voter because it is quickly and easily exposed.

So if the above poster or anyone voted claiming to be me - then when I came in to vote then the fraud would be caught..

Oh really?? How would you 'prove' you were you..without a photo ID?

 

[VoteJP]

Excellent.

Oh really?? How would you 'prove' you were you..without a photo ID?

I really do not need an ID to prove who I am, as I tell who I am and that is that.

But I do have an ID if or when it is truly needed or required, as I have my own drivers' license.

If you ever check it out then you would find out that reality is far less confusing then is your imaginations.

 

[Gilligan]

I really do not need an ID to prove who I am, as I tell who I am and that is that.

.

Yr such a hoot.

 

[PsyOps]

I really do not need an ID to prove who I am, as I tell who I am and that is that.

Prove it. What if you're not really you?

 

[thatguy]

not to be on JPCs side, but i definately picked up the wife's perscription for hydromorphone and wasn't required to show anything. Just gave the name, BD, and address.

 

[Gilligan]

not to be on JPCs side, but i definately picked up the wife's perscription for hydromorphone and wasn't required to show anything. Just gave the name, BD, and address.

So yr saying they couldn't tell you weren't her.

Interesting.

 

[thatguy]

So yr saying they couldn't tell you weren't her.

Interesting.

ah, my little lex luther is back......

they didn't care, they just gave it to me, no ID.

 

[Toxick]

So if the above poster or anyone voted claiming to be me - then when I came in to vote then the fraud would be caught. And then they would have finger prints and possibly video cameras and eye witnesses to catch the person who did the fraud.

And how exactly do you prove that YOU are who you say you are?

I also find it hilarious that you're against requiring Government issued ID, but you seem to have absolutely no problem utilizing a huge government database containing fingerprint information and ever watchful cameras.

The individual person doing a voter fraud is a super minor issue, but making an ID law which would exclude thousands of voters in every voting area would be the real fraud.

It wouldn't exclude anyone.

This is a ridiculous assertion.

I'm not blaming you, I'm blaming whatever bone-headed idiot who started the cockamamie idea that requiring ID is an attempt to suppress voting. You're just parroting the party line, and I understand that, but seriously dude, it's ludicrous.

The only reason to NOT require ID is to encourage fraud. Period.

 

[Toxick]

I really do not need an ID to prove who I am, as I tell who I am and that is that.

If two people are claiming to be John P. Cusick Sr., one of whom is lying, then there must be some convenient way to settle the disparity, no?



Unless ESP is a required job skill for voter signer-inners, they would not know which of you was the filthy lying scumbag.







At least with regards to your name.

 

[Toxick]

not to be on JPCs side, but i definately picked up the wife's perscription for hydromorphone and wasn't required to show anything. Just gave the name, BD, and address.

Then one of two things is true.


1) Hydromorphone is not a controlled substance.
2) The pharmacy you bought it from ####ed up.

 

[thatguy]

Then one of two things is true.


1) Hydromorphone is not a controlled substance.
2) The pharmacy you bought it from ####ed up.

OR, there is no law that requires the pharmacy to check ID before issuing a percription for controlled substances. :shrug:

 

[Toxick]

OR, there is no law that requires the pharmacy to check ID before issuing a percription for controlled substances. :shrug:

I was required to show ID to get my oxy. As I said, if I didn't have ID, I didn't get medicine, and arguing and pleading got me exactly nowhere.

Maybe it's a CVS policy, rather than a law, I don't know. (I'm mostly leaning toward your pharmacy ####ed up.)




Hmm... Maybe JPC is right, and I'm on a watch list.

Cause I'm a G-baller.





Either way, IMO, you should be required to show ID to pick up your medicine even if it's something as innocuous as asthma inhalers or insulin. If there is no requirement to prove who you are to pick up medicine, then anyone could easily walk into any pharmacy and royally screw a lot of people.


And either way, a non-requirement for showing ID when picking up meds is not a valid argument in favor of a non-requirement to showing ID at the voter booth.


At best it's an argument in favor of free state issued ID's. (I'm not sure why they're not free anyway). Then nobody would be able to fall into this lame ass discussion about how requiring ID to vote is meant to disenfranchise voters.




Which I still think is a crock of steaming feces.

 

[thatguy]

I was required to show ID to get my oxy. As I said, if I didn't have ID, I didn't get medicine, and arguing and pleading got me exactly nowhere.

Maybe it's a CVS policy, rather than a law, I don't know. (I'm mostly leaning toward your pharmacy ####ed up.)

I cant say i ever had to show ID for perscriptions, i am leaning toward no law.

Like all opioids used for analgesia, hydromorphone is potentially habit-forming and is listed in Schedule II of the United States' Controlled Substances Act of 1970 as well as in similar levels under the drugs laws of practically all other countries and is listed in the Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs

 

[VoteJP]

Excellent.

Prove it. What if you're not really you?

It can not be proven - as this is the twilight zone.

wwwoooooooohhhhoooooooo!!!!!


=======================================

And how exactly do you prove that YOU are who you say you are?

I tell everyone on this forum who I really am - and there is nothing for me to prove.

You say you are "Toxick" and so that is who you are.

The defect is not in me, as I am being the open and honest one!

If you were to give your real name and identity then no one would question it.

At best it's an argument in favor of free state issued ID's. (I'm not sure why they're not free anyway). Then nobody would be able to fall into this lame ass discussion about how requiring ID to vote is meant to disenfranchise voters.

In this I agree that if the IDs were free then there would not be any such problem.

Except we live in a selfish world which constantly tramples on the poor people, so the IDs are not free.

Most problems and disputes can easily be resolved with just a little money - but no.

 

[Merlin99]

OR, there is no law that requires the pharmacy to check ID before issuing a percription for controlled substances. :shrug:

It's called the controlled substances actof 1970.

DEA Diversion Control - Pharmacist's Manual

Concurrently, purchasers are required to:

1. Present a photo identification issued by a State or the Federal Government (see Proof of Identity Requirements below for a complete list of acceptable forms of identification).
2. Sign a logbook and enter his or her name, address, date, and time of sale.

Once identification of the purchaser is presented to the seller, the seller is required to:

1. Determine that the name in the logbook corresponds to the name on the identification and that the date and time are correct.
2. Enter into the logbook the name of the product and the quantity sold.

The logbook must include a notice to purchasers that entering false statements or misrepresentations in the logbook may subject purchasers to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Sellers must maintain each entry in the logbook for not fewer than two years after the date on which the entry is made.

 

[Gilligan]

^---that, and this federal law too, more recently passed:

Legal Requirements for the Sale and Purchase of Drug Products Containing Pseudoephedrine, Ephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine

In order to purchase pseudoephedrine:
Buyers must:

Present a photo identification card issued by the State or the Federal Government or a document that is considered acceptable by the seller
Enter into the logbook their information such as name, address, date and time of sale, and signature
Sellers must:

Verify the logbook entries, and enter in the name of the product and quantity sold

 

[thatguy]

It's called the controlled substances actof 1970.

that seems to be from section six which doesnt cover perscription drugs. It seems to only be related to meth and its associated precursors:

SECTION XIV – COMBAT METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC ACT OF 2005
Summary of the Act’s Major Provisions

 

[Gilligan]

It turns out that MD is one of only eight states that do not actively monitor all prescription drug sales now or that have new programs being implemented to do so.

Go figure.

 

[Toxick]

I tell everyone on this forum who I really am - and there is nothing for me to prove.

You say you are "Toxick" and so that is who you are.

The defect is not in me, as I am being the open and honest one!

If you were to give your real name and identity then no one would question it.

You are a public figure. I am not. Further, I have no desire to be one. There is no reason for me to relinquish my anonymity, and for me to do so is to invite trouble.



You are aware of the term Identity Theft, are you not?




Are you seriously implying that everybody is who they say they are?
Are you seriously expecting me to believe that BS?



Anyway, I've said my piece on this matter. As always, I've achieved exactly nothing. Hasta.

 

[VoteJP]

Excellent.

Are you seriously implying that everybody is who they say they are?
Are you seriously expecting me to believe that xx?

Apparently one has to practice the truth in order to understand the truth.

As like you give a false identity here and not a true one - excepting that you are Toxick.

Whenever a person lies, then deep inside they wish it were the truth.

As Jesus tells it - Out of the mouth the heart speaks.

If you fail to believe it then you shut out that truth from your self.

So if anyone gives out a false identity then they are effectively degrading their true self, and it does no harm to me and I (or we) are not to be the naming police (or police of names) for other people.