|
TX, you are still disappointing me.
|
DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) - Anne Lenhart never thought filling a prescription at CVS Pharmacy in Dallas could land her in jail. The avid yoga practicer raised more $20,000 for Off the Mat, Into the World Global Seva Challenge. OTM is an organization that was founded by Seane Corn, Hali Kouri, and Suzanne Sterling as a way to take the ideas of yoga and translate them into action. This year OTM was heading to Haiti for a service mission in which they bought and installed lights, worked at Haiti’s tent cities and various other projects. On their off time, Lenhart and her group headed the Haitian city of Jacmel, a mountainous region with waterfalls and beautiful natural pools. That’s where the trouble began. Lenhart had waded in the water beneath the waterfall, then climbed up some 30 feet onto a cliff overlooking the water. “I decided I was ready to come down off the waterfall and it was then that I slipped and I hit an outcropping about 10 feet down and then from there fall another 20 feet into the water,” Lenhart said. The water saved her life but she shattered her kneecap on the way down. With the help of several men, Lenhart climbed out of the area and after a 3 1/2 hour trip to the nearest hospital in Port-Au-Prince, she underwent reconstructive surgery with no general anesthesia. A week later she was flown back to the U.S., still in deep pain, and admitted into Baylor Medical Center in Dallas. “They gave me a pretty high, heavy duty narcotic, Norco, as a painkiller going forward and I had used that up. It had been a month and I had called for my refill,” Lenhart said. The pharmacy called Lenhart to ask her exactly what time she would be in pick up her prescription. She thought it was odd, but told the pharmacy what time she would be there. Still on crutches and unable to drive, a friend of Lenhart’s, drove her to a CVS Pharmacy in Oak Cliff. She wasn’t able to pick up her prescription because a police officer arrived to pick her up. “He was like ‘we need to go outside,’” she said. “I was on crutches and I had a permanent IV line in my arm. I had a big leg brace. I asked him if it was necessary and he said yes and he rather policingly escorted me out the front door and into the back of a waiting patrol car.” Lenhart was so stunned, she didn’t think to ask the officer questions. The officer explained to her what was going on. “He said, ‘Well we believe that you have forged your pain pill prescription and we are calling your doctor now. But I’ve worked with this pharmacist a number of times and he’s never made a mistake,” Lenhart said. The officer then took her the Dallas County jail, where she remained overnight. After she was released on bond, she was charged with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, a felony. “I couldn’t go back to work until HR had received the paperwork that this was a mistake from my attorney,” she said. Dallas police later dropped the charges after speaking with Lenhart’s doctor. The Dallas Police Department declined to talk to CBS11 about Lenhart’s arrest. Now she is suing CVS Pharmacy for False Imprisonment, Defamation and more. Her attorney, Jeff Benton, said her arrest could have been prevented had proper procedures been followed. “Every doctor that prescribes a narcotic had a DEA number that’s unique to them and if that is cross referenced and the correct doctor is contacted then I don’t imagine that this type of thing would happen,” Benton said. “We suspect the wrong doctor was contacted because they didn’t cross reference the DEA number.” Everyday pharmacies fill millions of prescriptions for controlled substances. Those drugs are monitored by the DEA. Lenhart’s doctor confirmed in an affidavit that he wrote the prescription for her and that he never received a call from CVS asking to confirm the prescription. Benton thinks the pharmacy may have called the wrong physician. A representative from CVS Pharmacy said, “We are investigating how this unfortunate incident occurred and we are working to resolve the matter with Ms. Lenhart and her attorney. As this involves pending litigation, we are unable to provide additional comments at this time.” “I would love to think that they would actually write me a letter that says ‘I am sorry that this happened to you,’” Lenhart said. But even more than an apology, Lenhart wants to make sure that this never happens to another patient in pain. “I don’t want somebody else. I don’t want somebody who I love to go there and get arrested,” she said. |
For those of you who have never been to Oak Cliff, the police have much better things to do with their time than chase pharma-addicts considering things like murder, rape, car theft, and street gangs are prevalent down there.
I hope this woman wins a ---- ton of money from DPD and CVS, but the police should suffer more than anyone else. They made a woman miserable for a few days all because someone on the police force got excited about arresting and charging someone. ------- shameful. |
War on Drugs FTW.
Badly written laws, and laws that try to legislate morality, are at the root of the problem. Most people are busybodies at heart and want to impose their will, and what they believe is "right", on others. For leftists, they think making money is immoral so they want to redistribute wealth. For religious moralists, they think drugs and sex are evil. So the gov't does both - more laws and more power benefits the bureaucrats and the megalomanics in power. In the meantime most believe in the false "left vs right" paradigm. The cop should have known better to book her. She was obviously truly in need of pain meds. The system is the problem if said cop "had no choice". But then I don't believe in "the Nuremberg defense". If you're a cop and you enforce a law that you know is wrong, or enforce a law on someone that's obviously not a criminal, then you are a bad cop. The fact that the system weeds out cop applicants who may think for themselves, means that system is bad. The result is the slowly boiling frog. Norco BTW, isn't "heavy duty". It's just like Vicodin but with 2x the Hydromorphone and 66% the Acetaminophen. I took it after knee surgery and it's not anything addictive to most people like the media would have you believe. It had no "pleasant" side effects. It just made me sleepy. I also had to take Oxy, which was way more effective for the pain, but also made me unpleasantly dizzy. |
Im still waiting to get a knock on the door about all the sudaphed I buy. We keep a constant supply.
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 874017)
War on Drugs FTW.
Badly written laws, and laws that try to legislate morality, are at the root of the problem. Most people are busybodies at heart and want to impose their will, and what they believe is "right", on others. For leftists, they think making money is immoral so they want to redistribute wealth. For religious moralists, they think drugs and sex are evil. So the gov't does both - more laws and more power benefits the bureaucrats and the megalomanics in power. In the meantime most believe in the false "left vs right" paradigm. The cop should have known better to book her. She was obviously truly in need of pain meds. The system is the problem if said cop "had no choice". But then I don't believe in "the Nuremberg defense". If you're a cop and you enforce a law that you know is wrong, or enforce a law on someone that's obviously not a criminal, then you are a bad cop. The fact that the system weeds out cop applicants who may think for themselves, means that system is bad. The result is the slowly boiling frog. Norco BTW, isn't "heavy duty". It's just like Vicodin but with 2x the Hydromorphone and 66% the Acetaminophen. I took it after knee surgery and it's not anything addictive to most people like the media would have you believe. It had no "pleasant" side effects. It just made me sleepy. I also had to take Oxy, which was way more effective for the pain, but also made me unpleasantly dizzy. |
After she sits in jail overnight (in excrutiating pain) and possibly loses her job over it, the police can drop the charges and she can pay $500-700 to get her car out of the impound to get home, go to another pharmacy if the prescription paperwork was released from evidence, and then go look for another job.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 874025)
Im still waiting to get a knock on the door about all the sudaphed I buy. We keep a constant supply.
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 874017)
War on Drugs FTW.Norco BTW, isn't "heavy duty". It's just like Vicodin but with 2x the Hydromorphone and 66% the Acetaminophen. I took it after knee surgery and it's not anything addictive to most people like the media would have you believe. It had no "pleasant" side effects. It just made me sleepy. I also had to take Oxy, which was way more effective for the pain, but also made me unpleasantly dizzy.
Oxycodone and Norco are essentially the same thing, with actually one more opiate in Norco over oxy, although the DEA agrees with you, listing oxy as a schedule II and Norco as a schedule III. Both good ----, I mean cocaine's on the same list as the Norco. |
Originally Posted by hustler
(Post 874031)
After she sits in jail overnight (in excrutiating pain) and possibly loses her job over it, the police can drop the charges and she can pay $500-700 to get her car out of the impound to get home, go to another pharmacy if the prescription paperwork was released from evidence, and then go look for another job.
|
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 874071)
That's one of the worst parts: the cops can arrest you for anything, screw with your day(s) and then just say, "oops, my bad!" and you have almost no recourse.
|
Yep. there should be more accountability on the part of police. Too much umbrella from the force, not enough attention on the bad call of the one cop. I'm sure the department will have an investigation, and at most the cop will be put on temporary leave.
|
Originally Posted by curly
(Post 874049)
Oxycodone and Norco are essentially the same thing,
Norco is used for (obviously) higher dosage requirements. You can't just double or triple up the Vicodin, because Acetaminophen is very toxic to the liver. I studied all this ---- preparing for my knee surgery. |
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 874071)
That's one of the worst parts: the cops can arrest you for anything, screw with your day(s) and then just say, "oops, my bad!" and you have almost no recourse.
And then the "liberals" think more gov't is the solution to all problems... as long as "the right people" are voted into power. And then the "conservatives" pretend they want less gov't, but agree with the war on drugs and shooting wars. |
Originally Posted by hustler
(Post 874027)
Don't forget that police are trained to create arrest situations, rather than serve and protect the public.
Wrong doing is the specialty and inmunity the reward. |
There was a court case recently, I wish I could remember where I read it, but a judge essentially said cops do not actually work for the goverment and are similar to a private contractor and can be held personally liable.
Then it got appealed or something been a few weeks since I read it and Im really hung over , if anyone wants to try and find it, i probably read it on the daily paul or on 6speedonline. Last saturday I had a pretty big altercation with a DPS officer, he did not like it when I told him his job was to uphold the law not make it. |
Fuckkkin Water Falls Caused THis
|
Norco (Hydrocodone/acetaminophen) comes in a few different flavors. At work I've ordered 5/325 and 7.5/325 and 10/325. I think they come in 500's also, but the doc's never order it.
Its also not nearly as effective as hydromorpone (Dilaudid), or even PO morphine. For those in real pain, Norco just takes the edge off. A healthy dose of Dilaudid makes em smile again. |
Dilaudid is retarted, doc told me its the strongest thing they can given intermuscle. It made me feel like i was hammered, I was slurring and ready to pass out in like 2 minutes.
|
Then it did its job.
|
Dilaudid is great stuff. When I had kidney stones, they gave me morphene, and it barely touched the pain. Dilaudid made it all go away.
|
More sad news from TX:
Houston's Strip Clubs Hit by New 'Pole Tax' The city of Houston is turning to an unusual source to help fund rape investigations: strip clubs. The City Council passed an ordinance Wednesday that requires strip clubs to pay a $5-per-visitor fee to help pay for the analysis of biological evidence collected from rape victims in hopes of identifying their attackers. |
Gotta love government's "tax this to pay for that unrelated thing".
|
Remember:
Penalty = Tax for purposes of the U.S. Constitution. Penalty != Tax for purposes of the Fedaral Anti-Injunction Statute. This is important. |
I love drugs and strippers!
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 896604)
Gotta love government's "tax this to pay for that unrelated thing".
|
Can this be the disappointing TX politics thread?
http://www.scribd.com/document_downl...pdf&from=embed This document is generally disturbing until you get to the education part, then it's just goes off the deep end. Classroom Discipline –We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given moreauthority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas. College Tuition – We recommend three levels of college tuition: In-state requiring proof of Texas legalcitizenship, out-of-state requiring proof of US citizenship, and nonresident legal alien. Non-US citizens shouldnot be eligible for state or federal grants, or loans. Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories.We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientifictheories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss thestrengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind. Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority. I don't disagree in principal other than it will likely just mean more "brown people aren't citizens by default" laws. Someone really needs to tell them how the scientific method works. The only retribution and discrimination that I see are towards people who won't accept the religion based theories. Critical thinking? Who needs that when you can just Google search and post stupid questions on mt.net expecting someone to hand hold you instead. The last part just screams "We're afraid that our republican parents might not make republican children." |
Teachers hitting children - worked well enough into the early 90s didn't it?
|
doesn't bother me. I wish I had the right to beat other people's children...I'd be the hero of every restaurant I go to.
|
Originally Posted by FatKao
(Post 897017)
Critical thinking? Who needs that when you can just Google search and post stupid questions on mt.net expecting someone to hand hold you instead. The last part just screams "We're afraid that our republican parents might not make republican children."
|
Originally Posted by fooger03
(Post 897026)
Teachers hitting children - worked well enough into the early 90s didn't it?
After we got hit by the paddle with speed holes in it and it left a big red marks with normal spots where the speed holes where, we didnt do that ---- again. He hit the ---- out of us, and none of us bitched about it, we just started behaving. I wish more parents whipped there kids, sucks that I cant even go into a damn subway without a kid screaming bloody murder and the parents dont give a damn. My mom and damn would have hit me so hard, so guess what I didnt do |
Originally Posted by FatKao
(Post 897017)
Someone really needs to tell them how the scientific method works. The only retribution and discrimination that I see are towards people who won't accept the religion based theories.
Critical thinking? Who needs that when you can just Google search and post stupid questions on mt.net expecting someone to hand hold you instead. The last part just screams "We're afraid that our republican parents might not make republican children." |
|
I don't know about the whole country, but in the square state of Ohio, any person over 18 years of age is legally required to carry a government issued photo ID at all times. The cost for a state issued ID card is $8.50 and is valid for 4 years. The ID card is merely a driver's license without driving privileges. If you have a valid driver's license, you're not eligible to receive an ID card....because your drivers license IS your ID card.
At $2.12 per year, I hardly think that photo identification to participate in an election should be anything less than compulsory. A homeless person probably misplaces at least that much money in just nickles and pennies every year. |
Omfg ohio is so racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if OH passed the voter ID law, the courts could not use the same arguement. You hear that TX? |
Originally Posted by fooger03
(Post 921324)
At $2.12 per year, I hardly think that photo identification to participate in an election should be anything less than compulsory. A homeless person probably misplaces at least that much money in just nickles and pennies every year.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 |
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 921335)
-but, regardless of my argument- Any of the following meet Ohio's ID requirements: A current and valid photo identification card issued by the State of Ohio or the United States government; or A military identification ("military ID"); or An original or copy of a current utility bill; or An original or copy of a current bank statement; or An original or copy of a current government check; or An original or copy of a current paycheck; or An original or copy of a current other government document, other than a voter registration acknowledgement notification mailed by the board of elections, that shows the voter’s name and current address. ....Military ID's are free.... LOL - just sayin' I used this: "a voter registration acknowledgement notification mailed by the board of elections, that shows the voter’s name and current address." as proof of address during a recent firearm purchase in Ohio... :giggle: |
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 921335)
This argument is invalid if states that require citizens to have an ID and enact a voter ID law, issue free IDs... you hear that TX? or if you simply do the math and tell me how much addtional cost it requires a OH voter to vote if an ID is required. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 921355)
This argument is invalid if states that require citizens to have an ID and enact a voter ID law, issue free IDs... you hear that TX?.
If the IDs cost $0.01, it's unconstitutional. Voting should NEVER cost money. |
IMHO, even if the ID cost $50 a month as a requirement to be a citizen of the Socialized Kingdom of CA, I can't view it as a poll tax.
Which is constitutional per the tenth amendment. Having to show something you are lawfully required to pay for and own in order to vote as a citizen of CA would be a common sense law to prevent prevailant voter fraud. At that same logic, voting costs me gas, and if I walk, voting costs me energy (which means I need to buy food). I just updated my voter registration online yesterday, that required an internet access. I have to spent .48 cents on a stamp once the form comes in the mail... |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 921355)
This argument is invalid if states that require citizens to have an ID and enact a voter ID law, issue free IDs... you hear that TX?
or if you simply do the math and tell me how much addtional cost it requires a OH voter to vote if an ID is required. Measuring the Effects of Voter Identification Laws - NYTimes.com This suppresses up to 2.4% of the voting population from Not Voting. Not a few here or there, a very large amount (Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, in one state's case potentially in the range of low millions) of voters are not voting. Let me reiterate, potentially up to low millions of voters may have legislation introduced that either directly or indirectly prevents them from voting. For what? There has yet to be any proven case of the systemic fraud Republicans allege in modern elections. I know, I know, you are going to hit back with that ridiculous argument about 10,000 dead people on voting polls.... The problem with that argument, and what makes it ridiculous is yes, people voted in the previous election. Then people died. This is expected behavior. The logical construction of this argument is "If you vote, you can't die". There is no sane reason to expect this. People die between the election, what you have to do when you say this is and then prove the people who died voted in a later election after they died. There is no evidence of this, only people dying after they voted! Now, as for the Kansas argument. Waiting for evidence | Wichita Eagle - It's been debunked. By Kansas themselves. Now let's take an even more careful look at Kansas. They alleged 221 cases of voter fraud from 1997 to 2010, but upon further inspection of 221 of these cases, not a single case of voter fraud could be found. Several cases of supposed voter fraud in their grouping was a military member's absentee ballot not matching their signature on file - yes, seriously. The implication of voter fraud is deployed military members not matching their signature on file. Many other cases of supposed voter fraud include parents mailing their at-university children's ballots, and similar insanity. But let's just assume for a second that every single one of these ballots were fraudulent, shall we? That's somewhere around 16 fraudulent votes per year. Let's assume for a second Kansas's law is at the low end of estimated voter suppression schemes, and it's a measly 0.8%. Kansas is estimated to have about 3million people*, or about 24,000 votes suppressed per election. In trade for an estimated ~16 fraudulent-votes-that-have-never-been-proven-fraudulent per year. I'll go through any state you want Brainy, any state you want. The numbers are the same universally. You see a handful of incidents of true voter fraud per election in the worst case (We're talking single digits at most, if not completely zero), and it's typically of the variety in the vein of Kansas. Specifically, someone goes to the DMV, applies for something, and then the DMV asks them if they want to register to vote. Finally, I'm just going to use Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania GOPers Concede That Voter Fraud Claims Are a Myth | Addicting Info Voter ID law has nothing to do with fraudulent voting. Even if you give every single possible allegedly fraudulent vote over 13 years in Kansas (Which has already been debunked anyways), you end up with an incidence of voting fraud that is so low that I cannot characterize it in any way other than a rounding error. And even given these assumptions, Kansas is trying to eliminate their alleged-but-proven-false voter fraud cases by passing laws that will cause a portion of the population orders of magnitude larger not to vote. Now, I know what you are going to come back with Brainy. But Republicans in Wisconsin already proved that false. Due to how Republicans in Wisconsin crafted their voter ID law, college IDs are not eligible for one specific reason. They meet every other criteria, except that they do not have an expiration date. Their solution? Add an expiration date. But then the Republicans in Wisconsin started whining about how if that is allowed, it will only increase voter fraud and they cannot allow college IDs that meet all the requirements of their voter ID law. If an ID meets every criteria that is set by the Republican's bill, how on earth can it aid voter fraud unless their bill has nothing to do with voter fraud in the first place?!? I don't know your professional background Brainy. But in my professional background, under no circumstances do we replace a working algorithm in code for another algorithm that is provably and substantially orders of magnitude worse due to some level of paranoia that was easily proven false. If I did that, I'd be fired. *Source: Kansas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau |
How long have you been waiting to copy and paste that post and put my name in it?
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 921383)
How long have you been waiting to copy and paste that post and put my name in it?
But I'll copy and paste it here if you want and it makes you feel better. |
It's not hard, guys.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." You can charge a tax or a fee for citizenship, or require people to carry ID as citizens in a state, but you cannot prevent them from voting because they have not paid to obtain that ID. |
Do you have stats on how many people will be disenfranchised if voter ID laws exisit?
|
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 921390)
You can charge a tax or a fee for citizenship, or require people to carry ID as citizens in a state, but you cannot prevent them from voting because they have not paid to obtain that ID.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 921391)
Do you have stats on how many people will be disenfranchised if voter ID laws exisit?
|
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 921380)
As I think about it, this is a good time to point something out.
Measuring the Effects of Voter Identification Laws - NYTimes.com This suppresses up to 2.4% of the voting population from Not Voting. Not a few here or there, a very large amount (Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, in one state's case potentially in the range of low millions) of voters are not voting. Let me reiterate, potentially up to low millions of voters may have legislation introduced that either directly or indirectly prevents them from voting. For what? There has yet to be any proven case of the systemic fraud Republicans allege in modern elections. I know, I know, you are going to hit back with that ridiculous argument about 10,000 dead people on voting polls.... The problem with that argument, and what makes it ridiculous is yes, people voted in the previous election. Then people died. This is expected behavior. The logical construction of this argument is "If you vote, you can't die". There is no sane reason to expect this. People die between the election, what you have to do when you say this is and then prove the people who died voted in a later election after they died. There is no evidence of this, only people dying after they voted! Now, as for the Kansas argument. Waiting for evidence | Wichita Eagle - It's been debunked. By Kansas themselves. Now let's take an even more careful look at Kansas. They alleged 221 cases of voter fraud from 1997 to 2010, but upon further inspection of 221 of these cases, not a single case of voter fraud could be found. Several cases of supposed voter fraud in their grouping was a military member's absentee ballot not matching their signature on file - yes, seriously. The implication of voter fraud is deployed military members not matching their signature on file. Many other cases of supposed voter fraud include parents mailing their at-university children's ballots, and similar insanity. But let's just assume for a second that every single one of these ballots were fraudulent, shall we? That's somewhere around 16 fraudulent votes per year. Let's assume for a second Kansas's law is at the low end of estimated voter suppression schemes, and it's a measly 0.8%. Kansas is estimated to have about 3million people*, or about 24,000 votes suppressed per election. In trade for an estimated ~16 fraudulent-votes-that-have-never-been-proven-fraudulent per year. I'll go through any state you want Brainy, any state you want. The numbers are the same universally. You see a handful of incidents of true voter fraud per election in the worst case (We're talking single digits at most, if not completely zero), and it's typically of the variety in the vein of Kansas. Specifically, someone goes to the DMV, applies for something, and then the DMV asks them if they want to register to vote. Finally, I'm just going to use Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania GOPers Concede That Voter Fraud Claims Are a Myth | Addicting Info Voter ID law has nothing to do with fraudulent voting. Even if you give every single possible allegedly fraudulent vote over 13 years in Kansas (Which has already been debunked anyways), you end up with an incidence of voting fraud that is so low that I cannot characterize it in any way other than a rounding error. And even given these assumptions, Kansas is trying to eliminate their alleged-but-proven-false voter fraud cases by passing laws that will cause a portion of the population orders of magnitude larger not to vote. Now, I know what you are going to come back with Brainy. But Republicans in Wisconsin already proved that false. Due to how Republicans in Wisconsin crafted their voter ID law, college IDs are not eligible for one specific reason. They meet every other criteria, except that they do not have an expiration date. Their solution? Add an expiration date. But then the Republicans in Wisconsin started whining about how if that is allowed, it will only increase voter fraud and they cannot allow college IDs that meet all the requirements of their voter ID law. If an ID meets every criteria that is set by the Republican's bill, how on earth can it aid voter fraud unless their bill has nothing to do with voter fraud in the first place?!? I don't know your professional background Brainy. But in my professional background, under no circumstances do we replace a working algorithm in code for another algorithm that is provably and substantially orders of magnitude worse due to some level of paranoia that was easily proven false. If I did that, I'd be fired. *Source: Kansas QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau |
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 921390)
You can charge a tax or a fee for citizenship, or require people to carry ID as citizens in a state, but you cannot prevent them from voting because they have not paid to obtain that ID.
But is it legal for law enforcement officers to provide citations for voters who do not show the legally required state ID while they're casting their votes? I need to research a bit more to double-check ID as a requirement of citizenship |
FYI - in California, you can provide the last 4 digits of your SSN as proof of citizenship for the purpose of voter ID. Costs you nothing.
|
Originally Posted by fooger03
(Post 921412)
Agreed,
But is it legal for law enforcement officers to provide citations for voters who do not show the legally required state ID while they're casting their votes? I need to research a bit more to double-check ID as a requirement of citizenship
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 921416)
FYI - in California, you can provide the last 4 digits of your SSN as proof of citizenship for the purpose of voter ID. Costs you nothing.
|
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 921418)
This is well-settled law. Representatives of the state (Police, in this case) may not compel someone to show ID unless they are being lawfully detained.
As such is the case, it would indeed be illegal to use a polling place as a way to check for identification. |
Originally Posted by fooger03
(Post 921428)
After a bit of research, the principle of this is correct. The scope of legality to ask someone for identification is somewhat expanded in Ohio, but that scope of legality covers only crime prevention and crime investigation (And even then, a photo ID is not required as I previously suggested: a person is only legally required to give their Name, Address, and Date of Birth).
(Edit) Cliffs for third parties: SC has upheld that you must verbally identify yourself to a police officer in the situations Fooger identifies, but has consistently upheld that unless you are lawfully detained, compelling physical ID such as a driver's license is unconstitutional. |
How do so many people not have a valid ID? I do not think I would be able to function normally for more then 2 days without an ID. I have to show my ID all the time. We all know poor people drink and they *should* need an ID to purchase the alcohol so how are sooo many voters displaced by this? I am not educated on this particular matter at all and am unclear why people would not vote. Is the argument that they just do not want to show their ID or that they do not actually have one.
|
Originally Posted by Ryan_G
(Post 921438)
How do so many people not have a valid ID? I do not think I would be able to function normally for more then 2 days without an ID. I have to show my ID all the time. We all know poor people drink and they *should* need an ID to purchase the alcohol so how are sooo many voters displaced by this? I am not educated on this particular matter at all and am unclear why people would not vote. Is the argument that they just do not want to show their ID or that they do not actually have one.
But legally, you cannot require actions that are not directly related to voting in order to vote if it will have a disproportionate impact on certain segments. In this case, it's a test for ID (And it's one of the reasons why the voter ID laws are being tested judicially, see Texas* and Pennsylvania as examples), but has a rich history in things such as literacy tests, poll taxation, citizenship tests, and even proposed IQ tests (I do not remember offhand if those proposals were ever put into law). Here is an analogy for you: I have never owned a gun, I don't own a gun, and I will likely never own a gun. Admittedly, I have training, and I know how to use one better than most of the people in the US - but I don't own one. However, I am a passionate advocate against most forms of gun control. Just because something does not infringe on my personal right or ability to bear arms, or my right or ability to vote, does not mean that I should not speak out about it. (Edit)*: http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/...-voter-id-law/ - here's a source for you if you want more information. Pennsylvania's decision is an entirely different barrel of worms, and is well worth researching too. |
Originally Posted by Ryan_G
(Post 921438)
We all know poor people drink...
My wording might be a bit off, but my mangina is slightly offended. The argument being used against requiring a government issued photo ID is that we would be violating the rights of people who don't have a photo ID - which in my own opinion is a bit ridiculous, because just like you, I feel like everyone should have a photo ID, but apparently some adults do not have a photo ID. In the simplest form, I would suspect that voter fraud my happen as so: Bob goes to the polling place, he takes his water bill with him, and votes as "Bob" in precinct A. Bob's friend, Gary, doesn't want to put up with the perceived hassle of voting. Bob, being unreasonably supportive of one specific candidate, asks Gary if he can take Gary's electric bill to represent Gary in precinct B, because Gary has previously mentioned that he would vote for the same primary candidate as Bob; Gary agrees. Bob, after all, took the day off work just to vote. While at the polling place, Bob votes for Gary's primary candidate, and then continues to cast other votes for issues and candidate either with or without consent. IMO, Gary and Bob are both guilty of voter fraud, but there is no way to even form a suspicion between the two people unless someone at the polling place can positively ID either Gary or Bob. How likely is this to happen? I have no Idea, but I would believe that far fewer than 0.1% of votes could possibly be cast this way. It seems that computer software errors cause more influence in an election than double voters do. |
Originally Posted by fooger03
(Post 921448)
How likely is this to happen? I have no Idea, but I would believe that far fewer than 0.1% of votes could possibly be cast this way. It seems that computer software errors cause more influence in an election than double voters do.
However, this type of fraud that you mention is extraordinarily rare and is caught relatively quickly. Ballot signatures are compared to the registration (Not to mention thrown out if there is even a slight question), and I have never gotten a ballot I did not have to sign. |
When I said poor people drink I was not insinuating that they all heavily drink. I was more or less saying that most adults over the age of 21 drink. Poor people are no different. Back on topic...
I understand the underlying argument against the law. That is fine. I accept the premise. I am merely wondering where everyone is getting this idea that so many less people will vote if they have to show an ID. Where is this logic coming from? Is there a study with statistics of how many people that actually vote do not possess IDs or perhaps there is an assumption people will for whatever reason refuse to vote because they would have to show someone their ID (maybe there is a warrant for them or something or they are just paranoid.). Opposing the law on a constitutional basis is fine. However, I keep hearing claims about how Republicans are trying to hurt Democrats with this proposal. How are they coming to this conclusion. I am unclear on the logic and would just like some info. |
Originally Posted by Ryan_G
(Post 921491)
Opposing the law on a constitutional basis is fine. However, I keep hearing claims about how Republicans are trying to hurt Democrats with this proposal. How are they coming to this conclusion. I am unclear on the logic and would just like some info.
(Edit) Insomnia hit, so time to elaborate a bit more beyond the previous sources. http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/ This is a great resource and primer on the subject. Notable is the fact that no Republican will testify under oath that there is voter fraud like you hear them talk about. In fact, to date I am unaware of any Republican that has been willing to testify under oath that voter fraud exists beyond a handful of isolated cases. I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised if there was one - these allegations of voter fraud have little factual basis. http://jacksonville.com/news/florida...w-florida-laws These are hard numbers and hard results as to what happened due to supposed voter fraud. The GOP, in court and under oath admits their voter ID (And similar voter suppression laws) have nothing to do with voter fraud, as they have no evidence of what they claim. However, there is hard evidence their laws disproportionately affect people based on political party, as per the above. Do you remember how we calculated out voter fraud in Kansas to 19 cases per year, even if every accusation was proven true? (Remember, they were all proven false) Well, voter registration dropped by almost 200k Democrats in a 13 month cycle compared to previous elections due to said "voter ID" laws. Not singular election, elections. Most of these laws aren't being thrown out in court for no reason (Some do remain, but they are the ones that are written to not have a disproportionate affect). There is hard evidence substantiating the disproportionate affect they have. Tied to trying to justify this are some of the most absolutely ridiculous astroturfing I've ran across personally - CSB time, posters that don't want to hear my CSB can ignore the rest of my post. One example of what I am talking about, on another forum I modmin at, a new poster posted several lengthly posts about how in Florida, people with shirts bearing Democratic slogans would come to the home for the elderly where he supposedly worked, but all of them were senile/not in their right mind/etc.. When he asked them about it, the volunteers-that-he-wouldn't-say-were-Democrats-but-implied-they-were told him they voted for the elderly and the elderly didn't need to actually vote, just be there. When he was grilled on where he worked, at what times, etc. he clammed up and refused to give any details. A glance at his IP resulted in finding out he was (idiotically) posting from an IP tied to Tallahassee. A bit more research found out that IP was tied to the state government. I actually mentioned this in passing on here once already, I think. |
Remember when voter fraud isn't real?
Arkansas Legislator, Three Others Plead Guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 923643)
Remember when voter fraud isn't real?
Arkansas Legislator, Three Others Plead Guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Election Fraud |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:20 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands