Letters to the Editor
-
Identity theft is not a civil right! And it never will be!!
Has anyone ever wondered how we can collect our "progressive" income tax from rich white people by using high speed computers that cross check social security numbers and tax ID numbers but we can't do the same to make sure that they are working here legally in the first place?
Let's face it, the majority of illegal aliens commit either identity theft or identity fraud when they fill out an I-9 to get a job. All they have to do is a show bogus social security card and green card that can be purchased on the street for $25. It is high time we make the basic pilot program mandatory for everyone (instant background checks for employment), no exceptions, and back it up with secure verifiable biometric ID. That alone would send 6 to 8 million illegals walking back across the Rio Grande tomorrow.
Biometrics "anchors" a persons identity. Once a fingerprint calls it's self a particular name it is stuck with that name whether they like it or not. The beauty here is that there will be no more cases of mistaken identity. A good example is the do-not-fly list. Who cares what a particular fingerprints calls herself, once it is in the data base it is all over but the crying.
This obviously makes certain people uncomfortable. Many will try to use the "privacy" arguement but what they would really say in private is that their visa expired and they need a job. Sorry, out of luck.
-
It's like magic
Require biometric id's, and illegal immigrants will be whisked back over the borders....
Unless the biometrics can be faked, or spoofed (like fingerprints with glue)...
Or the immigrants work for cash off the record....
Or major corporations decide to not stop using third party employers to cost effectively hire laborers for low skill work....
Or people decide that they still don't want to take on low paying jobs that pay well below the poverty line....
Or AGs selectively don't target non-contributors for enforcement....
Or we grant immunity to said immigrants in return for filling our depleted armed forces...
It's like magic, but I didn't believe Harry Potter was real.
-
Controlled Substances
Glenn, I almost always agree with you, but you are a bit out of your field here.
U.S drug laws require a prescription for all but the least harmful medications, and all medications that have a tendency to be addictive have been classified as "controlled substances" for, I think, the last ninety yearly. Because of their potentially addictive nature, there is a real potential for abuse with most of those drugs, and the feds have in interest in tracking and minimizing that potential abuse. E.g, the Zanax prescription abuse by Noelle Bush (Jeb Bush's daughter). And when my son was taking Ritalin (a Schedule II substance)many years ago, the prescription could only be renewed with a new, original script (i.e., no check the box renewal).
The Reporting Act at issue here only covers Schedule II-IV substances. Subsection(m). Ritalin, OxyCondin, and morphine, for example are Schedule II substances, the lawful drugs with the most potential for addiction. Anti-anxiety drugs, like Zanax, are schedule IV, the least addictive relative to Schedules II and III. Anti-depressants are not scheduled at all, because they are not considered addictive. Prescriptions for it, like the prescriptions for most medications, would simply not be in the databases set up by this Act.
If you are going to get worked-up about the feds trying to keep track of potentially-addictive controlled substances, get over it. That battle was lost about 90 years ago.
As for the news report's reference to anti-depressant drugs, consider the source--a media report by a reporter under deadline. Like many media reports, it is most likely flat out wrong.
-
Note from link
Glenn's link in update III has the White House press release note that the abuse of prescription drugs not only has as many new users, but also is approaching the total numbers of users as our number one illegal drug scourge.
That demonstrably dangerous, cancer reducing, pain alleviating, scourge...
marijuana.
-
One way or another
As for the news report's reference to anti-depressant drugs, consider the source--a media report by a reporter under deadline. Like many media reports, it is most likely flat out wrong.
At which point we can rejoin the bashing of ABC's accuracy already in progress. The paragraph in the story is remarkably unambiguous.
-
slightly OT but not very....
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070412-1043-prescriptionprivacy.html
-
What am I missing here?
Let me ask you this question - let's say I come into your office (I'm a mentally competent adult -- at least in our hypothetical) and tell you that I want to take a Schedule II drug (or Schedule III) for Problem X.....
....Why should your judgment prevail over mine for what I take? Why, as a competent adult, should I need your permission before I can take the substance I decide is best for me?
Because he's been to medical school, and served in a hospital under supervision for years? Would you advocate someone serving as their own lawyer? Of course not.
In addition he is responsible for "best practices" regarding your health, ethically and legally. You also have a remedy in seeking a different opinion until you find a willing accomplice. But then I have to ask, how that would make you any different than Rush Limbaugh and "doctor shopping" for narcotics?
Yet the decision about what to do ALWAYS remains the client's....
....But it is always an advisory role, never a parental role where the lawyer can override the client's choice for his own interests.
Isn't the lawyer required to follow certain protocols whether the client likes it or not? It is in the layers best interest to follow then rules or resign, isn't it?
Why should the doctor have the ability to override the decisions of the patient? That really makes no sense to me, and for that reason, I am vehemently opposed to these prescription laws.
So you or anyone else could walk into pharmacies like Walmarts and pick anything off the drug shelf that suits a fancy? Surely that can't be what you have in mind?