Target’s ID requirement for cold medicine is invasion of privacy

By David McElroy · September 9, 2013

For several days, I’d been suffering from a mild cold, so I was using NyQuil to sleep at night instead of staying awake coughing. I realized one night that I was out of NyQuil, so I made a quick trip to the Target near my house to get some.

When I handed the 12-ounce bottle of NyQuil (a generic version, actually) to the clerk, she scanned it and asked for my driver’s license. I asked her why. She said it was required by law. I told her it’s not required by law, since it’s not a controlled substance and the law doesn’t require identification or recording of purchases in Alabama. She looked at me as though I was questioning a basic law of nature. She couldn’t understand why I would object to having my personal information stored in a database in exchange for handing her cash for cold medicine.

I left without the NyQuil. I told the clerk that I’d buy it someplace else that doesn’t invade my privacy. I walked out feeling angry at Target. And then I drove to Walmart and bought twice as much of the medicine without any ID of any kind.

Why does Target want to record my information when Walmart doesn’t?

An ingredient in many cold medications — including NyQuil — can be used in the manufacture of meth. So some states have enacted restrictions about who can buy cold medication and how much of it people can buy. It’s an absurd response to a problem that can’t be eliminated by inconveniencing the rest of us, but that hasn’t stopped many politicians from trying to “fight drugs” by putting restrictions on innocent people.

Target, however, is going beyond what the law requires. When you attempt to buy cold medicine, a clerk requires you to hand over an ID, which is scanned by the register. There are differing stories about what information is read by the register. A 2010 article at InformationWeek quotes the company as saying that only the birthdate of the customer is recorded. Employees at the store at times claim that it’s the law the scan IDs, but in most places (including Alabama) it’s not. Another Target employee told me that if someone tried to buy cold medication at several stores using the same ID, that would show up and police would be alerted.

I’m not the only one who’s unhappy with the chain’s policy of scanning IDs. I found several stories of people who were able to get around the requirement by making an issue of it and getting a manager to override the register requirement. But why should I have to make an issue of it — delaying myself and those in line behind me — because a company decides to punish me because meth addicts might want an ingredient in my cold medicine?

As I see it, there are basically three issues.

First, you can’t stop people from using drugs that they want to use. I don’t use any kind of recreational drugs — including alcohol — but that’s my own choice. If I wanted to use any of the various drugs that are illegal, I could go out and find some today. It’s impossible to stop. Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol — and it doesn’t work for any other drug.

Second, the idea of trying to stop the use of drugs by inconveniencing the entire public by putting restrictions on the sale of cold medicine is insane. Nobody would debate the fact that the vast majority of cold medicine on the market is used by normal consumers, not people trying to cook meth. Restrictions on the sale of simple over-the-counter cold medicine end up inconveniencing the vast majority of innocent people — without making any difference in the availability of meth.

Third, even if it were possible to win the so-called “war on drugs” and even if restricting the quantity of cold medicine you can buy is reasonable, Target has no rational reason to go beyond what the law requires and store information about us in a database. The company has no rational reason to ask for a driver’s license or to scan it.

Target has the legal right to set the conditions of its sales. If the company chose to do so, it could demand identification before it sold anything to anybody. But that doesn’t mean I have to accept the company’s terms — or similar terms from other stores, so long as another company is willing to offer me an alternative.

I generally like shopping at the Target near my house. It’s convenient and I like a number of the employees. But I’m not going to buy anything from the company — or anyone else — that requires me to identify myself in ways that go beyond what the state requires. It’s bad enough to have to comply with state laws about such things. I’m certainly not going to comply with a requirement that goes beyond that.

I won’t be buying NyQuil or anything similar at Target, because the company clearly doesn’t want to sell it to me on terms that are acceptable to me. I was ready to give Target my money, but Walmart got the cash instead.

Target is free to set its terms. I’m free to spend my money elsewhere.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts