Hacker News Reader

Comment by _moof | Hacker News Reader

The FDA rule doesn't restrict the IDs but the phrase "that is considered acceptable by the seller" lets the pharmacy put any restrictions in place they want. They can tell you it has to be hot pink and glow-in-the-dark and you've got no choice but to deal with it.

View on HN

While true as long as they're in compliance with the law, wouldn't they want to sell all the Sudafed they can? They can deny service to anyone for pretty much any reason. No shirt, no shoes, no Sudafed or anything else. So yeah, but in reality it isn't aligned with their interests and if they don't want to serve you they can always find a different justification.

Maybe they want that, maybe they don't. Retail drug stores in the US are an oligopoly, that industry may not be a monopoly (yet) but they don't function under perfect competition. Maybe if you're the management or the shareholders of a retail drug chain you're just kind of shrugging your shoulders and working on the next merger at this point since the fewer competitors you have, the less hard you have to work for the customer's dollar.

The “acceptable by the seller” wording only applies if the ID is not issued by “the State” or “the Federal Government”. Wouldn’t the latter option mean that a US passport, a green card, a Global Entry card, or a NEXUS card must be accepted as suitable ID by any seller in any state? All of those are issued by the feds.

And the pharmacy has the state regulators breathing down their neck so being super uptight about it is the obvious choice.

Of course all of this is stupid in a world where the real junkies use fentanyl and there's other easy ways to make meth.

States like MA legally only accept MA IDs and federal govt IDs for age verification. That’s why a lot of bars and packies will turn people away or ask for additional proof like CC’s. You’re more likely to be held liable for misconduct if the license you accepted is out of state.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com