New law will close small businesses, fill dumps

[Jiro]

And someday you and I may regret having posted our opinions about it in an open forum such as this.

Nonsense... I am not a Domestic Dissent.

 

[jillio]

I came across this from a blog I frequent daily. MountainMama



Jenny from MountainMama belongs to a group of stay at home Moms that homeschools and does a lot of handmade objects. They worry about the new law and just posted a new picture. The picture you click talks about the law and how you can be proactive instead of reactive.

The thing is, they are using purchased materials to make the handmade products. Therefore, those purchased fabrics, etc. would already have been tested for levels of lead and phalates.

On the other hand, if they are weaving their own cloth and dyeing it with natural dyes, there is no need to worry about lead and phalate contamination. Those are additives from mass producers.

 

[Jiro]

This pretty much sums up a lot of my thinking, but I'd like to add a point.

When something is needed and wanted -- and there is an easily obtainable supply somewhere -- Black markets will spring up.

So Momma can't afford $25 for a new toy, and she can't buy the one at the second hand store for a $1, but the drug dealer on the corner has a new sideline, "Banned toys, $5 each."

I highly doubt they will buy products that will kill/harm them (except drugs). Black Markets sell products that are banned by government due to political/ethical reason. For ie - banned weapons. banned movies. banned books. banned devices. banned animals.

who the heck would buy a banned toy with unsafe level of lead/phalate that will lead to lead/phalate poisoning? :scratch:

 

[jillio]

I highly doubt they will buy products that will kill/harm them (except drugs). Black Markets sell products that are banned by government due to political/ethical reason. For ie - banned weapons. banned movies. banned books. banned devices. banned animals.

who the heck would buy a banned toy with unsafe level of lead/phalate that will lead to lead/phalate poisoning? :scratch:

Exactly.

 

[Berry]

who the heck would buy a banned toy with unsafe level of lead/phalate that will lead to lead/phalate poisoning? :scratch:

.

Anyone who does not believe the man behind the curtain.

I know an 80 year old who has smoked since he was ten and a 90 year old who worked around fiberglass and asbestos all his life.

They both believe what they have done is harmless because they believe it has never harmed them. Other people point to them as examples that these fears are irrational.

No amount of conviction on your part: and no amount of statistical evidence you can produce will convince them otherwise.

BTW I am not saying nothing should be done -- I'm just not convinced this is the best way to do it.

 

[Reba]

I came across this from a blog I frequent daily. MountainMama



Jenny from MountainMama belongs to a group of stay at home Moms that homeschools and does a lot of handmade objects. They worry about the new law and just posted a new picture. The picture you click talks about the law and how you can be proactive instead of reactive.

Thanks for the link!

 

[Jiro]

Anyone who does not believe the man behind the curtain.

I know an 80 year old who has smoked since he was ten and a 90 year old who worked around fiberglass and asbestos all his life.

They both believe what they have done is harmless because they believe it has never harmed them. Other people point to them as examples that these fears are irrational.

No amount of conviction on your part: and no amount of statistical evidence you can produce will convince them otherwise.

BTW I am not saying nothing should be done -- I'm just not convinced this is the best way to do it.

The reason why the toy was banned is because it has killed/harmed children in short time with short exposure.... Long-term uses of tobacco & asbestos have result in deaths/illness... which is why it was hard to prove the direct result of tobacco & asbestos. Big difference. So why buy a banned toy from black market when it has been proven to kill/harm children? I don't know what mother would do that.

Tobacco has Surgeon General's warning label and it is not banned. workers now have proper protective gear to work with fiberglass and asbestos. All have federal warnings. What about toys? Did it have Surgeon General's warning that it has unsafe level of lead/phalate?

 

[darkdog]

Car accidents are caused by drivers... not manufacturers nor car dealerships. That is the case of driver error... not manufacturer's negligence. If you're selling the products that cause harm/death... well that is illegal. Your car example is a very poor analogy and it's unrelated.

So I sell knife intended for cooking purpose but I am not responsible for any harm or death it caused. If you cut yourself, sorry your fault. If you stabbed someone, sorry not my fault. But it is my fault if my knife contains harmful metallic chemical that spreads to food you're chopping with.

The car accident analogy may not be directly relevant to the legislation at hand, but it is relevant to the anti-trade-off mentality that allows bad legislation like this to pass. Many will support legislation like this simply because the intention is to reduce the risk of child poisoning. It is a noble intention, but they don't bother to ask about the costs vs. benefits (aka trade-offs). In fact, many seem to disdain such thinking by saying things like "When it comes to the prevention of birth defects and health issues for children created by dangerous products there is no trade off." Opponents of the law are even subjected to such sanctimonious attitudes as "Perhaps you put business before choldren's [sic] health and well being. My priorities are obviously different from yours. I prefer to put children's health concerns first." The implication is that we oppose the intention of the bill. In reality, we don't feel that the costs imposed by the bill justify the benefits. In fact, we would support a bill with the same intention with lower costs and/or higher benefits.

Where does my car analogy fit in? Those who disdain cost-benefit thinking in reducing safety risks over society as a whole actually do apply it in their own lives, and driving is a prime example of that. It's irrelevant that the risks associated with driving rarely result from the quality of the car. No matter how reliable our cars are, how high its safety ratings are, and how cautiously we drive, every time we drive our kids somewhere, we are still subjecting them to risks that far exceed the risks posed by any nasty chemicals. And we do it out of convenience. That sounds about as shallow as opposing a safety bill for being too harmful to business.

My home example also applies. Regardless of whatever problems can be nitpicked from my specific example, the point is that it's possible to go to ridiculous extremes to make our homes astoundingly safe for our children, but no sane person does that because the relatively small risk reductions are not worth the heavy burden. That's cost-benefit thinking.

If anything's still not clear, please let me know and I'll be glad to clear it up.

 

[darkdog]

Oh yeah, I came across this article written by a well-respected economist, Thomas Sowell. It explains why we need to take business considerations into account when safety laws are proposed. Here’s an excerpt.

Nowhere is the tyranny of visions more absolute than with issues involving safety. Attempts to talk about costs, trade-offs or diminishing returns are only likely to provoke safety zealots to respond with something like, "If it saves just one human life, it is worth it!"

That immediately establishes the safety zealot as being on a higher moral plane than those who stoop to consider crass materialistic costs. And being on a higher plane is what a great deal of zealotry is all about.

The vision of zealots is not just a vision of the world. It is a vision of themselves as special people in that world. The down side is that such a heavy ego investment makes reconsideration of the issues highly unlikely. Ego trumps mundane facts or dry logic.

If the recent hurricanes that have swept across the Caribbean and Florida prove anything, it should be that wealth saves many human lives. Deaths from hurricane Jeanne in the Caribbean have been in the thousands while the death toll in Florida was less than a dozen.

The difference is that Florida is far more affluent. Houses there can be built to withstand more stress. Ambulances can rush more people more quickly to better equipped medical facilities. It has been estimated that more than 95 percent of the deaths from natural disasters worldwide occur in the poorer countries.

How does this affect safety issues?

Safety laws and regulations all have costs -- not just money outlays but other restrictions that reduce the rate of production of wealth. If wealth is itself one of the biggest lifesavers, costly safety devices cannot automatically be considered justified "if it saves just one human life" when the wealth it forfeits could have saved many lives.

Everything depends on the particular safety rule or device. Some save many lives at small costs and others save few, if any, lives at huge costs.

...

The Safety Zealots by Thomas Sowell -- Capitalism Magazine

 

[jillio]

The car accident analogy may not be directly relevant to the legislation at hand, but it is relevant to the anti-trade-off mentality that allows bad legislation like this to pass. Many will support legislation like this simply because the intention is to reduce the risk of child poisoning. It is a noble intention, but they don't bother to ask about the costs vs. benefits (aka trade-offs). In fact, many seem to disdain such thinking by saying things like "When it comes to the prevention of birth defects and health issues for children created by dangerous products there is no trade off." Opponents of the law are even subjected to such sanctimonious attitudes as "Perhaps you put business before choldren's [sic] health and well being. My priorities are obviously different from yours. I prefer to put children's health concerns first." The implication is that we oppose the intention of the bill. In reality, we don't feel that the costs imposed by the bill justify the benefits. In fact, we would support a bill with the same intention with lower costs and/or higher benefits.

Where does my car analogy fit in? Those who disdain cost-benefit thinking in reducing safety risks over society as a whole actually do apply it in their own lives, and driving is a prime example of that. It's irrelevant that the risks associated with driving rarely result from the quality of the car. No matter how reliable our cars are, how high its safety ratings are, and how cautiously we drive, every time we drive our kids somewhere, we are still subjecting them to risks that far exceed the risks posed by any nasty chemicals. And we do it out of convenience. That sounds about as shallow as opposing a safety bill for being too harmful to business.

My home example also applies. Regardless of whatever problems can be nitpicked from my specific example, the point is that it's possible to go to ridiculous extremes to make our homes astoundingly safe for our children, but no sane person does that because the relatively small risk reductions are not worth the heavy burden. That's cost-benefit thinking.

If anything's still not clear, please let me know and I'll be glad to clear it up.

You are assuming that people are misunderstanding your logic, rather than accepting the fact that your comparisons were fallicious. It is not a matter of your not being clear....it is a matter of you attempting to compare unrelated situations.:roll:

 

[darkdog]

You are assuming that people are misunderstanding your logic, rather than accepting the fact that your comparisons were fallicious. It is not a matter of your not being clear....it is a matter of you attempting to compare unrelated situations.:roll:

How fallacious could my examples be when they get you from implying that I'm opposing the law because I'm indifferent to child suffering to now saying "...lead and phalates in children's products, and products intended for residential use, have been outlawed"? After all, if the laws already in effect are sufficient, we don't need this new one. Well, welcome to the other side.

 

[jillio]

How fallacious could my examples be when they get you from implying that I'm opposing the law because I'm indifferent to child suffering to now saying "...lead and phalates in children's products, and products intended for residential use, have been outlawed"? After all, if the laws already in effect are sufficient, we don't need this new one. Well, welcome to the other side.

Your examples are not what inspired my comments. And your examples are extremely fallicious.