3 ms·
Wait, so what was your point? You compare LN - seriously more risky, but available to you, and you think it's great - to magnets, much less dangerous, made not
by smsm42 8y ago
Wait, so what was your point? You compare LN - seriously more risky, but available to you, and you think it's great - to magnets, much less dangerous, made not available to anyone, and argument it with "LN should not be available in retail", yet you claim your point is not about retail. And you claim LN being dangerous, but available, is the same as magnets being less dangerous, but completely banned. I must admit if there's a point there, beyond "I like this but don't like that, so the law should follow" it's not easily accessible.
- tptacek 8y ago"Not available to anyone" is where you're losing me. CPSC didn't ban little magnets; it banned them when sold as part of an entertainment set. So to extend the analogy: I am fine if you have to go on Alibaba and order them directly from the manufacturer.
- smsm42 8y agoWait, so it's not dangerous if the label says "magnets" but is dangerous if nothing changes but the label says "entertaining magnets"? Makes zero sense to me. Then again, people put "do not swallow" warnings on coat hangers now, so maybe that's what we've gotten to.
- iainmerrick 8y agoThey are just talking about adding a little bit of friction to the process of buying something that’s useful but potentially dangerous. What is so difficult about that? Of course there will be tricky borderline cases, and arguably nonsensical outcomes. That’s true of pretty much every law. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad law.