3 ms·

Not sure I agree with the prohibition of these substances... but legislation doesn't have to be written quite so naively as that. You can ban unnamed, similar c

Not sure I agree with the prohibition of these substances... but legislation doesn't have to be written quite so naively as that. You can ban unnamed, similar chemicals at the same time. They already do this for Schedule I drugs (not that I agree with that either). They finally got fed up with adding new designer drugs to the schedule, and there's an entry that says something like "any similar chemical substance that causes the same pharmaceutical effects as a Schedule I drug or is used for such effects or has a similar chemical structure". I definitely don't agree with that clause when it comes to drug enforcement, but if a good case could be made that PFAS should be banned, then adding that clause to preemptively block PFAS-alikes that are just a couple atoms away from the original formula doesn't seem excessive to me. And, if somehow it should be excessive (the change fixes all the problems we might have with PFAS substances), then let them argue that to Congress. Exemptions for producing small amounts for research, obviously. If Congress didn't do this, if they're not doing that... then they're just bad at the one thing they're supposed to be doing: writing effective legislation.

drewcoo 3y ago
> legislation doesn't have to be written quite so naively as that It will be written by think tanks behind lobbyists for industry interests that donate to campaigns. > the one thing [Congress is] supposed to be doing . . . is getting reelected. We do not elect them because of competency in law-writing or even in voting for their constituencies' interests. We elect them because they spend lots of money to tell us how monstrous "the other choice" is.
kube-system 3y ago
> and there's an entry that says something like "any similar chemical substance that causes the same pharmaceutical effects The problem is that these PFAS chemicals do things that are useful, and banning any future useful inventions isn't nearly as desirable.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  You wouldn't be banning that... You'd be banning substances that have similar harmful environmental effects. Let industry and the courts argue what exactly harms the environment or is too similar. But industry will think twice about using anything similar because to do so they'd have to take on a court battle to prove whatever they decide to use isn't harmful despite being similar.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    And a blanket ban does not prevent you adding a carveout in the future if the next PFAS turns out to be a magical chemical capable of bending space and time.

drewcoo 3y ago

> legislation doesn't have to be written quite so naively as that It will be written by think tanks behind lobbyists for industry interests that donate to campaigns. > the one thing [Congress is] supposed to be doing . . . is getting reelected. We do not elect them because of competency in law-writing or even in voting for their constituencies' interests. We elect them because they spend lots of money to tell us how monstrous "the other choice" is.

kube-system 3y ago

> and there's an entry that says something like "any similar chemical substance that causes the same pharmaceutical effects The problem is that these PFAS chemicals do things that are useful, and banning any future useful inventions isn't nearly as desirable.

londons_explore 3y ago
You wouldn't be banning that... You'd be banning substances that have similar harmful environmental effects. Let industry and the courts argue what exactly harms the environment or is too similar. But industry will think twice about using anything similar because to do so they'd have to take on a court battle to prove whatever they decide to use isn't harmful despite being similar.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  And a blanket ban does not prevent you adding a carveout in the future if the next PFAS turns out to be a magical chemical capable of bending space and time.