> But it’s important to understand that Inhance is also relying on a rule that was deliberately incorporated into the law we have, decades ago, for good reasons

> But it’s important to understand that Inhance is also relying on a rule that was deliberately incorporated into the law we have, decades ago, for good reasons. It's like right at the top of that post. And > But it’s entirely fair to make it go through the processes in the law for banning a longstanding use, instead of trying to use its authority over new uses to get at the same thing. At the bottom. It's capped on both ends with calling it a good thing. > I don't like the outcome, nor do I like the system that enabled it, but it's useful to have a deeper understanding of why things are the way they are. Sure, but questions about whether the rule is deliberate or not are answering "how", not "why". In fact, it's mostly trying to distract from the "why" to answer "how".