4 ms·

>For example, vape pen regulation imposes requirements such as maximum nicotine concentration and minimum acceptable purity, and must be child-resistant. Regula

>For example, vape pen regulation imposes requirements such as maximum nicotine concentration and minimum acceptable purity, and must be child-resistant. Regulation prevents you from trying to sell hazardous vape pens that can and will pose a health risk. What spark does this fire in you? Over a period of ~8 months, they were subjected to like 4 different levels of restriction over here, culminating in them only being provided by pharmacies to prescription holders. An entire cottage industry of compliant vape selling businesses were forced to close, and significant numbers of users have been deprived access to the commodity. Honestly its been a goldmine for discussing law/regulation with the up and coming generation. >Regulation prevents you from trying to sell hazardous vape pens that can and will pose a health risk. Regulation forces the non prescription having user to the black market where no safety or quality checks are conducted. And they did this on the basis that the health risk is unknown, having already banned the vape juices that we know can in a small number of cases cause complications. >Or would you prefer to blindly resell things that harm the people around you without being bothered about consequences? I think you internalise the standard fallacy. I explain in another post that all regulations need to justify themselves, not simply have a stated cause. You seem to believe as most people who are unimpacted, that one can simply write law like code, and the execution proceeds flawlessly. There need be no thought given to the negative case, to the behaviour changes outside of your scope. Its quite a suffocating arrogance. Not to mention you also immediately fall into "OH YOU ARE AGAINST X, WELL YOU MUST LOVE Y", which is telling.

locknitpicker 1y ago
> Over a period of ~8 months, they were subjected to like 4 different levels of restriction over here, culminating in them only being provided by pharmacies to prescription holders. Can you explain what do you think is wrong with that? > An entire cottage industry of compliant vape selling businesses were forced to close, and significant numbers of users have been deprived access to the commodity. What a questionable assertion. Your whole argument is that businesses that were not compliant had to close, but somehow you chose to frame them as compliant? And exactly what "commodities" do you think the public is being deprived of? Hazardous noncompliant vape pens that pose a health risk? That's hardly something anyone would complain about. > Regulation forces the non prescription having user to the black market where no safety or quality checks are conducted. No, not really. Anyone can stroll into any store that sells them and buy a compliant vape pen. Your argument is even comical, in the way that you opted to complain about regulation somehow causing the problem of people selling hazardous products that don't comply with regulation. I mean, do you expect all products to magically comply with regulation after that ceases to be enforced? Schrodinger's regulation! The main problem with laissez-faire fundamentalists is their incoherence driven by despair.
- RHSeeger 1y ago
  Yeah, this whole argument sounds a lot like company> These regulations are preventing us from selling our product government> We have a set of standards that your type of product must meet; because we believe not meeting them is dangerous to society. company> But, our products don't meet those standards, and we can't sell them... and since selling them is what our business plan is, we're going to go out of business government> And? I'm not seeing the problem here. It is part of government's job to decide what is safe for society and, where something isn't safe, decide if the harm in preventing it outweighs the good in doing so.
  - protocolture 1y ago
    >It is part of government's job to decide what is safe for society and, where something isn't safe, decide if the harm in preventing it outweighs the good in doing so. And they are quite often very wrong, trying to be seen to be acting rather than making considered changes.
    - RHSeeger 1y ago
      That's an argument to do better, not to avoid doing at all.
  - thereisnospork 1y ago
    That's a pretty disingenuous interpretation. It's a lot more like: Company > we are selling something that's legal. Government > well now you have to do X. (Testing? Certification? Reporting?) Company > why? X industry doesn't have this reg. Europe/ the next state over doesn't have this reg? Government> because I'm the government and its my job Company > fine Repeat 4x. > Company, um we did they last 4 things you asked us to and if we have to do the next we are going to go out of business. > Gov: get fucked, I'm just doing my job: read [I have an ideological problem with your business, my buddy is in the business and I'm giving him an exception, and/or I've got a special interest group to please]. >Public: cheers >Public: Why is their a housing shortage? Why is our manufacturing less competitive than China? Why do we need to import rare earths?
- 1y ago

locknitpicker 1y ago

> Over a period of ~8 months, they were subjected to like 4 different levels of restriction over here, culminating in them only being provided by pharmacies to prescription holders. Can you explain what do you think is wrong with that? > An entire cottage industry of compliant vape selling businesses were forced to close, and significant numbers of users have been deprived access to the commodity. What a questionable assertion. Your whole argument is that businesses that were not compliant had to close, but somehow you chose to frame them as compliant? And exactly what "commodities" do you think the public is being deprived of? Hazardous noncompliant vape pens that pose a health risk? That's hardly something anyone would complain about. > Regulation forces the non prescription having user to the black market where no safety or quality checks are conducted. No, not really. Anyone can stroll into any store that sells them and buy a compliant vape pen. Your argument is even comical, in the way that you opted to complain about regulation somehow causing the problem of people selling hazardous products that don't comply with regulation. I mean, do you expect all products to magically comply with regulation after that ceases to be enforced? Schrodinger's regulation! The main problem with laissez-faire fundamentalists is their incoherence driven by despair.

RHSeeger 1y ago
Yeah, this whole argument sounds a lot like company> These regulations are preventing us from selling our product government> We have a set of standards that your type of product must meet; because we believe not meeting them is dangerous to society. company> But, our products don't meet those standards, and we can't sell them... and since selling them is what our business plan is, we're going to go out of business government> And? I'm not seeing the problem here. It is part of government's job to decide what is safe for society and, where something isn't safe, decide if the harm in preventing it outweighs the good in doing so.
- protocolture 1y ago
  >It is part of government's job to decide what is safe for society and, where something isn't safe, decide if the harm in preventing it outweighs the good in doing so. And they are quite often very wrong, trying to be seen to be acting rather than making considered changes.
  - RHSeeger 1y ago
    That's an argument to do better, not to avoid doing at all.
- thereisnospork 1y ago
  That's a pretty disingenuous interpretation. It's a lot more like: Company > we are selling something that's legal. Government > well now you have to do X. (Testing? Certification? Reporting?) Company > why? X industry doesn't have this reg. Europe/ the next state over doesn't have this reg? Government> because I'm the government and its my job Company > fine Repeat 4x. > Company, um we did they last 4 things you asked us to and if we have to do the next we are going to go out of business. > Gov: get fucked, I'm just doing my job: read [I have an ideological problem with your business, my buddy is in the business and I'm giving him an exception, and/or I've got a special interest group to please]. >Public: cheers >Public: Why is their a housing shortage? Why is our manufacturing less competitive than China? Why do we need to import rare earths?
1y ago