5 ms·
The EU's approach to imports from PRoC is the regulatory equivalent of trying to 'test your way to quality' (which Deming showed to be nearly impossible). Attem
by nickff 5mo ago
The EU's approach to imports from PRoC is the regulatory equivalent of trying to 'test your way to quality' (which Deming showed to be nearly impossible). Attempts to use regulatory fines and prosecutions to ensure compliance from PRoC products is a whack-a-mole exercise which will fail.
- miohtama 5mo agoEven if it fails maybe you can get some political scores in the process to get elected again.
- ahartmetz 5mo agoBy the same logic, attempts to use policing to ensure lawfulness are a whack-a-mole exercise which will fail. So what else are you going to do? Paperwork up front for every single product?
- RobotToaster 5mo ago> By the same logic, attempts to use policing to ensure lawfulness are a whack-a-mole exercise which will fail. That's basically how drugs won the war on drugs, yes.
- ahartmetz 5mo agoBut you can't legalize all crime. Drugs are special because they are (sort of) victimless.
- cubefox 5mo agoDrugs are absolutely not victimless, except perhaps for caffeine.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- bit-anarchist 5mo agoBut they are.
- cubefox 5mo agoFalse. There is plenty of empirical data on the destructive effects of many drugs.
- bit-anarchist 4mo agoThat's still not proof of victimhood. Only that's imprudent to consume drugs. Also, due to politization of the topic, part of the data is distorted to help sell the war on drugs, which had a much more destructive effect overall, aside from failing in its main goal.
- cubefox 4mo agoThe ""war"" on drugs seems to be pretty successful in some countries where illegal drug usage is quite low compared to others.
- bit-anarchist 4mo agoCertainly not on the US, or any country where the criminalization is in full force.
- cubefox 4mo ago> Certainly not on the US We don't know how much higher the drug usage would be if all drugs were legalized. > or any country where the criminalization is in full force. That's an extremely general statement which is almost certainly wrong.
- bit-anarchist 4mo ago> We don't know how much higher the drug usage would be if all drugs were legalized. Given what we know about the prohibition era and insights about the success in the fight against drug abuse, it's a pretty safe bet. > That's an extremely general statement which is almost certainly wrong. Is it? Even the most successful countries, like Japan and Singapore, seem to have low drug usage despite of criminalization, not because of. Even then, the data is murky, because criminalization of usage incentivizes low self-reporting.
- dgellow 5mo agoThe only victim to weed are people getting jailed for it. Same for shrooms
- cubefox 4mo agoWeed isn't harmless. For example, it can probably lead to long-term brain damage. It is also toxic for the lungs, although less so than tobacco, which is usually consumed in greater quantities.
- dgellow 4mo agoSure, but that’s not different from other things reserved to adults in life. And we don’t label those consumers as victims… it’s stretching the definition of victim to a point where it loses its value
- cubefox 4mo agoConsidering that there are a) many drugs that are substantially more dangerous than marijuana and that b) addiction does create users which are not in full control of their actions anymore, the term "drug victim" does make sense.
- aDyslecticCrow 5mo agoPassing the CE certification is annoying, but hardly a significant cost compared to design of the product. Notably, the law forces companies to put their ass on the line if things to wrong, by registering their name to the product they produce. We also have laws making the store selling the thing that burnt down your house liable for what they sold, which make them think twice about selling a random off-brand fire-starter with unknown manufacturer. This worked great until Temu, Amazon, and Alibaba entered the market claiming to be "marketplaces" connecting "importers to suppliers" while clearly behaving like a store. The core issue is that, if the producer cannot be sued, the seller cannot be sued, then there is no reason to follow any safety what-so-ever. So fine the distributor until they put some quality control or standards on the producers they give market to, may solve the issue. The US has this issue as well, though more focus on individuals suing for each case rather than broad-spectrum compliance regulation. The outcome is the same; with nobody to sue, there is no reason to make things safe for human use.
- nickff 5mo agoCE itself is the least of the issues, and is indeed relatively low-cost for mass-market consumer goods, (this is not true for niche products,) when it is taken into account in the original product design. From my perspective (as a non-resident EU citizen), it seems the EU is addicted to cheap products from PRoC which do not comply with a variety of EU regulations, because actually enforcing compliance would drive up consumer prices, which is politically unacceptable. This also seems like the reason of the lackadaisical enforcement of regulations. Essentially, allowing in PRoC products, then complaining is an easy way to keep prices low while continuing to introduce regulations which are expensive to comply with. Put another way: why does the EU manufacture a declining share of its consumer products, at a time when automation makes mass-production less labor dependent than ever for many industries.