Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
Prosecuted for what? If you want flame retardant underwear, buy them. If you don't don't. There is no negligence on the underwear maker's part because they burn. Unless they fraudulently said that they wouldn't burn when you bought them.
To quote you, "Wow, just wow" By your logic a drug maker selling you a drug that kills you is just fine as long as they never said it wouldn't kill you. "Wow, just wow"
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
Are car manufacturers guilty of murder because someone crashed their car into a light pole? Wow, just wow.
They are if the crash is caused by a known design/manufacturing flaw that's gone uncorrected.
That has nothing to do with regulation. It is because of advancement of medicine. Even more would survive if it wasn't for the over burdensome regulation preventing medications from coming to market, especially for those at end of life.
And just how do you retaliate against someone who kills another or causes them permanent life altering injuries?
A life sentence, forfeiture of all worldly goods, whatever still can't restore the injured's life to normal.
Obviously a dead person cannot be restored to the just state prior to the crime. So what currently is in place to restore dead people to their just state prior to being murdered? Should we regulate that no one capable of murder (meaning any human) should be allowed to live? I don't understand where you are going with what you brought up.
This is the real problem: The FDA could care less about the bacteria, they just need a weapon to selectively enforce to select winners and losers. If a local goat cheese farmer exceeds this limit, it would probably be a million $ fine and life destroyed. If Kraft violates the new regulation is stop or we will say stop again and then ask Kraft if the have time in their schedule to reinspect in a week or 2.
The FDA and USDA had plenty of time to go after mom and pop organic chicken processors in WVA because they "were close to exceeding" the unsafe threashold of 2000 PPM of bacteria in slaughtered chickens, yet the same regulation specifically exempts Tyson and Perdue from inspections until they get caught with a chicken over 50000 PPM.
What we need is a CD "action thread" for government regulatory abuse so we know about this stuff ASAP and I would certainly call the congressional representative involved.
This is completely correct. The main role for lobbyists is to get politicians to pass silly regulations and licensing schemes while the company they represent gets an exception to prevent competition in the market place.
What don't people get. If someone does harm someone they should be retaliated against. Otherwise, we shouldn't be assigning guilt prior to any harm. It would be like arresting someone that "might" commit a crime. Like imprisoning someone for shooting someone simply because they have a gun even though they never used it. Insane.
*Most* regulations are in place are because harm has been done. The previously mentioned regulations on childrens sleep wear would be a good example. People were harmed because the material used before regulations were highly flammable.
The problem comes in when things become illegal where no harm can be shown. Such as the cheese example shown here.
That has nothing to do with regulation. It is because of advancement of medicine. Even more would survive if it wasn't for the over burdensome regulation preventing medications from coming to market, especially for those at end of life.
To quote you, "Wow, just wow" By your logic a drug maker selling you a drug that kills you is just fine as long as they never said it wouldn't kill you. "Wow, just wow"
No, I was talking about fire retardant underwear. And the presumption by you that if underwear burned and killed someone that it was the maker's fault when they never said they wouldn't burn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
They are if the crash is caused by a known design/manufacturing flaw that's gone uncorrected.
I never said it was a defect. I simply said if someone crashed into a lightpole, maybe just because they lost control or something. If it was because of a know intentional defect that was denied fraudulently, than that would be something entirely different.
Because NO company has ever cut corners chasing a fatter bottom line, eh?
And medicare and medicaid routinely deny needed care to cut spending.
Do you have an issue when SOME do it, but not others others do it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
