| Pages:
1
2
3 |
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
Melgar, I'm not interested and will not engage with you any further on this topic.
|
|
|
chemplayer...
Legendary
Posts: 191
Registered: 25-4-2016
Location: Away from the secret island
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Melgar, that is lovely anecdote about iodine. Although I am sceptical about ever laws rolling back, 'evil triumphs when good people do nothing'. So
good luck and it is appreciated.
|
|
|
Vosoryx
Hazard to Others
Posts: 282
Registered: 18-6-2017
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Serial Apple Enjoyer
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by chemplayer...  | | ...Although I am sceptical about ever laws rolling back, 'evil triumphs when good people do nothing'. So good luck and it is appreciated.
|
Thats basically my stance on this too.
|
|
|
Melgar
Anti-Spam Agent
Posts: 2004
Registered: 23-2-2010
Location: Connecticut
Member Is Offline
Mood: Estrified
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by chemplayer... | | Melgar, that is lovely anecdote about iodine. Although I am sceptical about ever laws rolling back, 'evil triumphs when good people do nothing'. So
good luck and it is appreciated. |
Thanks! I've taken the position that if you don't at least attempt to fix flaws in the system via the proper channels, then you have no right to
complain that it's broken, because how would you even know? If we expect our country to function like a democracy rather than an oligarchy of special
interests, then it's our responsibility, not just our right, to participate in its governance.
That's too bad then, because here I was about to admit that you were right. What I didn't understand though, is who thought that indefinitely banning
two elements on the periodic table was a good idea? Or rather, who would oppose removing restrictions on iodine? I only stuck with what I assumed
was the answer, because I wasn't able to find a better answer, or get one here. So I talked to a cop about it, and he said that the DEA has
essentially unilateral authority to make these decisions, and there doesn't need to be any new legislation at all. This news was a bit unsettling.
Here I thought that all these people talking about the DEA unilaterally banning things just didn't know how government works, but come to find, in
some instances, that's exactly how it works. It feels naive saying that "the DEA banned iodine", but that's kind of what they did, and they only
really looked for objections among business and industry. Also, prior to 2007, iodine was a List II substance, and people could purchase up to 0.4 kg
without needing a special permit. So it used to be on the same list as toluene and acetone. I guess that seems reasonable, and suggesting we return
to that set of rules might be an easier resolution for the DEA to accept.
The first step in the process of learning something is admitting that you don't know it already.
I'm givin' the spam shields max power at full warp, but they just dinna have the power! We're gonna have to evacuate to new forum software!
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
