Ron Paul voted against a ban on lead and dangerous chemicals in toys

Incredible. Ron Paul was the sole dissenting vote against a ban on lead in children's toys. Clearly another example of what a whack job Paul is.

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/U-S-House-votes-to-ban-lead-from-toys-1774056.php

 

He still has lead toys from his childhood and if they were good enough for him, they are good enough for your kids too!

 

I do disagree with some of his policies but here is his reasoning: people should be smart enough to not buy these products themselves. His whole argument is that people are responsible and they don't need the government telling them what to or what not to do (unless it is infringing on somebody else's rights).

 

whack job as in votes for smaller government and less spending.

I guess I am a whack job too, though I feel the same about authoritarians like yourself.

 

While you are right on one hand, on the other you are mistaken. Because you see, there are many, many young mothers out there who are pretty much brain-dead when it comes to taking care of their children properly and it is not fair to the child if toys have lead in them because our country can't set a simple tolerance level. Paul was wrong in his vote.

 

And that's really the problem isn't it? We have had the government taking care of us from cradle to grave for over around a century now.

 

Pretty sure lead in toys isn't the problem in your example.

 

Yes, but unfortunately it also comes down to a cultural thing and the young, above all else, should have a fighting chance at a decent life even if their parents are dunderheads, then slowly remove them from the protective arm(s) of the government so they may walk alone.

 

I generally agree with you, just playing Devil's advocate!

 

Lord, that's what my wife says! (lol)

 

I am sure it was the whole totality of the bill he objected to. Not just one line. The problem is they put too much "legislation" in one bill. I am not a Paul supporter to say the least, but I understand his stance. Keep government out of our lives as much as possible.

 

Ron Paul cast the right vote on this one. First there is no reason why any state cannot create laws or a department to take care of this. There is no reason to double the size of a federal department over this either. A smaller federal government is a good thing, we do not need Washington twlling us what we can or cannot buy.

 

Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the authority to regulate such things?

***MOD EDIT - personal comment deleted***

 

B I N G O

These "conservatives" seem an awful lot like progressives to me. They don't tend to grasp the federal vs state/local thing.

 

it's not the fed government's job to raise brain dead mothers' babies.

 

and their parents are free to help them achieve that life.

 

Right, because all citizens ought to be smart enough to run every item they buy through independent laboratory testing out of their own pocket... rather than just requiring each product to be tested once.

 

I agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning. I don't think mothers are brain dead because they cannot sufficiently detect trace levels of dangerous lead in toys...

That is absurd to call people brain dead for that. Should all parents be personally responsible to chemically test all thier childrens toys to make sure the manufacturers arent using dangerous materials? That is completely absurd.

 

everyone does realise that there was a time when people played with lead toys, didnt wear helmets while riding bikes, and "gasp" played outside. Some times I think we are going a little far with all of this stuff. Kind of like seat belt laws, why in the world are we telling people they HAVE to wear a seat belt in their own car? (your dumb if you dont by the way)

 

I'm still up in the air about that. I wear mine, but if my cousin was wearing his years ago when he got in his accident....he wouldn't be here today...

 

The whole lead thing wasn't an issue until we started having everything made in China. There's been other instances, too. Toxic drywall and melamine in dog food and toothpaste come to mind.

The problem is that companies selling stuff here don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about us and they use countries with no quality control to manufacture.

We've also had problems with vitamins and drugs whose base ingredients are from China. What sucks is that the Gov't says THEY don't have enough money for more inspectors. WTF, make the companies pay for independent inspection, no matter where something comes from. The same excuse is being used here about our meat and produce inspections when we only hear about these problems after people start dying.

It's not creating bigger gov't to make these producers pony up for inspection of their products.

I wouldn't have voted for that particular bill, either. First off, there's already a ban in place on lead in toys. We don't need a new law for every instance of unsafe products when the problem is much bigger than lead in paint. It's lack of inspection and toxic crap from third world countries!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 2, 1977
Release # 77-096
CPSC Announces Final Ban On Lead-Containing Paint

WASHINGI'ON, D.C. (Sept. 2) -- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has culminated a major regulatory proceeding by issuing a final ban on lead-containing paint and on toys and furniture coated with such paint. This action was taken to reduce the risk of lead poisoning in children who may ingest paint chips or peelings.

Until now, the maximum level of lead allowed in consumer paints has been 0.5 percent. CPSC has lowered this amount to 0.06 percent, a level conforming with the maximum permissible under the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act. This Act, administered primarily by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, prohibits application of lead-based paint to housing constructed or rehabilitated with federal assistance.

Exempted from the new ban are mirrors backed with lead-containing paint which are part of articles of furniture, as well as artists' paints and related materials. Also exempted, provided they bear specified cautionary labeling, are certain agricultural and industrial coatings, touch-up coatings for appliances and lawn and garden equipment, graphic arts coatings, and certain coatings for powered model aircraft.

This ban under the Consumer Product Safety Act will take effect 180 days after publication September 1 in the Federal Register and will apply to products manufactured on and after that date.

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml77/77096.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The above reg could be slightly modified if needed, but WE DON"T NEED A NEW LAW FOR EVERYTHING THAT COMES DOWN THE PIKE!

 

Good for him... eliminate the nanny state!!!

 

I'm not sure but this looks like the same horrible bill that caused numerous thrift stores and children's charities to send all their toys, children's clothing, and other products to the landfill because they couldn't afford the insane regulatory burden imposed upon it. The bill that was lobbied for BY big toy companies like Mattel, the same big toy company responsible for importing lead-tainted toys in the first place. The baptist/bootlegger contingent strikes again!

Do statists ever think about things or are they on permanent emotion-based autopilot? "I mean, the title of this 2000-page bill sure sounds nice, so it must be good, right?"

Now show me chapter and verse in the Constitution where the federal government has the authority to dictate that a thrift store needs to laboratory test children's notebooks for lead?

 

Mattel and Hasbro thank you for helping to put their smaller competitors out of business.

 

In what way? If everyone is required to test their toys, then clearly larger producers like Mattel and Hasbro have to spend a hell of a lot more on their testing than their smaller competitors. In this case, the regulation poses no more a burden on the smaller competitor than on the larger, because of the existence of third party laboratories that can be hired to perform the testing.

And frankly, if the manufacturer can't afford the testing, then their product has no business being on the shelves anyway. The fact that they are small is no excuse to allow them to peddle unsafe products.