|
May 12, 2009
Dangerous books
The other day Glenn Reynolds linked a Reason piece about new federal rules for anyone running a yard or garage sales: Selling old kids books, anything with metal, paint, or plastic that a kid might use, old clothes or shoes with metal components that a kid might wear? You know, any of the stuff people routinely sell at yard sales? Technically, you could be on the hook for thousands of dollars worth of fines.While that was horrifying enough to read, the link to the Consumer Product Safety Commission's list makes it clear that the regulatory sweep is even broader: CPSC's laws and regulations apply to anyone who sells or distributes consumer products. This includes thrift stores, consignment stores, charities, and individuals holding yard sales and flea markets.So I'm not off the hook just because I don't hold yard sales. Presumably this would cover anything I might sell on Ebay or CraigsList. And here in Ann Arbor (and also in Berkeley), it is customary for people to often put old stuff they don't want out in the strip between the sidewalk and the street -- the unwritten rule being that anything put there is free to take. Would that be, um, distribution? It's all too easy for most people to dismiss these rules as not applying to them; a friend who buys and sells used stuff for a living seemed to think it was only directed at childrens' toys, clothes, and bedding. What really got my attention was to read that the rules apply to books! That's right. Some busybody bureaucrats apparently discovered that the ink which was used to print books before 1985 is bad for children to eat! Therefore, "you can be slapped with a $100,000 fine for selling your kids' old books at a yard sale." According to a recent WaPo article, the banned books include such classics as "Little House on the Prairie.": Rachel Merrill, mother of three, was holding innocuous-seeming contraband in her hand at an Arlington Goodwill store earlier this month: a 1971 edition of "Little House on the Prairie." This copy of the children's classic had just become illegal to resell because of concerns that some old books contain lead in their ink.Needless to say, the "implementation" phase has librarians and bookstores rattled: Implementation of the new law has libraries and secondhand bookstores reeling. Although they could pay to have each old book tested, the cost ($300 to $600 a book, according to the American Library Association) makes that impractical.More here. "Consumer," you say? I think the idea that we all must be regulated to prevent moronic parents from allowing their children to eat books is a grotesque perversion of the word "consumer." Never mind that there is not one documented case of a child ever having developed lead poisoning from a book. The books must be destroyed! BTW, I can't help noticing that Little House on the Prairie is a libertarian classic. What is to become of our dangerous old, lead-filled books? Who gets to decide which classics will be considered legal, and which have to be burned? (I guess they don't call them "safety Nazis" for nothing.) posted by Eric on 05.12.09 at 10:00 AM
Comments
So at first I stumbled onto these survivalist bulletin boards and it seemed that they were all a bunch of nuts. I saw this story mentioned there over a year ago, and I thought they were crazy. But then it got passed, and the MSM picked it up, and now here it is. It's the same for several other stories that they were quick to pick up on. So FYI, go read Timebomb2000 and TOL Helpful Guy · May 12, 2009 09:38 PM The disgusting thing is that they have just empowered every nosy neighbor and ambulance chaser to force you to pay thru the nose to defend yourself against complaints. SDN · May 12, 2009 10:04 PM This is such nonsense. As a professional printer, I can tell you the amount of lead in books printed before it was banned in printing ink is usually tiny. Now if you want to discuss ink pigments, that's another story. Ban it all, for god's sake, if it will just save one child from being force fed this capitalist created time bomb of death. Frank · May 13, 2009 12:21 AM Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill) remains unrepentant for her leading role in this travesty, preferring to attack anyone who complains. pst314 · May 13, 2009 08:44 AM |
|
June 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2009
May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
It's An Absolute Disgrace
The Seeds Of Stupidity Remember D-Day Newton's Cradle Taxes Send Jobs Offshore The law is the law! A teaching moment? You Can't Do It At Random In debt to Islam? For Western thought? David Carradine Is Dead
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Surely our hearts would go out to anyone who may have had an unfortunate tragedy in their lives, but the combination of grieving and "newly activist" parent is a volatile combination when you add a legislator to this mix.