Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Duuvian]

It's not. That's an illiberal right talking point to conflate all regulation as the same, aimed at vulnerable members of society.

Does NY have deposits for plastic bottles, or just aluminum cans? Maybe increase it instead, so picking cans and bottles is more worthwhile? Around here most of the litter seems to be discarded packaging instead of the returnable containers.

There was some sort of attempt to switch to a more biodegradeable or recyclable plastic or something for bottle containers in the past few years, is that involved? If a slow rollout has complicated recycing efforts that could impact littering by making recycling more a pain in the ass since it inherently already requires more effort already than tossing it.

There's also been some odd noises coming from New York in relation to the beverage industry lately, such as trying to ban energy drinks. I'd suspect there may be consolidatory beverage industry lobbying involved in the energy drink controversy. That seems to be what happened with the vaporizor scare to some degree, and that effort also seemed to be led from NY.

https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products-ingredients-components/regulation-and-enforcement-non-tobacco-nicotine-ntn-products

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Currently, no NTN products have received marketing authorizations. Additional information about actions taken on premarket applications can be found on the Tobacco Product Applications: Metrics & Reporting webpage.

------------

Spoiler: Unrelated thoughts on vapes (click to show/hide)

For vaporizor regulation, I'm fine with regulating internet orders. However the system appeared to be a shitshow when I tried it. A further useful regulation for vaporizors as a tool to quitting nicotine is to mandate a low level "step-down" path. There appears to be two ways of measuring potency in vape sauce as well, and it would benefit from having a unified dosing measurement. At the low end of the scale of the potency measuring system I am more familiar with, that of the mg per volume IIRC, marketing appears to cease at a floor of 3mg. A useful mandate would be to require marketing of 2mg and 1mg "step-down" potency vape sauce. This is because when quitting from combustible tobacco levels of nicotine it is helpful to have a step down process. Patches are far too strong to make this easy, even the step 3 patch dose is higher than frequent 6mg vape fluid consumption. This makes them useful to step down from combustible tobacco to graduated lessened intake via vaporizor at 6mg, but they are far too strong to make quitting easy when trying them alone. It takes about 2 weeks of use of the vaporizor to be able to step down from 6mg to 3mg in relative comfort, and then about the same to be acclimated to go from 3mg to 0. However this step is one of the most difficult, comparable to going from combustible tobacco to patch or from patch to vaporizor whereas the stepdown on the vapes is quite a bit easier in the first few days. If there were 2mg and 1mg vape sauce on the market, I think it would further assist in quitting as it would allow a further acclimation to lessened nicotine dosage rather than a sudden drop from 3mg to 0mg levels of intake. In addition nicotine free vape sauce does not mix well with nicotine bearing fluid, so mixing to achieve a lower dose doesn't work so well. As to vape design, they really need some better coil tech. The cotton wicks or whatever burn out relatively quickly, especially if care is not taken to keep the resorvoir filled to keep the wick moist (as it will burn the wick and turn the liquid dark. This doesn't ruin the wick's functionality, but it tastes awful and I assume is unnecessarily bad for the user; however coil expense is nearly as costly as vape fluid expense so I assume a burnt wick would be replaced later on a budget). A heating coil design using ceramic or something longer lasting as standard instead of a coil that (quickly and not cheaply) burns out would be a wise idea before symptoms of inhaling burning cotton are conflated with vaporizor usage.

Spoiler: Unrelated thoughts on energy drinks (click to show/hide)

For energy drinks, just limit their marketing to minors and inform the public of the risks to people with certain pre-existing conditions and advise against overconsumption. Also keep an eye on the testicle juices and whatnot they put in it so it doesn't get too crazy. When I can afford them, I drink 300mg caffeine cans. They are great waking up in the morning. I probably overconsumed them at a previous job, but I also had late night hours and then had to do mornings on weekends sometimes. One early in the day is plenty for me now, they do make trying to sleep a PITA if I drink them too late. However, they taste better than coffee and don't ruin my teeth afaik, have more concentrated wake up than a 2 liter that ruins my teeth, and also have no calories due to being a frankendrink.

[Maximum™]

Well, if I were on a mission to erradicate guns from the country, I would find this way of suing a pepsi for people littering with pepsi products very similar to sueing into oblivion the gun companies that make firearms used in crimes.  It's no different really, so from a legal perspective, you'd have set the precedent.

One problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act literally exists to prevent that.

Like, not incidentally used for it, no, this was lobbied by the NRA twats and signed by dubya to prevent us from suing gun manufacturers, coincidentally just after the assault weapon ban was allowed to lapse.

[hector13]

Pretty sure the ATF isn’t even allowed to use computers to track gun owners. It’s all paper.

Any records they do have on computers aren’t allowed to be formed into a database, and they can’t be searchable. It’s pictures of forms. Basically like they’ve boxed up the forms in a different way.

[MorleyDev]

Any records they do have on computers aren’t allowed to be formed into a database, and they can’t be searchable. It’s pictures of forms. Basically like they’ve boxed up the forms in a different way.

This is the kind of thing I'd introduce if I was actively trying to increase the number of office shootings, because that sounds like one of the circles of Hell.

So much for imagining Sisyphus happy...

[anewaname]

This Colorado judge fears the retribution...
CNN's article
"A Colorado judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump “engaged in an insurrection” on January 6, 2021, but rejected an attempt to remove him from the state’s 2024 primary ballot, finding that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” doesn’t apply to presidents."

“After considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States,’ did not include the President of the United States,” she wrote. “It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”

[dragdeler]

Now the next mf gets to rest on this sissy's juris prudence. Ladies and gentlemen: the most useless branch of society.

[Duuvian]

CNN's article

Did... did they forget to add a link to the decision text or is that not out yet? All the links seem to go back to other CNN articles from the ones I checked.

[da_nang]

It's a state court. It holds no precedential value outside Colorado. It's at best persuasive until a federal court chimes in.

[Maximum™]

A decision involving state primary eligibility and state ballot eligibility is by definition under the jurisdiction of a state court.

Without a federal law violation or an interstate commerce issue or another reason to remove to federal court then the issue remains with the state courts.

[Lord Shonus]

A state court decision matters within a given state. As far as the other 49 are concerned this might as well be spoken by Ralph Wiggum for all the legal meaning it has.

[Maximum™]

Plus, it was about whether he could be on THAT ballot in that state, and specifically it was about the primary ballot.

Judges have already pointed out that a primary is just some shit the party in that state sets up and does before they go through the relevant steps to put the winner of said primary on their actual ballot.

These cases have no relevance for the actual election, and a decision preventing him from being on the primary ballot is guaranteed to be appealed and likely overturned.


Like, a primary could involve people throwing darts at a bunch of names written on a wall and agreeing whoever has the most darts by their name gets nominated for the general election, and interference in that process is RIFE with openings for whiny snowflake crybabies to scream and shit theirselves until they get it overturned on appeal.

This is actually a better outcome than if the courts had tried to step in and screw with the primary process, especially given how THAT isn't remotely covered by any reasonable interpretation of the 14th.


Granted, the colorado court used a really dumb reason to punt on it, and I would not be surprised if that ends up getting appealed based on their obviously incorrect argument that a president isn't an officer or office holder under the 14th.

THAT sort of argument might offer a reason for a federal court to pick up an appeal, though I doubt it would go anywhere until the state cases play out.


Edit: apparently some are saying it looks like they did the fact finding and made the decision they did specifically so it could be appealed at a higher court for a more solid outcome by reversing the dumb part I mentioned?

[anewaname]

So...
Here is the link to the case's pdfs.

From the court's 102 page final order:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

312. The Court agrees with Intervenors that all five of those Constitutional
provisions lead towards the same conclusion—that the drafters of the Section Three of
the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend to include the President as “an officer of the
United States.”
313. Here, after considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is
persuaded that “officers of the United States” did not include the President of the United
States. While the Court agrees that there are persuasive arguments on both sides, the
Court holds that the absence of the President from the list of positions to which the
Amendment applies combined with the fact that Section Three specifies that the
disqualifying oath is one to “support” the Constitution whereas the Presidential oath is
to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, 19 it appears to the Court that for
19 The Court agrees with Petitioners that an oath to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution encompasses the same duties as an oath to support the Constitution. The Court,
however, agrees with Intervenors that given there were two oaths in the Constitution at the time,
the fact that Section Three references the oath that applies to Article VI, Clause 3 officers
suggests that that is the class of officers to whom Section Three applies.
101
whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who
had only taken the Presidential Oath. 20
314. To be clear, part of the Court’s decision is its reluctance to embrace an
interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear,
unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section Three. As Attorney General
Stanbery again noted when construing the Reconstruction Acts, “those who are
expressly brought within its operation cannot be saved from its operation. Where, from
the generality of terms of description, or for any other reason, a reasonable doubt arises,
that doubt is to be resolved against the operation of the law and in favor of the voter.”
The Reconstruction Acts, 12 U.S. Op. Att’y Gen. 141, 160 (1867) (emphasis added).21
Here, the record demonstrates an appreciable amount of tension between the competing
interpretations, and a lack of definitive guidance in the text or historical sources.
315. As a result, the Court holds that Section Three of the Fourteenth
Amendment does not apply to Trump.

When the judge wrote "whereas the Presidential oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution", I wonder if she enjoyed the irony of knowing that Trump posted "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution, ...” back in Dec 2022.

[Loud Whispers]

So Argentina just elected an ancap President. He wants to abolish the central bank, addopt the US dollar, slash the government to its bare minimum skeleton, legalise trade of weapons and organs and cut trade deals with Brazil & China. On top of inheriting an economy in crisis, politics divided and corrupt, he's going to have a rough time. Not least because he's likely to fail, and if he succeeds, Lord help whoever has to survive in an ancap state.

On the bright side, his image consultant and (now a senator) was a professional cosplayer who still cosplays. She's a real human bean and it's been heart-warming seeing how she's tried to balance her hobby with her politics (she does her best to keep them separate). Argentinian media already accused her of being a prostitute/murderer which is just mean spirited tabloid shite. It should be enough to disagree with someone's politics without descending to playground insults

All in all Argentina is in such a dire situation that they must do something to pick themselves out of this pit. Idk if that's the time to do an ancap experiment on a national scale. Probably would've been better off trying to halt inflation or sort out the lack of economic opportunities for women

[dragdeler]

Ah yes, let's never mint currency ourselves again and adopt a foreign currency instead, I see he thought this through.

[da_nang]

Adopting a foreign currency when your economy is in shambles.

What to do they plan on trading for that currency?