back

by locknitpicker·8mo ago·view on hn ↗
> I know a few local people who have only been impacted for the first time by regulations preventing the sale of vapes, and local regulations preventing the resale of used tyres to motorsport enthusiasts. Its the first spark for a lot of people.

Please point out what regulations you speak of, and why they are in place.

For example, vape pen regulation imposes requirements such as maximum nicotine concentration and minimum acceptable purity, and must be child-resistant. Regulation prevents you from trying to sell hazardous vape pens that can and will pose a health risk. What spark does this fire in you?

Or would you prefer to blindly resell things that harm the people around you without being bothered about consequences?

2 comments
>For example, vape pen regulation imposes requirements such as maximum nicotine concentration and minimum acceptable purity, and must be child-resistant. Regulation prevents you from trying to sell hazardous vape pens that can and will pose a health risk. What spark does this fire in you?

Over a period of ~8 months, they were subjected to like 4 different levels of restriction over here, culminating in them only being provided by pharmacies to prescription holders. An entire cottage industry of compliant vape selling businesses were forced to close, and significant numbers of users have been deprived access to the commodity. Honestly its been a goldmine for discussing law/regulation with the up and coming generation.

>Regulation prevents you from trying to sell hazardous vape pens that can and will pose a health risk.

Regulation forces the non prescription having user to the black market where no safety or quality checks are conducted. And they did this on the basis that the health risk is unknown, having already banned the vape juices that we know can in a small number of cases cause complications.

>Or would you prefer to blindly resell things that harm the people around you without being bothered about consequences?

I think you internalise the standard fallacy. I explain in another post that all regulations need to justify themselves, not simply have a stated cause. You seem to believe as most people who are unimpacted, that one can simply write law like code, and the execution proceeds flawlessly. There need be no thought given to the negative case, to the behaviour changes outside of your scope. Its quite a suffocating arrogance.

Not to mention you also immediately fall into "OH YOU ARE AGAINST X, WELL YOU MUST LOVE Y", which is telling.

> Over a period of ~8 months, they were subjected to like 4 different levels of restriction over here, culminating in them only being provided by pharmacies to prescription holders.

Can you explain what do you think is wrong with that?

> An entire cottage industry of compliant vape selling businesses were forced to close, and significant numbers of users have been deprived access to the commodity.

What a questionable assertion. Your whole argument is that businesses that were not compliant had to close, but somehow you chose to frame them as compliant?

And exactly what "commodities" do you think the public is being deprived of? Hazardous noncompliant vape pens that pose a health risk? That's hardly something anyone would complain about.

> Regulation forces the non prescription having user to the black market where no safety or quality checks are conducted.

No, not really. Anyone can stroll into any store that sells them and buy a compliant vape pen.

Your argument is even comical, in the way that you opted to complain about regulation somehow causing the problem of people selling hazardous products that don't comply with regulation. I mean, do you expect all products to magically comply with regulation after that ceases to be enforced? Schrodinger's regulation!

The main problem with laissez-faire fundamentalists is their incoherence driven by despair.

Yeah, this whole argument sounds a lot like

company> These regulations are preventing us from selling our product

government> We have a set of standards that your type of product must meet; because we believe not meeting them is dangerous to society.

company> But, our products don't meet those standards, and we can't sell them... and since selling them is what our business plan is, we're going to go out of business

government> And? I'm not seeing the problem here.

It is part of government's job to decide what is safe for society and, where something isn't safe, decide if the harm in preventing it outweighs the good in doing so.

>It is part of government's job to decide what is safe for society and, where something isn't safe, decide if the harm in preventing it outweighs the good in doing so.

And they are quite often very wrong, trying to be seen to be acting rather than making considered changes.

That's an argument to do better, not to avoid doing at all.
That's a pretty disingenuous interpretation. It's a lot more like:

Company > we are selling something that's legal.

Government > well now you have to do X. (Testing? Certification? Reporting?)

Company > why? X industry doesn't have this reg. Europe/ the next state over doesn't have this reg?

Government> because I'm the government and its my job

Company > fine

Repeat 4x.

> Company, um we did they last 4 things you asked us to and if we have to do the next we are going to go out of business.

> Gov: get fucked, I'm just doing my job: read [I have an ideological problem with your business, my buddy is in the business and I'm giving him an exception, and/or I've got a special interest group to please].

>Public: cheers

>Public: Why is their a housing shortage? Why is our manufacturing less competitive than China? Why do we need to import rare earths?

>Your whole argument is that businesses that were not compliant had to close, but somehow you chose to frame them as compliant?

Businesses that were compliant with rounds 1, 2 and 3 of regulation still got kicked out with number 4, because the regulation denoted them as businesses that aren't allowed to sell vapes. They did nothing morally wrong and harmed no one, and invested time and money in compliance with earlier regulation.

>On 1 July 2024, the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Act 2024 (Commonwealth vaping reforms) came into effect. Therapeutic vapes (which include nicotine and zero-nicotine vapes) are only available in pharmacies for the purposes of smoking cessation or managing nicotine dependence. It is illegal for any other retailer— including tobacconists, vape shops and convenience stores—to sell any type of vaping goods

I wont bore you with the details of the restrictions pharmacies impose for access to vapes, but rest assured, the effect is a prescription is required for 0 tobacco vapes.

And its worth mentioning, this was the compromise position, where the government was pushing for a total ban.

>And exactly what "commodities" do you think the public is being deprived of?

Previously compliant vapes that are now only permitted via prescription.

>Hazardous noncompliant vape pens that pose a health risk? That's hardly something anyone would complain about.

Dubious risk that is so far completely unsubstantiated. We regulate tobacco cigarettes to a lower degree. You can enjoy aerosolised burning tar in your lungs far easier than a simple vape. There is no justification for restricting something less harmful, to a greater degree. None.

>No, not really. Anyone can stroll into any store that sells them and buy a compliant vape pen.

You really dont engage with anyone in good faith do you.

>Your argument is even comical, in the way that you opted to complain about regulation somehow causing the problem of people selling hazardous products that don't comply with regulation. I mean, do you expect all products to magically comply with regulation after that ceases to be enforced? Schrodinger's regulation!

You make the same logical fallacy, that something is hazardous because it is regulated. When they specifically did not have any evidence to base their later rounds of regulation on. Its based on an assumption, that vaping might be harmful, after having already removed products from shelves that were shown to be (ever so slightly) harmful. That is, they removed the bad stuff, then removed the unknown without justification. My point again is that you need more than a reason, you need continual ongoing justification.

We have literally had an increase in violent crime associated with the vape ban. Black market vapes are completely unregulated (often including the banned juices that were largely complied with). I dont see why you have a problem with that. This is not a binary. You arent being asked to believe in a 100% regulation free utopia. Just to abandon your weird, and completely unsubstantiated starting position that there cannot be negative impacts from regulation. If I wanted to be an a*hole I would have started with the war on drugs. Not a weird little street level mirror of it that's part of my lived experience.

>https://colinmendelsohn.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Th...

>Australia’s ‘de facto’ prohibition of vapes has helped create a thriving and highly profitable black market controlled by the same criminal networks that import illicit tobacco. These criminal gangs are engaged in an escalating turf war to gain market share, with firebombing of tobacco shops and public executions.

Will just point out that firebombing and public executions are also banned. I am not trying to get them unbanned. But they occur anyway.

>The main problem with laissez-faire fundamentalists is their incoherence driven by despair.

What a weird thing to say, that unfounded smothering arrogance again.

The second one is the better one.

There are some laws prohibiting the sale of used tires with less than a certain amount of tread. In some motorsports you want tires with no tread (slicks). Moreover, they're being used in a different context (a vehicle on a track rather than public roads). But the law prohibits the sale because it takes no account of the context.

> There are some laws prohibiting the sale of used tires with less than a certain amount of tread.

I think you're confused. I'll explain why.

Some contries enforce regulations on what tyres are deemed road-legal, due to requirements on safety and minimum grip. It's also why it's illegal to drive around with bald tyres.

However, said countries also allow the sale of tyres for track and competitive use, as long as they are clearly sold as not road-legal and for competitive use only.

So, no. You can buy track tyres. You just can't expect to drive with them when you're dropping off your kids at school and not get a fine.

Also, it should be noted that some motorsport competition ban or restrict the use of slick tyres.

Now I'll explain why I think you're confused.

Some jurisdictions ban the sale whatsoever of used tires with less than a certain amount of tread. It's not that you can't put them on a car to drive on public roads, it's that no one can sell them to you. They prohibited the sale rather than the use, thereby interfering with the people wanting to make the purchase for a different purpose.

> Some jurisdictions ban the sale whatsoever of used tires with less than a certain amount of tread.

No, not really. This appears to be the source of your confusion. In Europe+US, thread restrictions are enforced on standard road tyres marketed for use in public roads. You can buy slicks if they are marked for track use, but it's illegal to drive around with them.

But feel free to cite exactly what jurisdiction and regulation prevents you from buying tyres. I'm sure you'll eventually stumble upon the source of your confusion once you start to look up your sources.

Let's try this one:

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-56/section-56-...

Do you see anything in it restricting the ban to motor vehicles used on public roads?

That depends whether regulators interpret “intended for use on motor vehicles” as “for road use”. The bill’s sponsors seem to think so:

USTMA research shows that more than 30 million used tires are available for sale nationally each year. The legislation does not ban all used tire sales. It targets used tires that have specific, well-established, unsafe conditions. “This is a common-sense, pro-safety, pro-consumer bill,” said Anne Forristall Luke, USTMA president and CEO. “Preventing these unsafe used tires from operating on New Jersey roads will reduce the risk of crashes and save lives. It’s that simple.” [1]

Seems clear to me this is intended to affect road use, although the bill could use an amendment to that effect. I could not find jurisprudence implying resale of racing slicks is illegal under this law.

[1] https://www.ustires.org/newsroom/new-jersey-assembly-advance...

> That depends whether regulators interpret “intended for use on motor vehicles” as “for road use”. The bill’s sponsors seem to think so:

That was their intention, but the effect of a law is not always the same thing -- that's the point. If you go to the local tire place and want to pay them to fit your track car with used tires that have minimal tread on them, is the clerk going to read the legislative history and take the risk that the judge takes that interpretation despite the law saying something else, or are they going to fob you off because corporate says they're not allowed to sell tires like that?

> A person shall not sell at retail, or offer for sale at retail, to the general public any tire intended for use on a motor vehicle if the tire:

The law you cite literally applies only to general public sales, i.e. where the the intention is to use on public roads. I cannot see where this regulation would apply to solely used tires in the first place and if we slip down the slope you have put in this thread, this regulation would forbid sales of track-only tires altogether.

Which is just not the case. I am 99% certain one can sell tires, new or used, to any registered motorsport organization, for track-only use. That's the case in first world countries anyway.

> The law you cite literally applies only to general public sales, i.e. where the the intention is to use on public roads.

If you sell key chains to the general public, that implies the key chains are intended only to be used on public roads? I don't think that's right.

> I cannot see where this regulation would apply to solely used tires in the first place and if we slip down the slope you have put in this thread, this regulation would forbid sales of track-only tires altogether.

It forbids the sale if it "has a tread depth of less than 1/16 inch measurable in any groove" which ostensibly wouldn't apply to new tires with more tread than that nor new slicks that come from the factory with no grooves to measure.

But then you're buying a new tire, when what they want is the used one with negligible tread left and therefore a much more attractive price.

No in my locality, angry old karens got together to get the local government to prevent used tyre sales (small fine from memory), and actively damage and break tyres that are being provided to motorsport enthusiasts for free. Actually they were able to create a police task force to damage the tyres for them. They also had a tyre buyback scheme at one point, to make bald tyres unaffordable.

Its a social harassment scheme that has become popular for the local government to buy into and legitimize.

It is already illegal to drive with bald tyres, so the extra regulations and enforcement really only serve to make life difficult for law abiding citizens.

Keep in mind we have 2 local legal motorsport venues that have open track days. And theres a separate police task force that spend their time chasing down our principle hoons, who are public enough that they have an official facebook page and sell illegal car modifications over facebook sales groups.

>Some contries enforce regulations on what tyres are deemed road-legal, due to requirements on safety and minimum grip. It's also why it's illegal to drive around with bald tyres.

Yes, this is a good thing. Where it becomes bad is when someone says "Oh, we should stop that from happening, let's ban the sell of such tires." With no exception.

This isn't a problem unique to regulations and laws. In software development, it is very common for the user to not think about exceptions. The rare the exception, the more likely it is missed in the requirements. It is the same fundamental problem of not thinking about all the exception cases, just in different contexts. You also see this commonly in children learning math. They'll learn and blindly apply a rule, not remembering the exceptions they were told they need to handle (can't divide by zero being a very common one).

A better example might be mattresses. There are states (Kansas) where it is illegal to sell a used mattress, under any circumstances. Even if, for your specific circumstances, the "it's unsanitary" reasoning isn't valid. You, as an individual, cannot sell your "I slept in it a few times and realized I don't like it" mattress to your friend.
Do you have a link to an actual Kansas statute which makes it illegal to sell a used mattress? I searched for it without success. Various sites claim that Kansas makes this illegal without citing a statute (often in the context of hokey stories about people finding silly loopholes in this purported law), but I'm suspicious that it's an urban legend.
I did some digging and, like you note, was unable to find any official documentation for it. Given the number of sites that indicate it is illegal in Kansas (when listing state by state), I took in on faith that it wasn't a mass hallucination. It seems like this may be false.

Thank you for prompting me to look into it further.

>In some motorsports you want tires with no tread (slicks)

You are wrong.

Laws prohibit selling used tires because the consumable part of the tire that contains the part engineered to safely interact with the road is used up. That part happens to contain the tread.

A "slick" for racing is not a tire that has had the tread worn down FFS. A "slick" still has a significant quantity of rubber engineered to wear down over use as you drive on it.

If you are using a used up tire in place of an actual racing tire, what you are doing is cheaping out on safety.

A tire worn down to the tread wear indicator or similar is only useful as a burnout tire.

Cheaping out on safety in auto racing is so damn stupid that even the 24 Hours of Lemons race, which bans cars that cost more than 500$ with all upgrades, excludes safety equipment from that calculation and requires thousands of dollars of safety equipment.

Exactly because of situations like this, where people who say they "Know what they are doing" just don't.

>ut the law prohibits the sale because it takes no account of the context.

The law prohibits it because every dumb asshole who thinks the government is an evil bogeyman like this will insist on buying worn out tires "For racing" and putting them on their daily driver and people will die. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_contro... for what happens when tires are even just a little messed up, and how it killed 238 people in the US alone. Both companies involved BTW neglected to inform the NHTSA about the issues they knew existed, because people dying in their vehicles while they point fingers around is more profitable than doing a recall

>A tire worn down to the tread wear indicator or similar is only useful as a burnout tire.

Correct. And thats a motorsport.