I hope I am wrong, of course... But I still think this will play out to be a Y2K type of situation... Lots of hyperbole.... no crashing airplanes or freezing elevators... Simply because it will be impossible to prove the case in court because they law does not clarify what is illegal and IF a store has to test. Sure, I, too can point to many many many pages of scared posts.... But that does mean it "IS" going to happen.
Thing is about that Y2K thing is that while it was big news to the general public the last few years, programmers were seriously working on the problem about 10 years before it was to happen and all those things really could have happened had the problem not been addressed as it was. Actually, there were some computer glitches as a direct result of Y2K all over the world, some were even in the news. My husband is in the industry and he saw quite a few problems missed that were headaches for companies and pockets of people, but, no, nothing major happened affecting the general public at large. The problems were minor because the people who needed to do something about it, did something about it. If a few thrift stores close down or owners are arrested, it, again, only affects pockets of people here and there. I don't think it is enforceable, but let's look at it from a different perspective: A thrift store sells a toy and the child gets lead poisoning, so the buyer sues the thrift store, because now that this law is in place it points to who is at fault, anyone who gives away or sells something made for children with a lead content because it is hazardeous material...and then they can get charged for a crime too! Thrift stores and consignment sales are not exempt, as I read it. They are not required to have testing for lead done, but they are guilty of a crime if just one of the items they sell has lead. Who would like to open a thrift store in our sue-happy society? Just a thought...
phthalates....... is that even a eal word cause it breaks many rules of grammar I am sure! I dont want to read through all the posts, so to me this means people who sell in stores cant sell the leaded stuff... which is probably everything out there, but ink and books arent that? How does this effect a homeschooler and what does ithave to do with me in California if it was from Virginia?
Oh gee, from the page here I am getting that thriftstores would have to close down, after all , they only have old stuff from back in the day , china, etc all has lead to some extent if its real! so what are they recomending people do with thier lead based stuff? Toss it into the dumps where they will eventualy build a school or something stuipid on and cause all kinds of other law suites? I can see them requiring new stores to stand up to the standards, and I understand lead is bad, but.. they should have though before making the law is all
the other problem, T'mom, is that clothes might have buttons with lead, or the dye used to color cloth. So a place that sells used children's clothing, while not being required to check everything, could still be held accountable. Also, I have in the past made cross-stitch onesies and sold them at bazaars and given them as shower gifts. My understanding is that now I would have to have them tested for lead before they could be sold, which would be cost-prohibitive. For a homeschooler who is actively supplementing her income doing something of this sort, it could make a big difference.
Ok, tell ya what.. In 365 days, let's come back here and compare notes. I agreeeee with you guys about what the law says, But IN THAT, I am painfully aware of the ludicrousness of it. It is impossible to enforce.. This includes lawsuits.... You CANNOT be found guilty of breaking a law if the law, itself is undefined. As it stands now it says that resellers are BOTH required and NOT required to test. How can they be both? Therefore how can anyone be held to a standard that says they are BOTH right and wrong? They can't. And if you cannot be both responsible and not responsible there is no authority for the judge to impose any sentence because the law does not define a crime. No crime defined = No crime to charge you with, ergo charges are dismissed. How many times will this happen before the law is repealed? Not too many, I would bet. THAT is my point. Not arguing what the law says, or what the implications can be from it... But thinking it through.... The law says you are BOTH responsible and NOT responsible, ergo the law is impossible to enforce fully. Something WILL have to change on this law... Unless Obama plans to save our economy by hiring a million inspectors and enforcers to try to enforce this law, and even so, they would have re re-write the law to clarify WHAT a reseller HAS to do. Other wise it will not stand in court. Check this out.... If I arrested you for wearing a maroon shirt in public, because certain shades of red were banned, but the law does not state which shades of red are banned and it states that you have to test your shirts for their "Redness", then says you do not have to test your shirts for "redness".... How long do you think it would take the judge to laugh me out of court for having such a WEAK CASE? And if you wanna throw tomatoes, I prefer the little red cherry tomatoes drowned in ranch dressing... thanks! (Ducks)
do you know we have stranger laws out there? WE have laws about things like Milking a cow while walking across the street, or some such thing... that was made up but they are that silly. No driving your cart down teh road on a windy day.... etc.
That was my point earlier. That just because something is a law, does not mean it will or even can be enforced. It is a scary thought, all the things that "Could" happen... But it is like they made a law that ALL cars will be immediately illegal if made before 2009 unless you pay to get a $4000 test done... and if your car is found to not have the test done, you will be imprisoned.. Talk about shutting down the ecconomy! Just because the law was written and passed, doesn't mean it will be enforced. In fact I SERIOUSLY doubt any of those dimwits in the gov even READ the law.. it just "SOUNDED GOOD" and they "Signed off" on it. Once their constituents start pounding on their doors, demanding a re-writing or repealing of this law, they will do it. They want your votes... they don't care what the law says, just what the squeaky wheel says... Just ludicrous.
okay, I am back on coffee break! YIIKES! ya I know about those weird law things that dont really matter, we vote on tosmething and they find a way to push thier issue no matter what, they dont care what we the people think.
Jen you bring up very good points and I won't throw tomatoes at you. Another point that a friend and I came up with while discussing this new law was that in this economy what SANE person is really going to force a small resale shop to test their ENTIRE inventory effectively putting them out of business knowing that there are MANY people out there who depend on that very business to keep clothing on their rapidly growing children. I know I couldn't possibly keep up with my children's needs were it not for goodwill, salvation army, and Once Upon A Child. I'd say 90% of their clothing or more comes from there....the only things I Always buy new are shoes, socks, underpants, and special occasion clothing (like when we went to our neighbors wedding) They also get new clothing at Christmas and Birthdays..other than that it's used all the way because they grow too fast...and until my children were a year old I don't think they had even one new outfit...I bought it all from resale shops because they grew entirely too fast for me to spend that money.
I still say that, while they may have no intentions of using the law, the minute a person decides that this child is sick because John's Resale Shop sold them a "tainted" shirt, the law is there for that person to fall back on. And John IS LIABLE under the law. He WILL be held accountable, and the store owners know that. The law VERY CLEARLY says that, while he doesn't have to test, he cannot sell items that exceed the guidelines.
for that matter what thrift shop would ahve a thing to test for lead? How do you get one? and What do you do to test it?
All I can say is that I know someone who used to have a good business. Then a competitor decided to call the FDA, actually the guy has quite a reputation for taking out his competition that way. (Yet, they leave him alone....?) The owner simply did not have the funds to defend what was being sold, so the business closed down. If the FDA is involved, and it probably will be because it is involved in all labeling, then it may only take one phone call. Whether the item is labeled it was tested for lead or just that it should be labeled, the FDA is going to be on it. Again, I would hope no one gets crazy with this, but I happen to know people that have had such things happen to them.
