To regulate or not to regulate? Grappling with products that contain potentially toxic chemicals Green nanny state is not sustainable

Comments about: To regulate or not to regulate? Grappling with products that contain potentially toxic chemicals Green nanny state is not sustainable
Gov. John Baldacci, Rep. Ted Koffman, D-Bar Harbor and Rep.Hannah Pingree, D-North Haven, have a legacy they...
[ back to story ]

Bookmark & share:

Welcome to kjonline.com's reader comments forum, which is offered as a "public square" for our audience. We view this space as our readers' section of the Web site, separate from our journalistic offerings. We hope you will use the forum to advance public dialogue and community discourse. As such, we ask that participants refrain from personal attacks and offensive comments. If you believe a comment is inappropriate or offensive, you can bring it to our attention by clicking on the 'report abuse' link by the comment. It will be reviewed by online staff. Please understand that 1) a comment is not "inappropriate" solely because you disagree with its author; and 2) there may be a delay while the comment is being reviewed. Please review our Reader Comment Guidelines.

Reader comments

Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First

Matt L of Saco, ME

Feb 25, 2008 11:09 AM

mst77,

Alle Ding sind Gift, und nichts ohn Gift; allein die Dosis macht, daß ein Ding kein Gift ist.

Translation:

"All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."

Banning thing just because they are "potentially" toxic is bad science. If all potentially toxic substances were to be banned even dihydrogen monoxide would be banned.

The precautionary principle is fundamentally anti-science.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30977.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28102.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34932.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/35017.html
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124346.html

mst77 of Portland, ME

Feb 25, 2008 10:32 AM

Banning harmful and unnecessary chemicals is a lot different than banning lightbulbs.

Banning lightbulbs is idiotic. Telling companies that they can't market household products that contain poisons is just good government.

And states have always been testing grounds for new legislation. Why is it that when a state stands up for itself and passes its own environmental standards, right wing support for "states' rights" goes right out the window?

Oh, I suppose I know the answer: In a conservative world, only the dollar is sacred.

dl of Brunswick, ME

Feb 24, 2008 10:06 PM

All to often the "leaders" in Augusta seem to feel as though Maine is a sovereign state, free to regulate interstate commerce, much the same as California and other Liberal states try to do.We have gone too far down the road to Socialism, and are inexorably mired in the muck we have created.Maine has no more right to regulate contents of a product sold not only Nationally, but internationally as well, than they do to decide what emission standards an auto maker is held to, or whether or not we can use incandescent bulbs.Baldacci, Koffman and Pingree are wrong to follow the path they are forging, and in so doing will destroy our children's future.With any luck, the people of Maine will vote for a more conservative breed of politician, and maybe try to turn this state around.

mst77 of Portland, ME

Feb 24, 2008 10:23 AM

Fascinating - a "professor of environmental policy" who thinks companies should be free to include poison in their products with no consequences or warnings for consumers whatsoever.

In other words a fox, writing op-eds decrying the latch on the henhouse door.

You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.