New legistlation regarding children's items that will make many things illegal soon

[ariastar]

http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/national-bankruptcy-day/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122696993087535701.html
http://bookshopblog.com/2009/01/04/book-burning-on-feb-10th-2009-due-to-cpsia/
http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/conformity.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/faq/faq.html
http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/cpsia.html

The general gist is this: Starting February 10, ANY item for children or perceived to be for children (including comic books aimed at adults because they are "perceived" to be for children by the government) MUST be tested for lead and phthalates. An item from every single batch. If batch A and B are the same except for color, both must be tested. Clothing, toys, shampoo, even books, are all required to be tested. For companies that make 50,000 items in a batch all from the same piece of wood and the same vat of paint can spread the cost of testing among all the items. Smaller companies without the ability to produce in such vast quantities will have to substantially raise costs. This especially hits makers of custom children's items and thrift stores that don't have the money available to test every single item.

It doesn't matter if all the materials are natural materials and already certified to be lead-free. The finished product must be certified. Somehow using Material A that is certified lead-free and Material B that is certified to be lead free and binding them with Material C that is also certified to be lead-free, with no other materials used at all, can result in an item that's full of lead. So it has to be tested.

February 10th has been dubbed National Bankruptcy Day as many makers of children's items will have to shut their doors unless something is done. I know of quite a few small business owners in the circles I participate in who are trying to sell off their stock by February 9th and are already preparing for bankruptcy. For myself, my focus is adult's items anyway, but now, if I accept an order for a child's gown, I will have to have it tested at a cost of several hundred dollars, and, because it's a batch of one, the cost of that one gown would have to be raised hundreds of dollars for me to break even, never mind turn a profit. I know a lady who makes and sells cloth diapers. Since she can't buy 1,000 yards at a time from the same bolt, and a thousand spools of thread from the same batch, but rather buys in qualities of about five yards and a few spools at a time, sells, and buys more, she'd have to have a diaper out of every few dozen tested. Spread several hundred dollars around on just a few dozen diapers, and, well, she's pulled her son from pre-school, which is where the diaper money was going, and is selling only until February 9th.

This bill has the right IDEA, but horrible, HORRIBLE execution. It came about as the result of recalls of CHINESE TOYS that contained lead. Rather than just requiring testing for toys from countries with a long history of shipping lead-ladden toys, ALL items for children must be tested, even if those items are aimed at adults, but are perceived as being children's items.

[alaskalonewolf]

I wonder if that covers consumer electronics too. I do believe that there is lead in batteries. That's gonna make a lot of stuff "illegal"...

[comhcinc]

hey that is the cost of doing busness. i have kids i do not want them exposed to lead. if that means someone has to pay a little extra to make a product that is safe then so be it.

[comhcinc]

Step back from the ledge, makers of lovingly hand-carved wooden dolls: the Consumer Product Safety Commission has lurched into action and tentatively agreed to exempt some materials and items from the lead-testing requirements in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.

We were unable to find the actual votes on the CPSC's site, but we assume they were on these four proposed exemptions (PDFs). According to the L.A. Times, the CPSC agreed to exempt:

* Items with lead parts that a child cannot access
* Clothing, toys and other goods made of natural materials such as cotton and wood; and
* Electronics that are impossible to make without lead
link (http://consumerist.com/5126354/hooray-cpsc-agrees-to-exempt-some-natural-items-from-product-safety-act)

really.

[ariastar]

I wonder if that covers consumer electronics too. I do believe that there is lead in batteries. That's gonna make a lot of stuff "illegal"...

For the time being, yes. This will include electronics. There is discussion about exempting certain electronics from the lead-cap as long as the lead is in inaccessible parts, but whether or not the products' accessible parts are still subject to testing is up in the air. Even if there were to be any exemptions, it would take months to have them written in, and this law goes into effect on a month.

[comhcinc]

For the time being, yes. This will include electronics. There is discussion about exempting certain electronics from the lead-cap as long as the lead is in inaccessible parts, but whether or not the products' accessible parts are still subject to testing is up in the air. Even if there were to be any exemptions, it would take months to have them written in, and this law goes into effect on a month.
you should really start reading all the post before you reply.

[ariastar]

hey that is the cost of doing busness. i have kids i do not want them exposed to lead. if that means someone has to pay a little extra to make a product that is safe then so be it.

So you'd support forcing all businesses, even small, home-based businesses run by single parents, to pay thousands upon thousands per year, even if this runs some small businesses out of business and puts single parents on welfare?

What's wrong with having this as an optional program, maybe one with a small tax break, and parents like you can choose to ONLY buy from the companies that chose to have their products certified? NOTHING would be forcing you to buy from small businesses and people who hand-craft their items individually. This way the big companies that can afford it can pay for testing and get a tax break, and small businesses and hand-crafters can continue to sell to those who want to support cottage industries and aren't worried about lead in natural wood blocks. Let parents have the choice whether to buy from a company that certifies its products or from businesses that don't.

What are you going to suggest poor families do, the ones who can only afford to buy second-hand? Many Goodwill and Salvation Army locations are already no longer accepting children's clothing because they can't afford to have all the items tested. Many, MANY poor families already can't afford to buy things new. What are they supposed to do when new things become even more expensive and their second-hand stores can no longer legally sell them things for their children? You might be in a financial situation where you can afford things, no matter how expensive they are, but you are not a cross section of America.

Is it really good for the economy to put businesses out of business and force those people onto welfare? Less money flowing through the economy? More people having to be laid off (by the businesses that have a few employees, of course). Is it really good to raise the prices of items when already many people are struggling to make it?

What's going to happen is that the only products that are affordable will be the things coming from China. Ironic, is it not, when you consider most of the lead-filled shit currently comes to China. So Chinese toy-makers send is lead toys, and are rewarded by being the only companies people can afford to buy from in the future. This law is punishing small businesses that aren't using lead in their products, and effectively punishing poor people and making it so they can't afford what their children need.

We need jobs in this country. People need to be encouraged to spend to get money flowing. That's not going to happen when people in America can't afford to make and sell, when this forces the jobs overseas, when it makes the basic children's items unaffordable for many to buy.

[comhcinc]

So you'd support forcing all businesses, even small, home-based businesses run by single parents, to pay thousands upon thousands per year, even if this runs some small businesses out of business and puts single parents on welfare?

What's wrong with having this as an optional program, maybe one with a small tax break, and parents like you can choose to ONLY buy from the companies that chose to have their products certified? NOTHING would be forcing you to buy from small businesses and people who hand-craft their items individually. This way the big companies that can afford it can pay for testing and get a tax break, and small businesses and hand-crafters can continue to sell to those who want to support cottage industries and aren't worried about lead in natural wood blocks. Let parents have the choice whether to buy from a company that certifies its products or from businesses that don't.

What are you going to suggest poor families do, the ones who can only afford to buy second-hand? Many Goodwill and Salvation Army locations are already no longer accepting children's clothing because they can't afford to have all the items tested. Many, MANY poor families already can't afford to buy things new. What are they supposed to do when new things become even more expensive and their second-hand stores can no longer legally sell them things for their children? You might be in a financial situation where you can afford things, no matter how expensive they are, but you are not a cross section of America.

Is it really good for the economy to put businesses out of business and force those people onto welfare? Less money flowing through the economy? More people having to be laid off (by the businesses that have a few employees, of course). Is it really good to raise the prices of items when already many people are struggling to make it?

What's going to happen is that the only products that are affordable will be the things coming from China. Ironic, is it not, when you consider most of the lead-filled shit currently comes to China. So Chinese toy-makers send is lead toys, and are rewarded by being the only companies people can afford to buy from in the future. This law is punishing small businesses that aren't using lead in their products, and effectively punishing poor people and making it so they can't afford what their children need.

We need jobs in this country. People need to be encouraged to spend to get money flowing. That's not going to happen when people in America can't afford to make and sell, when this forces the jobs overseas, when it makes the basic children's items unaffordable for many to buy.

lol do you not realized how stupid you look right now? it is like you can only read one post at a time and have to respond to it without looking at any other post.

so any way. you really never have a clue about these issues. i don't know how busy you are but maybe you should take the time to read a little bit.

[alaskalonewolf]

After a brief look at this, all I am really wondering if how will they ever be able to enforce it? It's gonna be like handing out a speeding ticket at the Indy 500. Pretty much everything at Toys'R'us is hazardous in some way or another... well, almost everything I'd buy anyways. Not only that, but if they do, it will make a lot of things already out there, a lot more collectable.

[ariastar]

lol do you not realized how stupid you look right now? it is like you can only read one post at a time and have to respond to it without looking at any other post.

so any way. you really never have a clue about these issues. i don't know how busy you are but maybe you should take the time to read a little bit.

I've read, and I've spoken with an attorney. So unless you're an attorney, you don't know as much as mine does.

[emceeppantz]

Because that doesn't address the problem at hand. That is very much how it is at the moment (sans the tax break). There is a problem with the low-end merchandise poisoning children, this addresses that problem.

What's wrong with having this as an optional program, maybe one with a small tax break, and parents like you can choose to ONLY buy from the companies that chose to have their products certified?

what in gods name are you talking about? The law is set to prevent lead in toys, so... where's your argument here? You seem to just be thrashing for something to whine about. Regulations like this are rather important to public health. Would you have complained back in the day about asbestos regulation putting the little man out of business?
What's going to happen is that the only products that are affordable will be the things coming from China. Ironic, is it not, when you consider most of the lead-filled shit currently comes to China. So Chinese toy-makers send is lead toys, and are rewarded by being the only companies people can afford to buy from in the future. This law is punishing small businesses that aren't using lead in their products, and effectively punishing poor people and making it so they can't afford what their children need.

[ariastar]

After a brief look at this, all I am really wondering if how will they ever be able to enforce it? It's gonna be like handing out a speeding ticket at the Indy 500. Pretty much everything at Toys'R'us is hazardous in some way or another... well, almost everything I'd buy anyways. Not only that, but if they do, it will make a lot of things already out there, a lot more collectable.

Enforcement has been an issue that's come up. There's no money to actually enforce this, so it's unknown whether an individual has to file a complaint, or if the gov. will somehow get together a group to go looking for violators or what.

And yeah, I thought about that too, about everything being a hazard in one way or another. What next, banning bikes because kids could fall and get hurt? Banning Candy Land because a kid could get a paper cut on a card? As long as parents have the information to make informed decisions, that should be enough. If you know product A has been tested and product B hasn't and could be a risk, well, that's the parent's choice at that point. A parent knows a kid can fall off a bike. A kid can get a paper cut. As long as the risks aren't misrepresented and makers claiming certifications they don't have, that's good enough, imo.

What next, banning Happy Meals because they're not the most nutritious meals on the planet? The government needs to let parents be parents, give them the information they need to make decisions (if you know a product hasn't been tested, the information you know is that there's going to be a risk, and it's your decision whether or not to take that risk), but don't try to control everything that goes on and control every single product people can buy.

[esophagus]

Public Health > Public Employment

I don't see these regulations as bad things at all. Regardless of that comhinc's post seems to show that this has worked out already. I guess I haven't talked to a lawyer, though.

[ariastar]

Because that doesn't address the problem at hand. That is very much how it is at the moment (sans the tax break). There is a problem with the low-end merchandise poisoning children, this addresses that problem.

Natural wood doesn't contain lead. Silk doesn't contain lead. Cotton doesn't contain lead. The regulations do not commensurate with the risks. Does it really make sense to test paperback books for kids? If you print a science text book and a math text book using the EXACT same materials on the EXACT same press on the EXACT same day with the EXACT same crew, does it make sense to require BOTH to be tested? Testing every item that can even be perceived as being aimed at children does nothing about the countless other items they come into contact with on a regular basis. What about the couch, or the dining room table where they eat dinner every night, the forks they put in their mouths? What about Crest toothpaste that many kids under 12 use? What about Tide laundry detergent that lots of parents use? There are so many other items kids come into contact with. Should every single consumer product in this country be required to undergo testing?

The "think of the children!" argument only goes so far. At some point, it begins to do more harm than good, and making it so that parents can't afford to buy the items already considered safe (such as things made of natural materials) is going to force a type of neglect. When kids have to wear shoes a size or two too small because mom and dad can't afford new ones, and clothes are too small and worn out, then will you say that testing of these items is worth it?


what in gods name are you talking about? The law is set to prevent lead in toys, so... where's your argument here? You seem to just be thrashing for something to whine about. Regulations like this are rather important to public health. Would you have complained back in the day about asbestos regulation putting the little man out of business?

The law doesn't only apply to toys. It applies to ALL items even perceived as being for kids, from clothing to toys to comic books. Why not extend this to every item sold in this country? Why not just test the crap coming from countries with long histories of using lead? Why not test the raw materials rather than the finished items? It would cost a lot less to test a bolt of fabric than to test the five finished items five people made from them, a lot less to test that vat of 5,000 gallons of paint and 10,000 gallons of plastic than to test every type and shape of toy made from that paint and that plastic. Instead makers will have to invest the time and money into the labor to produce items and then test. Testing their materials before investing the time and labor (or having the materials be tested at the base level before selling to makers) won't cut it.

Asbestos isn't harmful if it's not disturbed.

[ariastar]

Public Health > Public Employment

I don't see these regulations as bad things at all. Regardless of that comhinc's post seems to show that this has worked out already. I guess I haven't talked to a lawyer, though.

Public health goes down when the number of jobs go down and people can't afford to eat properly.

As said above:

Why not test the raw materials rather than the finished items? It would cost a lot less to test a bolt of fabric than to test the five finished items five people made from them, a lot less to test that vat of 5,000 gallons of paint and 10,000 gallons of plastic than to test every type and shape of toy made from that paint and that plastic. Instead makers will have to invest the time and money into the labor to produce items and then test. Testing their materials before investing the time and labor (or having the materials be tested at the base level before selling to makers) won't cut it.

It's like, as long as someone says "think of the children!", then everyone else is expected to bend over backward and agree, and totally disregard that this type of legislation will make many children go without basics that their families can't afford new and can no longer buy second-hand.

[comhcinc]

I've read, and I've spoken with an attorney. So unless you're an attorney, you don't know as much as mine does.

your logic fails. you said you have read yet you paid no attention to the story i linked that shows how they are fixing the problems you are whining about.

your logic fails. an attorney has no more access to information than i do. just because a person is a lawyer doesn't mean they automatically know more than me. even if they specialize in this field (though they more than likely do).

and for the record i don't believe for one moment that you have talk to an attorney. you are always on here bitching about the price of things and not too recently you were on here begging for money. i don't believe you have the money to retain a lawyer to be able to call him up and discuss a new law that just barely deals with your business. i don't believe that for one second and if it is true then that is even worst.

[ariastar]

your logic fails. you said you have read yet you paid no attention to the story i linked that shows how they are fixing the problems you are whining about.

your logic fails. an attorney has no more access to information than i do. just because a person is a lawyer doesn't mean they automatically know more than me. even if they specialize in this field (though they more than likely do).

and for the record i don't believe for one moment that you have talk to an attorney. you are always on here bitching about the price of things and not too recently you were on here begging for money. i don't believe you have the money to retain a lawyer to be able to call him up and discuss a new law that just barely deals with your business. i don't believe that for one second and if it is true then that is even worst.

Re-read my comments. Any changes that would allow for exceptions would take months, and the law goes into effect in a month.

An attorney is better able to understand the laws and how they actually apply than you do. If you think you know better than an attorney, then you need to pull your head out of your ass and go take the bar and see if you can pass it so you can become filthy rich.

My aunt is an attorney and OWNS a rather large law firm. Guess what her field is. Business law. Guess what these laws fall under? Business law. My aunt doesn't charge me for consulting with her. So I do have access to an attorney, even if I can't afford the typical $250+/hr one would normally charge. I've mentioned her on here before.

Back on my ignore-list with you. You're a waste of time since you think you know it all and know better than an attorney.

[emceeppantz]

Why are there so many questions in your response here? Have you bothered to read the legislation? perhaps there wouldn't be so many questions at that point. It is fairly clear that you haven't and simply want to bitch and moan about it (I didn't call you a bitch here, just to be clear, I was using bitch as slang for a method of speach, just so we save the mods time here).
Perhaps if you argued that the upstream supplier should be burdened with the testing, you'd have a case (in fact, after a cursory glance at the sites provided, this seems this might be the case), but no, you're simply thrashing around for some argument instead of looking at the case rationally. And yes, if there is a reasonable expectation that products could be contaminated with lead and/or phthblahblahblah, it should be tested, that is what I'm saying. These are poisons that need to be phased out and legislation is the ONLY way to accomplish that.
Natural wood doesn't contain lead. Silk doesn't contain lead. Cotton doesn't contain lead. The regulations do not commensurate with the risks. Does it really make sense to test paperback books for kids? If you print a science text book and a math text book using the EXACT same materials on the EXACT same press on the EXACT same day with the EXACT same crew, does it make sense to require BOTH to be tested? Testing every item that can even be perceived as being aimed at children does nothing about the countless other items they come into contact with on a regular basis. What about the couch, or the dining room table where they eat dinner every night, the forks they put in their mouths? What about Crest toothpaste that many kids under 12 use? What about Tide laundry detergent that lots of parents use? There are so many other items kids come into contact with. Should every single consumer product in this country be required to undergo testing?

so you are positing that a premium for lead-free products based on the principals of the free-market is more desirable?

Yes, I am saying that even in your ridiculously posed situation lead free products are more desirable. Again, you're thrashing for some semblance of an argument but have yet to present a cohesive one. Your argument that the law could apply to any number of products, if not all, is unfounded and highlights your igorance of the law as written. For instance,

"The category of products known as “sporting goods” can include toys but not all sporting goods are toys. Indeed, the ASTM F963 toy safety standard, which becomes a mandatory consumer product safety standard on February 10, 2009, does not define sporting goods equipment to be a toy unless the product is a toy version of sporting goods equipment."

The legislation is full of this kind of stuff. No one but you seems to have a real problem with this. The only problem manufacturers seem to be pointing out is that they'd like to be able to have their back catalog of products grandfathered in. I think there is a case for that, but not for letting the free market take care of it. That will change nothing, period. That is already the status quo. I don't care if you're a child or an adult, lead has been proven to be very harmful. When, pray tell, does this do harm? When you're not willing to provide services mandated by law for your personal business? That's, honestly, tough shit. You must abide by the law as a business, no matter your size. To claim that this is going to lead to children with shoes two sizes too small is foolish and arrogant. That has nothing to do with testing. There will be plenty of corporations that will do as they should and test. The cost of that testing may be passed on to the consumer, but at microcents on the dollar. Are you claiming your $800 dresses will be subsequently too expensive to sell? I think your precious niche will be safe at that price point.

The "think of the children!" argument only goes so far. At some point, it begins to do more harm than good, and making it so that parents can't afford to buy the items already considered safe (such as things made of natural materials) is going to force a type of neglect. When kids have to wear shoes a size or two too small because mom and dad can't afford new ones, and clothes are too small and worn out, then will you say that testing of these items is worth it?


I prefer the law not just apply to toys.. and your borderline xenophobic argument that this should only apply to foreign imports is simply misguided. This is a problem in all sectors of manufacturing, not just imports. This legislation is intended to address the problem of manufacturers not being completely forthright with ingredients. The problem as of late has been manufactured products contain parts that were reported not to have lead but do, in fact, have lead. Further, most of this unit testing is ALREADY required, this simply requires a notice of certification as well as decreasing the allowable ppm of certain chemicals/elements. Again, I think you're reading this legislation completely wrong. As long as you can set up a situation where all your materials have been certified, it would appear this law would subsequently provide that you can certify your product with no physical testing. Again, thrashing for outrage where there really isn't any. And if not, well that's just the cost of doing business, tough.

Yes, your statement about asbestos is true... but wtf are you trying to say? That it's just fine and dandy to use it for insulation? you know wind kicks up debris, right? People put things in attics... I.. I really don't know what you're trying to say here.

The law doesn't only apply to toys. It applies to ALL items even perceived as being for kids, from clothing to toys to comic books. Why not extend this to every item sold in this country? Why not just test the crap coming from countries with long histories of using lead? Why not test the raw materials rather than the finished items? It would cost a lot less to test a bolt of fabric than to test the five finished items five people made from them, a lot less to test that vat of 5,000 gallons of paint and 10,000 gallons of plastic than to test every type and shape of toy made from that paint and that plastic. Instead makers will have to invest the time and money into the labor to produce items and then test. Testing their materials before investing the time and labor (or having the materials be tested at the base level before selling to makers) won't cut it.

Asbestos isn't harmful if it's not disturbed.

"Back on my ignore-list with you."
do you just take people on and off the list on a whim? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

[comhcinc]

Re-read my comments. Any changes that would allow for exceptions would take months, and the law goes into effect in a month.
uh no, they have already been written. already happened. before the law goes in to affect.


An attorney is better able to understand the laws and how they actually apply than you do. If you think you know better than an attorney, then you need to pull your head out of your ass and go take the bar and see if you can pass it so you can become filthy rich.
so an attorney has a magical understand of the law that help to understand, yet if i were to go pass the bar i would magically have that understand too and become filthy rich? logic fail.


My aunt is an attorney and OWNS a rather large law firm. Guess what her field is. Business law. Guess what these laws fall under? Business law. My aunt doesn't charge me for consulting with her. So I do have access to an attorney, even if I can't afford the typical $250+/hr one would normally charge. I've mentioned her on here before.

if you aunt owns a rather large law firm and you are on such good terms that she takes time out of her busy $250 and hour day to give you advice then why didn't you go ask her for money instead of begging people online?

Back on my ignore-list with you. You're a waste of time since you think you know it all and know better than an attorney.

i could point out how even though you ignore me here you follow me on twitter. i could point out that you just lied and i never claimed to "know better than an attorney" i did say i don't think you talk to any attorney and i stand by that your filthy rich law firm owning aunt not withstanding.

the simple facts are this law doesn't even apply to you, hasn't gone in to affect yet, and the thing you were bitching about has already been change. that change was shown to you but you have never been the one to let facts get in the way of a good hissy fit, so you just keep beating your chest about it. sad really.



on top of that you don't even understand why this is a good law. what an example? dude makes a toy out wood ( really who even does that any more?) he then paints it and sells it. no the wood didn't have lead in it but uh oh the paint did! need another example? a woman makes a little girl a dress. the fabric doesn't have lead in it but the bottoms do. i could go on and on with these.

[skyz]

so an attorney has a magical understand of the law that help to understand, yet if i were to go pass the bar i would magically have that understand too and become filthy rich? logic fail.



well to become an attorney you have to first have a BA or BS and then you have to get accepted to a law school and attend for three years pss and then pass the bar exam

it is proven fact tht people with higher levels of education tend to make more $

so i guess this is case of wealth acquired through education envy

and don't bother with the bill gates and steve jobs argument

both were accepted by prestigious colleges attended then dropped out to start their own businesses

besides they were geniuses and you aria are definitely not geniuses don't waste time on trivia and gossip

bill gates got an almost perfect score on the SATS and got accepted to harvard i bet aria has never even taken the SATS

they aren't going to come after you for your dress making aria just be careful what you use for trim and fastenings

the austrian swarovski crystals i doubt contain lead but you could and should call to find out

the same with the czechoslovakian beads

[esophagus]

besides they were geniuses and you aria are definitely not geniuses don't waste time on trivia and gossip

bill gates got an almost perfect score on the SATS i bet aria has never even taken the SATS
I would prefer you would stop making statements like this. Making insults and assumptions is both rude and against forum rules. Feel free to go back to ignoring me, but I'm speaking as a mod.

That goes for the whole thread. Keep this civil.

[comhcinc]

well to become an attorney you have to first have a BA or BS and then you have to get accepted to a law school and attend for three years pss and then pass the bar exam
no all you have to do is pass the bar. you don't have to go to school to do that. it helps i am sure but it is not a requirement.

the rest of that was so all over the place i don't know who you were talking about or why really, but i do know you don't have to go to school to pass the bar.

[skyz]

no all you have to do is pass the bar. you don't have to go to school to do that. it helps i am sure but it is not a requirement.

the rest of that was so all over the place i don't know who you were talking about or why really, but i do know you don't have to go to school to pass the bar.

do i have to go to lw school to be a lawyer (http://www.wisegeek.com/do-i-need-to-go-to-law-school-to-be-a-lawyer.htm)

no you have to do an internship or go to school

you cannot 'just pass the bar exam'

if you could i would do it

not that i want to practice law but just to see how i would do

i like academic challenges

[comhcinc]

do i have to go to lw school to be a lawyer (http://www.wisegeek.com/do-i-need-to-go-to-law-school-to-be-a-lawyer.htm)

no you have to do an internship or go to school

you cannot 'just pass the bar exam'

if you could i would do it

not that i want to practice law but just to see how i would do

i like academic challenges

yes in fact you can just pass the bar exam. working with the sheriff's office i have meet inmates who have passed the bar exam. the bar exam is open to any person who is willing to pay the money to take it.

[skyz]

the bar exam is open to any person who is willing to pay the money to take it.

However, the bar exam is not open to everyone. Every regional bar association has specific requirement from candidates who want to sit the exam in order to be a lawyer

no you can't becuse you can't just show up and sit or take the exam and if you can't sit for it you obviously can't pass it

you are wrong on this one accept it

[comhcinc]

no i am not your infomation is spotty at best. maybe you should contact your local bar and ask them.

[skyz]

no i am not your infomation is spotty at best. maybe you should contact your local bar and ask them.

i have

show me any non anecdotal proof that i am wrong you have provided nothing but opinion

if what you say is true you should be able to come up with some proof it is not exactly an obscure topic

if i could have taken the exam i would have done so but i was not allowed to you can't buy your way into being a lawyer just by paying the exam fee

[comhcinc]

i have

show me any non anecdotal proof that i am wrong you have provided nothing but opinion

if what you say is true you should be able to come up with some proof it is not exactly an obscure topic

if i could have taken the exam i would have done so but i was not allowed to you can't buy your way into being a lawyer just by paying the exam fee


The short answer to this question is nolink (http://www.wisegeek.com/do-i-need-to-go-to-law-school-to-be-a-lawyer.htm) .

[esophagus]

link (http://www.wisegeek.com/do-i-need-to-go-to-law-school-to-be-a-lawyer.htm) .You don't have to go to law school to be a lawyer, but you generally have to go to law school to take the bar. Thus, one equals the other. Even the article you just posted says as much.In most areas, someone can become eligible for the bar either by attending law school or by interning in the chambers of a judge or at a law office.

[comhcinc]

You don't have to go to law school to be a lawyer, but you generally have to go to law school to take the bar. Thus, one equals the other. Even the article you just posted says as much.
i was just relinking her artcle. i really don't care one way or the other. i have already admit that it would be really hard to pass the bar without lawschool but not impossible. like i said i have meet people who have pass the bar while in prison.

[skyz]

link (http://www.wisegeek.com/do-i-need-to-go-to-law-school-to-be-a-lawyer.htm) .

the link you posted is the exact same one i posted earlier

(so you argue without even reading what you are arguing against)

and the short answer is no for do i have to go to law school to take the bar exam

but you do hve to fulfill other rather stringent requirements some of which eso pointed out

you cannot just show up and pay to take the bar exam if you could i would

[skyz]

but not impossible. like i said i have meet people who have pass the bar while in prison.

there are law libraries available to people in prison and yes sometimes law firm or lawyer will sponsor them as fulfilling an internship

[bigshotprof]

Speaking children, can we maybe disagree with one another without calling each other names?

[comhcinc]

Speaking children, can we maybe disagree with one another without calling each other names?
you would think so but i doubt it.

[alaskalonewolf]

Speaking children, can we maybe disagree with one another without calling each other names?

Only if you get to pick out the names for us....

[skyz]

Only if you get to pick out the names for us....

somehow this discussion makes me think of lenny bruce

why is that ?

[ariastar]

Speaking children, can we maybe disagree with one another without calling each other names?

Half this thread is from users on my blocked list. Judging by your comment, thy resorted to petty name-calling. Not surprising.

[ariastar]

People who think this law is made of wonderfulness, watch this video (http://www.khnl.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=3323714&h1=New%20lead%20law%20on%20kid%27s%20items%20threa tens%20to%20close%20local%20doll%20shop&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=137133&LaunchPageAdTag=News&activePane=info&rnd=25878297). Still think it's so wonderful? I really like this comment (http://cpsia-central.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-emporer-has-no-clothes-by) about it. If that mother has to stop selling, who will take care of her daughter's medical expenses? The state? Tax-dollars paid by people already stretched thin? Or will her daughter go without her medical supplies and just die? Is the cost of "increased safety" going to be the DEATH of children?

Charities such as Project Linus, which supplied hand-made blankets to preemies and sick children, will have to close. They can't afford to test each and every blanket, but as the law currently is, you can't give away these items either. So we can say good-bye to charities that supply items to preemies, sick kids, battered kids, and foster kids.

The amendment to all this so far is that secondhand sellers will be allowed to still sell without testing, but only if their items can be shown to comply (which they can really do only by testing). There's a movement to exempt items made only from untreated, undyed, natural fibers, but use a non-fabric closure or dye with veggie dye and you've got to test. There's also a movement to include in mandatory testing other items children regularly come into contact with. You know, couches, utensils.... I will try to find the CPSC page on that.

Why doesn't the government just require that all children be encased in plastic bubbles? Oh, they might contain phthalates.

I'm planning to continue selling children's dresses. Let the parents decide for themselves if they want to buy a custom silk dress from me or a certified polyester dress from WalMart.

[comhcinc]

Still think it's so wonderful? yes that is one person.
If that mother has to stop selling, who will take care of her daughter's medical expenses? you didn't even pay attention. she said that her income supplements the insurance not pays for it. she also said it isn't very much income. i am sure there is another job for her somewhere that doesn't involve harming children.
The state? i have a feeling the state is already paying for it.
Tax-dollars paid by people already stretched thin?yes the same tax dollars already going to that family
Or will her daughter go without her medical supplies and just die? i doubt that.
Is the cost of "increased safety" going to be the DEATH of children?
assuming all this comes true like the bullshit you are trying to paint no. one child would die but i am sorry one person's death compared to the death of millions doesn't impress me.

I'm planning to continue selling children's dresses. Let the parents decide for themselves if they want to buy a custom silk dress from me or a certified polyester dress from WalMart.
if you continue to sell your children's dresses without getting them certified i will report you.

[tokenuser]

Aria, 5 minutes reading the CPSIA guidelines and it is clear that the law covers toys. Clothing is only covered with respect to dolls clothing.

The Binky blankets will likely be affected due to a separate section governing products used to promote sleep, though the intent of that one looks to be for stuffed animals and crib "accessories" not the bedding itself.

I suspect that this is being worked up into an issue by a number of people with vested interest in muddying the waters.

You dress designs are not intended as playthings or toys, but as formal wear. As such you are not impacted, but I would all the same be careful of suppliers of notions to make sure that they are lead friendly suppliers, and that you restrict any costume jewelery to adults (but I dont think you do that anyway).

[comhcinc]

but she talked to a lawyer. one that owes a rather large law firm!

[skyz]

but she talked to a lawyer. one that owes a rather large law firm!

one that owes a rather large law firm

logical :p

[ariastar]

Token, this law is for "children's products." What are children's products? Well, according to the CPSC (http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/faq/children.html):

A “children’s product” means a consumer product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger.

But are ALL children's products subject to testing (http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/faq/101faq.html#hulahoops)?

"All children’s products (as defined by the CPSIA) subject to the lead limit of the Act will eventually require testing for lead, not just those with surface coatings."

The definition of "children's products" is already listed.


What about furniture (http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/faq/102faq.html#102q9)?

"In addition to the general conformity certification requirement, section 102 also requires certification based on third-party testing for products that are primarily intended for children 12 years of age and younger and are subject to a Commission standard, rule, regulation or ban. Thus, if any of your products are primarily intended for children 12 years of age or younger, you will need to comply with the third-party testing requirements of section 102(a)(2)."


What about books? Games? Posters? Are they required to be tested (http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/faq/101faq.html#educational)?

"In general, yes. CPSIA defines children’s products as those products intended primarily for use by children 12 and under."

Their official answer reiterates that children's products are products for children 12 and under.


Read the act (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpsia.pdf). This is not only about children's toys. It is about children's products in general.

Show me something exempting children's clothing from the children's products that have to be tested. Toys, cribs, bedding, pacifiers, clothing, it all has to be tested save for the items (http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/notcpsc.html) the CPSC doesn't have control over.

Show me what makes you so certain that this act is only about toys rather than CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, which had been defined multiple times as the items primarily for use by kids 12 and under.

[tokenuser]

Show me the section in the act that covers clothing.
Its not there.

It EXPLICITLY covers furnishing, cribs, toys, and metal jewelry.

There is an interesting story online about a manufacturer of shoes that was given the guidance that they are exempt unless they manufacture toy shoes.

You need guidance from a lawyer. Not your aunt, but someone specialising in commercial products law. Your aunt should be able to refer you to someone.

[ariastar]

"Children's products," items meant for use by children 12 and under. I don't know why you don't get that.

[tokenuser]

"Children's products," items meant for use by children 12 and under. I don't know why you don't get that.Because you are picking on a phrase without looking at their definition of "children's products". Look at at the sections where they define the products that are covered and how.

You need to read more than just the overview. They are VERY specific as to what those products are, even while referring to them as children's products.

[emceeppantz]

even the scope is quite limited. Your cries of resellers being burdened (thrift stores, et al) is completely baseless, they are exempted wholesale from the testing provisions and are (as per existing law) still not allowed to sell products intended for children with lead exceeding certain limits.

I think the majority of people here are suggesting you take a breather and go over this with a lawyer specifically familiar with this legislation. It is fairly clear to anyone taking a cursory glance at the legislation that your business won't be the least bit effected (clearly the reason you are so up in arms over this).

the government seems to be falling over themselves to provide press release after press release clarifying these matters to those who are crying wolf: http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html
Because you are picking on a phrase without looking at their definition of "children's products". Look at at the sections where they define the products that are covered and how.

You need to read more than just the overview. They are VERY specific as to what those products are, even while referring to them as children's products.

[skyz]

even the scope is quite limited. Your cries of resellers being burdened (thrift stores, et al) is completely baseless, they are exempted wholesale from the testing provisions and are (as per existing law) still not allowed to sell products intended for children with lead exceeding certain limits.

I think the majority of people here are suggesting you take a breather and go over this with a lawyer specifically familiar with this legislation. It is fairly clear to anyone taking a cursory glance at the legislation that your business won't be the least bit effected (clearly the reason you are so up in arms over this).

the government seems to be falling over themselves to provide press release after press release clarifying these matters to those who are crying wolf: http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html

right

we can't solve her problem

everyone is entitled to a fair amount of ranting but convincing us or winning an argument here is not going to have any real world benefit

i used to have anger issues and i got some counseling in which i learned

1. pick your battles don't be up in arms about too many things

2. find those who know and listento them

3. be reasonably adaptable to the expectations placed upon you willingly look for compromise look for solution don't wallow in the problem (otherwise your life becomes nothing but problems and that is not attractive nor does it lead to success)

[ariastar]

A Mr. Adler wrote requesting clarification (http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/323.pdf) on whether or not this lead stuff applies to ordinary kids' books too. The rules "do not apply to ordinary books intended readers of all ages, including children." However, it will apply to books meant solely for children (page 2, paragraph 2).

Notice this line: Section 101 of the CPSIA applies to all children's products

ALL children's products. Section 108 regarding phthalates is about certain TYPES of children's products. A book meant to be read isn't a plaything, so doesn't have to be tested for phthalates, but a paper doll book must be tested.

It's questionable if children's library books would have to comply. Loaning and giving away is considered distribution, and distributing "hazardous" things is going to be illegal.

I date any of you parents who think that this law is going to make your kids safer to throw out every item your children have, all their clothes, toys, books, bedding, etc., because, come February 10th, they would be too dangerous to sell. If you want to make your kids safer, throw everything away, EVERYTHING. If you don't, how is that different than saying that children's items aren't really going to magically be more dangerous overnight? When you bought their things, they were safe, and if you keep those things, you're ether admitting that these things are safe, or are saying you don't care about their safety.

[emceeppantz]

you don't actually read anything anyone else posts, do you? Fake outrage, closed mind and a clique to boot! people like you ruin places like this. I'm outta here.
A Mr. Adler wrote requesting clarification (http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/advisory/323.pdf) on whether or not this lead stuff applies to ordinary kids' books too. The rules "do not apply to ordinary books intended readers of all ages, including children." However, it will apply to books meant solely for children (page 2, paragraph 2).

Notice this line: Section 101 of the CPSIA applies to all children's products

ALL children's products. Section 108 regarding phthalates is about certain TYPES of children's products. A book meant to be read isn't a plaything, so doesn't have to be tested for phthalates, but a paper doll book must be tested.

It's questionable if children's library books would have to comply. Loaning and giving away is considered distribution, and distributing "hazardous" things is going to be illegal.

I date any of you parents who think that this law is going to make your kids safer to throw out every item your children have, all their clothes, toys, books, bedding, etc., because, come February 10th, they would be too dangerous to sell. If you want to make your kids safer, throw everything away, EVERYTHING. If you don't, how is that different than saying that children's items aren't really going to magically be more dangerous overnight? When you bought their things, they were safe, and if you keep those things, you're ether admitting that these things are safe, or are saying you don't care about their safety.

[skyz]

you don't actually read anything anyone else posts, do you? Fake outrage, closed mind and a clique to boot! people like you ruin places like this. I'm outta here.

our loss :(

unfortunately in life the lowest common denominator tends to persist

imagine if we could go with the highest common denominator instead