[PASSED] Repeal "Consumer Product Safety"

[Sciongrad]

The General Assembly,

CONSIDERING the protection of consumers from potentially dangerous products to be a laudable goal;

OBSERVING that the Consumer Product Safety Council is given the authority to unilaterally declare a product unsafe, and thus illegal to import or export;

LAMENTING that no appellate system exists through which manufacturers can appeal a commercial ban on their product;

NOTING that GAR#139 states, in relevant part:

"DEFINES an 'unsafe consumer product' as any consumer product that can pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure a consumer while used properly and according to age / training / safety requirements;"

CONCERNED that the aforementioned definition may prohibit and, at minimum, unnecessarily restrict the commercial trade of common products such as matches, lighters, vehicles, electronic appliances, certain forms of medication, and firearms;

REGRETTING that the Consumer Product Safety Council is charged with seeking financial compensation and legal recourse from manufacturers that produce appliances such as the ones listed above, which will serve as a further financial disincentive for the production of such products;

DISPUTING the notion that GAR#139 "will promote a higher level of consumer safety on an international level, leading to a decline in injuries and deaths associated with consumer products," taking the aforementioned arguments into consideration,

Hereby,

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #139, "Consumer Product Safety."

As always, comments and criticism are much appreciated.

[Sciongrad]

Mitchell Ferris began tapping his fingers silently on the side of his head, while resting his chin in the palm of his hand. From the corner of his eye, he noticed what he perceived to be a particularly judgmental tumbleweed roll by, and proceeded to throw a stapler at it. The sound of the stapler colliding with the floor resonated through the chamber, and prompted several of the ambassadors in the room to look towards the source of the noise. Clearly embarrassed, Mitchell slummed in his seat, and resumed his submissive state of waiting.

[Mousebumples]

Well, I like it. However, I'm not so sure that it needs to be replaced, but I suppose that's an argument for a different thread ...

[Sciongrad]

Well, I like it. However, I'm not so sure that it needs to be replaced, but I suppose that's an argument for a different thread ...

While my delegation does have an interest in seeing a resolution that prevents the international commerce of faulty goods, it's not a project I plan on pursuing actively. I'm much more invested in trying to pass this repeal, and possibly tinkering with my proposed replacement in the future.

I'm very grateful for your Excellency's support, by the way!

[Mousebumples]

Well, I like it. However, I'm not so sure that it needs to be replaced, but I suppose that's an argument for a different thread ...

While my delegation does have an interest in seeing a resolution that prevents the international commerce of faulty goods, it's not a project I plan on pursuing actively. I'm much more invested in trying to pass this repeal, and possibly tinkering with my proposed replacement in the future.

I have some general ideas that need to be fleshed out, but the concept is completely different from what you're going with. Might I suggest just trying to start from scratch? It seems like you're trying to "fix" CPS, which is flawed in both concept and execution, to me. *shrugs* My general two-cents, at least.

[Sciongrad]

Alright, the replacement is on the back burner for now, and I've applied some of Ambassador Eberhart's suggestions to the draft, which I'll post for public perusal in the near future. In the mean time, are there any suggestions for the current repeal?

[Discoveria]

Seems okay. The only argument I'm particularly fussed about is the one about the definition of 'unsafe consumer product'. Looking at the original, a few nations did note that the definitions were too broad, notably Glen-Rhodes on debate thread page 8. I personally think that the definitions define ALL consumer products as unsafe, and therefore GA#139 is a terrible piece of legislation that should be repealed post-haste on this sole basis.

DEFINES a “consumer product” as any article, or component thereof, produced or distributed for a consumer to purchase, i.e. toys, automobiles, household chemicals, electronics etc.; however, exempts any article not customarily intended for use, enjoyment, or consumption by a consumer.

DEFINES an “unsafe consumer product” as any consumer product that can pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure a consumer while used properly and according to age / training / safety requirements;

The term "can injure a consumer" unfortunately applies to everything. For any given item there is a non-zero possibility that the consumer may be injured by it. If only someone had brought up this point in the drafting process...

[Louisistan]

Deputy Ambassador Schulz was annoyed. His nation had joined the WA days ago and the appointed ambassador had not spend a sing eminute on the floor. It seemed all he did was hang around in that bar. And again, he had to speak on behalf of Louisistan.
Mr. Ambassador, The Confederacy of Louisistan supports your effort to repeal this terrible piece of international law.

Schulz gestures angrily at an aid and speaks to him silently, yet obviuosly aggressive.

[Alqania]

Lord Raekevik was visibly shocked after reading through the targeted resolution. "Is it just me or does CPS actually ban the international trade of alcohol, a type of product which may clearly injure consumers when used properly? I do not think I even have to check with the Chancery before putting my stamp of approval on this repeal."

[Sciongrad]

Lord Raekevik was visibly shocked after reading through the targeted resolution. "Is it just me or does CPS actually ban the international trade of alcohol, a type of product which may clearly injure consumers when used properly? I do not think I even have to check with the Chancery before putting my stamp of approval on this repeal."

(Image)

Honestly, it's mind boggling to imagine that something so economically devastating and blatantly flawed could pass. This resolution actually bans the international trade of most products (as most products do pose at least the potential threat of injury when used properly); lighters, alcohol, vehicles, and even some medication would fall under the purview of GAR#139. Anyways, my delegation is humbled by your support, Lord Raekevik. I also appreciate the support of the ambassadors of Discoveria and Lousistan.

I plan on condensing the text a bit, but aside from aesthetic modification, I don't plan on changing any of the arguments. For those interested, I plan on submitting this within the next week or so.

[Sciongrad]

Submitted for a test run! Last call for suggestions.

[Sanctaria]

I don't have a problem with this repeal.

Though, on a personal note, I'd rather you waited until after I submitted the CPA replacement so we're not waiting a really long time for international legislation on child abuse...

But yeah. Support.

[Sciongrad]

I don't have a problem with this repeal.

Though, on a personal note, I'd rather you waited until after I submitted the CPA replacement so we're not waiting a really long time for international legislation on child abuse...

But yeah. Support.

I actually submitted this without planning to campaign for it with that in mind. A few weeks ago, I said this would be campaign for when I submitted it, but I didn't anticipate the whole CPA repeal and replace at the time. So yeah, I wouldn't worry about this getting in the way. As I've said before, best of luck, and many thanks for your support.

[Sciongrad]

Any last minute feedback? This will be submitted and campaigned for tomorrow at the minor update.

[Hallavia]

While I don't agree with this repeal, as I believe Consumer Product Safety is both effective and necessary, I belive it should be given a fair chance to pass because it is well written and presents its arguments effectively.

[Araraukar]

Any last minute feedback? This will be submitted and campaigned for tomorrow at the minor update.

I think you should leave it here for a little bit - it's been nearly half a year since this was up on first page. Give people more time to comment now that they're aware this thing exists.

[United Bobtopia]

It's considered unsightly to shout "yee-haw!" and fire off some rounds into the ceiling while in these halls, so instead I'll merely give it a restrained thumbs up, and go back to my whiskey.

Damn well written repeal. Wish it had a snowballs chance. The bit about lack of appeal process alone should, in a perfect world, be enough.

[Ossitania]

Support.

[Sciongrad]

Any last minute feedback? This will be submitted and campaigned for tomorrow at the minor update.

I think you should leave it here for a little bit - it's been nearly half a year since this was up on first page. Give people more time to comment now that they're aware this thing exists.

Ambassador, while I appreciate your concern, I feel that the issue with GAR#139 is irrefutable - the comments I had hoped to garner were either additional arguments or suggestions to improve the wording.

OOC: I don't have much IRL free time to campaign anymore, and seeing as the argument is clear and indisputable, I think submitting it now would be reasonable.

IC: I thank the ambassadors of United Bobtopia and Ossitania for their kind words.

[Koussath]

"Koussath supports this repeal. The poor language of GAR 139 renders the entire resolution meaningless."

[Auralia]

Support.

[San Leggera]

Support.
~Ambassador Hardcastle

[Splanger]

Supported. We have too much "nanny" legislation if you ask me.

[Spuddsvania]

Supported. We have too much "nanny" legislation if you ask me.

People these days should make universal laws that don't control our interior affairs, very good point

[Erasmania]

Seems okay. The only argument I'm particularly fussed about is the one about the definition of 'unsafe consumer product'. Looking at the original, a few nations did note that the definitions were too broad, notably Glen-Rhodes on debate thread page 8. I personally think that the definitions define ALL consumer products as unsafe, and therefore GA#139 is a terrible piece of legislation that should be repealed post-haste on this sole basis.

DEFINES a “consumer product” as any article, or component thereof, produced or distributed for a consumer to purchase, i.e. toys, automobiles, household chemicals, electronics etc.; however, exempts any article not customarily intended for use, enjoyment, or consumption by a consumer.

DEFINES an “unsafe consumer product” as any consumer product that can pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure a consumer while used properly and according to age / training / safety requirements;

The term "can injure a consumer" unfortunately applies to everything. For any given item there is a non-zero possibility that the consumer may be injured by it. If only someone had brought up this point in the drafting process...

GAR #139 specifies that the CPSC will "maintain international consumer product safety standards". This clearly and really unarguably implies that consumer products that have inordinately low chances of risk when used properly will not be added to their repertoire of consumer products that qualify as "unsafe". Thus, the CPSC can review products brought before them, and these standards can be raised or lowered as appropriate. Erasmania would also like to remind the reading audience that these standards will be made by the CPSC, not WA member nations, so the clause cannot be used as a loophole by would-be non compliant member nations. While all consumer products do have a non-zero chance of harming the consumer and therefore qualifying for the admittedly flawed definition of an unsafe consumer product, the standards set by the CPSC act as a fail-safe for businesses that feel their product has been unjustifiably classed as unsafe in a lawsuit.

While the lack of an appeals process is troubling, more troubling is the fact that no alternative has been offered, and thus the coming consumer safety act could be even more flawed in its conception, or in the worst case scenario no alternative could be presented at all (or that alternative could be voted down). For these reasons, Erasmania has voted AGAINST the proposed repeal and is hoping to see the close vote swing back into failure once more.