| Pages:
1
2 |
evil_lurker
National Hazard
Posts: 767
Registered: 12-3-2005
Location: United States of Elbonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: On the wagon again.
|
|
The entire problem ain't what you can sell and to who. Thats pretty much defined in the DEA lists and CPSC list of banned chemicals.
I'm willing to sell anything that can be legally sold to anyone. However, the problem is that the government wants to hold the chemical suppliers
accountable for the actions of their customers.
Thats what I'm going to have to do, figure out how to cover my ass.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Firearms manufacturers have had to deal with that one.....they had to get a herd of lawyers and sponser a few Bills in the House and Senate.
And while that type of scapegoating is deplorable, cheap, & spineless it seems to be the way of things. Just look at the CPSC issues with
pyrotechnics; a perfect case-in-point. 
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm willing to sell anything that can be legally sold to anyone. However, the problem is that the government wants to hold the chemical suppliers
accountable for the actions of their customers. |
Can't that be covered by an end user license agreement (EULA)? The buyer waives his right to complain against you if the chemical is used outside the
scope described in the EULA? Software companies do this all the time. Even my Acros catalogue has a similar selling condition.
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
