To Regulate or not to Regulate? That isn't even a Question.

When faced with possible regulation, business hollers and writhes at the prospect. "It will hamper innovation" they claim. "Jobs will be shed!" others chime in. Still others apprise of costs being transferred to customers. They claim they can regulate themselves in a free market economy. "Quit tampering where you don't belong, big government!"

So what do they use as an excuse when children's toys are found to contain over 90% cadmium, a known carncinogen? This metal isn't regulated for jewelry!

You can't have it both ways. If you're against regulation, then you're against it even when it bites you in the ass from your ignorance.

Walmart and Dollar Stores followed up the lead fiasco with cadmium imports. Cadmium is a toxic metal, not the latest Toyota sedan.

The alternative to regulation is to wait for business to go too far with respect to consumer protection, environmental stewardship or deceitful practices and wait for the public backlash. But the truth is that this is far more costly for both industry and consumers. We can set tolerable guidelines where our kids don't turn retarded from unregulated imports and yet balance sheets can still show a profit.

source: