Jim: Here are some embryonic ramblings on a couple of your points. I don't pretend, of course, that they can be discussed exhaustively in a short time. > I would have filed a lawsuit based > on the "takings" clause (5th amendment), because it would have > destroyed the > value of several injection molds worth over $200,000. If such a law passed > today, my company won't suffer, but you can bet that a > significant number of > the 15 million or so businesses in the country will, and they > will file such lawsuits. I think your example assumes a worst-case scenario with respect to directed metrication. I don't think any of us would want laws so draconian that they would require replacement of expensive equipment that was not yet fully depreciated. Yes, of course, it could happen. Even worse things have. However, in this case, I think the drafting of any possible legislation might have vested interests working in your favor (or, in this case, in favor of those who are in the same position you were in some years ago). > Finally, ignoring the Constitution, how many of you really think a person > should have their life's savings destroyed and/or be thrown in > jail because they prefer to label a box in pounds? This one is trickier. However, one could cite many examples of laws which subject those who flout them to a small fine, initially. Repeated offenses usually lead to larger fines. And so on. Remember, though, that the issue is not one of private sale, but of the sale of goods in the public marketplace. I see nothing wrong with compelling large corporations (e.g., Gillette) to package and label in SI units (particularly as they have already shown they are capable of doing so in other markets) The other end of the scale (flea markets, garage sales, etc.) is obvious. Only a zealot would require them to conform. Mom and Pop operations are less clear and would, I think, require a fairly tolerant approach. However, as much of what such operations sell is produced by large companies, the onus would be on the large companies to conform. I would hope that older, non-perishable items, still in inventory, would be exempt. The Sunderland case is an interesting one, though. Only loose goods (fruit and vegetables) were involved, so there was no existing non-SI inventory. As I remember, the trader involved also owned a couple of metric scales, but stubbornly insisted on using his non-metric scales, even after receiving fair warning. With the BWMA's support, he did of course choose to take a stand on the issue. Overall, though, I think that case has made a great deal of news because it's the exception. I think we can assume that the BWMA will continue to look for and publicize exceptions (and, possibly, even "manufacture" some exceptions to bolster their position). Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
