Gene Mechtly alluded to this but let me state it more clearly. First, the U.S. Constitution reserves coinage and the setting of weights and measures to the federal government. The federal government sellectively applies this power by exerting certain requirements in packaging and labeling, including quantity indications, on certain categories of goods. Those goods not so regulated are available to the states to regulate. By "states", I include other and diverse jurisdictions such as American Samoa and the District of Columbia. Most states either adopt the UPLR model developed by the NCWM automatically, adopt it by legislative or regulatory action, or at least look at it when they develop their laws and regulations --- but, again, only on a portion of those goods available fo them to control. That leaves a plethora of goods not regulated by any jurisdiction and the results are often obvious: "bales of pine straw", "bundles of firewood", and so forth.
My page at http://www.metricmethods.com/UPLR.html elaborates a bit. Jim On Saturday 2003 December 06 13:55, Brian J White wrote: > Federal Law usurps State Law. > > The states can do what they want, but if a Federal Law speaks to the same > issue, then the Federal Law renders the State Law all but useless. > See all the states that allow medicinal marijuana and get hassled by the > Feds as an example. > > At 13:42 2003-12-06 -0500, Mighty Chimp wrote: > >We are not talking about metric being legal for general use, but metric > > only labelling on products sold in the market place. > > > >It is only legal for a label to contain a metric only contents declaration > >in those states that have automatically adopted the UPLR. Those that > > didn't or don't plan to, have to wait for the FPLA to be amended. This > > should never be. Congress should never be involved in contents of > > packaging labels. That should be the decision of the UPLR authorities. > > If the majority of states adopt the UPLR, then it should be binding in > > all states and territories. This situation allows the minority of states > > that don't adopt the UPLR to hold the majority hostage. > > > >No company is going to have two sets of labels for the US market. One set > >of metric only for the states that allow metric only labels and a second > >dual set for those that don't. Therefore these companies are at the mercy > >of the minority that don't automatically adopt the UPLR. > > > >The question then that I have for Jim and those who might know, is what > > are the chances of getting the minority states to adapt the UPLR as it > > is? Would that be simpler then waiting for the FPLA to be amended? > > > >Euric > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Phil Chernack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Friday, 2003-12-05 10:01 > >Subject: [USMA:27771] RE: UPLR > > > > > Not withstanding the map below, you need to understand that all states > > > pretty much have the same law permitting the use of customary and > > > metric units. Just because a state did not adopt the UPLR does not > > > mean the > > > >state > > > > > does not permit metric only labelling. Examples: > > > > > > New Jersey Statutes > > > Title 51 Standard Weights and Measures > > > 51:1-3. Use of both systems > > > The inch-pound system of weights and measures in customary use in > > > the United States and the metric system or System International (SI) of > > > >weights > > > > > and measures are jointly recognized, and one or the other, or both, of > > > >these > > > > > systems shall be used for all purposes in this State. The definitions > > > of basic units of weight and measure, the tables of weights and > > > measures , > > > >and > > > > > the weights and measures equivalents, as published by the National > > > Bureau > > > >of > > > > > Standards, are recognized and shall govern weighing and measuring > > > >equipment > > > > > and transactions in this State. It is the intent of the Legislature > > > that nothing in this section shall mandate the exclusive use of SI; > > > however, > > > >its > > > > > use within this State is encouraged. > > > > > > > > > Pennsylvania > > > Chapter 41 Weights and Measures > > > 4105. Systems of weights and measures. > > > The system of weights and measures in customary use in the United > > > States > > > >and > > > > > the metric system of weights and measures are jointly recognized, and > > > one > > > >or > > > > > both of these systems shall be used for all commercial purposes in this > > > Commonwealth. The definitions of basic units of weight and measure, the > > > tables of weight and measure and weights and measures equivalents as > > > published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology are > > > recognized and shall govern weighing and measuring equipment and > > > transactions within this Commonwealth. > > > > > > New York > > > � 177. Authorized systems of weights and measures; basic units. 1. > > > The metric system of weights and measures and the system of > > > weights and measures in customary use in the United States are jointly > > > recognized, and either system shall be used for all commercial > > > purposes within the state. However, the International Metric System > > > ("SI"), as defined in the Metric Conversion Act of nineteen > > > hundred seventy-five (Public Law 94-168) and as such definition may > > > hereafter be amended, is hereby adopted as the preferred system > > > within the state. > > > 2. The definitions of basic units of weight and measure, the tables > > > of weight and measure, and weights and measures equivalents as > > > published by the national bureau of standards or its successor > > > organization, the national institute of standards and technology, of > > > the United States department of commerce are recognized and > > > shall govern weighing and measuring equipment and transactions in the > > > state. > > > > > > > > > As I stated above, all states have such clauses in their weights and > > > measures statues, thus making the metric system totally legal for any > > > purpose. > > > > > > Nuff said. > > > > > > Phil > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Behalf > > > >Of > > > > > Mighty Chimp > > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:56 PM > > > To: U.S. Metric Association > > > Subject: [USMA:27769] UPLR > > > > > > > > > > > > Figure 1. States that allow metric-only labelling (2002-11-01) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I found this map in an NIST document which can be accessed by clicking > > > on this link. It is a PDF file: > > > > > > http://www.ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/forum/forumreport.pdf > > > > > > The map can be found on page 12. From it we can see that as of last > > > November, the states in yellow are the only ones that have to wait for > > > the FPLA to be amended. The rest, the majority) already permit metric > > > only labelling. If these few states would just adopt the UPLR, there > > > would be > > > >no > > > > > need to worry about the FPLA. It is too bad that if a majority of > > > states accept the UPLR, it should be valid in all. The present > > > situation legally allows one state to hold the other 49 hostage. > > > > > > Euric -- James R. Frysinger Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist Senior Member, IEEE http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: Physics Lab Manager, Lecturer Dept. of Physics and Astronomy University/College of Charleston 66 George Street Charleston, SC 29424 843.953.7644 (phone) 843.953.4824 (FAX) Home: 10 Captiva Row Charleston, SC 29407 843.225.0805
