"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom > wrote
>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>> JoeSpareBedroom > wrote
>>>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom > wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom > wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed > wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>> OK. The ship arrives, and through some magic, we discover a
>>>>>>>>>> container of poisoned toothpaste. Physically, it's already in the
>>>>>>>>>> country. Now what? Tell the shipper to take it somewhere else?
>
>>>>>>>>> Depends on what 'poisoned' involves.
>
>>>>>>>>> With the fish, its just some downsides that the US claims about
>>>>>>>>> the use of antibiotics etc and plenty of countrys have
>>>>>>>>> different attitudes about the use of those in the food
>>>>>>>>> production industrys, so legally you cant destroy it just
>>>>>>>>> because its illegal in the US.
>
>>>>>>>> Let's stick with diethylene glycol, since all sentient beings know
>>>>>>>> it is not fit for human consumption.
>
>>>>>>> Pity that you havent established that its use in toothpaste
>>>>>>> constitutes POISON that results in hospitalisation of anyone.
>
>>>>>>>> What EXACTLY do you think should be done if (for example) a
>>>>>>>> container of nasty cough syrup was about to be offloaded from a
>>>>>>>> ship onto American soil?
>
>>>>>>> It doesnt show up in cough syrup.
>
>>>>>> It has not shown up HERE in cough syrup (yet). It HAS shown up in
>>>>>> other countries, and the cough syrup has killed people. This is
>>>>>> why I'm asking you to explain what you think should happen if a
>>>>>> product like that arrived in a shipping container and was
>>>>>> discovered before being distributed.
>
>>>>> Wouldnt happen, because its just not feasible to inspect at anything
>>>>> like a high enough rate to catch something that rarely seen.
>
>>>> I didn't ask you about the probability of it being spotted. I'm aware
>>>> of the fact that we only inspect a tiny fraction of incoming goods.
>
>>>> I asked what you personally think should be done to poisoned cough
>>>> syrup arriving at one of our ports.
>
>>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
>>> irrelevant.
>
>>> You might as well try asking what should happen if a shipment of food is
>>> found to have been deliberately contaminated with some deadly poison by
>>> Al Quaeda etc. No relevance what so ever to what is being discussed,
>>> what should be done with a shipment found to not meet US food quality
>>> standards etc but which is legal to import into other countrys.
>
>> Let me guess:
>
> Guess when ready, Griddley. You're always welcome
> to make a spectacular fool of yourself whenever you like.
>
>> You're one of those guys who think it's utterly
>> pointless to discuss hypothetical situations,
>
> Nope. In fact you will find using groups.google that I discuss those quite
> a bit.
>
>> even those which have occurred elsewhere exactly as I've described.
>
>> No hypotheticals for you, right?
>
> Wrong.
>
> Its just got no relevance to what was being discussed, just another of
> your silly little stunts.
>


It's 100% relevant. But, you are uncomfortable answering the question. I'm
not sure why, but I seem to recall your suggesting in the past that because
the poisoned goods still belong to the shipper, we have no legal right to
destroy them. I suspect you're clinging to that idea, but you have realized
that the idea has a major Achilles heel.