Not sure I agree with the prohibition of these substances... but legislation doesn't have to be written quite so naively as that. You can ban unnamed, similar chemicals at the same time.

They already do this for Schedule I drugs (not that I agree with that either). They finally got fed up with adding new designer drugs to the schedule, and there's an entry that says something like "any similar chemical substance that causes the same pharmaceutical effects as a Schedule I drug or is used for such effects or has a similar chemical structure".

I definitely don't agree with that clause when it comes to drug enforcement, but if a good case could be made that PFAS should be banned, then adding that clause to preemptively block PFAS-alikes that are just a couple atoms away from the original formula doesn't seem excessive to me. And, if somehow it should be excessive (the change fixes all the problems we might have with PFAS substances), then let them argue that to Congress.

Exemptions for producing small amounts for research, obviously.

If Congress didn't do this, if they're not doing that... then they're just bad at the one thing they're supposed to be doing: writing effective legislation.

> legislation doesn't have to be written quite so naively as that

It will be written by think tanks behind lobbyists for industry interests that donate to campaigns.

> the one thing [Congress is] supposed to be doing

. . . is getting reelected. We do not elect them because of competency in law-writing or even in voting for their constituencies' interests. We elect them because they spend lots of money to tell us how monstrous "the other choice" is.

> and there's an entry that says something like "any similar chemical substance that causes the same pharmaceutical effects

The problem is that these PFAS chemicals do things that are useful, and banning any future useful inventions isn't nearly as desirable.

You wouldn't be banning that... You'd be banning substances that have similar harmful environmental effects.

Let industry and the courts argue what exactly harms the environment or is too similar. But industry will think twice about using anything similar because to do so they'd have to take on a court battle to prove whatever they decide to use isn't harmful despite being similar.

And a blanket ban does not prevent you adding a carveout in the future if the next PFAS turns out to be a magical chemical capable of bending space and time.

I’m with Gorsuch in thinking the Federal Analogue Act(banning designer drugs) is unconstitutional nor is it good policy, but if the majority want it why not pass similar legislation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act

Or instead of outright banning pass onerous taxes so that it’s only used in applications that absolutely must have it and not every throw away piece of clothing and wrapper.

Giving the DEA or another executive agency more authority here seems like a terrible idea but sometimes I’m not in the majority and I understand that.

It’s wild so much money and effort go to policing drugs people want to voluntarily consume while next to nothing by comparison is done to police pollution that entire towns who involuntarily affected by, for far longer, and often to far worse effect.

It's much easier for companies to influence politicians than it is for a diffuse group of people. Companies have a much more direct line between lobbying successes and increased profits so have an easy time justifying the efforts internally where citizen lobbying groups have to draw lines between diffuse harms and losses to the possibility of preventing those for a larger group of people and convince them to support the lobbying operations.