[striking]

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

> In compliance with the Montreal Protocol, its manufacture was banned in developed countries (non-article 5 countries) in 1996, and in developing countries (Article 5 countries) in 2010 out of concerns about its damaging effect on the ozone layer.

Seems a reasonable regulation to me.

[prepend]

Not reasonable if it prevents the minuscule amounts required for inhalers.

A more nuanced regulation would limit the production volume if there are still valid use cases.

[striking]

The sentence immediately after the quoted section provides additional nuance, reading as follows:

> Its only allowed usage is as a fire retardant in submarines and aircraft.

There is no reason to continue the use of R-12 in inhalers when R-134a is a drop-in replacement, though you're welcome to do your own research if you still disagree with the legislation.

[multimoon]

> There is no reason to continue the use of R-12 in inhalers when R-134a is a drop-in replacement, though you're welcome to do your own research if you still disagree with the legislation.

I disagree with that statement. As mentioned above if it causes the drug companies to be able to re-patent the same drug again at 20x the price, then it’s not a drop-in replacement.

If this is a propellant used in life-saving medicine and this regulation increased the price then it’s a bad regulation, period. If there’s already an exception to be used as a fire retardant then medical applications can be included in there as well. The immeasurable output from an inhaler isn’t going to damage the ozone layer.

Over time you can migrate the production to the newer chemical and still achieve the same effect without hiking the price, since the drug companies won’t charge 20x the price if the cheaper generic still exists.

Politicians unfortunately do this all the time where they create a regulation without going through an analysis of tangentially related cause and effect.

[jncfhnb]

The problem is the patent, not the regulation

[multimoon]

You’re correct that the patent should’ve never been awarded, but the regulation still caused a problem today - something that could’ve been avoided if a cause-effect analysis was done. This is a problem statement that is applicable to most regulation today.

This is why blanket bans are almost always bad.

[jncfhnb]

That logic cuts both ways as a tool to prevent important regulation that harms a small interest for the public benefit.

[CaliforniaKarl]

You might not get the price-benefits you expect.

If the only remaining allowed use for R-12 is in inhalers, the manufacturing volume might be so low that you end up in a similar situation to today: Fewer manufacturers (likely just one), higher prices, and supply-chain issues.