I recently moved to California. Before i moved, people asked me “why are you moving there, its so bad?”. Now that I’m here, i understand it less. The state is beautiful. There is so much to do.

I know the cost of living is high, and people think the gun control laws are ridiculous (I actually think they are reasonable, for the most part). There is a guy I work with here that says “the policies are dumb” but can’t give me a solid answer on what is so bad about it.

So, what is it that California does (policy-wise) that people hate so much?

  • DeepFriedDresden@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    The biggest issue with Prop 65 is that the lost of chemicals includes things that cause cancer under specific conditions that consumers aren’t likely to encounter and chemicals only known to cause cancer in animals. Ceramic fiber is a listed chemical, which means you need a Prop 65 label on ceramic mugs, even though ceramic fiber exposure would only occur upon breaking the mug and the effects would be negligible unless you’re crushing mugs up into powder and railing the lines like Tony Montana.

    • takeda@szmer.info
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ok so you made me check. None of ceramic cups I have in my cupboard has this warning.

      I see it is still listed: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals/ceramic-fibers-airborne-particles-respirable-size

      So either these companies are violation of the law or (more likely) their product to comply.

      Also keep in mind that prop 65’s name is: The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986

      One of the main goals is to protect our water from pollution, which even if the cups aren’t carcinogenic when aren’t broken the use of the chemical to produce it will likely end up in water due to production process. Also the chemical will be exposed to the environment once the cup is tossed away (especially after it breaks)

      • DeepFriedDresden@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s a picture of a mug on the Wikipedia page with the warning.

        Furthermore, Prop 65’s name isn’t all it does. The Prop 65 labels you see in products are there because of the second part of the act. “No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose” anyone to those chemicals “without first giving clear and reasonable warning.”

        That’s what the warning labels are for. It has little to do with the production process and disposal process, and is there to warn the consumer of the final product being purchased and what it contains.

    • Repple (she/her)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, this is essentially what I mean about the difference between science and california’s knowledge. The warning labels are directed at humans using the products, so one would hope that the warnings would be for things that would have some reasonable chance of causing cancer to humans using the product but that’s usually not true.

      • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Don’t forget industry purposely overusing the tag to both a) water down it’s effectiveness and b) try to weasel out of any future lawsuits with that particular product.

        Truth be told, the law needs to be rewritten now that loopholes/exploits have been found. Humans make mistakes when writing the laws. We just need to do some tuning.

      • takeda@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The labels are there to encourage businesses to seek different formulations, as product with labels will sell worse than one without.

        The enforcement is done via civil suit so placing label that makes it hard for ordinary person to reasonably avoid exposure won’t fly in court with jurors being those same people.