Why does everything shipped to California cause cancer and reproductive harm?

[Saul Goodman]

I was (almost) involved for a bit in a business and when they tried to ship to CA they ran into difficulties doing so because of package labeling. I did a little research and pretty much every product has to have a label on the package saying this product causes cancer in CA. You can't ship to CA without this warning on the label. So, causes cancer just in California and doesn't cause cancer in all 51 other states? I then noticed my Spectrum webmail has not one, but two California privacy labels. Don't move to California I said to my other self, you will die of cancer and all your secrets will be known. Now I don't know now if I want to visit Yosemite. Might just die of cancer with my secrets out of pocket. Which there are. Many. 

[velorush]

If you're seriously wanting to know (and not just having a fun yet therapeutic rant): Proposition 65, passed in 1986.  

[Dave Scepter]

You're opening up a whole political can of worms... 😒

As for Yosemite, it's freaking awesome, but I still wouldn't visit it because it's WAY overcrowded... perhaps it's just me, but when I want to visit a National Park, I don't want to stand in line waiting for anything... I just want to stroll around, hike, camp by myself, breathe in the fresh air, relax and let it all soak in

Edited yesterday at 07:21 PM by Dave Scepter

[Jimbilly]

something to do with lawyers who desire yachts, would be my guess

[velorush]

1 hour ago, Dave Scepter said:

You're opening up a whole political can of worms... 😒

 

Seriously, I lost count of how many sentences I typed then deleted after I typed "... 1986." There is literally nothing else I could type that wouldn't have been worthy of a Moderator warning - and who needs any of that?

One of the great things about the HFC and I will absolutely do my best to keep it that way. 

[Saul Goodman]

22 hours ago, velorush said:

If you're seriously wanting to know (and not just having a fun yet therapeutic rant): Proposition 65, passed in 1986.  

Well, I read Prop 65. What a load of horse shit. Now explain why people in CA need so many privacy notices and those in the other 56 states don't.

[velorush]

1 hour ago, Saul Goodman said:

Well, I read Prop 65. What a load of horse shit. Now explain why people in CA need so many privacy notices and those in the other 56 states don't.

Off the top of my head and with much self-editing on the fly:

In the 80's those in power considered it beneficial to the general populace to propose warnings to consumers about possible environmental risks (the official name was The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986). In an abundance of caution, their consideration was deeper and included risks more acute than those typical of other consumer-facing regulatory and advocacy groups. The administration proposed the idea to the general public and the general public voted overwhelmingly (63% for vs. 37% against) to enact the Proposal and so it was put in place. 

That is my attempt to provide the factual information free of any political commentary whatsoever.  

[Dave Scepter]

2 hours ago, Saul Goodman said:

Well, I read Prop 65. What a load of horse shit. Now explain why people in CA need so many privacy notices and those in the other 56 states don't.

Ugh 😵‍💫

Edited 9 minutes ago by Dave Scepter