this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
445 points (93.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
580 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There we go. This is what I was looking for.
Prop 65 is definitely useless. But I don't see that as a reason to move out of the state.
The whole thing that prompted me to ask was that I was told some people left the state for Montana because of the "policies" but I couldn't get a good answer on which policies they disagreed with.
Homelessness is certainly a problem here that's worse than most places. But it's still a problem everywhere you go.
Yeah, I donβt think anything I said would be a good reason to move away, but then again, CA is probably one of the top 5ish states I would live in.
It's far from useless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65#Accomplishments
It forced companies to reformulate their products to use less harmful chemicals to avoid having to use the label. And it was highly successful at that, not only in California but outside, because businesses don't want the labels on their products. Especially food products or products meant for kids.
What you see is malicious compliance from businesses as there is no penalty for putting the sign if there's no dangerous chemicals. If they put it often enough, then most people think this law is ridiculous. For example. If Disney would get a civil lawsuit (this is how the law is enforced), because for example one their restaurants were using dangerous chemicals, this sign won't protect them. So it serves no other purpose than to make it appear that the law is pointless.
Other ways they fight it is trying to pass federal law banning it, they had several attempts.
They also making strawman lawsuits, even creating companies specially for the lawsuit to show that this law hurts business.