[smsm42]

> Why do you think those items are labeled?

Because labeling cost is close to zero, and cost of drive-by lawsuit is much higher, and the prop 65 is written in a way that practically invites drive-by lawsuits.

> But what would you know about this since you're incapable of reading laws.

That you for going ah hominem so quickly, otherwise people may think you had a valid argument. Unlike you, I lived in California and witnessed the consequences of it - e.g. pervasive prop 65 warnings on practically every building open to the public and most of the goods that theoretically could contain even one molecule of any substance that could theoretically be linked to any harm. I.e. pretty much all of them. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65...

[lesuorac]

https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/crn...

> The Act prohibits any person in the course of doing business from knowingly discharging or releasing a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water or onto or into land where it passes or probably will pass into a source of drinking water.

And you can't dump any of that stuff into a river to dispose of it anymore. I'm not sure why you seem to be in favor of a company dumping coffee cups into a river.

[smsm42]

You seem to pretend to be dense on purpose, so I'll try one last time to explain it to you as simple as possible, in the very slim hope that you have trouble understanding my point and not just trolling.

What this legislation was purported to do has very little to do with what ended up happening once it was enacted. What it caused is massive proliferation of useless warnings about presence of dangerous chemicals on pretty much every public place (I had multiple prop 65 warnings in apartment building I lived in, because it had an underground parking, cars emit dangerous chemicals, those chemicals may accumulate in the air and walls of the structure, and you could be affected by it) and many goods, while vast majority of places and goods so marked posed absolutely no danger, and for ones that did the warning was useless, because everything is marked with this warning so people just ignore it. It also created a situation where failure to post such warning posed a significant risk of being sued - not by actual victims of pollution, but by opportunist law firms hiring straw plaintiffs to cash in on the situation. Nothing of this has absolutely anything to do with dumping anything into rivers - despite the legislation mentioning rivers, there are other parts of the legislation, not mentioning rivers, that led to the above described effects.

This is common knowledge to anybody who lived in California for any significant time - prop 65 warnings are literally everywhere.