About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Stats


  • Check Google Page Rank

« California license plates -- a metaphor for the state? | Main | 2012 resolutions/goals »

January 01, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834522c6369e20168e4d2ae09970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An example of California's useless over-regulation as what not to emulate:

Comments

William Woody

It's worse than that. Because Proposition 65 does not penalize for posting a warning when no such chemicals are known to exist, but does penalize if a known chemical exists and the public is not warned about it, it is easier for a property owner to just post the Proposition 65 warning that the premises "may" contain nasty stuff, even if no such chemicals are known to exist.

Thus you'll see Prop 65 warnings at the entrances of shopping malls and office buildings where it is illegal to smoke indoors, and where normally no such chemicals would ever be present at any level of concentration that requires a warning.

In addition, if you go to California's web site, some of the "chemicals" which require a Proposition 65 warning include "Alcoholic beverages", "Aspirin" and "Salted Fish (Chinese-style)". So a Prop 65 sign on grocery stores is pretty standard, since they generally sell aspirin and alcoholic beverages--and on pharmacies, where oral contraceptives (also on the Prop 65 list) are sold.

So needless to say, Prop 65 warnings are pretty much universally ignored by those of us living in California.

(Here's the current list of chemicals that require Proposition 65 warnings. http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single111811.pdf)

JTW

And in addition to that the levels at which warning signs are required are (often?) so ridiculously low as to be 1) utterly benign, 2) completely undetectable, and/or 3) far below naturally occuring levels.

Prop 65 is the world's laughing stock.

The comments to this entry are closed.