The intent of Prop 65 is that if you have any of those chemicals you have to declare them. But in practice few businesses will spend to prove the negative and expose themselves to misrepresentation charges, and so label everything as maybe containing substances known to cause cancer. So the intent is completely defeated by poorly drafted legislation.
Paul On Sat, Mar 7, 2026, 9:21 a.m. Frank D. Engel, Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > At least here in the USA, the packaging of a great many products carries > warning labels that the products contain substances "known to the state of > California to cause cancer". The state evidently has a list of over 900 > chemicals and anything sold in the state that contains one of those > chemicals must have such a warning label on it. These labels are on > practically everything, to the point of absurdity. > > Search for "Proposition 65" on Google (or other search engine of choice) > and look at a few of the articles that come up. I'm hardly the only one to > have noticed this. > > > There is also a locality within California where they made it illegal to > wear cowboy boots unless you own at least two cows. Hardly the only place > to have insane laws, but California seems to take it to another level > sometimes. > > > > On 3/5/26 19:49, hahahahacker2009 wrote: > > Vào 15:39, CN, 1 Th3, 2026 Frank D. Engel, Jr. <[email protected]> đã > viết: > >> The best solution is probably to move to a different state. >> >> I would never want to live in California. Too many things are known to >> cause cancer there. >> > > Can you elaborate? > > >> >> On 2/26/26 10:13, Calvin via 9fans wrote: >> > What happens next is country X decides you must do one thing, and >> country Y decides you do another, and you come to TECHNICAL problems and >> BUSINESS problems and ETHICAL problems trying to comply with varying laws >> in every nation, state, and municipality. >> > >> > The only answer is to distance yourself and engage in mockery. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thursday, February 26th, 2026 at 9:18 AM, [email protected] >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> >> I am writing to ask whether there has been any discussion regarding >> California AB 1043 and its age assurance requirements that take effect >> January 1, 2027. The law appears to require applications to request and >> honor an operating system or app store age bracket signal at download or >> launch. Since Plan 9 and 9front do not have an app store model, it is not >> clear how such a requirement would even be satisfied in this ecosystem. >> >> >> >> Has there been any consideration of whether this law applies to >> distributed Plan 9 or 9front software, or whether maintainers intend to >> take a specific position? I would appreciate any insight into how the >> community is thinking about this. >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> Vester "Vic" Thacker >> > ------------------------------------------ >> > 9fans: 9fans >> > Permalink: >> https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T75f981946d8422d1-Mb78bbdfe1e7996ca8fab832d >> > Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription > *9fans <https://9fans.topicbox.com/latest>* / 9fans / see discussions > <https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans> + participants > <https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/members> + delivery options > <https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription> Permalink > <https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T75f981946d8422d1-Mffa110bf9df7e9517cf0ceae> > ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T75f981946d8422d1-Mddd847048ba33b90a010bfb1 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
