this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
448 points (93.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43947 readers
874 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
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
I would imagine it has most to do that those people world have extremely hard time surviving winter outside in NYC.
The proposition 65 aka The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, actually is much more successful at reducing harmful toxic chemicals and affects other states too. Businesses are encouraged to change formulations so they don't have to use the label.
Here's list of chemicals that require such label: https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/chemicals
What you saw, likely was businesses trying to fight it, by being to opaque about it, and make it ridiculous (since there's no penalty for overusing it, and they are doing which results as you pointed out that waters it down) for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65#/media/File%3ADisneyland_Prop_65_Warning_crop.jpg
Although since enforcement is done via civil lawsuits. If they served food or something that did contain these chemicals, a sign like this won't be a good defense that they complied and warned their patrons.
They also trying different ways, like introducing bills on federal level to block it for example https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6022/text
They are trying also via lawsuits, which meant are filled on behalf of strawman. Many businesses were created just for the purpose of filing prop 65 lawsuits.
Though probably biggest issue is that the prop 65 is being used for frivolous lawsuits (as anyone can sue for not informing and get a settlement because no one wants a trial). So now AG needs to approve such settlements to reduce it. There were attempts to reform it.
So yeah frivolous lawsuits are the biggest issue that needs addressing, but other than that the law actually helped reduce exposure to those chemicals not only for Californians but also people from other states.
75% of LA’s population lives outdoors? Is that a typo, because it’s obviously not true. Even the 6% you state for New York seems very unlikely.
Contextually it’s clear they are speaking of the homeless population.
Is it? They wrote “75% of LA’s population”.
Sorry I didn't really pay attention to the numbers, but willing to believe CA would have it higher than NY just purely, because of the weather. Yeah, it is ridiculous.