The labels are there to encourage businesses to seek different formulations, as product with labels will sell worse than one without.
The enforcement is done via civil suit so placing label that makes it hard for ordinary person to reasonably avoid exposure won’t fly in court with jurors being those same people.
Ok so you made me check. None of ceramic cups I have in my cupboard has this warning.
I see it is still listed: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals/ceramic-fibers-airborne-particles-respirable-size
So either these companies are violation of the law or (more likely) their product to comply.
Also keep in mind that prop 65’s name is: The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986
One of the main goals is to protect our water from pollution, which even if the cups aren’t carcinogenic when aren’t broken the use of the chemical to produce it will likely end up in water due to production process. Also the chemical will be exposed to the environment once the cup is tossed away (especially after it breaks)
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.
The houseless problem seems extremely poorly managed. I lived in NYC for six years and have visited California a few times. From my experiences, both SF and LA appear to have much larger populations living outdoors (I checked and this is true, 75% of LA’s population vs 6% in NYC, and the cities are comparable in both population and houseless population).
I would imagine it has most to do that those people world have extremely hard time surviving winter outside in NYC.
California as a state and population seems to be at least as much bluster as action. I don’t want to detract from some real actions, like car electrification requirements, but for example, prop 65, the “known to the state of California to cause cancer” labels. A) California seems to “know” many things that science does not. B) no one pays any attention to these labels, but they sure cost a lot to produce C) if anything, this will cause people to ignore future warnings for real things or even current ones like on cigarettes.
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.
That sounds like you are just repeating what you heard in conservative media.
I mean, you said that you just visited San Francisco, once, but you are so versed in Californian legislature and that it is a nanny state.
Most people out of the state who complain about California, never lived here, they are just repeating what they heard on conservative media.
If it was a hell hole like they say, the property prices would be cheap, no one would want them.
Most people that are leaving, are leaving because they got priced out and cannot afford to stay.
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.