Calolfornia

[Blarg]

Could cause and does is a huge gulf to cross in terms of justification of a regulation that will cause reduction in sales of a product. 

[mtangelsfan]

9 minutes ago, red321 said:

Do you think that consumers should be warned about chemicals in a product that could cause cancer?

In this case the issue is probably less the law than how it is being interpreted (or how coffee consumption) was defended in court. Or rather maybe the law should be clarified that a notice outside the facility is appropriate as compared to having to stamp each container.

 

Come on red, how many things "could" cause cancer?  There are no studies that show drinking coffee causes cancer.  The law is written in such a way that the vendor has to prove that their product is safe.  That is stupid and again, will drive businesses away.

It is the law of unintended consequences and got beer is right, every beach, swimming pool and outdoor park should have notices saying that the sun can cause cancer.

[Thomas]

And here I thought the actual coffee was the healthiest thing at Starbucks compared to all the fatty and sugary ingredients in everything else.

[red321]

The law was written in 2002, not last week and it appears a little organization decided to file a lawsuit (see lawyers trying to make money).

Coffee does include a carcinogen and companies fighting being sued by an outside organization (see not the state of California) were unable to provide the appropriate data to the judge...hence my statement that how the law was being interpreted by the judge was incorrect or the law might need clarification.

Got beers example makes perfect sense, if someone invents away to bottle up the sun and sell it as a contained product...oh wait...they do post warnings in front of tanning salons.

 

I'm not arguing that this ruling isn't silly, or that the law doesn't need tweaking...just pointing out that there's more to the story than the headline

[Blarg]

14 minutes ago, red321 said:

Over the past year the administration has

* instituted a muslim travel ban
* rescinded DACA
* ended TPS status for residents from a number of countries
* significantly changed priorities for how people were detained (separating families)
* change in focus for enforcement, focusing less on serious criminal offenders and taking a broader approach
* significant changes in how/where ICE agents conduct raids, including schools and courthouses
* identified plans to expand detention of immigrants in facilities vs. catch and release
* pushed the idea of a ridiculous wall
* has made efforts to significantly curb and change legal immigration laws and policies 

Many would view some, or all, of these changes as taking a significantly more hardline and extreme position on immigration

Travel bans have been instituted multiple times over the last century, it's nothing new. Even Obama approved them.

DACA is a red herring, it was supposed to time out two presidencies ago.

The T in TPS stands for Temporary. For some reason that word has been missinterpreted as Permanent.

Many of what you listed is simply enforcing law already on the books. Some of it restoring power to complete the job that ICE has been directed to do. 

Sanctuary cities are bullshit so is the California legislature strong arming cities telling them this is a sanctuary state. Greater bullshit is thinking we can keep absorbing the unemployed of Mexico and South America with no restrictions. That it isn't going to affect our economy and society in general.

 

[mtangelsfan]

16 minutes ago, red321 said:

The law was written in 2002, not last week and it appears a little organization decided to file a lawsuit (see lawyers trying to make money).

Coffee does include a carcinogen and companies fighting being sued by an outside organization (see not the state of California) were unable to provide the appropriate data to the judge...hence my statement that how the law was being interpreted by the judge was incorrect or the law might need clarification.

Got beers example makes perfect sense, if someone invents away to bottle up the sun and sell it as a contained product...oh wait...they do post warnings in front of tanning salons.

 

I'm not arguing that this ruling isn't silly, or that the law doesn't need tweaking...just pointing out that there's more to the story than the headline

That's my point.  It is just California being California.

[UndertheHalo]

I sincerely doubt that Starbucks sales are going to suffer.  They aren’t neon signs screaming “THIS WILL GIVE YOU CANCER”. I don’t understand why people are offended by warnings.  I want as much information as possible about anything I’m consuming.  Let me make the decision about whether it’s important or not.  I mean, are you guys bothered by the mercury warnings we have at places that serve seafood ?

[Make Angels Great Again]

1 hour ago, red321 said:

Over the past year the administration has

* instituted a muslim travel ban - wrong
* rescinded DACA - if you mean end an unconstitutional EO, sure. And good for him.
* ended TPS status for residents from a number of countries - the T stands for temporary
* significantly changed priorities for how people were detained (separating families) - citation? i'm pretty sure they didn't decide in a room that they want to actively break up families.
* change in focus for enforcement, focusing less on serious criminal offenders and taking a broader approach - This is a vague statement, and I have zero idea what you mean.
* significant changes in how/where ICE agents conduct raids, including schools and courthouses - You mean let them do their jobs?
* identified plans to expand detention of immigrants in facilities vs. catch and release - I love this word play. they're not "immigrants", they're illegal aliens who cut the line.
* pushed the idea of a ridiculous wall - Your opinion. Many rational people are in favor of the wall. I would rather have a wall than a stupid bullet train.
* has made efforts to significantly curb and change legal immigration laws and policies - Like what? Are we to automatically assume the changes are bad?

Many would view some, or all, of these changes as taking a significantly more hardline and extreme position on immigration

 

What Salon article did you find this word vomit from?

[mtangelsfan]

1 minute ago, UndertheHalo said:

I sincerely doubt that Starbucks sales are going to suffer.  They aren’t neon signs screaming “THIS WILL GIVE YOU CANCER”. I don’t understand why people are offended by warnings.  I want as much information as possible about anything I’m consuming.  Let me make the decision about whether it’s important or not.  I mean, are you guys bothered by the mercury warnings we have at places that serve seafood ?

They won't lose business but they are losing money.  Court costs, posting costs, the bigger companies can absorb that but the smaller ones may not be able to.  

It isn't about being against warnings, it is just that anything could possibly do you harm.  Should everything have a warning for any possible scenario?  

As far as mercury goes, science have proven that too much mercury can do you harm.  It has not done so with coffee.

[Jason]

I’ll take a soy latte with an extra shot, half the cancer

[UndertheHalo]

30 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

They won't lose business but they are losing money.  Court costs, posting costs, the bigger companies can absorb that but the smaller ones may not be able to.  

It isn't about being against warnings, it is just that anything could possibly do you harm.  Should everything have a warning for any possible scenario?  

As far as mercury goes, science have proven that too much mercury can do you harm.  It has not done so with coffee.

You make a fair point about mercury.  I’m certain that you are right that the scientific evidence with its issues is more concrete.  In this case I don’t know enough about what they found specifically with coffee to feel strongly about it.  I know that over the last 30 years I’ve heard “coffee is healthy !” “coffee is not healthy !” Back and forth multiple times.  I don’t know.  I’ll keep drinking it.  I’m not scared of starbucks. 

I don’t think everything should have a warning but when it comes to consumables I think California has it right with requiring transparency.  I mean, we have warnings on cliffs saying don’t jump, shallow water etc.  Its not that different.  Starbucks has to know that such warnings don’t harm other food establishments business.  Whatever small number of people see the sign and turn around. Well hey, that’s the cost of doing business in California.  Where by the way, they make fist fulls of money.  They didn’t need to take it to court and challenge it.  The expenses they incurred are probably far more then any losses these signs are going to cost them.   That they did of their own accord and lost is their problem.  Probably a bad decision. 

Edited March 30, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

3 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

You make a fair point about mercury.  I’m certain that you are right that the scientific evidence with its issues is more concrete.  In this case I don’t know enough about what they found specifically with coffee to feel strongly about it.  I know that over the last 30 years I’ve heard “coffee is healthy !” “coffee is not healthy !” Back and forth multiple times.  I don’t know.  I’ll keep drinking it.  I’m not scared of starbucks. 

I don’t think everything should have a warning but when it comes to consumables I think California has it right with requiring transparency.  I mean, we have warnings on cliffs saying don’t jump, shallow water etc.  Its not that different.  Starbucks has to know that such warnings don’t harm other food establishments business.  Whatever small number of people see the sign and turn around. Well hey, that’s the cost of doing business in California.  Where by the way, they make fist fulls of money.  They didn’t need to take it to court and challenge it.  The expenses they incurred are probably far more then any losses these signs are going to cost them.   That they did of their own accord and lost is their problem.  Probably a bad decision. 

They got sued before they even had a chance to put up signs.  It was a money grab.  

[UndertheHalo]

Just now, mtangelsfan said:

They got sued before they even had a chance to put up signs.  It was a money grab.  

Yea I mean that’s shit.  But it’s a different issue. I agree with you wholly that we have a ridiculous problem with frivolous law suits.  

[mtangelsfan]

We agree on that but we disagree on the involvement of government.

 

[Lhalo]

2 hours ago, red321 said:

Over the past year the administration has

* instituted a muslim travel ban

Nope

[well_red]

the problem is that the link between coffee and cancer is as of now tenuous at best.  the chemical was found to raise cancer risks in animals at 1000-10000 times the usual coffee dosage.  no statistical evidence actually exists for a link between coffee and a heightened cancer risk in humans at normal consumption levels.  the same chemical is found in potato chips, bread, cookies that have been browned etc... by such criteria it is hard not to imagine a world where 90% of the items in a grocery store have some possible link to some carcinogenic substance.  totally different situation than say the link between smoking and lung cancer, chewing tobacco and oral cancer, hpv and cervical cancer, etc.  

[Jason]

Maybe they should just put labels on things that don't cause cancer. It would probably be a smaller list 

[floplag]

On 3/30/2018 at 8:15 AM, red321 said:

Over the past year the administration has

* instituted a muslim travel ban
* rescinded DACA
* ended TPS status for residents from a number of countries
* significantly changed priorities for how people were detained (separating families)
* change in focus for enforcement, focusing less on serious criminal offenders and taking a broader approach
* significant changes in how/where ICE agents conduct raids, including schools and courthouses
* identified plans to expand detention of immigrants in facilities vs. catch and release
* pushed the idea of a ridiculous wall
* has made efforts to significantly curb and change legal immigration laws and policies 

Many would view some, or all, of these changes as taking a significantly more hardline and extreme position on immigration

Im not going to bother to take on those points as literally every one of them is a partisan view.  I agree on a couple, completely do not on others, but thats also not the point. 

The point is that even IF what you say is true, immigration IS under the jurisdiction of the federal govt which has every right to do these things and set policy for national immigration.  The state has no authority to make policy outside of the fed in this matter, they are not sovereign.   

Some of the above were also done under your lord and savior Obama though im sure somehow thats Trump/Reps fault too.

I do however agree that the wall is a ludicrous idea, the solution isnt to keep them out its to stop the freebees and not make it worthwhile to come, but thats another discussion.  

[RallyMo]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

Some of the above were also done under your lord and savior Obama though im sure somehow thats Trump/Reps fault too. 

emperorpalpatine.gif

[Stradling]

By the way, warning signs, just like calorie postings do impact sales.   That is an actual fact.  

[Tank]

not sure where to put this.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-police-force-legislation_us_5ac3c013e4b00fa46f872c28

[Make Angels Great Again]

9 hours ago, Tank said:

not sure where to put this.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-police-force-legislation_us_5ac3c013e4b00fa46f872c28

 

Holyyyyy shhhhhhhit!

California's stupidity is reaching dangerous levels.

Curious to hear @ten ocho recon scout's thoughts.

[floplag]

9 hours ago, Tank said:

not sure where to put this.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-police-force-legislation_us_5ac3c013e4b00fa46f872c28

Cant wait till the first lawsuit on this one over unlawful death of a cop who was afraid to pull his weapon. 
My soon to be son in law is a cop, in San Fran, they spent more time on sensitivity training then anything else is seems as literally every speech given was all about social agendas at his graduation.  
How can these people with a straight face say only cops should have guns and even they cant use them?  My god they already have them wearing body cams scared to pass gas at the wrong time.   
This is just asinine, im beyond embarrassed to be Californian anymore.  

[Blarg]

8 minutes ago, floplag said:

My soon to be son in law is a cop, in San Fran, they spent more time on sensitivity training then anything else is seems as literally every speech given was all about social agendas at his graduation.  

Did they issue him a dildo instead of a nightstick?

Edited April 4, 2018 by Blarg

[gotbeer]

I didn't think this state could go off the rails any further.   I was wrong.