California Proposition 65 Should Be Repealed

Thanks for the response, and I'm sorry that mine is so late. I'll first discuss my opponent's argument against my case and then deconstruct his own.1. Bureaucratic AbuseThe main point of this contention was to show that the very nature of Proposition 65 (hence 65) allows such abuses - my opponent fails to counter this thesis. "First of all: NO new law that could accomplish what Prop. 65 is accomplishing now as far as notifying customers of a possible health threat WITHOUT having the same legal loopholes. Should a new law be created, it would be very similar to the current Prop. 65. Only a slight change would be required that would nullify the possibility of this Bounty Hunter sharking. "1. 65 does not notify me of possible health threats. Since it is a sign that could literally mean 700+ plus things, I do not know if I'm consuming wood dust or acid. There's no specific list. The FDA can do its job in California and protect us without the help of 65.2. I am not advocating a new law, but a total repeal of 65 and no replacement.3. Bounty hunting is inherent to 65. You have not exapained what reforms or "slight change" could prevent bounty hunting in 65: indeed, because anyone can sue the restaurants for a lack of sign, even wihtout harms (somehting you say is necessary), bounty hunting will continue as long as Prop 65 is in place.2. Scientifically Questionable Here, we must look at a very important point. The OEHHA specifically states that exemptions may be provided by the act under certain circumstances. Should a business owner feel that a chemical is harmless, (like wood dust,) he may freely seek such an exemption. [1]1. These exemptions are not applicable to the 700 substances on the list; this is non-unique. The source clearly states that this was a single event in August of 2005, not a recurring policy. My opponent has not provided evidence saying this is a recurring policy.2. The exemptions do not apply to any of the scientifically arbitrary items on the list already. I quote: "an exemption from the warning requirement is provided by the Act when a person in the course of doing business is able to demonstrate that an exposure for which he or she is responsible produces no observable reproductive effect, assuming exposure at 1,000 times the level in question". And yet, wood dust - etc - are still on there, becuase it is hard to demonstrate a substance X is harmless without a controlled study, which businesses generally cannot afford to do (guilty until proven innocent, much? ). As a result, 65 relies on sketchy meta-studies with conflicting results to determine harmfulness. As an individual, I happen to agree with you here^. But not everyone in the state of California shares that opinion, and they deserve to at least be notified of what they're about to eat. 1. To reiterate, Prop 65 does not notify me of possible health threats. Since it is a sign that could literally mean 700+ plus things, I do not know if I'm consuming wood dust or acid. Hydrogen cyanide (An extremely lethal toxin) was discovered in 1782 by Carl Scheele. [2] He did not know for sure at the time that it was poisonous, but there was indeed a “Possibility. ” Just as that chemical was discovered in 1782, new chemicals have been discovered very recently that have a good “possibility” of being poisonous. ..1. Finding a new chemical and automatically putting on all lists of banned substances would be allowed under the logical presented by CON. Until there is reason to believe that something is poisonous (you find out quickly) it should not be controlled.2. The FDA can already do this job. It has more resources and better research than the OHHEA. If there is reaosn to believe something is toxic, the FDA will be all over it. If there is no reason to believe so, then no one should preemptively blacklist it.3. This is entirely non-unique. The list of 770 substances on the OHHEA website are still consumed. The list does nothing to protect people from what CON calls a "good possibility" of being poisoned. " The sign in the restaurant does very little, arguably. 4. My opponent does not respond to the entire argument that 65's list is sketchy when it comes to science, so presume it dropped. The conclusion was really just another section overviewing. Sorry for the conclusion. My opponent tries to maintain that Prop 65 is necessary for public health and without it new laws would spring up. This is false; California is one of few states with such laws. Texas, for instance, makes it without such a law. So do Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, and many more. The FDA does the job that 65 seeks to do but without the business-harming sign and with more consumer protection. My opponent has also failed to explain how to reform 65 to fill in legal loopholes. He simply asserts it should be done but does not extrapolate and the mechanics.