California Just Became The First State To Ban Sales Of Animal-Tested Products

I didn't say that. Also, your incredible level of defensiveness clearly indicates that you know it's wrong.

Just accept your own personal weakness, and do the best you can. No need to be ultra-butthurt about it.
let's pray for him.
 
I'm not a vegan but I will always defend their choice because it is the only ethical option. I've cut down meat from eating it 3x a day to 3x a week, but I am not ready to make the full leap. I'm working up the courage to get there and perhaps one day you will too. What is truly ridiculous is meateaters attributing some sort of manliness to their dietary habits like they're the ones bludgeoning live bulls to death.
The thing I find funny is how vegitarians and vegans are supposedly obnoxious when it comes to their views, but whenever I see a thread on the topic pop up it's usually not them who are having hissy fits.

To me it's about morals, ethics, and a bit of spirituality.
 
The thing I find funny is how vegitarians and vegans are supposedly obnoxious when it comes to their views, but whenever I see a thread on the topic pop up it's usually not them who are having hissy fits.

To me it's about morals, ethics, and a bit of spirituality.

Let me beat my meat!!
 
Well then enjoy this from the LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-pro-con2-2009nov02-story.html

I'll even give you some quotes...

"Prop. 65 has made it harder for consumers to make reasonable choices

Lisa Halko is a defense lawyer with Greenberg Traurig in Sacramento and has written extensively on the problems she sees with Prop. 65.

"I don't believe Proposition 65 has been good for California. It exaggerates a particular class of long-term theoretical risks related to cancer and reproductive health and makes it harder for people to make reasonable choices.

"For instance, there are very real and immediate risks from malnutrition, food spoilage and obesity from foods, but Prop. 65 creates alarm about trace amounts of chemicals that have no actual risk or have a risk that is obviously outweighed by the benefit of the food. Vegetables may contain a certain amount of lead if they grow in the ground, and fish contain mercury because they live in the sea. If we make trace chemicals the salient fact, then we discourage the consumption of healthy foods. Having so many warnings also undermines real warnings about real risks such as unpasteurized milk.

"How do we keep people informed? There are better ways to get that information to people than putting a warning on just one theoretical risk. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has more complete, better targeted information on possible risks from fat and forms of cooking and possible contaminants, but also on benefits from a varied diet high in fresh fruits, vegetables, lean proteins and fish.

"I think it is wrong for the state to undermine national policies crafted by people who are experts in the field. The FDA has done years of research on food labeling and on what words are effective and how people process this information, and it has led to paradoxical results. For instance, if you qualify a statement with words like 'may' and 'suggest,' people are more likely to believe it is true. The FDA uses this and other information to maximize public health by providing information to people in a meaningful way.

"It should be a health and communication issue, not a legal issue. Why would we think that a bunch of lawyers, however well-meaning, know best how to communicate risks and benefits?

"Early on, there were some reformulations of products because of Prop. 65, but the problem is that the law allows anybody to bring a case by finding a listed chemical in a product even if it is present in an amount 1,000 times below the 'no observable effect' level. The defendant can prove the level is meaninglessly low -- but that is extremely expensive to do in court. Defendants end up settling with the plaintiff even when they are not liable, to avoid the expense of litigation.

"Changing a product does not necessarily make you free from litigation, so the settlement amounts are increasing. In 2007, the average settlement was $76,000 and in 2008, the average was $123,000. The incentive for companies to use labeling to avoid that is becoming stronger and stronger. If you walk into a store, hotel or parking garage today and look around, you will find more and more warnings. That undermines public health instead of promoting it."


I disagree. Our FDA approves of shit that can kill you. The pesticides we use on our apples are completely banned in Europe. Our FDA says there is no problem.

Like I said man-- everyone I know wants stricter guidelines except industry shills and the uneducated. California is right and looking out for the health of the consumer.
 
The thing I find funny is how vegitarians and vegans are supposedly obnoxious when it comes to their views, but whenever I see a thread on the topic pop up it's usually not them who are having hissy fits.

To me it's about morals, ethics, and a bit of spirituality.


Agreed. Been vegetarian for years and I never give anyone shit about eating meat. Meat eaters are constantly bringing it up mocking it etc. Thou doth protest too much.
 
Agreed. Been vegetarian for years and I never give anyone shit about eating meat. Meat eaters are constantly bringing it up mocking it etc. Thou doth protest too much.
This is it in a nutshell, but to be honest I only get shit from anonymous online personas. In real life any time it comes up I get just curious questions and praise. A lot of people express the desire to become vegetarians.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Our FDA approves of shit that can kill you. The pesticides we use on our apples are completely banned in Europe. Our FDA says there is no problem.

Like I said man-- everyone I know wants stricter guidelines except industry shills and the uneducated. California is right and looking out for the health of the consumer.


Oh really, it's only industry shills and the uneducated who have problems with Prop 65 regulations? Do tell us sir, which one of those is governor Jerry Brown (D)? Seriously, answer that question.



Once more, for your reading enjoyment. Unfortunately, in spite of widespread recognition of the problem, CA lacks the political will/wherewithal to enact Brown's reform. Chicago has it's style of corruption, CA has its...

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2013/05/07/news18026/

"SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today proposed reforms to strengthen and restore the intent of Proposition 65, a three decade old law enacted to protect Californians from harmful chemicals, that has been abused by some unscrupulous lawyers driven by profit rather than public health.

The administration, through the California Environmental Protection Agency, will work closely with the Legislature and stakeholders to revamp Proposition 65 by ending frivolous “shake-down” lawsuits, improving how the public is warned about dangerous chemicals and strengthening the scientific basis for warning levels.

“Proposition 65 is a good law that’s helped many people, but it’s being abused by unscrupulous lawyers,” said Governor Brown. “This is an effort to improve the law so it can do what it was intended to do – protect Californians from harmful chemicals.”

Voters approved Proposition 65 in 1986. The measure requires the Governor to annually publish a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. If a business in California sells a product containing chemicals listed by the state in excess of safe levels, the business must provide a clear warning to the public. Similar provisions apply to California workplaces.

The administration, stakeholders and the Legislature will discuss reforms to:
• Cap or limit attorney’s fees in Proposition 65 cases.
• Require stronger demonstration by plaintiffs that they have information to support claims before litigation begins.
• Require greater disclosure of plaintiff’s information.
• Set limits on the amount of money in an enforcement case that can go into settlement funds in lieu of penalties.
• Provide the State with the ability to adjust the level at which Proposition 65 warnings are needed for chemicals that cause reproductive harm.
• Require more useful information to the public on what they are being exposed to and how they can protect themselves.

While Proposition 65 has motivated businesses to eliminate or reduce toxic chemicals in consumer products, it is also abused by some lawyers, who bring nuisance lawsuits to extract settlements from businesses with little or no benefit to the public or the environment.

Under provisions of Proposition 65, a private attorney can bring a complaint against a business if the business knowingly exposes consumers to state-noticed chemicals.

Since 2008, nearly 2,000 complaints have been filed by these “citizen enforcers.”

In one case, Consumer Defense Group Action brought 45 Proposition 65 notices of violation against banks based on second-hand smoke near bank entrances or ATMs. The group claimed that the banks had failed to post warnings, and alleged that the banks controlled the behavior of smokers in those areas. In responding that there was no basis for the claim and misrepresentations within the notices, the Attorney General warned that the group’s notices could “constitute unlawful business practices.”

Governor Brown’s proposed reform follows a strong record of pursuing regulatory changes to improve the state’s business climate. Since taking office in 2011, the Governor has approved legislation to improve the workers’ compensation system, the regulatory and fee structure for the timber industry, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance requirements and the facility inspection process for the life sciences industry. In addition to these legislative actions, Brown has established the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) to help companies deal with regulatory “red tape.”
 
Oh really, it's only industry shills and the uneducated who have problems with Prop 65 regulations? Do tell us sir, which one of those is governor Jerry Brown (D)? Seriously, answer that question.



Once more, for your reading enjoyment. Unfortunately, in spite of widespread recognition of the problem, CA lacks the political will/wherewithal to enact Brown's reform. Chicago has it's style of corruption, CA has its...

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2013/05/07/news18026/

"SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today proposed reforms to strengthen and restore the intent of Proposition 65, a three decade old law enacted to protect Californians from harmful chemicals, that has been abused by some unscrupulous lawyers driven by profit rather than public health.

The administration, through the California Environmental Protection Agency, will work closely with the Legislature and stakeholders to revamp Proposition 65 by ending frivolous “shake-down” lawsuits, improving how the public is warned about dangerous chemicals and strengthening the scientific basis for warning levels.

“Proposition 65 is a good law that’s helped many people, but it’s being abused by unscrupulous lawyers,” said Governor Brown. “This is an effort to improve the law so it can do what it was intended to do – protect Californians from harmful chemicals.”

Voters approved Proposition 65 in 1986. The measure requires the Governor to annually publish a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. If a business in California sells a product containing chemicals listed by the state in excess of safe levels, the business must provide a clear warning to the public. Similar provisions apply to California workplaces.

The administration, stakeholders and the Legislature will discuss reforms to:
• Cap or limit attorney’s fees in Proposition 65 cases.
• Require stronger demonstration by plaintiffs that they have information to support claims before litigation begins.
• Require greater disclosure of plaintiff’s information.
• Set limits on the amount of money in an enforcement case that can go into settlement funds in lieu of penalties.
• Provide the State with the ability to adjust the level at which Proposition 65 warnings are needed for chemicals that cause reproductive harm.
• Require more useful information to the public on what they are being exposed to and how they can protect themselves.

While Proposition 65 has motivated businesses to eliminate or reduce toxic chemicals in consumer products, it is also abused by some lawyers, who bring nuisance lawsuits to extract settlements from businesses with little or no benefit to the public or the environment.

Under provisions of Proposition 65, a private attorney can bring a complaint against a business if the business knowingly exposes consumers to state-noticed chemicals.

Since 2008, nearly 2,000 complaints have been filed by these “citizen enforcers.”

In one case, Consumer Defense Group Action brought 45 Proposition 65 notices of violation against banks based on second-hand smoke near bank entrances or ATMs. The group claimed that the banks had failed to post warnings, and alleged that the banks controlled the behavior of smokers in those areas. In responding that there was no basis for the claim and misrepresentations within the notices, the Attorney General warned that the group’s notices could “constitute unlawful business practices.”

Governor Brown’s proposed reform follows a strong record of pursuing regulatory changes to improve the state’s business climate. Since taking office in 2011, the Governor has approved legislation to improve the workers’ compensation system, the regulatory and fee structure for the timber industry, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance requirements and the facility inspection process for the life sciences industry. In addition to these legislative actions, Brown has established the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) to help companies deal with regulatory “red tape.”

This all sounds pretty good to me man. Its about time businesses and especially corporations were completely unable to make a single dollar in profit until there is certainty that ZERO costs in terms of pollution or toxicity are outsourced to the public. This is just common sense.

It is time that all coal burning power plants and all mining operations are faced with incredibly strict measures to ensure that not a single cent is made in profit until there are zero negative health and environmental costs to the public and to public lands.

There is a silica mine right in the middle of two cites near where I live. They mine that shit all day every day right out of the mountain side. The silica dust (really bad for our health) blows right into the city all day long every day. The owners of the mine are making money hand over fist while the citizens are getting sick. Its fucking bullshit.

NO profit until all measures (not the standards currently lobbied by the industries being regulated themselves) are taken to ensure zero negative health impacts on citizens.


I know this is hard for you to understand man but the average joe has been getting sick, having their own life expectancy shortened and quality of life diminished only so that corporations can produce profits for far too long. Scientific studies funded by corporations with an agenda are too often accepted. The days of this insanity are numbered.

I dont want to breath your smoke, your methane from fucking cows, your silica, or your coal emissions so that you and your fucking share holders can get rich off of our backs any more....

Some people are angered by illegal immigration which is a net negative over the last ten years. Me-- I am angered by corporations getting rich while outsourcing the costs to the public.

I would march on the mines rear my city right now with fucking torches if the citizenry could just see past what it has been like their whole lives and imagine a better reality. California is doing this on many levels and its great.

IF they overshoot somewhere then I say its by far better to err on the side of consumer protection than fucking corporate profit.
 
Suffering is the default state of all life- including humans. So no, we would not eliminate animal suffering by abstaining from meat obviously. What we could eliminate is the current depersonalized mechanized factory farming that brings countless lives into existence to feed a growing population of humans.

And no, this will not need to be mandated by governments. It will be imposed on us by the harsh realities of climate change sooner or later. Take a look at what percent of America is devoted to graze land for cattle. Now imagine when the tastes and appetites of the developing world also demand meat.
I responded to the guy who said hunting and meat consumption should be outlawed. Won't happen here or any other country.
 
Fun fact: California has more inmates on death row than any other state.


Stay progressive, Cali.
 
I responded to the guy who said hunting and meat consumption should be outlawed. Won't happen here or any other country.

As a vegetarian I am opposed to forcing vegetarianism onto other people. I have been part of a very large community of people into alternative healing and such. I know too many people who are meat eaters because they are healthier if they do and I've seen too many people not fare well on a vegetarian diet.
 
Wow...I forgot how many pussies are in the WR. I guess it's no worse than the retards in the heavies though.
 
As long as testing medicine on animals can happen I don't really have a problem. Cosmetics being tested on animals is kind of weak.
 
Chalk up one more for the poor people in Cali.
 
I think this is great . We are all animals and well past the dark ages where we stupidly believed that animals didn't have emotions or feelings.

If we can't develop a product without testing on animals then we don't need it or aren't trying hard enough.



My friend worked in a lab where they did medical experiments on animals. One doctor sewed a spounge into a dog's body to see what would happen. The dog wailed all day and all night too. Fuck that bullshit too while we are at it.

Completely agree and +1 for the username, i got to see the Grateful Dead before Jerry died at Highgate VT in 95' (i was 5, my dad took me and my twin brother). My dad went to 252 shows total so the Dead have been a part of my life since i was born. My dad even put steal your face knitted hats on me and my twin brother that he had someone make the day we were born. I have the picture somewhere.
 
Completely agree and +1 for the username, i got to see the Grateful Dead before Jerry died at Highgate VT in 95' (i was 5, my dad took me and my twin brother). My dad went to 252 shows total so the Dead have been a part of my life since i was born. My dad even put steal your face knitted hats on me and my twin brother that he had someone make the day we were born. I have the picture somewhere.


Yeah man what a band! That music changed my life no kidding. My daughter is named Cassidy....
 
Most animals are worthless, so who cares if they're used as test subjects.
Actually they often test on rabbits, which are an excellent source of food, animal hides and fertilizer.
 
Back
Top