My favorite part of Proposition 65 is the way the warnings are phrased: "This product contains chemicals that are know to cause cancer in the State of California." ...so as long as you don't go to California, you're fine? What happens if you use the product elsewhere and then go to California?
5:00 "If nearly inconsequential dangers get the same warning as significant dangers, people might start ignoring preventive efforts entirely." Too late--by about 20 years. Taking a "...know to the state of California..." label seriously is a greater health risk than the thing to which the label is attached!
At first proposition 65 warnings caught my attention, but now it just seems like almost everything packaged for potential sale in California causes cancer. While well intended it has become almost useless.
1 in 5 kids now is special needs. That monumental increase compared to the 1980s & prior is coming from _somewhere._ While I agree it's in a lot... That doesn't mean it's frickin' safe.
AngryExGOP Exactly! I just saw the same thing on my bag of chips. I thought it was something wrong the the bag itself, not the product in the bag. This explains everything. Not giving up my chips or fries 🍟. 🙋🏾♀️
I wish I could like this twice, warnings lose meaning when warnings are meaningless. Let's take action instead on real dangers to health with real consequences.
There should be a "Scholar" rule for classifying substances. Before lawmakers classify something as dangerous or carcinogenic, they should have to *literally just go to Google Scholar- it's not that hard-* and search the scary-sounding substance and "meta analysis"
No, that would be _disastrous_ . It would politicize science. Dishonest industries would freaking _flood_ academia with bogus private studies to overwhelm the law. Lawmakers have to make judgments based on the facts, and craft their laws responsibly to not over and under estimate the problem.
+Captain Planet, fair point! I was actually going through a few on video games and violence for my dissertation and I was shaking my head at some of the inclusion criteria.
Fantastic video. Very well researched and you did a great job citing all sources for your claims. Coffee is also high in antioxidants. So I'll continue to drink a cup here and there and worry about the bigger issues
Everything in California has that cancer warning. My apartment complex has that warning and many restaurants do as well. I don’t think anyone pays attention to those signs.
WHAT?? Why do we freak out every time we make SDS polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis in lab? I was told we need to be extra careful with it because it causes reproductive problems and cancer.
The problem is the law was worded poorly. It doesn't say to account for whether something _causes_ cancer, that's actually hard to prove. It's worded to say, does this thing contain notable amounts of carcinogens? Which, if course, almost everything does! Doesn't make it dangerous.
Yes, indeed. I already ignore warnings that say, "...may contain substances known to the state of California to cause cancer." If the "may cause cancer" label is from literally anything or anyone else, then I investigate before using.
THANK YOU so much for doing this episode Dr. Carroll. The moment I first saw this “COFFEE CAUSES CANCER” headline, I immediately thought of your head exploding.
I think deep fried chips have much higher dose than grilled chips. But it does not taste as good. But at least coffee has health benefits unlike fat fried chips.
I live in Finland. We drink alot of coffee here. I have been a coffee drinker for abt. 45 years. I have NEVER heard anything about coffee giving me cancer. But hey, USA is so sensitive...
I figured we all already kind of ignored those cancer warnings I mean it's on the fish food I feed my fish and tells me not to have physical contact with it. A lot of fish foods do and it's surprising and strange I don't ever follow it
I am sensitive to Acrylamide. If i eat something cooked in a way that produces a lot of it , i will have a migrane that starts in 1 hour and lasts a day. I have done this expermient many time, sometimes i have had a headache then later found that an ingredient was high in acrylamide. For this reason i boil most things or at least oven cook and keep the food from drying out.
I have one topic which is too much confusing if you can do a video on it. Its about the safety of the cookware we use, I myself did some research about it and got to know about the side effects of the Teflon non stick pans being the most dangerous and also the dangers of aluminium cookware. tried checking out stainless steel too and seems that stainless steel leaches nickel and cadmium into the food, copper cookware is also not an option from the safety stand point.Last option is left is cast iron cookware which seems not to be safe for men because of overdose of iron. another option would be cast cast iron with enamel coating of which no one is sure if the enamel coating is safe. Of anything I have researched, on this I have not gotten a complete holistic approach on this topic. If possible please do a video about it too, will be helpful for a lot of people. Thanks for these great videos
Hi .. I agree with you, I’ve trying to identify some healthy cookware options as I currently use ikea’s stainless steel pots and some hexclad skillets , but it’s really difficult to choose when all seems risky … what have you settled with ?
This reminds me of the recent comparison of cigarettes to bacon. Both have strong evidence they can increase cancer risk, but the magnitude of risk is massively different. It was something like one serving of bacon a day, every day (no breaks!), for a tiny absolute risk increase of bowel cancer, compared to the much larger lung cancer risk increase from a 20 a day habit. Didn't stop What the Health! putting cigarettes in a frying pan.
Colorectal cancer is one of the main cancers. The problem is rather burned, grilled meat. It might be one of the main reasons for it. The way It's processed, the fat in the meat reacts to many highly cancerogenic stuff.
Hi Healthcare Triage, what are your thoughts on intermittent fasting (e.g. 16-8 fasting, 24-hour fasts, 36-hour fasts)? I wanna know what the research tells us about fasting. Is it good? Is it bad? Are there harmful side effects? Are there long-term negative effects on overall health?
+Eristitia Do you have research to back your claims? I wanna know what the research tells us. I know for certain that there was a Minnesota Starvation experiment where they limit the daily calorie intake of the subjects and that slowed down their metabolisms. But starvation is different from fasting. Fasting is completely abstaining from calorie containing food so your insulin levels do not rise. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment) There was also a case report (case reports can not be considered experiments because usually they are limited in number of subjects and has no control subjects to compare to as well) where the subject water fasted for 382 days with a supervision of his physicians. They gave him supplements when needed. He lost 276 lbs from 456 lbs to 180 lbs. 5 years after the fast, his weight remained at 196 lbs. So the weight loss wasn't temporary. (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf)
Intermittent fasting is good and on a daily basis of eating everyday within an 8 hour period very safe. You might need to take a week or two to adjust your body into the shorter fasting period to avoid getting too fatigued. Fasting for a more than one or two days is more risky especially for those on medications. For most people it is still very safe. Before fasting always get yourself off all medications for at least two months and heavy medication users should consult with two different physicians to make sure there are no adverse drug effects.
Humans have evolved to deal well with acrylamide, since we started to cook our meals. So drinking coffee probably won't give you cancer. But too much acrylamide really isn't good. It would indeed be best to restrict it. But I'll be honest, the research that likes to say that drinking coffe lowers the risk of getting cancer is fishy. Lots of Researchers are addicted and biased towards coffee. You should see the amount emptied in our lab. It's like Coffee-Oktoberfest.
The US, where things don't need to be proven to be safe, but should anything ever have vaguely negative effects in inconclusive studies then we better get warnings on everything!
Great videos, Aaron. Greetings from Colombia, i actually enjoy a lot with these kind of informative videos. But a lot of my friends and family, who can also get beneficiated, can't understand the videos because of language, should be cool if you made an English allied or something which explain the same, with same information but in Spanish !!! Keep doing practice knowledge please !!!
Maybe every law relating to heath should be run past a John Ioannidis or an Aaron Carroll before it's put into law. Some form of peer review seems to be in order.
Been watching these from the beginning of the channel and I value the information you provide. The host has been putting more and more of a condescending tone in his voice recently though and I find it hard to focus on the actual content of the episode when I feel like I’m being talked to like a child. I fear it’s going to cause people who actually need to hear some of this info to turn off entirely. I truly don’t want to be a jerk, and intend this to be constructive criticism of a piece of media that I respect.
Sean Roberts You *are* a jerk writing your reaction here, which has nothing to do with Dr. Carroll. Psychology Today's website has a great provider search. Take Dr. Carroll's advice and go to therapy to resolve whatever your hang-up is here.
I would call it more 'exasperated' than 'condescending' but that's a matter of perception. Wading through all the face-palm inducing stuff long enough to put out an informed video about it would probably give anyone a sense of frustration. I think we could do with a few more light tone, good news, or even neutral videos if it means Dr. Carroll doesn't need to check in with his cardiologist.
The labels are so silly. I can't help but think that something more reminiscent of the WHMIS labeling system would be so much more meaningful and effective. WHMIS labeling does a good job of allowing the sort of risk assessment you call for here. Obviously something a little easier to interpret to the layman would be ideal, but the point still stands. WHMIS already does something similar, and effectively. Send those lawmakers to shop class so they can actually take some notes.
I think this guy needs to show us some proof before I take his word for it. I'm going to stick to what the doctors and scientists said stop drinking so much coffee
It's just a poorly worded law, I doubt the judge has any choice in the matter. Blame the moron who brought the lawsuit to begin with. The law is phrased to say whether something _contains_ carcinogens, _not_ whether it *causes* cancer. And, of course, virtually _everything_ has trace carcinogens in it. But that doesn't mean it's actually a cancer risk. But, to the average voter, if you asked them, "would you want to know if something you bought can cause cancer?" Doesn't that sound unreasonable? Wouldn't you want to know that? And the thing is, people arguing against it will have a hard time convincing people that the _technical_ language of the bill doesn't accomplish what it sets out to do. Both because that's hard for a laymen to assess, and because it's _exactly_ the argument a liar would make who has private reasons they can't reveal for opposing the bill (e.g., they produce something they know causes cancer.) This is why we're a Democratic-Republic and not purely direct democracies. The law is freaking _complicated_ . And asking a voter what they _want_ is very different from asking them to approve a specific _implementation_ of what they want. But it's hard to overturn ballot measures, and it looks antidemocratic. So stuff like this can congeal and crust on to the law, like barnacles on a rock. At least it's largely harmless, it just freaks out the average person until they realize, "oh, this sign is in way too many places. There's no way this is all a cancer risk."
Yet another spectacular failure of judges & legislators ability to contextualise risk. This is what continues to harm the credibility if public health research.
1:45 Oh come on! This is so disingenuous and unprofessional. Dude! Even Cyanide occurs naturally in fruits. What are you trying to say here! Who writes this scripts!?
Yes, actually. When one person has the power to make such stupid decisions that impact the whole economy, there is a problem. The fact that such an uninformed person can have such immense power is an indictment of the concept of power.
Here's the thing though - judiciary doesn't hold the ultimate power. The judicial system has the power to interpret legislation, which is produced by legislators. Legislators (in true democracies) represent the public. If the courts make a decision which the representatives and the public don't like, the representatives can make an amendment or new legislation to ensure the law isn't interpreted in the way they don't want it to be. Courts ensure that the law is precise. If the law isn't precise, you cannot conceivably avoid criminality. If there is no law, who then has the power to punish you? Courts, for arbitrary reasons? The politburo, for whatever they feel like? A small subset of private citizens, for whatever they are angry at you for? Ultimately, someone has to make the decisions, and I'd much rather it was a court system held in check by the elected government (sparse distribution of power) than whatever you propose, which would likely concentrate power more.
Yeah, and 2/3 of American adults can't even name the 3 branches of the federal govt, so telling me that decisions are in the hands of the public is even worse. You seriously don't seem to know how politically ignorant the public is. And you use the word "interpretation" a lot. Do you not see how arbitrary that is? Even something as clearly written as the 1st amendment to the US constitution is considered debatable. As for what we'd do without law, it's simple. No violence against non-violent people. That is the only rule. You're already allowed to defend yourself right now, so that'd be no different. Basically, all of the arbitrary nonsense gets thrown out and you simply don't murder, rape, or rob others. That's it. Everything else is fair game. You are aware that common law tradition predates govt monopoly on law by thousands of years, right?
Q B Sorry, if you want to continue being a tiresome, naive, ignorant Libertarian shill, you _have_ to believe in rule of law. Literally, rule of law is the alternative to _authoritarianism_ . If you don't have a clearly defined code people follow, then it's just might makes right, the strongest person just makes up the rules on a whim. A dumb law can be changed. A dumb _person_ will reward their friends, punish their enemies, and cause way more havoc than a bad law ever could.
My favorite part of Proposition 65 is the way the warnings are phrased:
"This product contains chemicals that are know to cause cancer in the State of California."
...so as long as you don't go to California, you're fine? What happens if you use the product elsewhere and then go to California?
The entire state of California needs to be slapped with that label.
Have you been to southern California lately? The whole place is cancer.
5:00 "If nearly inconsequential dangers get the same warning as significant dangers, people might start ignoring preventive efforts entirely." Too late--by about 20 years.
Taking a "...know to the state of California..." label seriously is a greater health risk than the thing to which the label is attached!
At first proposition 65 warnings caught my attention, but now it just seems like almost everything packaged for potential sale in California causes cancer. While well intended it has become almost useless.
1 in 5 kids now is special needs. That monumental increase compared to the 1980s & prior is coming from _somewhere._ While I agree it's in a lot... That doesn't mean it's frickin' safe.
Thank you. My kid saw a warning label on chips and was upset. This helped.
AngryExGOP Exactly! I just saw the same thing on my bag of chips. I thought it was something wrong the the bag itself, not the product in the bag. This explains everything. Not giving up my chips or fries 🍟. 🙋🏾♀️
I wish I could like this twice, warnings lose meaning when warnings are meaningless. Let's take action instead on real dangers to health with real consequences.
There should be a "Scholar" rule for classifying substances. Before lawmakers classify something as dangerous or carcinogenic, they should have to *literally just go to Google Scholar- it's not that hard-* and search the scary-sounding substance and "meta analysis"
To be fair, meta analyses can be flawed too but you're right, it's far too often that lawmakers don't even look at any academic papers.
Or at least consult with a handful of experts in the field.
No, that would be _disastrous_ . It would politicize science. Dishonest industries would freaking _flood_ academia with bogus private studies to overwhelm the law.
Lawmakers have to make judgments based on the facts, and craft their laws responsibly to not over and under estimate the problem.
+thatjillgirl Agreed!
+Captain Planet, fair point! I was actually going through a few on video games and violence for my dissertation and I was shaking my head at some of the inclusion criteria.
THE COFFEE'S DONE
I love when the coffee's done
Fantastic video. Very well researched and you did a great job citing all sources for your claims.
Coffee is also high in antioxidants. So I'll continue to drink a cup here and there and worry about the bigger issues
Important to understand the difference between hazard and risk.
I'm pretty sure that in high enough dosages a lot of common things are carcinogenic
The dose is the poison! Too much water can kill you, after all.
But will it give you cancer though?
A company should protest this by putting a prop 65 label on literally all of their products........
Everything in California has that cancer warning. My apartment complex has that warning and many restaurants do as well. I don’t think anyone pays attention to those signs.
My Christmas lights are covered in prop 65 stickers. It really is ridiculous.
redwoodcc haha
WHAT?? Why do we freak out every time we make SDS polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis in lab? I was told we need to be extra careful with it because it causes reproductive problems and cancer.
I think those proposition 65 warnings have already lost all meaning. Its too late for them, because everything causes cancer according to California.
almost all my colored pencils come with that prop 65 warning. prop 65 is not helping.
Not really a California thing
+
The problem is the law was worded poorly. It doesn't say to account for whether something _causes_ cancer, that's actually hard to prove.
It's worded to say, does this thing contain notable amounts of carcinogens? Which, if course, almost everything does! Doesn't make it dangerous.
Yes, indeed. I already ignore warnings that say, "...may contain substances known to the state of California to cause cancer." If the "may cause cancer" label is from literally anything or anyone else, then I investigate before using.
THANK YOU so much for doing this episode Dr. Carroll.
The moment I first saw this “COFFEE CAUSES CANCER” headline, I immediately thought of your head exploding.
Absolutely agree with the points, people tend to focus too much on the potential harm than the benefits.
I think deep fried chips have much higher dose than grilled chips. But it does not taste as good. But at least coffee has health benefits unlike fat fried chips.
Good. Tobacco has had nicotine since they stated growing it too so why can't we label coffee as well?
I live in Finland. We drink alot of coffee here. I have been a coffee drinker for abt. 45 years. I have NEVER heard anything about coffee giving me cancer. But hey, USA is so sensitive...
They put the p65 warning on a box of Svenhards variety pack.
Can you please do a video on Health supplements like protein powders, creatine, vitamins, fat burners etc.?
I figured we all already kind of ignored those cancer warnings I mean it's on the fish food I feed my fish and tells me not to have physical contact with it. A lot of fish foods do and it's surprising and strange I don't ever follow it
I am sensitive to Acrylamide. If i eat something cooked in a way that produces a lot of it , i will have a migrane that starts in 1 hour and lasts a day. I have done this expermient many time, sometimes i have had a headache then later found that an ingredient was high in acrylamide. For this reason i boil most things or at least oven cook and keep the food from drying out.
It also makes me sweat profusely, I.e night sweats
Agreed, Dr. Carroll: after seeing Prop 65 on way too many things, I now roll my eyes every time and don't even research it like I used to.
Like they say, ignorance is bliss!
Just ate some toast. About to eat some more acrylamide, and I’m A-OK 👌!
paint thinner and water are both toxic so i can drink paint thinner right?
I have one topic which is too much confusing if you can do a video on it. Its about the safety of the cookware we use, I myself did some research about it and got to know about the side effects of the Teflon non stick pans being the most dangerous and also the dangers of aluminium cookware. tried checking out stainless steel too and seems that stainless steel leaches nickel and cadmium into the food, copper cookware is also not an option from the safety stand point.Last option is left is cast iron cookware which seems not to be safe for men because of overdose of iron. another option would be cast cast iron with enamel coating of which no one is sure if the enamel coating is safe.
Of anything I have researched, on this I have not gotten a complete holistic approach on this topic. If possible please do a video about it too, will be helpful for a lot of people. Thanks for these great videos
Hi .. I agree with you, I’ve trying to identify some healthy cookware options as I currently use ikea’s stainless steel pots and some hexclad skillets , but it’s really difficult to choose when all seems risky … what have you settled with ?
Isn’t all food addictive so earnings should be on all cooked food?
4:38
Truth bomb right there
wait so is Acrylamide added to Ciggerettes or is it naturally in it Tobacco?
On the nose, Aaron. Thanks again for the science.
Could there be a conflict of interest between companies who created this label to harm others products?
There is a Prop 65 warning on all the doors of my building
To sum this episode up: "Keep Calm and Keep Drinking Coffee."
This reminds me of the recent comparison of cigarettes to bacon. Both have strong evidence they can increase cancer risk, but the magnitude of risk is massively different. It was something like one serving of bacon a day, every day (no breaks!), for a tiny absolute risk increase of bowel cancer, compared to the much larger lung cancer risk increase from a 20 a day habit. Didn't stop What the Health! putting cigarettes in a frying pan.
Ralphie Raccoon All that DARE money should have went to stopping cigarettes. All it did was give them validity.
Colorectal cancer is one of the main cancers. The problem is rather burned, grilled meat. It might be one of the main reasons for it. The way It's processed, the fat in the meat reacts to many highly cancerogenic stuff.
Hi Healthcare Triage, what are your thoughts on intermittent fasting (e.g. 16-8 fasting, 24-hour fasts, 36-hour fasts)? I wanna know what the research tells us about fasting. Is it good? Is it bad? Are there harmful side effects? Are there long-term negative effects on overall health?
+
+
For the millionth time, fasts are not healthy as they slow your metabolism. The end.
+Eristitia Do you have research to back your claims? I wanna know what the research tells us.
I know for certain that there was a Minnesota Starvation experiment where they limit the daily calorie intake of the subjects and that slowed down their metabolisms. But starvation is different from fasting. Fasting is completely abstaining from calorie containing food so your insulin levels do not rise. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment)
There was also a case report (case reports can not be considered experiments because usually they are limited in number of subjects and has no control subjects to compare to as well) where the subject water fasted for 382 days with a supervision of his physicians. They gave him supplements when needed. He lost 276 lbs from 456 lbs to 180 lbs. 5 years after the fast, his weight remained at 196 lbs. So the weight loss wasn't temporary. (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf)
Intermittent fasting is good and on a daily basis of eating everyday within an 8 hour period very safe. You might need to take a week or two to adjust your body into the shorter fasting period to avoid getting too fatigued. Fasting for a more than one or two days is more risky especially for those on medications. For most people it is still very safe. Before fasting always get yourself off all medications for at least two months and heavy medication users should consult with two different physicians to make sure there are no adverse drug effects.
Humans have evolved to deal well with acrylamide, since we started to cook our meals. So drinking coffee probably won't give you cancer. But too much acrylamide really isn't good. It would indeed be best to restrict it.
But I'll be honest, the research that likes to say that drinking coffe lowers the risk of getting cancer is fishy. Lots of Researchers are addicted and biased towards coffee. You should see the amount emptied in our lab. It's like Coffee-Oktoberfest.
The US, where things don't need to be proven to be safe, but should anything ever have vaguely negative effects in inconclusive studies then we better get warnings on everything!
Great videos, Aaron. Greetings from Colombia, i actually enjoy a lot with these kind of informative videos. But a lot of my friends and family, who can also get beneficiated, can't understand the videos because of language, should be cool if you made an English allied or something which explain the same, with same information but in Spanish !!! Keep doing practice knowledge please !!!
I would rather we get warning messages on something that actually kills lots of people when overused or used improperly, like cars.
There was a fucking P65 warning sticker on the box my computer came in, I immediately ripped it the fuck off and burned it
past information vs present
Maybe every law relating to heath should be run past a John Ioannidis or an Aaron Carroll before it's put into law. Some form of peer review seems to be in order.
Been watching these from the beginning of the channel and I value the information you provide. The host has been putting more and more of a condescending tone in his voice recently though and I find it hard to focus on the actual content of the episode when I feel like I’m being talked to like a child. I fear it’s going to cause people who actually need to hear some of this info to turn off entirely.
I truly don’t want to be a jerk, and intend this to be constructive criticism of a piece of media that I respect.
Sean Roberts You *are* a jerk writing your reaction here, which has nothing to do with Dr. Carroll. Psychology Today's website has a great provider search. Take Dr. Carroll's advice and go to therapy to resolve whatever your hang-up is here.
Eristitia that was hurtful.
I would call it more 'exasperated' than 'condescending' but that's a matter of perception. Wading through all the face-palm inducing stuff long enough to put out an informed video about it would probably give anyone a sense of frustration. I think we could do with a few more light tone, good news, or even neutral videos if it means Dr. Carroll doesn't need to check in with his cardiologist.
roasted coffee beans? NOOOOOOOOOO!
money vs caffeine who wins
The labels are so silly. I can't help but think that something more reminiscent of the WHMIS labeling system would be so much more meaningful and effective. WHMIS labeling does a good job of allowing the sort of risk assessment you call for here. Obviously something a little easier to interpret to the layman would be ideal, but the point still stands. WHMIS already does something similar, and effectively. Send those lawmakers to shop class so they can actually take some notes.
I think this guy needs to show us some proof before I take his word for it. I'm going to stick to what the doctors and scientists said stop drinking so much coffee
This video is making me hungry...
It's just a poorly worded law, I doubt the judge has any choice in the matter. Blame the moron who brought the lawsuit to begin with.
The law is phrased to say whether something _contains_ carcinogens, _not_ whether it *causes* cancer.
And, of course, virtually _everything_ has trace carcinogens in it. But that doesn't mean it's actually a cancer risk.
But, to the average voter, if you asked them, "would you want to know if something you bought can cause cancer?" Doesn't that sound unreasonable? Wouldn't you want to know that?
And the thing is, people arguing against it will have a hard time convincing people that the _technical_ language of the bill doesn't accomplish what it sets out to do. Both because that's hard for a laymen to assess, and because it's _exactly_ the argument a liar would make who has private reasons they can't reveal for opposing the bill (e.g., they produce something they know causes cancer.)
This is why we're a Democratic-Republic and not purely direct democracies. The law is freaking _complicated_ . And asking a voter what they _want_ is very different from asking them to approve a specific _implementation_ of what they want.
But it's hard to overturn ballot measures, and it looks antidemocratic. So stuff like this can congeal and crust on to the law, like barnacles on a rock.
At least it's largely harmless, it just freaks out the average person until they realize, "oh, this sign is in way too many places. There's no way this is all a cancer risk."
Awesome
Prop 65 has already lost all meaning to me. I laughed when I first saw it in Starbucks.
Well yeah - it's all around us.
Thanks be to California to save us from ourselves
your eyes tell me you like green ciggerettes lol
fact vs fuction
This this this a thousand times this. Boy who cried wolf, et al.
Yet another spectacular failure of judges & legislators ability to contextualise risk.
This is what continues to harm the credibility if public health research.
1:45 Oh come on! This is so disingenuous and unprofessional.
Dude! Even Cyanide occurs naturally in fruits. What are you trying to say here!
Who writes this scripts!?
You can't legislate common sense using legislators.
I think this guys lying...his name TRIage...like Triangle! uses FDA test knowledge when we know FDA is sold out.
This channel sure does like coffee. Are we certain there's no confirmation bias going on?
Whining voice if this guy, low confidence, many issues. I’m a brighter note, drink espresso everyone it’s yummy. ☕️
More California nonsense.
Stuff like this is why I don't buy into this "rule of law" crap. Completely arbitrary and evidence-free nonsense.
LOL, so it only takes the decision of one uninformed judge to make basically the entire concept of liberal democracy invalid?
Yes, actually. When one person has the power to make such stupid decisions that impact the whole economy, there is a problem.
The fact that such an uninformed person can have such immense power is an indictment of the concept of power.
Here's the thing though - judiciary doesn't hold the ultimate power. The judicial system has the power to interpret legislation, which is produced by legislators. Legislators (in true democracies) represent the public. If the courts make a decision which the representatives and the public don't like, the representatives can make an amendment or new legislation to ensure the law isn't interpreted in the way they don't want it to be. Courts ensure that the law is precise. If the law isn't precise, you cannot conceivably avoid criminality. If there is no law, who then has the power to punish you? Courts, for arbitrary reasons? The politburo, for whatever they feel like? A small subset of private citizens, for whatever they are angry at you for? Ultimately, someone has to make the decisions, and I'd much rather it was a court system held in check by the elected government (sparse distribution of power) than whatever you propose, which would likely concentrate power more.
Yeah, and 2/3 of American adults can't even name the 3 branches of the federal govt, so telling me that decisions are in the hands of the public is even worse. You seriously don't seem to know how politically ignorant the public is.
And you use the word "interpretation" a lot. Do you not see how arbitrary that is? Even something as clearly written as the 1st amendment to the US constitution is considered debatable.
As for what we'd do without law, it's simple. No violence against non-violent people. That is the only rule. You're already allowed to defend yourself right now, so that'd be no different. Basically, all of the arbitrary nonsense gets thrown out and you simply don't murder, rape, or rob others. That's it. Everything else is fair game.
You are aware that common law tradition predates govt monopoly on law by thousands of years, right?
Q B Sorry, if you want to continue being a tiresome, naive, ignorant Libertarian shill, you _have_ to believe in rule of law.
Literally, rule of law is the alternative to _authoritarianism_ . If you don't have a clearly defined code people follow, then it's just might makes right, the strongest person just makes up the rules on a whim.
A dumb law can be changed. A dumb _person_ will reward their friends, punish their enemies, and cause way more havoc than a bad law ever could.
Your voice is like nails on a chalk board
Government shouldn't even have the right to do this. PSAs only.
First
Coffee is also good for the heart ❤
CALIFORNIA says so. OHHHH Now I FULLY believe it’s real & true! 🫠🤨