Great legacy there, arseholes.

I could never understand the logic as it always seemed that by the time time the helpless baby, alone in his/her crib, was surrounded by fire — really, how much good would anything short of an asbestos box do for the tyke?  Fire retardant, give me a break.  Talk about fear-mongering.  

“Testifying for California lawmakers last year, the retired Seattle doctor and former president of the American Burn Association drew gasps as he described a 7-week-old girl who was burned in a fire started by a candle while she lay on a pillow that lacked flame-retardant chemicals.”
“They are lying,” said Jeff Zack, a spokesman for the International Association of Fire Fighters.

http://boingboing.net/2012/05/02/tobaccowars.html

But the argument didn’t factor in firefighting costs. I wonder if there’s a way of determining how much smoking costs a community in extra firefighting costs, and then dividing that cost by the number of packs sold in that area over a period of time. Might give advocates of raising cigarette taxes some more ammunition…

I mean, I do think California’s heavy-handed approach to these things is good, ultimately, but they need to be able to admit mistakes and repeal things when appropriate. 

And if you think the stickers that say things contain chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer are ridiculous, try living in CA itself – the signs are so ubiquitous all you can do is ignore them. They serve no useful purpose. At least they aren’t causing further potential harm, though, like the fire-retardant chemicals.