4 ms·

> California’s AB-728 mandates age verification for anyone purchasing skin care products or cosmetics that contain certain chemicals like Vitamin A or alpha hyd

> California’s AB-728 mandates age verification for anyone purchasing skin care products or cosmetics that contain certain chemicals like Vitamin A or alpha hydroxy acids. On the surface, this may seem harmless—who doesn't want to ensure that minors are safe from harmful chemicals? Why would we want to keep minors safe from "harmful chemicals" but not adults? If skin cream products with Vitamin A or alpha hydroxy acids are harmful, and I'm entirely unconvinced they are (at reasonable concentrations), lets just get rid of them.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Why would we want to keep minors safe from "harmful chemicals" but not adults? My understanding is they’re harmful if misused.
- amrocha 2y ago
  That can be said about pretty much anything though. Don’t drink shampoo!
  - genewitch 2y ago
    Why does it have fruit on the bottle then?
    - amrocha 2y ago
      Deceptive advertising! haha
- Aeolun 2y ago
  Pencils are harmful if misused. They make for effective stabbing. Is this about the chance about being inadvertedly misused to the point they’re harmful. I dunno, by all means, don’t sell them to kids, but should we really forbid a 15 year old unless they can show some form of ID? They’re not any more likely to do something dumb with it than an 18 year old.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
squigz 2y ago
Probably for the same reason we allow adults to smoke and drink but not children.
- balamatom 2y ago
  Not really. The reason "we", scratch that, the reason the state allows adults to drink and smoke is because adults have been known to fight back, sometimes quite effectively, when they feel like something is been "taken away" from them. The obvious example here is the rise of bootlegging during prohibition; all that did was empower the organized criminal class, rather than get the nation to realize the awesome benefits of being a sober working stiff. That's why contemporary Western states disincentivize harmful goods by taxation, and gradual, rather than total, prohibition. Consuming liquor and tobacco are also traditional communal activities, dating from before the total enclosure of industrial civilization upon people's personal lives. Meaning, people would actually be inclined to fight for the right to carry on like they're used to. This is one of the greatest motivators ever; very much not the case with the more novel intoxicating substances, even where those might actually be less harmful than good old alcohol and nicotine. I'm all for creating an environment that encourages people to make optimal choices about their own lives. Generally, we do not live in an environment that even makes that possible. Case in point, why would one be driven to apply the toxic skin creams in question, if they did not have toxic beauty standards imposed on them in the first place? How do "we protect the children" from those, when all over the world conformance with Adobe Photoshop's idea of the human form can directly determine the social market value of a human being? The answer is, we have no idea - we're not even asking ourselves the questions that make sense, because "protecting the children" is a moral scam. A just society would protect the inexperienced and the powerless, regardless of age - and, conversely, acknowledge the personhood and autonomy of all citizens in accordance with their demonstrated degree of self-awareness, rather than determine their human rights by some involuntary biological marker. I don't know how that society would work in practice, I'm only here to remind you that instead we live in another kind of society - one that is based on the non-consensual extraction of human resources. Such a society has no incentive to "protect" most of anyone. All it needs is to raise obedient children into dependent adults. (It also needs a stable population of scapegoats - "juvenile delinquents" growing into "hardened criminals", who are to be blamed for all dysfunction.) Minors are an oppressed minority. They are subjected to extensive brainwashing, and deprivations of liberty that society claims are "for their own good". These rather serve the preservation of power structures, which start with the oppressor's drive to forget their formerly oppressed status. Thus, the purpose of age verification can only ever be the violation of privacy and autonomy of all market participants; it will do absolutely nothing to prevent kids from emulating the harmful and unmoderated behaviors of the adults around them.
kmeisthax 2y ago
California does keep adults safe from chemicals already - there's special Prop 65 labels you have to put on things in California if they contain chemicals.
- LPisGood 2y ago
  Quick correction: everything contains chemicals.
  - throwaway81348 2y ago
    correct that's why everything in california, including the air in parking garages, is labeled with P65
    - LPisGood 2y ago
      You know what, when I spent a summer there I do remember it being hilarious how many things had warnings.
      - N2yhWNXQN3k9 2y ago
        Hilarious that we've decided to exist in a toxic environment daily? Or hilarious that California is the only state that mandates people tell you that? Don't worry, they still can poison the water you use: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-epa-san-francisco-sewage-discharge/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-epa-san-francisco...
    - hot_gril 2y ago
      I saw a P65 warning on a car.
      - almosthere 2y ago
        It's literally on my truck - never bothered to remove the sticker.
    - 2y ago
croes 2y ago
Everything is harmful in the wrong dosage
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  Yup. "Hazardous" simply means something where it's quite possible to encounter harmful quantities. And it's possible to have substances intended for human consumption that meet the definition of "poison".
Item_Boring 2y ago
In the recent years there’s been a boom in kids using skin care - often products though that aren’t meant for them. And with kids I mean pre-teens. Some have even become influencers themselves. However, there’s also been a rise in reports in kids damaging their skin by using these products in the first place or using them wrongly (vitamin A and AHA are amazing but they are very tricky to handle and can easily lead to chemical burns / retinol burns …). I don’t think there’s any good reason to let kids handle those on their own. And stuff like retinol is starting to get regulated for “everyone” anyway.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Why would we want to keep minors safe from "harmful chemicals" but not adults? My understanding is they’re harmful if misused.

amrocha 2y ago
That can be said about pretty much anything though. Don’t drink shampoo!
- genewitch 2y ago
  Why does it have fruit on the bottle then?
  - amrocha 2y ago
    Deceptive advertising! haha
Aeolun 2y ago
Pencils are harmful if misused. They make for effective stabbing. Is this about the chance about being inadvertedly misused to the point they’re harmful. I dunno, by all means, don’t sell them to kids, but should we really forbid a 15 year old unless they can show some form of ID? They’re not any more likely to do something dumb with it than an 18 year old.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

squigz 2y ago

Probably for the same reason we allow adults to smoke and drink but not children.

balamatom 2y ago
Not really. The reason "we", scratch that, the reason the state allows adults to drink and smoke is because adults have been known to fight back, sometimes quite effectively, when they feel like something is been "taken away" from them. The obvious example here is the rise of bootlegging during prohibition; all that did was empower the organized criminal class, rather than get the nation to realize the awesome benefits of being a sober working stiff. That's why contemporary Western states disincentivize harmful goods by taxation, and gradual, rather than total, prohibition. Consuming liquor and tobacco are also traditional communal activities, dating from before the total enclosure of industrial civilization upon people's personal lives. Meaning, people would actually be inclined to fight for the right to carry on like they're used to. This is one of the greatest motivators ever; very much not the case with the more novel intoxicating substances, even where those might actually be less harmful than good old alcohol and nicotine. I'm all for creating an environment that encourages people to make optimal choices about their own lives. Generally, we do not live in an environment that even makes that possible. Case in point, why would one be driven to apply the toxic skin creams in question, if they did not have toxic beauty standards imposed on them in the first place? How do "we protect the children" from those, when all over the world conformance with Adobe Photoshop's idea of the human form can directly determine the social market value of a human being? The answer is, we have no idea - we're not even asking ourselves the questions that make sense, because "protecting the children" is a moral scam. A just society would protect the inexperienced and the powerless, regardless of age - and, conversely, acknowledge the personhood and autonomy of all citizens in accordance with their demonstrated degree of self-awareness, rather than determine their human rights by some involuntary biological marker. I don't know how that society would work in practice, I'm only here to remind you that instead we live in another kind of society - one that is based on the non-consensual extraction of human resources. Such a society has no incentive to "protect" most of anyone. All it needs is to raise obedient children into dependent adults. (It also needs a stable population of scapegoats - "juvenile delinquents" growing into "hardened criminals", who are to be blamed for all dysfunction.) Minors are an oppressed minority. They are subjected to extensive brainwashing, and deprivations of liberty that society claims are "for their own good". These rather serve the preservation of power structures, which start with the oppressor's drive to forget their formerly oppressed status. Thus, the purpose of age verification can only ever be the violation of privacy and autonomy of all market participants; it will do absolutely nothing to prevent kids from emulating the harmful and unmoderated behaviors of the adults around them.

kmeisthax 2y ago

California does keep adults safe from chemicals already - there's special Prop 65 labels you have to put on things in California if they contain chemicals.

LPisGood 2y ago
Quick correction: everything contains chemicals.
- throwaway81348 2y ago
  correct that's why everything in california, including the air in parking garages, is labeled with P65
  - LPisGood 2y ago
    You know what, when I spent a summer there I do remember it being hilarious how many things had warnings.
    - N2yhWNXQN3k9 2y ago
      Hilarious that we've decided to exist in a toxic environment daily? Or hilarious that California is the only state that mandates people tell you that? Don't worry, they still can poison the water you use: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-epa-san-francisco-sewage-discharge/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-epa-san-francisco...
  - hot_gril 2y ago
    I saw a P65 warning on a car.
    - almosthere 2y ago
      It's literally on my truck - never bothered to remove the sticker.
  - 2y ago

croes 2y ago

Everything is harmful in the wrong dosage

LorenPechtel 2y ago
Yup. "Hazardous" simply means something where it's quite possible to encounter harmful quantities. And it's possible to have substances intended for human consumption that meet the definition of "poison".

Item_Boring 2y ago

In the recent years there’s been a boom in kids using skin care - often products though that aren’t meant for them. And with kids I mean pre-teens. Some have even become influencers themselves. However, there’s also been a rise in reports in kids damaging their skin by using these products in the first place or using them wrongly (vitamin A and AHA are amazing but they are very tricky to handle and can easily lead to chemical burns / retinol burns …). I don’t think there’s any good reason to let kids handle those on their own. And stuff like retinol is starting to get regulated for “everyone” anyway.