Some ideas are too dumb to see the light of day - unless you're a state legislator here in Colorado. In that case anything goes. HB 1248 will be up for discussion at a committee meeting this Monday March 1st. The purpose of the thing is to regulate personal products containing "a chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity."

 As usual when looking at proposed legislation the devil is in the details. Who gets to decide which chemicals will be banned? From the bill:

(a) THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY;
(b) THE UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, OR ITS
SUCCESSOR ENTITY;
(c) THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
HEALTH, OR ITS SUCCESSOR ENTITY;
(d) THE NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM, OR ITS SUCCESSOR
13 PROGRAM; AND
(e) THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER, OR
ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY.
 
 Let's note that these organizations aren't exactly equal in stature. The last group, the IARC, is part of the WHO, and is headquartered in France. Their science standards, to put it delicately, may not be the same as those in our country. As I read the bill, the IARC pronouncements would carry the weight of law here in Colorado.

 It get's better-

ANY PERSON ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF SECTION 25-5-1204 MAY
BRING AN ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER IN A COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE VIOLATION
OCCURRED. UPON FINDING A VIOLATION, IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER
RELIEF AUTHORIZED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE
MANUFACTURER TO CEASE AND DESIST CONDUCT VIOLATING SECTION
25-5-1204 AND SHALL ORDER THE MANUFACTURER TO PAY THE
PREVAILING PARTY REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

 So one group of people will surely benefit from this - lawyers!

 Here's what one manufacturer from Maine has to say:

Why this bill at this time? The bill is the effort of the Women's Lobby of Colorado, sponsored in the CO State Legislature by Rep. Dianne Primavera. The Women's Lobby of Colorado is an endorsing organization of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, founded in part by The Environmental Working Group (did you get all that?!) The EWG has been collecting "evidence" to support its belief that cosmetics are unsafe (see the Campaign's database at Skin Deep for more details). While the campaign's goals were initially aligned with many small personal care products manufacturers, more recently their tactics have included misrepresenting overall risks and singling out manufacturers whose ingredient lists they didn't approve of--pressure akin to blackmail. Some of the companies who had signed with the group early on requested to be removed--and were initially ignored. (Read about Bella Lucce's experience.) The EWG's misinformation has spread to the general public, who are understandably nervous after recent public health scares involving contaminants in food, toys, and other products. The EWG is promoting the perception that personal care products are unregulated and are encouraging consumers to demand legislation to "rein in" the cosmetics companies. Though the EWG's work is pressuring legislators into taking action, they are tilting at windmills.

I guess I can add The Women's Lobby of Colorado to the list of suspect lobbying organizations.

 The bill would create the most onerous regulations in the nation here in Colorado. Thousands of small business owners, especially women, might be put out of business. The only good thing I can say about it is the bill's Senate sponsor herself talks like it won't pass:

This bill was just introduced to the House, and Senator Boyd says even if it doesn't pass this year, it's a good step to get the word out about these harmful ingredients.

But writing a bill like this is plenty of reason to get voted out of office.

[revisited here]

 David Kopel;  How the right to arms saved the non-violent civil rights protesters.

 That sort of history is well known in libertarian circles but I don't know how many others have read about it.

 This BBC piece,

Why do people vote against their own interests?

Is it a subtle (and brilliant) satire of elitists who are condescending while being utterly clueless, or is it the work of elitists who are condescending while being utterly clueless?

Update: More here.