The Court of Appeal holds that you don't have to put a Prop. 65 warning on bongs because, at least in theory, they could be used for something other than marijuana.
I wonder what the threshold is there. What if 99%+ of the things are used for marijuana? 99.9%? (Which, I suspect, reflects reality.)
Plus, though the opinion doesn't mention it, doesn't everything you'd put in a bong cause cancer? I mean, I guess you could put cheese or something in it, in theory. But it wouldn't exactly work that way.
I was also thinking that if Prop. 65 warnings were required for things that might expose you to marijuana smoke, then the beach parking lot across the street from my house should definitely have a warning as well. Particularly at sunset. 'Cause that thing is Pot Central.
