@Atheistman It is an actual law. It was voted on by California residents, and is an example of how direct democracy can go wrong. Because of the way the law is written, there are prop 65 warning signs almost everywhere in the state, so they largely get ignored.

[oehha.ca.gov]

Further to the comments from @d_day (with which I agree) I'm not sure that @Atheistman's concept of "dogmatic thinking" versus "positive thinking" fits nicely into the law. It is 100% wrong to say that judges do not use critical thinking skills. It's also wrong to say that judges, prosecutors, and police do not exercise discretion and judgment about things that they encounter. Lots of cops see crimes being committed but make no arrests; for instance a police officer has discretion to let a speeder off "with a warning" instead of writing a ticket. There is also the fact that one person's moral judgments may be a little bit different than someone else's, though both may approach a given situation in good faith, which is one reason that multiple people are involved at different phases of enforcing the law, and each is vested with a degree of discretion about what to do with a given set of facts and accusations.

The counter-point to this is that the law ALSO ought to be the same for everyone. The more discretion is allowed to people in the law enforcement process, the more room gets made for things like racially biased policing, prosecution, and sentencing. So to some extent, for the sake of treating all people equally, what seem to some like trivial matters are treated with greater gravity by the legal system.

I understand your outrage at a scenairo such as that of the hypothetical hypocritical police officer. Your thoughts about justice should include the possibility that such things happen, but should also embrace the reality that official misbehavior of this sort is also rare. We can't design our society, which includes a justice system, solely around the notion that the very people tasked with making that system work are going to violate its most precious norms (though of course I concede that's a risk we must safeguard against).

Consider the notion that "justice" lies at the balance point between good-faith moral discretion, treating all people equally, observing good formal legal process in an expeditious fashion, and respecting our collective norms and values. If that sounds like an abstract and ambitious thing to strive for, well, it is. Nevertheless it's worth attempting even if our attempts sometimes fall short of our ideals.

Truly, @atheistman, I don't know how we got from a discussion of the expanding scope of Prop. 65 to this. It seemed to me you were interested in a discussion of what the law is, and how the law imperfectly relates to concepts like justice and fairness and morality. That's a good discussion to have. But now I think you're really fixated on misbehaving cops -- which is fine, I suppose, despite the fact that your assertion of its frequency is predicated upon "belief" and anecdote -- and it's getting really far afield from what the original post by @zblaze was all about. So I'm going to let you enjoy feeling self-satisfied that you somehow prevailed in this threadjacked exchange, regret that you didn't bother to take the time to understand what I was trying to say, and call it a day with you.