I do believe this is an unfair comparison. With tobacco the warnings are always true, but with prop 65 the product might not contain any cancer causing ingredients, but the warning is there just in case.
It's much easier to tell yourself prop 65 doesn't have to be avoided because "it's probably just there to cover their asses" wile tobacco products have real warnings that definitely mean danger (though there are people who convince themselves otherwise_
Also even if there's a prop 65 warning because there are cancer-causing ingredients, those ingredients may not be user-accessible or may be in tiny enough quantities that they'd statistically never result in cancer even with lifetime use by every human on the planet. E.g. lead in a circuit board inside an IP-68 rated sealed device would require a prop 65 warning even though it won't pose any cancer risk to the user unless they grind up the device & ingest or inhale the lead.
But that is because the requirement is binary - warning vs. no warning. This problem doesn't happen if the requirement is to disclose what was used although it could still lead to other issues.
I don't know of anyone (seriously not one person) who actually believes those labels. And the reason why is precisely because the government was foolish enough to put them on everything under the sun. Now nobody listens to them because the seriousness got diluted.
