https://www.wsj.com/articles/san-francisco-to-consider-toler...
The WSJ article is clearly written as an homage to The Onion.
Finally, San Francisco is not a big enough market to swing anything (or almost anything). California is, particularly if there are at least a few producer states whose sympathies lie in the general direction the CA is trying to push (e.g. with vehicle emissions).
The actual reporting done by WSJ is still top tier imo.
Regulation simply equals increased prices which is essentially a tax on the middle class and poor.
Whatever was regulated will become a luxury. The rich will have it but the middle class and poor will not.
See car prices, gas prices, food prices, liquor licenses, etc. Anything the government gets it's hand on to regulate increases prices.
The rich don't notice the increased cost of regulation but the middle class and poor suffer.
That assumes:
* either pork production for CA takes place only inside CA or in other states they have two levels of pork production
* if the latter, this further requires that pork producers are happy maintaining two levels of production
* it also requires that no or few other states follow CA lead on requirements
> Regulation simply equals increased prices
Regulation is often (not always, but often) about bring externalities into the actual cost. So the full picture of the result of regulation needs to include:
* what were the externalities now being priced?
* where was the cost of the externalities previously experienced (e.g. poor communities dealing with runoff and waste from pork production)
* what was the full cost of the externalities before regulation bought some of them into the actual price?
* what are the remaining externalities after the regulation