Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's just take this discussion away from raw milk, grass-fed meat, and corn for a moment and get back to the discussion about whether it is appropriate for a governing body to intervene in the transactions between two consenting parties... which is what the article in the OP is all about.
Person A has a commodity, Person B wants the commodity and is fully aware of any inherent risks associated with it's use and consumption. Use and consumption of this commodity only affects Person B... he is not transferring it to anyone else and the sphere of influence is contained. In this circumstance, the commodity poses no *public* health or safety risk... the only person at possible risk is Person B, who was informed of those risks and wants it anyway.
The Federal Government was restricted, in the Constitution, to Interstate jurisdiction only... if it doesn't cross state lines, then they have no legal jurisdiction.
The State Government has jurisdiction over Intrastate Trade, but many have simply adopted the Federal mandates... this is the thin-edge of the wedge and has allowed Federal government to expand it's jurisdiction undisputed, and now they can force mandates that may not necessarily be applicable to a given locality.
So, as a mental exercise, let's explore a hypothetical argument. Suppose it becomes illegal to use any other sweetener in the US other than HFCS or Sucralose. Selling sugar of any type (cane, sap, beet, etc), honey, stevia, agave, tree syrups, or product that contain them is now punishable by law. The safety of HFCS and Sucralose has not been proven to be harmful, but nor have they been proven not to be harmful. Would you, as the consumer or the producer, accept those conditions? Would you voluntarily give up your right to a choice in products and accept only those that are sanctioned by the government?
Edit: In addition, is not only illegal to sell the "banned" sweeteners, but also illegal to produce, possess or consume them... and the government has the right to search and confiscate any property with just the vaguest hint of probable cause.
Last edited by MissingAll4Seasons; 07-20-2010 at 04:33 PM..
Reason: Adding a point
Please, I hope that people understand... succumbing to fear and allowing/accepting/expecting the government to dictate our choices under the auspices of "public safety", you are not only voluntarily abdicating your rights, but also the rights of others. Once you abdicate one right, you cannot take it back and others are sure to follow.
There is a balance between public safety and totalitarianism, and it starts with personal accountability.
Let's just take this discussion away from raw milk, grass-fed meat, and corn for a moment and get back to the discussion about whether it is appropriate for a governing body to intervene in the transactions between two consenting parties... which is what the article in the OP is all about.
Person A has a commodity, Person B wants the commodity and is fully aware of any inherent risks associated with it's use and consumption. Use and consumption of this commodity only affects Person B... he is not transferring it to anyone else and the sphere of influence is contained. In this circumstance, the commodity poses no *public* health or safety risk... the only person at possible risk is Person B, who was informed of those risks and wants it anyway.
The Federal Government was restricted, in the Constitution, to Interstate jurisdiction only... if it doesn't cross state lines, then they have no legal jurisdiction.
The State Government has jurisdiction over Intrastate Trade, but many have simply adopted the Federal mandates... this is the thin-edge of the wedge and has allowed Federal government to expand it's jurisdiction undisputed, and now they can force mandates that may not necessarily be applicable to a given locality.
So, as a mental exercise, let's explore a hypothetical argument. Suppose it becomes illegal to use any other sweetener in the US other than HFCS or Sucralose. Selling sugar of any type (cane, sap, beet, etc), honey, stevia, agave, tree syrups, or product that contain them is now punishable by law. The safety of HFCS and Sucralose has not been proven to be harmful, but nor have they been proven not to be harmful. Would you, as the consumer or the producer, accept those conditions? Would you voluntarily give up your right to a choice in products and accept only those that are sanctioned by the government?
Edit: In addition, is not only illegal to sell the "banned" sweeteners, but also illegal to produce, possess or consume them... and the government has the right to search and confiscate any property with just the vaguest hint of probable cause.
---Is it appropriate for the governing body to intervene in the transactions between two consenting parties---
Please, I hope that people understand... succumbing to fear and allowing/accepting/expecting the government to dictate our choices under the auspices of "public safety", you are not only voluntarily abdicating your rights, but also the rights of others. Once you abdicate one right, you cannot take it back and others are sure to follow.
There is a balance between public safety and totalitarianism, and it starts with personal accountability.
Regarding the logic ( or lack of it) regarding dairy farmers------Yup, dairy farmers are going to spend $1500 each and buy a herd of dairy cattle. He then is going to stuff as much corn into them as he can-------knowing full well they will develop abscessed hoofs if he does so. A lame cow quickly drops on milk production.
He then will " pump them full of antibiotics".........knowing he now can't sell her milk for quite awile and can't even sell her as a cull cow to the packing plant.
Really, how stupid do you folks think dairy farmers are ?
How could a dairy farmer stay in business shooting his cows with antibiotics
Every time a processor picks up milk from a dairy farm, a sample is taken and checked for antibiotics. There is zero tolerance for any antibiotics detected in milk.
I don't remember saying anything about detecting antibiotics in milk. I remember saying they used it in the cattle industry in part because of the two things I cited. I also wonder why they would test for antibiotics in milk if they went out of business using it.
Quote:
Any cow treated with antibiotic, the dairy farmer must with hold that milk from that cow for a minimum of 8 milkings.
How could you stay in business when you can't sell milk from treated cows?
I doubt any of you posting have a clue. Believe every myth they hear.
These statements are contradictory and illogical.What wall or homeless drunk are you arguing with anyway? I made two referenced assertions. The first one is that more pathogens are introduced because of over breeding for milk production. The other was ruminants are not designed to eat grains. Those two factors make raw milk more of an issue.
Quote:
Got any more myths you want me to bust?
How about the one about not being a monkey? Its not a myth really; but based on your performance, its a rumor.
Quote:
--corn--
Corn has been fed to dairy cows long before I was born( 1945)
Most organic dairy producers feed it also.
Well that resoundingly proves ruminants eat grains. Does your birth mark some sort of epoch like the birth of Christ?
---Is it appropriate for the governing body to intervene in the transactions between two consenting parties---
Prostitution comes to mind.
Still a crime in most states
If a person is not under duress, not being forced or exploited, and is of sufficient mental faculty to make such decisions, and they have voluntarily chosen to peform sexual service for someone else who is willing to pay for it... I see no reason why it should be considered a crime.
In a multitude of cultures, both current and historic, prostitution was not a dishonorable profession nor illegal. Just because our puritanical moral roots are showing doesn't mean that something we personally don't approve of should be against the law. We have the choice not to partake or be involved, but it's not our right to make that choice for others who don't share our views simply because we don't like it.
Sure, I already did. Do you think those cows were not bred and selected due to milk production? Do you suppose the rest of the cow has caught up? Do you suppose their teats have just automatically gotten tougher? The probability of infection will go up with more milking. The typical turkey cannot even properly mate because when sexually mature, they cannot even walk due to breast size. I would consider that over bred when they cannot even breed on their own at all.
The point is we have a system of factory farming which depends on pasteurization to solve it all. Thus raw milk from those collective conditions is certainly risky.
If we start irradiating meat today, I'd bet in a 100 years people would consider it crazy not to do it. Meanwhile the whole process would be built around the assumption that meat is irradiated. So then it would seem unsanitary.
Either way there is a legitimate use for raw milk, and I would not assume pasteurization is the only option for milk. I have no doubt it would be more expensive.
Last edited by gwynedd1; 07-21-2010 at 08:00 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
