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.
It was a felony case due to the intent to distribute.
I do not smoke pot, havent since high school 15 years ago, but I also do not believe the government has Constitutional authorization to dictate what people may or may not put into their own bodies, especially given that the substance in question was a plant.
What if "juror #7" believes that the government has no "Constitutional authorization to dictate" that he can't kill his wife?
The same leap in judgement is being made. Just because you believe something is un-Constitutional, doesn't mean it is. And it's outside a juror's responsibility to make these decisions, anyway.
You really want plumbers and housewives contemplating Constitutional law rather than making a black/white decision on the facts that they are presented with?
Last edited by punkfan39126; 05-29-2013 at 09:24 AM..
Very popular local restaurant here just got closed down as multiple eaters there came down with Salmonella. Victim count ended above 200.
YOu folk believe that was not a reasonable thing for the government to do?
This particular case moves over into the health codes. You really want to throw those out.
I don't know why people think making leaps like this accomplishes anything.
Nobody argued that we should throw out all health codes. There is a difference between a public restaurant that people expect a certain standard out of and people who knowing and willingly want to make other decisions for themselves.
And how do we know that this restaurant was even at fault? Maybe the tainted food came from somewhere that is supposed to be inspected but hasn't for months. Why should the business get shut down for something that wasn't their fault?
What if "juror #7" believes that the government has no "Constitutional authorization to dictate" that he can't kill his wife?
The same stan judgement is being made. Just because you believe something is un-Constitutional, doesn't mean it is. And it's outside a juror's responsibility to make these decisions, anyway.
You really want plumbers and housewives contemplating Constitutional law rather than making a black/white decision on the facts that they are presented with?
Actually I want plumbers and housewives to nullify any jury charged with trying a case involving a crime in which there are no demonstrable damages to a specific victim. I would also want those same people to nullify any jury charged with trying a case involving a law in which there is no specific constitutional enumeration giving government the power to make that particular law.
Jurors are triers of both fact and law, not just the fact in question. That's why the judiciary hates the idea of jury nullification, its a smack in the face of the status quo. Its easier to render judgement and not question the countless number of unconstitutional laws that we are forced to live under today.
I don't know why people think making leaps like this accomplishes anything.
Nobody argued that we should throw out all health codes. There is a difference between a public restaurant that people expect a certain standard out of and people who knowing and willingly want to make other decisions for themselves.
And how do we know that this restaurant was even at fault? Maybe the tainted food came from somewhere that is supposed to be inspected but hasn't for months. Why should the business get shut down for something that wasn't their fault?
No leap. My language was clear. You simply did not read it fully.
The evidence against the restaurant was overwhelming. The restaurant and the well known chef who runs it agrees.
I think public health is trickier than you make it out. How do you define "knowingly"? I am sure we would both agree that a Phd biochemist buying for his own use is knowledgeable. How about the friend of a child of a parent who thinks raw milk is "in". Or the client of a boutique ice cream store who believes only raw milk gets the really rich flavor?
No leap. My language was clear. You simply did not read it fully.
The evidence against the restaurant was overwhelming. The restaurant and the well known chef who runs it agrees.
I think public health is trickier than you make it out. How do you define "knowingly"? I am sure we would both agree that a Phd biochemist buying for his own use is knowledgeable. How about the friend of a child of a parent who thinks raw milk is "in". Or the client of a boutique ice cream store who believes only raw milk gets the really rich flavor?
Ohhh. They did not claim this guy was violating current rules? And you know personally that three or four of his 200- co-owners are not a front for a boutique ice cream store? And you know all this how?
This gets very tricky when you get into this seam that joins public heath.
Just to make things clear...I think raw milk should be an available product in commerce. But it should be done very carefully and with the understanding you can get bit. Like eating exotic sushi.
Government did not fail. It closed the restaurant down. No further regulations were needed or suggested.
I would also note the jury found the milk producer guilty on one count. If they intended a "gov stay out" it would have been zero.
I never claimed the jury intended the gov to stay out.
The government failed to do its job because the restaurant sold bad food more than once. Bad food was sold with govt regulations in place. No reason to think more laws will change anything.
Ohhh. They did not claim this guy was violating current rules? And you know personally that three or four of his 200- co-owners are not a front for a boutique ice cream store? And you know all this how?
This gets very tricky when you get into this seam that joins public heath.
Just to make things clear...I think raw milk should be an available product in commerce. But it should be done very carefully and with the understanding you can get bit. Like eating exotic sushi.
You can't do that at a mass production level and still keep it safe and sanitary.
That is why milk is pasteurized today.
One has to be super meticulous when milking cows.
I have cows (beef) on my property and they have the messiest poop imaginable and they poop all over themselves from behind.
Notice you never see many pictures of cows in the pasture from behind ? There's a reason
I'm a big fan of buy direct and I do for meat and it's processed by a USDA butcher.
But I won't buy raw milk. And if I were to get into raw milk for myself I would go with dairy goats as they are much cleaner to begin with.
And I would also vat pasteurize the milk before consuming.
Last edited by HappyTexan; 05-29-2013 at 06:45 PM..
I never claimed the jury intended the gov to stay out.
The government failed to do its job because the restaurant sold bad food more than once. Bad food was sold with govt regulations in place. No reason to think more laws will change anything.
You folk are just unable to read. This particular governmental domain is probably the best in the world or close to it as we all live to the first commandment...thou shall not kill tourists...or even give them the trots.
Why is actually pretty obvious in Las Vegas.
The theory at the moment is a bad lot of Chorizo...probably a temperature problem. This is a local place - so it was not the tourist police.
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.
