See, now, to me that's just surreal. can't sell unprocessed milk? Seriously?

Just make sure people are aware of the potential risks. We get all sorts of government information about how to handle poultry safely, and how some foods shouldn't be eaten by a pregnant woman, or a young child. So just make that part of the info. Unpasteurised milk may contain whatever it is it might contain. There ya go.

The idea of making it illegal to sell milk from a cow is just bizarre to me. It makes as little sense as the law that prevents me growing a particular plant from seed, drying out its flowers and leaves, burning it and inhaling the smoke.

Now...cigarettes are a different matter. Because they are not the natural product. They are sprayed and blended and refined and have burn accelerators and a whole heap of other chemical components added. I can see a logic in not allowing people to actively create an inherently dangerous substance and then sell it to people for consumption.

Someone wants to grow tobacco, dry it out and try and smoke it? that's back to the milk and the pot and the mushrooms.

Ban milk from the cow? Seriously?

That's practically the definition of modern man.

The argument against "I'm informed, I'll make my own decision and live with the consequences" is that when the shit really hits the fan, and the consequences are horrific, the results get socialized. If a man chooses not to wear a motorcycle helmet, has an accident and is brain dead, guess who pays for his care and supports his family. Health insurance only goes so far, and will fight any distance that it has to go. Same with tobacco use and drinking raw milk (to a much lesser extent). Sometimes it's the taxpayers who pony up, sometimes it's beef and beer fundraisers.

I think we are into something about how regulation seems to work in the US. It always seems to favor scaled production. Big business wants to sell low quality pasteurized homogenized for its own convenience, now if it can use regulators to eliminate a better quality competitor under the veneer of a small health risk it is a win for the corporations and the nanny staters. When big business isn't on board as in highfructosecornsyrup there doesn't seem to be much traction.


That is just clever writing.

Spexx, yours could be seen as a strong argument against socialized medicine, but you'll notice The Brits have managed both. Which risk factors do we ban? Do we ignore the health benefits of raw dairy when we do the calculus? Do we take action against the obese? Do we tell people not to live in certain risky neighborhoods. Do we ban small economy cars as too unsafe? Do we just ban driving altogether? Its the sort of thing that gets Republicans thinking death panel. I don't think of raw milk as being on the slippery slope. Banning raw milk is off the slope and crashing through the trees.

It has mostly been said, but if this resaoning were applied consistently, we'd ban darn near everything. What wasn't banned would be compulsory.

I am content that my tax dollars will help pay for Aliantha's baby's delivery etc, and even her sons' future rugby injuries, since her taxes helped pay for my higher education.

Don't mention that I :rasta: a fair portion of my scholarship. She'll be paying for my emphesyma treatment.

The difference is that in socialized medicine, both sides of the equation are socialized, not just the horrific consequences.

There has to be a line drawn between prohibited and compulsory. While we all probably agree that the consequences of "hold my beer and watch this" activities should be left to Darwinism, there's a lot of grey area.

Really, where can you buy that in the US?

Obama is going to lose big on this in the issue of birth control in Catholic Hospitals as well as damage his public image among a huge voter block (I hope).

You (quite rightly, I think) can't, but they do still make it some places in eastern europe.

I strongly deny that requiring Catholic employers to pay for insurance for their employees which covers contraceptionand abortion in any way impedes said Catholic employer from practising their religion.

What is going on is that the Catholic employer is trying to FORCE their religion (i.e. anti-abortion stance) on their employees, and THAT is a violation of the employees' right to freely practise THEIR religion which may well allow abortion.

With all do respect, I could give a shit about anything that happens outside of the our economy unless it involves my fellow troops.

Now, now, that is total bull shit.

Those employees have the perfect Right to go anywhere they want to "Peruse happiness", as protected by the Constitution, or they can work somewhere else. If you have ever worked in a place like a Catholic Hospital, and when you sign your contract, you accept the work conditions and those include probation's against "stuff", tow the line or move on.... not really difficult, not illegal, not discriminatory. You sign on the dotted line to do what they want you to do or you move on, not a big deal. You choose to work there under THEIR conditions or you choose to work somewhere else. Not complicated.

If one of those conditions includes obeying their religious doctrines, it is totally a violation of the employee's freedom of religion. Forcing them to seek employment elsewhere is religious discrimination. QED.

Holy Crap! The wold if filled with people like this....

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/vide...video_id=15915

More important in America, nobody imposes their religious beliefs on anyone else. Religion is only a relationship between one man and his god. No man ever imposes his religious beliefs on anyone else - not even his employees. Churches do not like such realities. Because it says the church cannot tell others how to think.

Only American civil law is relevant and fundamental here. We also do not ban driving on the Sabbath. That restriction would also make a religious institution nothing more than Satan worshippers. Does your church tell its employees that they cannot drive on the Sabbath? Of course not. Because a church is only an adviser. It has no business imposing its beliefs on anyone.

Full page ad in today's Washington Post (this is being seen by most eyes in Congress this morning.)
Attachment 37264