Clod, why not add cocaine or heroin to that list? What about toxic wormwood absinthe (as opposed to less-toxic proper absinthe)? What about toys made with lead (even labeled)? (maybe you think we SHOULD legalize and regulate those, fine - surely there's SOMETHING you think we shouldn't offer)

I think it's fair to say that everyone draws a line between safety and freedom somewhere. There are, to the vast majority of people, some things whose benefits outweigh their risks, and some whose risks outweigh the benefits. Where raw milk falls on the continuum and where the line should be drawn on the continuum are two separate issues, and there's no reason to expect consensus on EITHER point. It's quite possible that Lamp thinks raw milk is more dangerous than you do, or otherwise not worth the risks over pasteurized milk, and that tobacco or hfcs aren't. I'm not sure it's fair to equate the three out-of-hand.

HFCS I'll give you, it's harder for some people to see and acknowledge long-term health effects. But it would be impossible to look at the number of people sickened by contaminated raw milk, compared to the number of people killed each day by tobacco use, and conclude that raw milk is more dangerous.

I'd be fine with legalizing cocaine and heroin, within the same regulated framework as all other medicines. Many countries have done fine with it. And like Zen said, if there's a demand for wormwood-absinthe, I'm fine with people buying it, as long as it is properly labeled, and those with the certified non-toxic label are held to an agreed-on standard of nontoxicity. There isn't a demand for toys made with lead, but if there were, then sure, label that shit up and down and let people buy it. You can go to any sporting goods store today and buy large quantities of lead in the form of fishing lures, and you can take your kid fishing with them.

The problem is when people lie about the contents of their products, not when they sell a legitimate product to the people who are informed of the contents and want to buy them anyway. And when people use products to directly harm or otherwise infringe on the rights of others, in which case the full extent of the law should be used against them. Regulation is key, but no, at the moment I can't think of a product that should be banned on its face.

I'm not sure I understand what that means. Really, the only medicine available for recreational use is dextromethorphan and it's not all that fun. How would recreational cocaine and heroin be regulated? would you have to get a prescription? who would write you one? would it be OTC? in that case, aside from ensuring purity of content and responsibility of outcomes, are there ANY practical "regulated framework" to regulate it?

edited to add: more concisely: explain how you think "I" as a potential cocaine customer should legally go about purchasing it.

I don't personally think heroin or cocaine would be that much fun, either. Whether it's fun isn't the point, and I'm not suggesting that it should all be available for recreational use, or over the counter.

I'm thinking about, for example, the Netherlands policy of heroin-assisted treatment, wherein a doctor (who is regulated) is allowed to prescribe (again, a series of regulations) forms of heroin for patients who for whatever reason are unable to tolerate similar medications such as morphine.

As another example, take radioactive substances--one might argue that there is no possible use for the layman to have with these substances that doesn't also endanger those around him, so they should be banned. Except, again, doctors use them to great effect in cancer treatment, among other things.

As I said, regulation is key. The level of danger indicates the level of regulation required, but banning things outright, especially things that arguably have important benefits that may or may not outweigh the risks (as raw milk does,) is a foolish policy.

Or you can give your kid lead weights to use to bring his pinewood derby car up to weight and also incorporate as ornamental rocket engines. :cool:
Attachment 37237

I say bring back DDT.

I'm serious.

Just don't spray it all over the kids.

whatever...

Peace.

Kids were fine with DDT, it was the bald eagles who had a hard time with it. Made their egg shells fragile, if you'll recall.

Yabbut, less eagles = less insidious infesting fuckers like bedbugs. ;)

I don't know about your communities but they're spreading like wildfire around here.

Legislators ignore the problem because they don't really hurt anyone, don't spread disease, etc. They might make you go off the deep end trying to get rid of them, though. So mental hospitals will benefit from more patients. It's WIN-WIN. (really, what isn't?)

(I wasn't directing anything at you, Lamp, so I hope I haven't offended you?)

So then maybe (doubtfully, but this is a logical/theoretical argument) Lamp thinks that raw milk should only be available is a doctor thinks you need raw milk because it's the only way you can take calcium because youre allergic to everything else with calcium in it. Maybe he thinks the benefits of being raw are so far outweighed by the risks that it should be very-nearly banned outright, like heroin would be under laws that allow heroin-assisted treatment. I would just about call that the same as being banned.

I'm personally all for raw milk. I think if you drink raw milk that you can't personally individually convince yourself is safe from squirt to sip, you're an idiot, but I think that if you want it that bad, sure, go for it - and both the distributor and the consumers should be held accountable if that milk is responsible for an outbreak of illness. I'm just saying that I can understand the argument that the public safety risks of access to raw milk might, to some people, outweigh any benefits of being raw.

You couldn't pay me to drink that shit. I can't even stand whole milk from the grocery. Might as well drink ice cream with cottage cheese added. ;)

I'd be willing to bring DDT back if it was only sold to licensed pros and had some fairly strict requirements to use. It's the fogging of entire swamps and backyards that caused the problems.

Clod and Griff, do you think raw milk is better than pateurized milk? If so, in what way(s)? Is it safer, tastier, more nutritious?

It tastes a lot better. According to this it is more nutritious. YMMV but any food that is cooked/processed loses nutritional value. In terms of safety, pasteurized milk should have less risk of food poisoning. For the mass market consumer eating mega-Agriculture's lowest bottom denominator food stuff pasteurized homogenized milk is fine. I don't want to be in that herd, because I've had better food. I drank raw (cow) milk all while I was growing up and am back on it (goat) now. I've never been sickened by it. You'd be stunned at what a different product fresh milk is from the processed carton stuff.

As Clod alluded to on the other thread, there is an independence component to home produced raw milk which makes this a hot button issue for me. Generally speaking, when political society demands that I be more dependent on their flawed economy I push back. I don't like to be coerced into having others do for me what I can competently do myself. My resistance to mass societies demands makes my way of life more resilient when there are disruptions both personal and global. That is more important to me than fear of sickness.

Maybe he thinks any of those things... except he said none of them. He is still around, last I checked, we don't have to guess at what he maybe thinks. In contrast to your "maybe" scenarios, he did specifically say that he would outright ban it, not allow it with a doctor's prescription, or subject it to extremely heavy regulation. And again, the risks are known, and quantifiable. We can figure out exactly what percentage of customers do accidentally get sick over the course of time. Whether or not you think those numbers are relatively small or large, if the risks of raw milk outweigh the benefits, then certainly the risks of tobacco outweigh the benefits as well. If you are in favor of banning one, you must logically be in favor of banning the other. All I'm looking for is consistency in the argument.

The primary difference between raw milk and pasteurized milk is that raw milk contains probiotic bacteria. A thriving probiotic culture in the digestive tract is crucial to digestion, as well as the correct functioning of the immune system. Generally speaking, a serving of raw milk is going to contain more than a trillion CFU (which stands for Colony Forming Unit, it's just a measurement of bacteria quantity.)

In comparison, the average over-the-counter probiotic pill contains a few hundred million CFU, a meaninglessly small number compared to what is already in your body, be it good or bad.

The average yogurt product on the market contains 5 billion CFU per serving, which is better, but not all that impressive.

The good probiotic supplements, stored in the refrigerated section, usually contain anywhere from 8 billion to 25 billion per pill. Better, but still nowhere near as good.

The strongest probiotic on the market today, available only by prescription, is called VSL#3 DS, and it contains 900 billion CFU per packet. It also costs $195 per month if your insurance doesn't cover it. And one glass of raw milk still contains at least twice as much.

What's more, the hundreds of species contained in the raw milk are naturally balanced, they have worked out their own mini-ecology, thriving in synergy with each other. The species in a commercially-available probiotic have been grown in a lab, and usually involve a blend of about 6 species that were grown independently and then mixed in the bottle. The probiotics in raw milk will all be working together to take over your digestive tract's ecology, while the ones in your pill may very well be working against each other to some degree.

For anyone with immune or digestive dysfunction, there is a very good chance that the individual's probiotic colonies are struggling or effectively nonexistent, either as a cause or an effect of the disease. The prescription probiotic I mentioned above was specifically approved by the FDA for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, but there have been anecdotal reports of individuals whose severe food allergies have gone away after they began regularly consuming raw milk, or whose autoimmune conditions improved dramatically, etc. Anyone who isn't in the absolute peak of health could benefit to some degree from the regular ingestion of powerful probiotics, since it only takes one course of antibiotics to kill enough of a person's colonies to allow an opportunistic infection to thrive.

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

The Catholic Bishops say it's not about contraceptives !
It's also about gay marriage and loss of control over their flocks.

NY Times
LAURIE GOODSTEIN
February 9, 2012
Bishops Were Prepared for Battle Over Birth Control Coverage

And there are a few hundred of them of them. A drop in the bucket in a country of 100 million active voters.

I'm technically Catholic, and I'm pro contraception. Every Catholic I know is pro contraception. I'm also pro-choice, and about half the Catholics I know are also pro-choice.

Just because the bishops are upset with Obama doesn't mean catholic voters are. And the ones who are, were probably not going to vote for him anyway.

It is not about what they believe they should do personally, it is about the Federal Government forcing a religious group to do something that goes against their belief. What's next? Are they going to tell Jews to eat pork? Get the point?

So do you guys believe that Federal Government should have the power to tell religious organizations that they are required to do something which goes against their belief?

He came out with what he wanted, solidified his base and measured the reaction from the rest.
Now that the polling is telling him to, he will compromise and come off as showing what a leader should.
Listening skills. This is a clear win-win to me.

In certain situations yes. Should the federal government ban polygamy? Yes. Should the federal government ban certain extreme aspects of Sharia Law? Yes. Those are hyperboles but I just wanted to make a point that this is not a yes or no answer.

No. The Feds are forcing the group to fund insurance that allows people to choose to go against the group's belief. The Feds aren't forcing Catholics to use birth control. Each person makes that choice on their own.

It's kind of like the Feds forcing me to pay money that is used to go to war in Iraq. I don't approve of that, but I have to financially support it anyway. I'm sure you can find examples of things you are forced to pay for that go against your beliefs.

And this ISN'T about churches, or about religious people. This is about EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES. The law as it stand will actually PROTECT churches in eight states where, currently, EVEN CHURCHES aren't exempt from having to provide birth control. In those eight states, now they WON'T have to. But a religiously-affiliated private employer, catholic or otherwise, will now be held to the same standard of health insurance coverage as a non-religiously-affiliated private employer.
Should it be legal if a religiously-affiliated school, or hospital, or bookstore, wanted to refuse their services or employment opportunities to Muslims, or to black people, or to gays? I think the vast majority of constitutional scholars would say, no, those are situations where their religious beliefs are outweighed by the civil rights of the customers or employees. This decision, along with Obamacare in general, adds certain basic standards of health insurance to the civil rights afforded to all Americans - including the provision that birth control be offered to all employees.


However, it's just been announced that a senior white house official has stated that the revised policy will allow religious employers to refuse to offer birth control coverage - and that the INSURERS, importantly, WILL still have to offer birth control to those employees of religious employers free of charge. I'm totally okay with that.

Ibs - thanks for the specifics of the compromise to which I eluded.
I didn't see enough to confirm when I posted.

ETA:

I think the POLITICS on this are clearly in obama's favor, but the POLICY, the legal standing, I also think is on his side - and even more so now, assuming that the revised policy does both provide birth control and keep religious employers from having to pay for it.

Agreed - as I said, this will be a win-win-win for him.

He gets the benefit from including birth control, takes away a talking point from the opposition
and further isolates the extremists who continue to complain.

The entity is the religious organization. It is a violation of the First Amendment. This is not a discussion of what individuals choose to do on their own. The Entity pays for the insurance. The should not have to fund something that goes against their religious belief.

But no they don't really or we would not have whole towns that engage in polygamy but we do. That is unenforceable.
But they don't, the SCOTUS just shot down the state of Oklahoma from outlawing certain aspects of Sharia Law via state law.

So you examples are actually not holding water.

So people with religious objections to the social programs of the Obama Administration are now "extremists"? Wow.

Giving consumer's the OPTION to purchase birth control is bad how again?

I don't see where this is infringing on a PERSON's religion, in fact I look at it just the opposite way. This should have been done all along.

Somehow you have it that taking away the right of the individual is OK.
Could you explain that to me. Cuz seriously, I don't get it.

Not the issue. I am completely in support of birth control and I wish there was a free clinic for just birth control issues.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Forcing a religious group to do something that goes against their religious principals is preventing them from exercising their right to not participate.

Are your talking about a persons "Right" to have birth control? Because if you are no such Right exists.

It's called Planned Parenthood.

Then you can say the same about everything that is banned...

Not when it comes to what the Constitution says about it's limits on it's ability to regulate religious practice.

Hey I support them. Just as much as I support groups Right to oppose their beliefs as well. Although I am not sure everyone can get free Birth Control there or more people I know would do so.

See Bigelow v. Virginia
I believe (hard for me to totally understand) negates your point. There is a difference between a commercial entity and an individual.
In this case, the hospital IS a commercial entity.

I believe most Catholic run hospitals are Not-For-Profit, so, no, they are not a Commercial entity. Different rules apply.

Hmmm... dunno where the line is there.

King Obama's Royal Decree on Catholics

thepeoplescube.com

"I shall not force Catholics to pay for abortion -- for now. But I do order you Catholics to buy insurance. And I order the insurance company to pay for the abortion."

There are two parts to the question of whether or not it's a legitimate infringement of the employer's conscience. The first is whether or not there is EVER a legitimate infringement - and the weight of precedent says, yes, there are things that society can ask of religiously-affiliated public entities like hospitals and schools, even if the religion opposes those demands - again, religious conviction is not considered to legally justify racist hiring policies, or to allow for the selective offering of their services. Then, of course, the question is, where does this issue fall on the continuum of what we as a society (and more importantly, our judiciary) consider acceptable infringements of religious liberty in the name of fair and just application of the law.

In this case, the law says that ALL employer-provided insurance has to cover a certain minimum standard of care. And, as it turns out, even 60% of catholics agree that hospitals and schools and other public institutions, regardless of religious affiliation, should be held to the same standard as any other institution or entity in having to comply with that coverage.

Merc, if a private citizen owning and operating a college or hospital wanted to refuse to comply with that provision based on their personal faith, they would have no legal standing to do so, the same way they would have no legal standing to refuse to serve customers on a racial basis, even if their religion preached segregation. Why should a religiously-affiliated entity be treated differently?

Because they are protected by the Constitution. I guess one could make a case that my religion allows me to pass out crack cocaine because that is my personal faith, but somehow I don't think it will pass mustard.

I guess that's the question I'm asking. WHAT, exactly, should be protected, and what shouldn't be? should a religious institution be UTTERLY exempt from ALL laws?

You now, you could dodge this whole issue by abolishing this weird arrangement of having the employer provide health insurance. That has a whole bunch of problems with it.

Employer provides money. Employee uses money to buy health insurance from the organisation of their choice, which may include a government system.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...te?detail=hide

fairly dense reading - almost entirely supreme court opinion quotes - but one that CLEARLY establishes the constitutionality of the decision, pre-compromise.

Obviously not. And that is the point bluntly stated by Scalia. Religion is only a relationship between one man and his god. That relationship is protected by religious freedom. Any relationship that man has with other people is determined by civil law. Religion cannot restrict or regulate any 'man to man' relationship. Religion cannot be imposed on any other person. Because religion is only a 'man to god' relationship.

Religious freedom: you can talk to and believe anything your god demands. But you cannot impose those beliefs on anyone else. A church imposing church doctrine on anyone else is discriminating based in religion. That is illegal.

Scalia made the point repeatedly. Any relationship between two people is defined by civil laws - not by religion. Unfortunately many give religion liberties it does not deserve.

A church is not a god and is not a religion. The church is only a religious consultant. An advisor. Someone that the individual hires to help him with his 'man to god' relationship.

BTW, this is the same church that said an organ transplant is a mortal sin. Ordered all people to not have organ transplants (after the first organ transplant - a kidney donated to his twin brother). The pope can deny himself a transplant if that is his religion. But the pope cannot impose his beliefs on anyone else - as Scalia notes. Religion must not exist beyond a 'man to god' relationship.