The proper role and scope of government

[infinite monkey]

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.

[Spexxvet]

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?

[Griff]

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.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Ibram

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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?

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.

[DanaC]

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.

[Spexxvet]

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.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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.

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 a fair portion of my scholarship. She'll be paying for my emphesyma treatment.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

It's even probable that the fight to ban these types of milk farms are probably being egged on by the big factory dairy farms themselves (repubs, for sure) to discourage competition.

Originally Posted by DanaC

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.

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.

Ban milk from the cow? Seriously?

That's practically the definition of modern man.

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.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Griff

...Spexx, yours could be seen as a strong argument against socialized medicine...

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.

[TheMercenary]

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.

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).

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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).

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

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.

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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).

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

[Lamplighter]

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

When after much internal debate the Obama administration finally announced
its decision to require religiously affiliated hospitals and universities to cover birth control
in their insurance plans, the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops were fully prepared for battle.

Seven months earlier, they had started laying the groundwork for a major new campaign
to combat what they saw as the growing threat to religious liberty,
including the legalization of same-sex marriage.
But the birth control mandate, issued on Jan. 20, was their Pearl Harbor.<snip>

On the day of the decision, bishops across the country posted similarly dire statements on their Web sites,
and at Mass on the following Sundays, priests read the bishops’ letters from their pulpits and wove
the religious freedom theme into their homilies.<snip>

The ruling issued by the Department of Health and Human Services,
said that only religious organizations that primarily employ and serve their co-religionists
would be exempt from the requirement to provide insurance that covers birth control.
Churches are therefore exempt, but Catholic hospitals, service agencies and colleges are not.

The White House said that 28 states already had such mandates, so this federal rule,
which is part of the health care overhaul just applies the mandate uniformly.