The proper role and scope of government

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Ibram

it's not all that fun.

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.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

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.

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.