The proper role and scope of government

[Ibby]

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.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Ibram

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.

Originally Posted by Ibram

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'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.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I'd be fine with legalizing cocaine and heroin, within the same regulated framework as all other medicines.

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.

[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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

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.

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.

[infinite monkey]

I say bring back DDT.

I'm serious.

Just don't spray it all over the kids.

[Lamplighter]

whatever...

Peace.

[glatt]

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.

[infinite monkey]

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?)

[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.

[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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

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

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.

[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.