By the very definition of "I want my food to be safe and I am glad action is being taken" then it stands to reason that the ballparks that sold disgusting food that may poison someone should be raided with guns. The big pharma mfgs that sell drugs they KNOW will kill or maim, should be raided with guns. In fact, anyone that sells something that might hurt someone else should be raided with guns.

No one was killed because of raw milk last year. Vending machines, selling food related products, kills about 40 people a year. Don't be confused, not the food, the machine that sells it - falling over on folks. by definition, they should be raided with guns too.

You people seem to be ignoring the gun part. The theft part in favor of "well if is for our own good.

Originally posted by crankyoldman
By the very definition of "I want my food to be safe and I am glad action is being taken" then it stands to reason that the ballparks that sold disgusting food that may poison someone should be raided with guns. The big pharma mfgs that sell drugs they KNOW will kill or maim, should be raided with guns. In fact, anyone that sells something that might hurt someone else should be raided with guns.

No one was killed because of raw milk last year. Vending machines, selling food related products, kills about 40 people a year. Don't be confused, not the food, the machine that sells it - falling over on folks. by definition, they should be raided with guns too.

You people seem to be ignoring the gun part. The theft part in favor of "well if is for our own good.

Sir, you are obviously a cranky old man that doesn't know what is best for yourself.

I however am far wiser and smarter than you are, which is why I have been appointed by Obama to be your food Czar.

Hence forth, I have issued a new decree that mandates all harmful products are now illegal, including CO2.

You are to stop breathing immediately.

Originally posted by Jenna
I take it back, I'm not out of the thread yet.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
This is you're slant? Protect the children at the cost of a little liberty?

Where exactly did I say that? You said if someone gets ill, that's their choice. I was pointing out that when a parent buys raw milk, their child isn't choosing to get sick if they drink it since they lack the ability to decide whether or not that milk is purchased. As for losing liberty over it, I've never drank raw milk a day in my life and oddly enough I have just as much liberty as the rest of you. Go figure.

You ready to back that up and support gestapo kicking in the doors of those who let their kids lick the raw batter out of the baking pan?

Because that's obviously the next logical step, right? Wrong.

You may like a 1984 style life, but I won't have it and neither will other people who care about complete freedom.

Yes, because requiring bottlers of raw milk to pass checks on bacteria levels means that we're living in 1984. Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds?

You know, a simple warning label would do the trick, you know, instead of armed regulation.

So you'd rather have a warning label and no regulations at all? Yeah, that sounds really healthy.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Small children don't decide to do anything on their own.

Thus, your argument is ridiculous times ten.

Good job, you missed my point.

You remind me of my brother. Good at talking, not so much at listening.

Ah, there is that old "I haven't lost any liberty" line. Its a bit like saying, hey, the government is moving us from many acres of land into a small house, but I can still move around like I used to"... Its all so necessary and innocuous in such a way that, alone, it doesn't seem constraining, that is until you look at the whole picture and where its headed. You assume you're government has you're best interest in mind and uses logic to tell you what you can and cannot do(as if that makes it OK), that is until whole industries are torn apart (hemp) and whole foods are illegal...

"Currently the mangosteen fruit is not USDA approved for importation in its fresh form so it's illegal to sell or buy"

Its OK though, I can buy the watered down juice for $25 dollars a bottle and get some of the anti-oxidants...

So, to sum up you're position and to make it clear for everyone reading...
You pretty much expound giving up some unused, useless freedom for "healthier" choices, one reason being that kids can't decide...or would you say that in a nicer, more obfuscated way?

Truth be told, we could be swimming in raw milk, but the state of affairs would not look much better.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
So, to sum up you're position and to make it clear for everyone reading...
You pretty much expound giving up some unused, useless freedom for "healthier" choices, one reason being that kids can't decide...or would you say that in a nicer, more obfuscated way?

You seem to have missed most of the thread, including the many many posts where it's been proven that you can indeed buy raw milk in California. Nice attempt at twisting what I actually said into something else though.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
Well, if arguing about raw milk was the whole point of the thread, then I must be slow.

Long story short, the OP's argument fell apart when I pointed out on the first page that the store was shut down for not having a health permit not because of raw milk. Then they and others claimed you can't buy raw milk in California which was again proven false. And I honestly have no clue what exactly it is you're arguing.

You can buy raw milk in California. The people of California haven't lost any liberty and neither have I. And no, children don't decide whether they buy raw milk or not. What is so hard about that to understand?

I think that the point of this forum is not to argue if raw milk is bad for you, it is wether the goverment has the right to tell us we can't buy or sell it, and weather they should have that say in what is avalible for our consumtion.

wbye

Originally posted by Worldbehindyoureyes
I think that the point of this forum is not to argue if raw milk is bad for you, it is wether the goverment has the right to tell us we can't buy or sell it, and weather they should have that say in what is avalible for our consumtion.

wbye

The government decides what rights it has.

You have no say in the matter.

If the government decides it has the right to ban you from drinking, buying, or selling raw milk, then by golly, you have no right to buy, drink, or sell raw milk.

You have to wait 4 years to elect a new representative to change law, assuming you can convince 51% of the people that your cause is just.

Good luck.

people have been drinking raw milk since the begining of time so whats the big deal, I'd venture to say it might be the safest bet, there was a news story last yr about 2 reporters who were fired from cnn over a story they were covering on pasterized milk causing cancer I guess the powers that be didn't want that story getting out, as for me Im very suspicious of the government I don't think they want us healthy look at all the crap they put in food and GMO forget it, I don't drink milk but if I did it would probably be raw since it would have all the vitamins that nature intended, I think we should all be skeptical of what food and drug adminastration says and why their so adament about it seriously don't believe everything they say.