It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by mnemeth1
My argument? Your the one who brought it up!
If someone isn't doing something that hurts someone or damages their property, it shouldn't be illegal.
Raw milk CAN hurt people. THAT IS WHY IT'S ILLEGAL. I'm not saying if you drink it, you're going to implode and kill half the population. It CAN harm, which is an unnecessary risk when you consider they can do it the legal way without conflict
If people are voluntarily engaging in a private exchange of goods and services, the State has no business telling them how they must conduct that transaction.
If someone is hurt, they can sue.
Oh, so I can legally transport bomb materials and hire someone that can do the necessary work next door to someones house in my basement? Of course after that I will detonate, and they could sue me...oh wait.
Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by mnemeth1
My argument? Your the one who brought it up!
If someone isn't doing something that hurts someone or damages their property, it shouldn't be illegal.
Raw milk CAN hurt people. THAT IS WHY IT'S ILLEGAL. I'm not saying if you drink it, you're going to implode and kill half the population. It CAN harm, which is an unnecessary risk when you consider they can do it the legal way without conflict
If people are voluntarily engaging in a private exchange of goods and services, the State has no business telling them how they must conduct that transaction.
If someone is hurt, they can sue.
Oh, so I can legally transport bomb materials and hire someone that can do the necessary work next door to someones house in my basement? Of course after that I will detonate, and they could sue me...oh wait.
Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
Were they hurting anyone?
should I be able to buy said raw milk if I desire?
because if someone gets ill, that was THEIR CHOICE.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red
dude, no one is disputing that they sell it.
they are doing so ILLEGALLY
I will guarantee they do not have a license. If you call and ask if they have a license to distribute raw milk, they will probably lie. I know I would at least.
The bacteria requirements for the sale of raw milk are so low that it is impossible to get a license to sell it legally.
Originally posted by Jenna
Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
Were they hurting anyone?
Don't know. Do you know for a fact that they weren't?
should I be able to buy said raw milk if I desire?
I really don't care what kind of milk anyone buys so long as they understand the risks. If they can't meet standards though, then no I don't believe they should be able to sell it.
because if someone gets ill, that was THEIR CHOICE.
So a small child can choose to drink raw milk on their own? They go out to the store and decide for themselves that they're buying raw milk? If an adult buys raw milk and gets sick from e. coli, they're choosing to get sick from e. coli? Really? People actually choose to get sick from contaminated food?
And with that, I'm out. This thread has gone beyond ridiculous. Debate raw milk if you like, the store was shut down because they don't have a health permit and regardless of how clean something looks it isn't always free of harmful bacteria.
In 1889, two years before the death of his son from contaminated milk, Newark, New Jersey doctor Henry Coit, MD urged the creation of a Medical Milk Commission to oversee or "certify" production of milk for cleanliness, finally getting one formed in 1893 (5).
Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
Complete freedom? Can I have the complete freedom to run over conspiracy theorists?
If no, then it's not complete. It also means you believe in some amount of governance.
[edit on 26-7-2010 by Whyhi]
Drywall, toys, etc. Hell, I think because China cannot sell anything that is not poisoned, we should BAN THEIR PRODUCTS before any damn ban on raw milk.
Of course, not necessary to even ban Chinese products, if Americans had a brain in their head they would never buy anything from them. But that is what it breaks down to isn't it?
Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by mnemeth1
They lobbied so heavily back then that the laws are still taking effect now? Did they miss the other 39 states...?
According to a Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) report, between 1980 and 2005, there were ten times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than there were from raw milk. And most of the reports that link illness outbreaks with raw milk provide little or no evidence that raw milk was even the culprit.
These figures mean that raw milk products are implicated in 92 illnesses per year, seven hospitalizations per year, and one death every nine years.
Between 1998 and 2005, there were over 10,000 documented outbreaks that contributed to 199,263 documented cases of foodborne illness. Raw milk was associated with 0.4% of these cases.
While some illnesses due to raw milk may go unreported, the same is true for pasteurized milk and all other foods. In fact the CDC estimates that 76 million cases of foodborne illness occur every year, over 99.9% of which go unreported.
Cases of foodborne illness are investigated with a systematic bias against raw milk. Many outbreaks in which raw milk has been “implicated” are almost certainly attributable to another cause.