Quote:
Yes. They were making an example out of these business owners. Totally unconstitutional. period.
Yes. They were making an example out of these business owners. Totally unconstitutional. period.
They want to make it ALL illegal. What do you think of Senate Bill 510
- Thread starter marathonmultiplesmom
- Start date
- Mar 29, 2009
- 1,624
- 20
- 161
Don't know anything about it being unconstitutional but it smells like coercion to me.
Quote:
I think you hit it right on the head. You nailed it. If you punish people that break the law, you might scare others into not breaking that law. What a concept!
Sorry, I couldn't resist. But, yeah, I do think that is one reason the people we elect to enforce the law punish lawbreakers. It has nothing to do with whether I consider the law good or bad. If I break it, I may have to face the consequences.
I think you hit it right on the head. You nailed it. If you punish people that break the law, you might scare others into not breaking that law. What a concept!
Sorry, I couldn't resist. But, yeah, I do think that is one reason the people we elect to enforce the law punish lawbreakers. It has nothing to do with whether I consider the law good or bad. If I break it, I may have to face the consequences.
- Mar 29, 2009
- 1,624
- 20
- 161
I think the excessive force used is "over the top' considering the illegal item is food, not weapons or drugs.
Guns drawn over raw milk and organic vegetables ? Swat teams......come on now, do they think we are mushrooms? most people know exactly what the method behind their madness is.
Specifically in these cases, are they breaking the law and does the infraction warrant the force?
It is a classic case of coercion, which although hard to prove, it is against the law, in itself.
If the "lawmakers" are the ones using coercion then your basically screwed unless you have the numbers to fight back (legally).
Get them in the Polls, vote them out.
Guns drawn over raw milk and organic vegetables ? Swat teams......come on now, do they think we are mushrooms? most people know exactly what the method behind their madness is.
Specifically in these cases, are they breaking the law and does the infraction warrant the force?
It is a classic case of coercion, which although hard to prove, it is against the law, in itself.
If the "lawmakers" are the ones using coercion then your basically screwed unless you have the numbers to fight back (legally).
Get them in the Polls, vote them out.
Last edited:
- Jan 14, 2008
- 5,644
- 496
- 303
Quote:
Yes. They were making an example out of these business owners. Totally unconstitutional. period.
Exactly what is unconstitutional about agencies with juridictional authority enforcing existing laws?
Yes. They were making an example out of these business owners. Totally unconstitutional. period.
Exactly what is unconstitutional about agencies with juridictional authority enforcing existing laws?
Quote:
Yes. They were making an example out of these business owners. Totally unconstitutional. period.
Exactly what is unconstitutional about agencies with juridictional authority enforcing existing laws?
The "existing laws" are unconstitutional.
Yes. They were making an example out of these business owners. Totally unconstitutional. period.
Exactly what is unconstitutional about agencies with juridictional authority enforcing existing laws?
The "existing laws" are unconstitutional.
Quote:
I don't have a clue. Best I can determine, the CDC does not either. I actually mentioned this in a previous post. You are exactly right that the USDA handles meat and poultry while this bill is FDA. One of the requirements of this bill is that a study to answer this question be performed and the results be reported back to congress within 18 months. Then, in another election year, this will again be debated and the bill probably tweaked.
So why are you for spend the money? Do you not feel there are significantly better ways to help this country? Since the country (we) owe money, why don't we NOT spend the money? Any you, I, and the CDC can all agree the lives saved from this bill becoming law would be minimal. Let's be clear that I'm for food safety, but this bill is not going to make me feel one ounce better about the safety of the food I eat.
I don't have a clue. Best I can determine, the CDC does not either. I actually mentioned this in a previous post. You are exactly right that the USDA handles meat and poultry while this bill is FDA. One of the requirements of this bill is that a study to answer this question be performed and the results be reported back to congress within 18 months. Then, in another election year, this will again be debated and the bill probably tweaked.
So why are you for spend the money? Do you not feel there are significantly better ways to help this country? Since the country (we) owe money, why don't we NOT spend the money? Any you, I, and the CDC can all agree the lives saved from this bill becoming law would be minimal. Let's be clear that I'm for food safety, but this bill is not going to make me feel one ounce better about the safety of the food I eat.
Good point, NorTracNY. The only way we can truly be sure that the food we eat is safe is to grow, harvest and prepare it ourselves. I realize that most people don't have the time to do that, but that really is the only way. Your next best option is to purchase food from a local person/business that you truly trust.- No, wait... That's the people that this bill will more than likely put out of business.
Quote:
I don't have a clue. Best I can determine, the CDC does not either. I actually mentioned this in a previous post. You are exactly right that the USDA handles meat and poultry while this bill is FDA. One of the requirements of this bill is that a study to answer this question be performed and the results be reported back to congress within 18 months. Then, in another election year, this will again be debated and the bill probably tweaked.
So why are you for spend the money? Do you not feel there are significantly better ways to help this country? Since the country (we) owe money, why don't we NOT spend the money? Any you, I, and the CDC can all agree the lives saved from this bill becoming law would be minimal. Let's be clear that I'm for food safety, but this bill is not going to make me feel one ounce better about the safety of the food I eat.
I know this bill is FDA and not USDA, but since this is a chicken forum, I'll use chicken. The same principles apply. In 2008, exports of American poultry totaled $4.34 billion. Someone else gave a link that said this bill affects 80% of the US food industry while the USDA portion is 20%, but I don't know that for a fact. This might give an indication of how many American jobs are on the line in our ability to keep exporting food and food products, not just in growing them but in processing, packaging and shipping. Big corporations don't work those jobs, by the way. American workers work those jobs. Staying with chicken, Russia has cut off their imports of American chicken on practically any excuse. It's a diplomatic game where they are trying to prop up their domestic market. Anyway, one of the effects of this bill is to give other countries less reason to prohibit the export of American food products. All it takes is a report of an outbreak of disease or contamination and exports of that product can be be disrupted. That outbreak could be in a small operation as well as a large operation. I know all American export of food products is not going to happen, but it would not take much of a disruption to get into big money.
Some of us remember the hysteria caused by contaminated food being in the American marketing system and some of the problems of being able to track down where it was coming from. The tracking requirements on people seling more than $500,000 a year of farm produce and the political will to do something comes directly from that.
Some of the effects of this bill on food products from overseas is to protect the American farmer from unfair competition from overseas.
I don't know how many of the 76,000,000 annual food related illnesses this bill would prevent, let alone hospitalizations or deaths. What do you think the effect would be on health care costs if this was able to be reduced by 5%. I don't know if the effects of this bill will be 0.1%, 1% or 10%. Maybe that study can help determine that.
I'm sure there are other economic benefits. I just can't think of them on the spur of the moment.
I know this is not a perfect bill. I do think the average American will benefit from it.
I don't have a clue. Best I can determine, the CDC does not either. I actually mentioned this in a previous post. You are exactly right that the USDA handles meat and poultry while this bill is FDA. One of the requirements of this bill is that a study to answer this question be performed and the results be reported back to congress within 18 months. Then, in another election year, this will again be debated and the bill probably tweaked.
So why are you for spend the money? Do you not feel there are significantly better ways to help this country? Since the country (we) owe money, why don't we NOT spend the money? Any you, I, and the CDC can all agree the lives saved from this bill becoming law would be minimal. Let's be clear that I'm for food safety, but this bill is not going to make me feel one ounce better about the safety of the food I eat.
I know this bill is FDA and not USDA, but since this is a chicken forum, I'll use chicken. The same principles apply. In 2008, exports of American poultry totaled $4.34 billion. Someone else gave a link that said this bill affects 80% of the US food industry while the USDA portion is 20%, but I don't know that for a fact. This might give an indication of how many American jobs are on the line in our ability to keep exporting food and food products, not just in growing them but in processing, packaging and shipping. Big corporations don't work those jobs, by the way. American workers work those jobs. Staying with chicken, Russia has cut off their imports of American chicken on practically any excuse. It's a diplomatic game where they are trying to prop up their domestic market. Anyway, one of the effects of this bill is to give other countries less reason to prohibit the export of American food products. All it takes is a report of an outbreak of disease or contamination and exports of that product can be be disrupted. That outbreak could be in a small operation as well as a large operation. I know all American export of food products is not going to happen, but it would not take much of a disruption to get into big money.
Some of us remember the hysteria caused by contaminated food being in the American marketing system and some of the problems of being able to track down where it was coming from. The tracking requirements on people seling more than $500,000 a year of farm produce and the political will to do something comes directly from that.
Some of the effects of this bill on food products from overseas is to protect the American farmer from unfair competition from overseas.
I don't know how many of the 76,000,000 annual food related illnesses this bill would prevent, let alone hospitalizations or deaths. What do you think the effect would be on health care costs if this was able to be reduced by 5%. I don't know if the effects of this bill will be 0.1%, 1% or 10%. Maybe that study can help determine that.
I'm sure there are other economic benefits. I just can't think of them on the spur of the moment.
I know this is not a perfect bill. I do think the average American will benefit from it.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
South LA: Re-homing 2 Cream Legbar Cockerels
- Started by city_girl_farming
- Replies: 0
-
-
Kalmbach Feeds All Natural 20% Protein Flock Maker Pellets Chewy?
- Started by blondie55555
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
The Moonshiner's Bootleg "I'll Make You Famous" Hatch-A-Long- Started by The Moonshiner
- Replies: 85
-
-
New to backyard chickens! I need help!
- Started by Rharrison7
- Replies: 72
-
-
Calcium bolus please HELP
- Started by Joyce_Turner
- Replies: 59
-
