One of the topics touched on in the book is that of the War on Drugs in all its forms. The first US shots were fired with state bans on opium between 1875 and 1890. As Chris points out, these were notable as being the first bans on consumption of a drug in American history and, although probably more motivated by a distrust of Chinese immigrants when the whole picture is studied, the official reason was of course public health.
Scroll on 130 odd years and the US legislature's idea of substances the individual should be 'saved' from has gotten a little out of hand.
In response to a request from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, [Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler] issued a clarification of his decision last week regarding his assessment of the constitutionality of food rights.This refers to a farm which offers a 'cow ownership program' whereby people may choose to join the club, sponsor a cow, and to therefore be allowed - as owners - to drink raw milk. They have made that choice themselves.
The state expressed their disapproval of this a while back, but have now escalated their efforts after some of those who had chosen this milk came down with a bug called Campylobacter.
The state says that you shouldn't be allowed to take such risks, which has led to a quite astonishing ruling by the aforementioned judge.
"no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;This isn't a battle that is restricted to Wisconsin, either. The same measures are being applied to other co-operatives which attempt to provide raw milk, to those who wish to consume it, in other states as I have written before.
"no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;"
"no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice..."
From the small acorn of banning drugs 'for your own good', legislative powers have enlarged to such an extent that they are now battling your right to ingest any natural substances (just like opium, in fact) unless the state has approved them first. In so doing, the 'land of the free' has now deemed - because this judgment can be cited elsewhere - that its citizens fundamental right to consume foods and drink of their own choice has been spirited away by governmental decree.
I don't fancy McDonald's chances much once this concept is applied to fat, salt and sugar content in earnest, do you?
Now then, about your compulsory five a day ...
4 comments:
Straight off the top of my head, I wonder if it is just a little unfair to blame the judge.
Generally speaking, judges simply 'state the law'. If there is a 'law' which says that milk must be pasteurised, then that is the 'law'.
And so we see, once again, the "one size fits all" algorithm (a 'plan') of national government. It is the easiest way.
This "ONE SIZE FITS ALL" attitude cannot be right all the time.
Aren't our politicians stupid? They need only to realise that "ONE SIZE FITS ALL" is stupid in order to understand that citizens of this country can decide for themselves.
Regardless of the judge's intentions, good, bad or indifferent, his sympathies one way or another - what the judge ruled was explicitly clear, "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice...". And with that ruling, he states explicitly, there is no right to consume foods of ones own choosing.
That is how it could be cited in some other court case having nothing to do with milk, then another of a different food substance, then another, then one concerning alcohol, one concerning tobacco.
The US was supposed to run on a constitutional basis, where citizens had God given inalienable rights that the state was not to abridge. It was not established to run on codified law like the French or EU systems where government mandates no natural rights, in this the case of selection of foods, and then citizens become subjects to the law and their natural rights are limited as per a decreed code.
I don't find it unfair to blame the judge who established an official court document saying that beginning now, citizens have no God given natural right to select and eat whatever they choose, take whatever risks they like as long as they aren't harming anyone else, including smoking, drinking, eating lard, fat and salt and whatever damn well else a person wishes to do as it's natural law and nothing for the state to interfere - is my belief about the situation.
I certainly wouldn't commend the judge for it. So I think it's a fair treatment, I feel no sympathies for the judge.
Part of the problem of the state interfering in how people chose to live their lives is that there is state health care. Since the state pays for the health care of some of the population it thinks it has a fundamental right to control what the whole population does so that it minimises the amount it pays for health care. Make health care a private activity as much as possible and the state can't have any say in how people live their lives.
But you also have to state that it is quite unnatural for adults to be drinking milk! I'm with Louis Pasteur on this one. However, if a person wants to take the risk they should be free to do so. I wouldn't. My choice.
Post a Comment