Thread: Nanny State Again

Originally Posted by V8Ian

I recently (last couple of months) saw an article on this subject on one of the current affairs shows. A metrosexual, city dwelling dad was complaining about how far he had to drive (in a Prious ) to get 'healthy' milk for hi kids and how it had to be sold as a beauty aid. The article was filmed at the dairy where the purchase was made. Both the buyer and seller knew the intention of the purchase and were advocating a change in the law to legitimize the transaction.

This what the crux of this thread is all about. As long as this person knew the risk, and I would be certain he did, then this is his choice. If he wants to drink this in a democratic society he should be able to.

If the labeling is not clear in presenting the risk, then by all means legislate this, but stop being a nanny state and treating us all like children.

Originally Posted by d2dave

This what the crux of this thread is all about. As long as this person knew the risk, and I would be certain he did, then this is his choice. If he wants to drink this in a democratic society he should be able to.

If the labeling is not clear in presenting the risk, then by all means legislate this, but stop being a nanny state and treating us all like children.

What choice did the kids have? Giving kids raw milk is akin to driving them to school unrestrained, on the back of a trayback ute.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

What choice did the kids have? Giving kids raw milk is akin to driving them to school unrestrained, on the back of a trayback ute.

Oh dear! Got a bit of old timers there Ian?

Originally Posted by V8Ian

To compare the dangers of raw milk with car travel is ludicrous.

But I get your point.
Might I suggest "Education". That seems to be put up often as a solution to other problems.

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Oh dear! Got a bit of old timers there Ian?

But I get your point.
Might I suggest "Education". That seems to be put up often as a solution to other problems.

Enough to spare.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

What choice did the kids have? ...

Exactly.

People who give food labeled 'not fit for human consumption' to children have made a choice. They should be accountable for the choice they made and be charged with endangering the child.

Nothing 'Nanny State' about it.

Originally Posted by Ferret

Exactly.

People who give food labeled 'not fit for human consumption' to children have made a choice. They should be accountable for the choice they made and be charged with endangering the child.

Nothing 'Nanny State' about it.

Yep. But that is no what the OP was about.
What you suggest is covered under existing laws.

The OP was about banning something because it may be dangerous if not used for it's intended use. Bit like banning plastic spoons. They can be very dangerous.

It might be covered under existing law Mick, but a law that is too hard to enforce until the smelly stuff contacts the reciprocating device is useless. Change it to make it harder to circumvent and/or easier to enforce.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

It might be covered under existing law Mick, but a law that is too hard to enforce until the smelly stuff contacts the reciprocating device is useless. Change it to make it harder to circumvent and/or easier to enforce.

Ok. Let's ban bleach, metho, diesel fuel, electricity, chlorine, dish washing liquid and a myriad of other items we use in today's society including alcohol, tobacco products and prescription medicine.