Thread: Nanny State Again

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

A lot do through second hand smoke.

But, you still haven't given me a legitimate use of the product.

Tobacco? It's curbed a lot of violence, it's a calmative and gives some people pleasure. If it were discovered today I'd say it would be banned.

Originally Posted by Eevo

im not normally in favor of a nanny state but we cant have people getting sick or dying cause they think their drinking normal milk.

I agree, which is why it is labelled not fit for human consumption.

A very good story and worth a read.

Warning: Contains images of Raw Milk (a Dangerous Substance) - Homemade, Healthy, Happy

Originally Posted by d2dave

A very good story and worth a read.

Warning: Contains images of Raw Milk (a Dangerous Substance) - Homemade, Healthy, Happy

I read the link. I'd like to think with an open mind. As I've said, my family has consumed raw milk as children (seemingly with no ill effects) due to my uncle having a dairy farm and my dad drove milk tankers for years, both here and in the UK. Dad used to bring home gallons of raw milk from the residue left in the tankers.
The article was clearly written by someone who is pro raw milk. Anyone who states in the side panel 'Miss Blah, giving you the facts, and keeping it real' and writes a pro raw milk article is NOT giving you the facts.
However, she raises some valid points. There exists a black market. This I am sure of. And it is unregulated. I don't know how you will stop this, or any other black market.
But she also says that the parisite that caused the child's illness could have come from untreated water, under cooked chicken, sprouts or a host of other sources. The mother is unconvinced it was the milk that caused the illness and would feel happier with a definitive answer.
While that is true, I find it hard to come to terms with the fact that any parent would feed their child anything that MIGHT cause them harm deliberately when there is a safer, cheaper more readily available product such as pasteurised milk.
No parent would feed there child under cooked chicken deliberately and I dare say would happily give them bottled spring water rather than untreated water, which ironically is processed in the bottling plant..
The article holds no argument in my opinion.

Originally Posted by landy

While that is true, I find it hard to come to terms with the fact that any parent would feed their child anything that MIGHT cause them harm deliberately when there is a safer, cheaper more readily available product such as pasteurised milk.

I could not agree more, but this is not what my OP was about. It is about choice and the nanny state.

I certainly wouldn't drink it or give it to my kids, although as a kid I drank it every school holidays, as my grandfather was a farmer.

In fact they were sheep farmers, but they kept about 2 cows to provide the family milk and butter.

Originally Posted by d2dave

I could not agree more, but this is not what my OP was about. It is about choice and the nanny state.

I certainly wouldn't drink it or give it to my kids, although as a kid I drank it every school holidays, as my grandfather was a farmer.

In fact they were sheep farmers, but they kept about 2 cows to provide the family milk and butter.

Hi Dave,
It sounds like we come from similar back grounds and have similar thoughts with regards to milk.
I wanted to address you directly because I don't want you to think I'm arguing with you. I'm not. In fact I mostly agree with you. I too think we are becoming (are) a nanny state.
But I think my statement does address your opening post.
It is about choice. The individuals choice to consume a product. But Earth mother is also making the decision to feed a potentially dangerous substance to a minor. Simply because she believes it's a healthy choice when overwhelming evidence says it's not.
We pass legislation to stop you buying and supplying tobacco and alcohol to minors. Why can't I give fags and grog to my little kids? Shouldn't that also be my choice?
I DO NOT want a nanny state. But I also can't be convinced that people won't involve their kids in the (IMO) stupid decisions they make. So unfortunately I do support stricter legislation on this subject.

Nino, no I don't see it as you arguing with me. However, you are entitled to, as this is what this thread is all about, although we won't use the term argue, as it is really a discussion.

Argue is usually when things get heated and the mods step in. I am pleased that this thread has not gone this way, considering its length and differences of opinion.

Now back to your post. Yes we have passed laws that make it illegal to supply ciggies and grog to minors, and so we should, but these laws do not stop it happening.

And by all means, if a law was drafted to make it the same for supplying raw milk to minors, I would be right behind it.

Originally Posted by incisor

how about you answer mine

tobacco is used to grow pathogens so they can test them...

there you go a legitimate use, about as relevant as the content of some of your posts...

Don't know how I missed this post?
So, the tobacco is made available to the public because a large proportion of the Australian public have the need to grow pathogens so they can test them? (rhetorical question)

Originally Posted by incisor

What rot

Originally Posted by incisor

What legitimate use is there for the product?

To make specialty cheeses.
And to bathe in. (I am reliably informed some people do bathe. Some people use milk.)



Yes, most of this thread is about as relevant to the subject of the OP as my posts. You see, people keep putting up distractions such as "how much is a childs life worth?" and "changing packaging propositions" and "the suggestion there is no use for raw milk anyway". An old debating trick. Trying to distract from the topic.

Now to the questions.

What is a legitimate use of raw milk?

What is a legitimate use of tobacco?

It's not so much the answers to the questions as the comparison of the questions themselves. Very similar and yet we are treating them differently. In fact, we are banning the one that kills less people and yet the one that kills more people is being sold in supermarkets. There is a disparity. The legislation is not being applied in an even manner. It certainly appears to me to be a poorly thought through knee jerk reaction to a (singular) reported death.
Oh, and don't bother telling me kiddies can't get tobacco, because they can and do. Primary school kids are often observed having a puff on the way home from school.

As I have previously mentioned, there is existing legislation that can deal with this. However, I heard they were not going to pursue this avenue because "It was a tragedy."
So, rather than punishing the people who committed the crime, they are going to punish the people who didn't commit the crime.

That brings me to my other pet hate of writing new poorly thought through knee jerk legislation. When you write this legislation, you also have to put in place the policing of this legislation which has a cost and also the punishment associated with this legislation which also has a cost.
Why introduce these extra costs and complexity when existing legislation can be used (even if the authorities choose not to use it)? (another rhetorical question)

So, to the OP, nanny state? Absolutely!