[calex59]

You, and other do gooders, miss the point. The point being some people prefer raw milk. The government has no business making people drink stuff they don't want to drink. The solution is to keep government out of it altogether. If you must have a law, then a law that requires dairies to provide a certain percent of their product pasteurized would suffice. Outlawing raw milk altogether is unconstitutional and not part of the governments allowed authority. Why can't both pasteurized and raw milk be sold? If some people are willing to risk the diseases that can possibly come with drinking raw milk that is their business and not yours or the governments.

I am sure the vast majority of people would continue to drink pasteurized milk and the amount of raw milk sold would be very small compared to the processed type.

Once again, it is not the governments job to save me, or anyone, from their own actions.

[exDemMom]

You, and other do gooders, miss the point. The point being some people prefer raw milk. The government has no business making people drink stuff they don't want to drink. The solution is to keep government out of it altogether. If you must have a law, then a law that requires dairies to provide a certain percent of their product pasteurized would suffice. Outlawing raw milk altogether is unconstitutional and not part of the governments allowed authority. Why can't both pasteurized and raw milk be sold? If some people are willing to risk the diseases that can possibly come with drinking raw milk that is their business and not yours or the governments.

Actually, I think you miss the point. According to the constitution, the government has the duty of protecting citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The government also has the duty of providing for the general welfare (which does *not* mean putting people on permanent dole). It is very clear that the government must protect the citizens.

Perhaps you are unaware that the government regulates *everything* about the food supply, not just milk. This regulation is not to control people, or to prevent them from consuming foods that they want to consume. Rather, it is to protect them from unscrupulous people who would happily sell them filthy, disease-ridden and adulterated food if there were not laws against it.

Unfortunately, most of the arguments I have seen in favor of drinking raw milk are outright lies. People basing their decision to drink raw milk on these lies are *not* making an informed choice. I believe that people have the right to full and correct information, especially where their health is concerned.

I am sure the vast majority of people would continue to drink pasteurized milk and the amount of raw milk sold would be very small compared to the processed type.

Actually, I think the number of people drinking raw milk would go up until the resulting number of food-poisoning cases became such an overwhelming public-health issue that people would demand that raw milk sales be banned again. As it is, less than 1% of people drink raw milk--even at that low number, it is still a significant public-health problem.

Once again, it is not the governments job to save me, or anyone, from their own actions.

That's not quite true, but that's beside the point. People who make decisions based on lies are not acting with full knowledge. They have a right to have all the facts so that their decision is informed. I'm sure that most smokers are fully aware of the dangers of smoking--I don't think I've ever made a single anti-smoking post, and I've posted thousands of times here. But I will point out the dangers of unsafe food habits to people who (willfully, in many cases) are unaware of them.