“Of all the G8 countries, Canada is the only one to ban the production for sale, transportation and consumption of raw milk: milk that is unpasteurized. Raw milk can contain dangerous and sometimes deadly pathogens.
In Ontario, the Milk Act has prohibited the sale of raw milk for over 26 years, though farmers are allowed to consume their own if it’s produced on their farms. Dairy farmer and raw milk advocate Michael Schmidt of Glencolton Farms, an hour’s drive south of Owen Sound, provides raw milk to over 100 consumers through a farm-share program — a means for raw milk proponents to skirt the law by owning part of the farm or the cow that produces the milk. Championing the sale of raw milk has cost Schmidt; his farm has been raided three times in the past 22 years by the Ministries of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Finance and local and provincial police.
Shifts in food culture such as locavorism, the 100 Mile Diet, Food Freedom and gut health science have spawned a growing market for raw milk — not just for Schmidt but around the world. Many proponents do not believe that raw milk produced in sanitary conditions contains dangerous pathogens and many believe consuming it has beneficial effects on their health….”
The Bovine 
What other countries do is not a reason to do anything. It is a logical fallacy lying on it’s face.
The best argument will never change: Governments do not own our bodies. We own our bodies, and it is our right to choose what we ingest, period! End of story. Any other argument is a read herring, and nothing more.
We have rights. Governments exist only to protect those rights. So what are people doing, begging for a few permissions, when they should be DEMANDING their rights be recognized?
Sorry you sound like a broken record.
May be demonstrate how you translate that into action
Michael
It takes repetition to get people’s attention, that is a fact that advertisers are well aware of . Most people need to hear an add on the order 15 or so times before they buy.
That being said, you obviously have not educated yourself as to what it takes to have social changes peacefully happen. What it takes Michael, is very simple. All it take is for people to become educated, and to withdraw their consent. Governments can not maintain tyranny without the consent of a large majority of the people. So Michael I am doing exactly what needs to be done. The only thing that can be done to avoid the bloodshed that will come if we don’t change the direction of our criminal. lawless governments. But I didn’t expect you to see that, or you would be doing it yourself. It is YOU that are doing nothing to effectively address and change going down the slippery slope.
What an absurd arguement George. You sound like some insecure adolescent that has to start smoking cigarettes because everyone else is….
“What other countries do is not a reason to do anything.”
Wrong – What other countries do, especially those we have a great deal in common with, eventually affects our will to adapt in many areas; both pro and con.
Immigration, finance and economy, climate agreements, human rights, education, trade, health, just to name a few, are shaped, in part, by the ways other nations or cultures that we respect deal with issues that relate to them. In fact, the English system of law is the basis of our judicial system.
Your “best argument” is correct, but blindness to supporting arguments is foolhardy.
Just because another country does something should not be a reason to do it. That is, imo, herd mentality. It is not that you can’t glean from what other countries do. But I would have to agree with InalienableWrights on that point. I believe that competition is a healthy check and balance for human endeavors. And as such, I believe the sovereignty of nation is of great value to the development of human beings.
And yes, our system of justice is based on the English system. And the system of things speaks to the process/methodology; not the governing principles. The basis for justice for Canada isn’t “English”. It is the principle of mutual respect (which is universal); and is done by upholding and enforcing human rights. Which, contrary to the popular paradigm, and contrary to the paradigm of InalianbleWrights, the judiciary for the most part does a really good job at. But to see that, one must perceive objectively, and truly appreciate the “mutual” in “mutual respect”. And remember, contrary to popular belief (as edified by today’s political rally outside the court house), the administration of law is not politics. If you can’t see them as being separate, I would suggest you’re still in kindergarten (so to speak).
BTW, coming out and declaring that InalienableWrights is flat out “WRONG” doesn’t look good on you. I would suggest InalienableWrights is (as yet) probably a few grades ahead of you. It is not that he is necessarily correct in every respect. But if I may suggest, consider being more of a student next time. Otherwise you’re just unduly setting yourself up. I believe Michael has come to recognize this, and that is probably why he has pretty much stopped conversing here…
Now if Michael is your source for clarity about law and politics, … well, … good luck with that 🙂