vnishmartemmeod

Charliehall: Inasmuch as it wasn’t the main topic for discussion (individuals prime rights to their own choices/as it effect their health was) Just as nonchalantly you waved away the dangers of smoking, which is a MUCH MORE COMMON OCCURENCE than drinking raw milk, PLUS it poses CLEAR danger to others… you called drinking/allowing raw milk as SUICIDAL… claiming weak epidimiological evidence that smoking/second hand smoking causes cancer…

You DO realize that not all the risks of smoking, or second-hand smoking for that matter – are limited to CANCER? Do you realize that it may cause – according to the CDC – premature DEATH, and DISEASE in children? Birth defects in unborn children?

Interestingly enough – I did not expect this turn of discussion. I thought you were ALL ACROSS THE BOARD an evidence-based (more like regulatory evidence-based) proponent… and okay with trampling on individual rights within that context. But here you veered off track… which is rather interesting. I am curious to know why. (personal thing here.)

You should also know, that people that think for themselves, (AND consider all evidence-based studies etc. TOO) use their g-d given common sense too.

SO, beyond the fact that there IS evidence that raw milk has many more advantageous over pasteurized milk, even if it were’nt so – they SEE the advantagous and are just happy to enjoy them. They also KNOW that infected cows should not be milked, and so they don’t. Unlike the regular milk, which they milk as sick as it may be – and just COOK OFF THE BACTERIA and dangerous pathogens you are so afraid of, rightfully so.

A person has to consider everything medically advanced/available out there, no question. But, when something else CLEARLY works for them, especially if it carries less risk, less side effects, then it is EASY to choose that, evidence-based or not. It’s called common sense. And don’t leave it by the door when a “professional” or “regulatory agency” says something that does not ring right.

(to take the importance of common-sense approach further)Case in point: If my doctor repeatedly tells me “there is nothing wrong with your child”, not ONE but 8 doctors, some considered “top manhattan doctors”… and my motherly intuition tells me otherwise… I choose to follow that and research and come to the NINTH doctor with my theory, and he says “oh, lets follow that theory”. And from there and on, all the medical professionals are confidently treating her (based on MY common-sense, intuitive-based, research that led the doctor come to that diagnosis).

It’s happened to me too many times in my life, and that’s where my distrust comes from… I absolutely consider a doctor’s input, but not exclusively so. I absolutely CONSIDER the FDA’s input, but not exclusively so.

As everyone should.

Charliehall: It is amazing to me how you wave off smoking (and harm of second-hand smoke) so quickly… as compared to the way you categorically “passel” raw milk as SUICIDAL when, clearly, studies and articles I’ve read shows the complete opposite(regarding smoking/second-hand smoke and now a little more in-depth regarding raw milk).

Remember – I’m not a raw-milk enthusiast AT ALL. I simply am SCARED how the govt/FDA keeps on creeping more and more into our lives – in places it should have NO business being. Under the pretense that they are absolutely 100% doing this “for our own good”. Thank you anyways – I will figure out what’s good for me.

That, and the ignorance of so many in the Jewish community regarding that fact. Saying “Amen” to whatever they serve up.

Hmmm… most responses have veered off in a different direction than the question intended – So I will join (can’t fight ’em), and add this (quoting from Time Magazine article I read:)

Seems like the raw milk enthusiasts agree that typical dairy farms are not the place to get raw milk from (as they contain harmful pathogens…)

And for the record, I completely agree about if you’re going to do something risky – then you’ll have to pay for the end consequences (if there are any) – and that govt should not have to sponsor bad habits/vices etc.

BUT, having said that, government should have NO RIGHT to tell me what to eat, how to eat it etc. (Which is what the original thread is about.)

So I am overweight. Maybe the govt should have the right to ban me from buying any desserts?

Charliehall: What do you think of the “real question” here: (Not going into the debate of raw milk.) namely, what about “giving up your fundamental right to make decisions as what to choose to eat, and making decisions regarding your bodily and physical health” etc.

Chesedname: This is by far not a comparison – because “taxing” a food, is not the same as “you cannot HAVE that food”…