From 1900 to 2000, the leading cause of non-natrual death in humans was democide, the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder. Government has taken 662 million lives in just 100 years, not including those killed in active combat. It is estimated that government has killed more than six times the number of people killed in all battles combined.
If all 262 million bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5 feet, they would circle the earth ten times. It’s as if there was a nuclear war, but the casualties were spread over the period of a century. (from www.hawaii.edu)
Many Americans have found themselves fighting the government to be able to produce, sell, and eat the type of food they desire. How can the government decide what type of food we sell, produce, and eat in a “free” country, especially if the food is making us healthier? How can the government arrest people over unpasteurized milk? How free would you feel if you were told you have no right to being healthy, and no right to allow your children to eat and drink the foods you feel are best for them?
John Stossel’s Illegal Everything *~*MUST SEE*~*
Lemonade stands, raw milk, fast food, and recording police are things that could earn you not just fines, but also a place in jail. The bitter irony rings in my head as I remember asking my mother at a very young age, “If drugs are illegal, why do they allow people to eat McDonald’s food?” Of course I was no more than eight years old and was only trying to keep others safe. On a field trip to the museum, we were shown over-sized models of clogged arteries, with french fries and hamburgers named as the culprit. At school, they told us drugs were bad. They also told us fast food was bad. I always knew I was a prophet…or was I just a child bending to engineered consent 20 years in advance?
In a dismissal letter dated April 26, 2010 from The United States District Court For The Northern District of Iowa Western Division concerning the right to purchase and consume unpasteurized milk, the court stated:
Plaintiffs’ assertion of a “fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families” is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish. In addition, courts have consistently refused to extrapolate a generalized right to “bodily and physical health” from the Supreme Court’s narrow substantive due process precedents regarding abortion, intimate relations, and the refusal of lifesaving medical treatment. See Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721 (warning that the fact “[t]hat many of the rights and liberties protected by the Due Process Clause sound in personal autonomy does not warrant the sweeping conclusion that any and all important, intimate, and personal decisions are so protected”); see also Cowan v. United States, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1235, 1242 (N.D. Okla. 1998) (rejecting a claim that the plaintiff had the fundamental “right to take whatever treatment he wishes due to his terminal condition regardless of whether the FDA approves the treatment”). Finally, even if such a right did exist, it would not render
FDA’s regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes “bodily and physical health.”
I may be reading this wrong, but did the court rule that, if the right existed, prohibiting the sale and distribution of raw milk wouldn’t be unconstitutional because the FDA’s regulations restricting food choice are to keep us safe and promote “bodily and physical health”?