Lawsuit Attacks Florida's Lab-Grown Meat Ban As Unconstitutional (wired.com) 183
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: Florida's ban on cultivated meat is being challenged in federal court in a lawsuit that was filed yesterday. The case is being brought by the cultivated meat firm Upside Foods and the Institute of Justice (IJ), a nonprofit public interest law firm. Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed the legislation making the sale of cultivated meat illegal in Florida on May 1, and the bill came into effect on July 1. Alabama passed a similar bill banning cultivated meat that will come into effect from October 1. The case brought by Upside Foods and the IJ argues that Florida's ban is unconstitutional in three different ways. First, they argue, the ban violates theSupremacy Clause that gives federal law priority over state law in certain instances. The court case argues that the Florida ban violates two different provisions in the Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry Products Inspection Act.
The legal complaint (PDF) also alleges that the ban violates theCommerce Clause, which gives the US Congress exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. The IJ argues that the Commerce Clause restricts states from enacting laws that unduly restrict interstate commerce, and that Florida's ban in its current form has the effect of discriminating against it. "Florida's law has nothing to do with protecting health and safety," said IJ senior attorney Paul Sherman in a press conference today. "It is a transparent example of economic protectionism." Sherman said that Upside Foods and the IJ would also apply for a preliminary injunction that would allow the company to sell cultivated meat in Florida while the legal challenge is still ongoing. The complaint says that Upside had planned to distribute its cultivated chicken at Art Basel in Miami in early December 2024. The company protested the Florida ban by holding a tasting of its chicken on June 27 in Miami, shortly before the ban came into effect. Sherman said that the Alabama ban was also "in our sights" but that the IJ had targeted the Florida law as it came into effect before the Alabama ban. "We're hoping we'll be able to get a quick ruling [in Florida] on a preliminary injunction there," and use that as a precedent to challenge the Alabama ban, he said. "Consumers should decide what kind of meat they want to buy and feed their families -- not politicians," said the Good Food Institute (GFI), a nonprofit focused on advancing alternative proteins and which is serving as a consulting consul in this case. "This lawsuit seeks to protect these consumer rights, along with the rights of companies to compete in a fair and open marketplace."
The legal complaint (PDF) also alleges that the ban violates theCommerce Clause, which gives the US Congress exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. The IJ argues that the Commerce Clause restricts states from enacting laws that unduly restrict interstate commerce, and that Florida's ban in its current form has the effect of discriminating against it. "Florida's law has nothing to do with protecting health and safety," said IJ senior attorney Paul Sherman in a press conference today. "It is a transparent example of economic protectionism." Sherman said that Upside Foods and the IJ would also apply for a preliminary injunction that would allow the company to sell cultivated meat in Florida while the legal challenge is still ongoing. The complaint says that Upside had planned to distribute its cultivated chicken at Art Basel in Miami in early December 2024. The company protested the Florida ban by holding a tasting of its chicken on June 27 in Miami, shortly before the ban came into effect. Sherman said that the Alabama ban was also "in our sights" but that the IJ had targeted the Florida law as it came into effect before the Alabama ban. "We're hoping we'll be able to get a quick ruling [in Florida] on a preliminary injunction there," and use that as a precedent to challenge the Alabama ban, he said. "Consumers should decide what kind of meat they want to buy and feed their families -- not politicians," said the Good Food Institute (GFI), a nonprofit focused on advancing alternative proteins and which is serving as a consulting consul in this case. "This lawsuit seeks to protect these consumer rights, along with the rights of companies to compete in a fair and open marketplace."
replace LAB with GMO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many times are we going to learn,10years too late, something assumed safe, clearly was not? From causing cancer, to heart valve issues, to Mad Cow disease, etc. the same people demanding the sale will be the same people blaming the government for allowing the sale once we find out it causes non-reversible sterility or some other fucked up shit. Starlink corn is no longer ‘fit for human consumption’. Imagine Monsanto putting this lawsuit before the courts to make it so you can be duped into c
Re:replace LAB with GMO (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
should come with a written waiver they have to sign. These are the type people that will blame government for not 'protecting them' down the road. Lawsuits aside, they will run their mouth that the government was part of a conspiracy to make them sterile or whatever the hell the side effects are. God help us if it has a risk of making prions. I imagine the biggest customers are going to be vegans. How does the joke go? oh, yeah. How do you spot the Vegan at the party? Don't worry, she will find you. Some fr
Re: (Score:3)
These are the type people that will blame government for not 'protecting them' down the road. Lawsuits aside, they will run their mouth that the government was part of a conspiracy to make them sterile or whatever the hell the side effects are. God help us if it has a risk of making prions. I imagine the biggest customers are going to be vegans. How does the joke go? oh, yeah. How do you spot the Vegan at the party? Don't worry, she will find you. Some friend of hers will come down with mad cow diseases from some improperly folded protein and the conspiracy rumors will begin to fly. lol.
Heh, no doubt. There is a shocking lack of personal responsibility these days. It runs from the highest levels of government down to the weakest among us. When some crazy state tries to mandate lab meat as the only acceptable meat to buy and consume, I'll be against that too.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:replace LAB with GMO (Score:4, Insightful)
It is IMPOSSIBLE to get safety assessments perfect 100% of the time. There will ALWAYS be some level of "shit, we missed something". Therefore, the priority should be on having both a robust up-front assessment, and a robust post-approval monitoring, with a mechanism for reversing the initial approval. Which, for the record, is what we have. The biggest flaw in our current system is that the government employees responsible for managing this system are under staffed and under paid. I make 2x what my federal counterpart does, easily.
The alternative is paralysis by analysis. It is impossible to prove a negative, so the alternative is to never approve anything new ever again. Then we will never have to retract an approval, sure, but we will miss out on the benefits of those new things that truly are safe.
As for the specific examples you trot out, most of the fear mongering about those is over-blown. The dose makes the poison, and all things at a high enough intake will kill you, or at the very least make you sick. We should not deny the vast majority of the population something that they will benefit from becuase a handful of individuals globally will abuse those same things. Cars kill people every day, and yet I don't see a whole lot of drive to ban them (though there is a well appreciated move to deprioritize the use of cars). Houses burn down, but I don't see a push to ban the use of combustable materials in home construction (quite the opposite, houses burn faster today than in the past due to the use of engineered materials). Electrical fires happen, but we don't ban electricity.
You cannot live your life in fear of every possible harm out there. You'll end up committed for uncontrollable neuroticism in no time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A general reply, not to you specifically. Does anyone think Ron DeSantis gives a shit about consumer safety? He's protecting his funders
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone think Ron DeSantis gives a shit about consumer safety? He's protecting his funders
It's funny how people always run on campaign finance reform and taking down lobbyists but nothing ever changes. Politicians get rich and citizens get screwed.
Re: (Score:3)
Would help immensly if the media didn't do such a piss-poor job of reporting on what they do. Also, if they stopped reporting what they say as what they think/beleive. All the media knows is what they say, they don't have access to their inner thoughts, so when a politician says "I believe X" but his actions don't support that claim, the media should be reporting it as "Politician says he believes X, but h
No shits given. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think DeSantis gives any shits at all.
Which helps explain why he looks constipated all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times are we going to learn,10years too late, something assumed safe, clearly was not? From causing cancer, to heart valve issues, to Mad Cow disease, etc. the same people demanding the sale will be the same people blaming the government for allowing the sale once we find out it causes non-reversible sterility or some other fucked up shit. Starlink corn is no longer ‘fit for human consumption’. Imagine Monsanto putting this lawsuit before the courts to make it so you can be duped into consuming starlink. Sometimes it takes 20yrs for this shit to get discovered. Look at aspertame, zylotol, and other artificial sweeteners. Remember when Fen-Fen (sp?) was all the rwge in the 90s? Doctors putting people on that shit and people dying from heart valve issues? That shit was ‘tested’ ‘approved by the fda’ and deemed ‘safe’ too. It’s one thing to say the consumer should have the choice, but if the choices made based on insufficient information, is it really a informed choice?
With that logic, we should ban a lot of existing items - Alcohol being at the top of the list... Oh wait, we tried that once... If we outlaw it, labs in South America with questionable quality controls are just gonna grow it and smuggle it across the boarder - better to make it legal and regulate it. We learned that with marijuana. :) :P
Re: (Score:2)
alcohol existed long before the country was founded. I am talking about assuming something is safe based on a very short window of testing for something completely newly invented. Dry alcohol you snort is a good example. I believe they shut that shit down quickly. It was on the market less than a year. We banned bath salts in my state pretty damn fast too. They fell under the 'analogues' category of illicit drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that lab grown meat has enough people who would buy it from smugglers to make the business worthwhile.
Absolutely not (Score:3)
This is absurd, after proper testing and approval by the relevant agency if there's no evidence something is bad then it gets the green light. We shouldn't be having to hold off on new advancements of anything for decades because they might have negatives that we haven't discovered yet.
The fact is the vast majority of things our government reviews and then approves for our consumption turn out fine for us. We shouldn't bring all human progress to a screatching halt because we get things wrong occasionally.
Re: (Score:2)
This is 100% about Florida being lobbied by meat producers (growers?). "Save our industry!"
Of course it's going to run smack into trouble with the interstate commerce clause, and not just some modern interpretations of that clause but with the original founders intent of that clause (take that originalists!).
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you pretending lab grown meat is a mature industry? In other words, why would the regulations you insist would be necessary be in place if they're not even selling anything to anyone and likely won't be for quite some time as they continue to try to develope a product that is even viable as what they produce now is crap that no one would buy?
When something approaching a real consumer product finally gets approval we'll likely need new regulations for this new food industry. That's likely quite a few
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW: I think "Beyond Meat" counts as a real consumer product. This doesn't imply that lab grown meat is a mature industry, but it does exist as a consumer product. (And should be regulated.)
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond meat is not lab grown meat. It's a plant-based recipe.
Re: (Score:2)
OK. I don't pay much attention to that area, but I'm rather sure I've heard of at least one vendor offering cultured meat for sale, even if i can't remember which one.
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond Meat is not lab grown meat. It does not contain any animal cells.
Re: (Score:2)
the whole point of the lawsuit is to sell to people. I'm not in the habit of picking up a running chainsaw, but apparently a lot of people are. Its impossible to prevent every scenario, but if I can rattle off a few from the top of my head, and not be a expert in bio-terrorism, then I think its wise to insist on at least those safeguards up front.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're just engaging in fear mongering for an industry that doesnt even exist yet.
Re:replace LAB with GMO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So... In your world it's the ones who take vaccines who are the idiots and who will die out... Yeah, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. You're clearly pretty stupid and delusional. Not really sure what to say to people like you. It's truly sad that you want to make basic public health into one of your ridiculous culture war political causes.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'm trying to figure out how labeling something as "lab grown" automatically makes it safe?
Hell, I could maybe try to sell "lab grown" ebola....that doesn't exactly make it any safer than obtaining your ebola in the "wild"....
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, I'm trying to figure out how labeling something as "lab grown" automatically makes it safe?
It doesn't. It informs the consumer that it is not meat from a living animal. Like I said above, I wouldn't eat it. Hell, animal meat could start labeling itself "real meat". As e3m4n said (correctly) above, sometimes you don't know something is bad for humans until much later. If it passes initial FDA testing and is deemed safe for human consumption, then people can decide if they want to be test subjects or not. I opt for "not".
Re: (Score:2)
Ok...I misunderstood.
I'd not eat it either.
I'm on the fence a bit about allowing it....I'd think something for human consumption likely should go through years (ie decade or more) trials to make sure it doesn't have bad effects.
But if allowed in, for sure....I'm big on labelling laws. I guess I'd be a bit more like you, if they'd just label things CLEARLY as Lab Grown, or GMO....etc.
I am
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'd be a bit more like you, if they'd just label things CLEARLY as Lab Grown, or GMO....etc.
Exactly. We still need to keep a close eye on folks who try to change label laws. A few months back there was some fuss about meats that can be labeled "Product of USA". I think they got it right in the end, but it still bothers me that it was ever up for discussion. (I didn't follow that story as close as I should have)
Re: (Score:2)
The FDA is where the, "safe" designation comes from. If the FDA approves it, then that's where it is acceptable for distribution as food(or medication). Note that nothing is going to force you to eat the stuff. I agree that people shouldn't automatically trust it, but on the flip side, there is a designation for "how much" is safe for fish at this point, due to how much pollution there is out there.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care if people want to make or eat fake or lab grown "meat". Or "eggs", or "milk". Just do not call it by the same name as traditional product
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the government MUST forbid it anyway, to prevent damage to Big Ag. Errrrm, I mean, the weakening of True Americans! DeSantis for President! Only he can prevent the contamination of our precious bodily fluids!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? The issue is merely a bunch of Florida state legislators and government officials having been bought off by the meat producers. There isn't anything deeper than that, regardless of your fevered dreams.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're for "states rights", then there *is* a deeper issue. (FWIW, I partially AM for states rights, but I don't have an opinion in this particular area. But, e.g., I *do* think that states should have the right to insist on labeling that they find clear that indicates that this is "lab grown meat". ... Within limits that I'm unclear on.)
I *do* believe that the federal government is centralizing too much power. But I also believe that about the state governments. Things that should be local policy ar
Re: (Score:2)
It is not.
Cancer is usually a cell type and lab grown meat does not have those cells.
It's disembodied flesh. Grown separate from a body. That might be icky enough- but please let's not lower ourselves to hyperbole.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't fit into either category. Cancerous cells have their growth mechanisms deregulated (or misregulated). That's not usually true of lab grown meat. Ordinary tissues are composed the structured compositions of different varieties of cell. That's also not true of lab grown meat (though they're working on it).
If you want to give it a sensible non-appealing name try "reconstituted meat slurry". I think that's often accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Cancer Cells. They are a type. They even call them cancer cells.
Re: (Score:2)
So not only did you decide to quote wikipedia as a source, but you failed to quote it correctly.
Here's the correct quote from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Can we be done with this chasm of failure of basic biology? They teach this shit in lyceum here in Finland ffs. You don't even need higher education to know this.
How can this have standing? (Score:5, Informative)
This stuff isn't "meat"...it didn't come from a dead animal....
So, how could it violate any provision of a Federal Meat act or Poultry Product act?
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it is meat. Unless you think animal grown meat has some sort of special cosmic aura that makes it meat. Maybe there is a Meat God that uses his/her magic wand and anoints the animal when it is conceived with a special Fairy Dust that designates the critter as meat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We're quibbling here. Anyone is free to define "meat" in a way that excludes or includes anything they want, but then we're actually arguing over their definition, not the actual thing in question.
Florida has banned "lab grown meat", and the question should be do they have a rational and legally justifiable reason to ban *this specific product*?
If you look at France, they've banned lab grown meat in order to protect traditional French agriculture and French food culture. It turns out the main reason for Fl
Re: (Score:2)
Neither France nor Florida has a legit reason to ban lab grown meat as a competitor to their traditional food industries given that lab grown meat is currently in no way, shape, or form a serious competitor to meat from an animal.
Furthermore if we always passed legislation forbidding new industry from competing with old we'd still be driving around in carriages and wouldn't have anything modern or nice. It's particularly crazy to be hearing such things from conservatives as it's incredibly anti capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Preventing the *emergence* of a future competitor is just as anti-competitive as restricting the business of an established one. Preemptive protectionism is not allowed in the European Common Market or by the US Commerce Clause. Saying you have to already be taking customers away from protected businesses before you can challenge an anti-competitive ban amounts to a catch-22.
But in the case of France you're right -- it's too early to challenge the anticompetitive nature of France's ban. That's because th
Re: (Score:2)
The states don't have the power to protect their businesses from out of state competition. Therefore they need another legal justification.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't taste right if it never had a soul!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The issue is fraud and the potential for fraud.
If they prominently label it Advanced Chicken Substitute with a full list of ingredients and the words "not organic" and "unnatural " all over the package then it's fine to sell it. FrankenFood is also acceptable.
Fake food is an issue. The dollar store has cans of Evaporated Creamer, an evaporated milk substitute make mostly of palm oil, emulsifiers, whey powder and sugar.
Re: (Score:2)
It is real chicken, just not grown in an animal.
The stuff that is grown in an animal is probably even more fake. They have to pump it full of various drugs to make it grow larger and keep it healthy. Then wash it in chlorine. I'd much rather have lab grown in a sterile environment and a carefully controlled feed of hormones and nutrients.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is meat though, and it did come from animal that is dead by now.
Specifically, it's cancerous meat that came from dead animal that is fed nutrients so it can grow far beyond the normal limiting factors.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have cancer. That's now how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have cancer because it is cancer. Cells can't have cancer, because cancer is something only multi-cellular organisms can have by definition. And what we do in lab is grow cancerous tumuors.
And the reason we do that is because cancerous mutation is a mutation that removes limiter on growth. You don't want to grow whatever muscle the cell you are cultivating was meant to form. You want to grow a massive tumour that is far larger than what the original muscle could ever be. It's still going to be th
Re: (Score:2)
It's not cancer. Do you think children just have cancer and that's why they get bigger?
Re: (Score:2)
I forget how little you understand about anything related to biology, being on the far left.
Basics: Normal cells in multicellular organisms have a multiplication limiter. This is one of the key features of complex multicellular organisms, that allows us to become the correct shape and size.
Children grow in accordance to the limiters. But even children get cancer. And that is when cellular mutation shuts down the limiter, and causes unlimited growth. At that point, human children develop tumours just like ev
Re: (Score:2)
The intent of the law is that foodstuffs the FDA has approved shouldn't be blocked by individual states just because their governor is a jackass.
Re: (Score:2)
So, how could it violate any provision of a Federal Meat act or Poultry Product act?
Presumably because laws have more words in them than just their titles, and despite containing only 4 words each you didn't even manage to read the titles correctly.
Lab grown meat is grown from parts of an animal. The definition of "meat food product" includes anything made wholly or in part from any meat or any other part of a carcass. Literally on the first page of the Federal Meat Inspection Act it shows that it would apply.
Of course it's unconstitutional (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just another attempt by DeSantis to violate people's rights, just like he tried with Don't Say Gay or book bans.
People can decide if they want to eat this non-meat or not, just like they can choose which book they or their kids can read without government making that determination.
For as much as a certain group likes to claim they're for freedom, they sure do like imposing the government's will over what freedoms people are allowed to have.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled that there is no fundamental right to consume the food of your choice, and that government has unlimited authority to regulate food production and safety. The commerce clause argument is a red herring, because the State still has the right to regulate sales within the state, including banning the sale of anything it has the authority to ban, even if the Federal government ALSO has the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is just another attempt by DeSantis to violate people's rights, just like he tried with Don't Say Gay or book bans.
People can decide if they want to eat this non-meat or not, just like they can choose which book they or their kids can read without government making that determination.
For as much as a certain group likes to claim they're for freedom, they sure do like imposing the government's will over what freedoms people are allowed to have.
All states, being sovereign in their own boundaries, have the right to regulate commerce as they see fit as long as it doesn't violate federal law. California has banned everything from Foie Gras to Flamin' Hot Cheetos [stacker.com].
A variety of finished foods and food ingredients are banned across a range of states.
But, if you're really that impassioned about Mutant Meat, quest on. Maybe a judge will... carve out an exception for you! *rimshot*
Re: (Score:2)
Florida's ban is significantly more ridiculous then what you detail. Foie Gras has real life animal welfare issues even if you disagree and as for Cheetos, if you read your own link that's just schools banning them because they are messy which is not at all the same as a full state ban. Florida's ban is more ridiculous because lab grown meat is not at all a current competitor for meat from an animal (their stated reason for the ban being that it's to protect their native meat industry). Sure, someday it mig
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to the free market sorting this out?
If people don't like lab grown meat then the company will eventually go under. Why the need for government intervention? Oh wait, I know why. The cattle ranchers got scared and gave Rhonda Santis some cash to make it go away. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/... [nbcmiami.com]
Small government and personal responsibility and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you're one of those nutters that thinks there is a global conspiracy to take away your steaks at gunpoint and force everyone to eat bugs. Got it.
I got news for you buddy. Ron DeSantis is one of the elites. He's the governor of a large populous state and even tried a presidential run. He kisses other elite ass like Elon Musk and the orange alzheimers patient.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just someone who understands that the tech and needed supply chains behind this will mean it will never, ever, ever be able to compete with normal meat on price short of government regulation forcing the issue. As such either they're targeting the market of vegetarians who don't eat meat solely due to animal cruelty issues in which case they would take 50 years to recoup their investment, or they're betting on those regulations being put in place.
Re: (Score:3)
These has nothing to do with the rights of people. This is about corporations shoving their crap down people's throats.
Corporations are not trying to shove anything down people's throats in this case. Some people want to buy these products, and nobody is forcing anyone else to buy them.
By your logic heroin should be legal.
It's both cheaper and more humane to provide clean heroin to junkies and give them a place to shoot up than to pretend addiction doesn't exist and let them OD on street fentanyl, then take an ambulance ride at our expense to a hospital where they will be treated at our expense, and maybe die anyway and be cremated at our expense. Why do you w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it cheaper to give them heroin and a place to shoot up? Letting die in the street from a fent OD is free...
It's more expensive because we try to save people's lives, because we are compassionate. Not you of course, but some of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying my best not to be pejorative here.
You know nothing about addiction. Nothing. You think that giving away addictive substances in clean, safe environments will do something positive. I'm here to tell you that the cost, the risks, and the very real social consequences of addictive substances are the actual facts on the ground that convince some to leave that lifestyle behind and recover.
One of the worst things you can do for an addict is to enable them. If the consequences happen without too muc
Re: (Score:2)
You think that giving away addictive substances in clean, safe environments will do something positive.
That's because studies say so.
Giving out drugs like you talk of assures many of death that might live otherwise.
So does not doing it, and it saves more lives than the alternative. There are important secondary effects which you are ignoring to support your argument.
https://westminsteru.edu/stude... [westminsteru.edu]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
https://www.samhsa.gov/find-he... [samhsa.gov]
etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Read through them all. Nary a word about positive outcomes for addicts. The reason why is that offering them safe injection sites and giving them drugs is enabling them. It solves problems for the rest of society and flushes them down the toilet.
Enabling kills people. Full stop.
I'm not even considering that there are goodly portions of the addict population - perhaps most - who, as a result of their control issues, will never access such services anyway. Their withdrawal (ha) from regular society also i
Re: (Score:2)
You probably don't want real addicts in your life. I have them in mine.
We all have real addicts in our lives. Sometimes they are indeed problematic from society's viewpoint, and even mine personally, but they also have a story. They got to be that way somehow, and that's where we should be focusing our negative attention. It unfortunately takes a lot more support than most of us are willing to give in our system to help some of these people. We have set it up that way economically; the people who want to help cannot afford to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
We disagree because I believe there is nothing we can do to help them until they make the decision to end their addiction. Otherwise, it's a slow (or fast) march to death.
Only the consequences make it possible for *some* to leave that life behind.
My ex-wife is my chiefest example, though not the only addict in my life. I enabled her for 14 years as she got worse and worse. Now i'm watching from remote as she sells every item in her (rental) house before she loses it, and spends the proceeds on drugs. Li
Re: (Score:2)
Heroin abuse went up after the ban, as did the quantity of laced heroin. It's not clear that the ban was responsible, nor is it clear that the current situation wouldn't be worse. The situation might have ended up a lot worse. The ban, though, isn't proof that it would have been. The ban is only proof of there being a ban. It isn't possible, or rational, to draw conclusions from it in either direction.
However, that's neither here nor there.
In the United States, the Founding Fathers made it clear that on mat
Re: (Score:2)
A) Their product would be equally illegal if the company set up in Florida.
B) Nowhere in the Constitution were the Feds granted exclusive control over health and safety.
C) If this is unconstitutional that so are half of California's regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
I fear an adverse ruling on this Commerce clause crap. The Supremes will fix it...eventually. But states should be free to regulate as they will. If you don't like it, you can move to a state that is more amenable to your ideas about life.
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't force children to read degenerate porn as a part of school curriculum" = "Don't say gay".
This is as simple as a child asking why someone might have two moms or two dads in a classroom. In states not run by religious right wing zealots the teacher could answer the question. Since this is Florida the teacher would have to say "Sorry, I can't answer your question because the governor of the state passed a law forbidding me to talk about it."
"Books freely available to buy for cheap from amazon" = "book bans."
As usual, postmodern left inverts the meanings of words.
So much for personal freedom and responsibility. If the book upsets your fragile moral sentiments then I suggest simply not reading it. Why do you feel the nee
Re: (Score:2)
>This is as simple as a child asking why someone might have two moms or two dads in a classroom
And to do this, we must mandate that they read pornographic books on how to give homosexual blowjobs and rimjobs (which are some of the less degenerate aspects of books that were removed from curriculum).
There's a reason why when disconnected from context and asked what is the correct age to show this sort of literature to children, normative answer is "when they are of age of consent". There's also a reason wh
Re: (Score:2)
And to do this, we must mandate that they read pornographic books on how to give homosexual blowjobs and rimjobs (which are some of the less degenerate aspects of books that were removed from curriculum).
If those politicians that are banning books were really concerned about sexual content, they would ban bibles. So, they are not, it's virtue signalling, combined with a healthy dose of "othering".
Re: (Score:2)
>If those politicians that are banning books
Notice the desperate attempts to insist on injecting initial inversion of the language by sneaking it in into another inversion:
>So, they are not, it's virtue signalling, combined with a healthy dose of "othering".
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason why when disconnected from context and asked what is the correct age to show this sort of literature to children, normative answer is "when they are of age of consent".
I don't know how isolated your childhood was, but it is safe to say kids know about, and often participate in sex long before the age of consent. It has nothing to do with whether parents actually believe that or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent. Would you kindly clarify for me how this is related to adults doing this to children?
Or are you a MAP and think that children can consent and law is unfair because children can do it to each other, so teachers should be allowed to do this to children?
Reminder: the topic is "can teachers force degenerate porn books on children as mandatory learning material". Not "can children legally have sex with one another".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, kids should not learn how to give homosexual rimjobs in school. They should also not learn how to perform other scatological acts, nor any other fetishistic acts.
They should learn about basic sexuality, not fetishism. And only when it becomes relevant, not while they still haven't developed to have fully functional primary sex characteristics.
I know that pedophiles disagree, and have long been pushing for teaching extreme fetishes to pre-pubescent children as its well documented that this sort of normal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider searching google scholar for the term I suggested.
If we can grow meat without a brain (Score:4, Interesting)
Why wouldn't we want to do that?
It's a no-brainer. ;)
Seriously though, why kill a living, breathing, thinking and feeling life when it may be possible to get the same thing by just growing the substance without the suffering?
Re: (Score:2)
1) Established interests object to the threat to their profit models
2) Religion, leveraged by those mentioned in point 1.
3) People who are just generally afraid of change, ignorant of the risks and rewards, and incapable of doing the math even if they understood the issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrational aversions. To many for some reason the mass of cooked animal cells one is eating is unappealing if they don't come off a dead animal. Absolutely no idea why that's an issue but these types of things come up.
It's like eating bugs (and I kind of figure I'll get trolled for this), there's absolutely nothing wrong with eating them, humans have been doing it for millennia. For some reason though nowadays people don't want to eat bugs because they're "icky" even though we eat tons of food that if you r
And with that (Score:3, Interesting)
Suddenly the republicans have a problem with the free market.
Both sides have problems (Score:2)
Lab grown meat is a great idea in theory, in practice it's a very hard problem that won't be solved any time soon
The ban is purely political theater at this point, since it bans something that doesn't exist in order to make a political statement
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the meantime we continue to pave over and build on farmland causing the remaining land to be pushed harder and harder to produce
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great theoretical question, but it's not something we need to worry about now.
Remember, we live in a world where we routinely burn massive amounts of staple crops because there's too damn much of it.
We overproduce food. People go hungry for other reasons.
Consumer choice (Score:2)
It is ironic that the political philosophy that loves to promote "consumer choice" (to the point of naming websites and lobbying groups that) when opposing things like regulations turns around and bans an entire technological path.
Why do they call it "meat" if it isn't? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is apparently what the population of Florida wants, and at least it isn't hurting individuals like the anti-women, anti-LGBT, and anti-nonwhite or non-Christian stuff.
The rising ocean can't submerge that peninsula quickly enough.
Well, they might want it. Always difficult to say. Some of Mini-Mussolini's edicts are a little odd.
Ban lab grown meat for pre-assumed unhealthy aspects, but let's sit down with a nice glass of raw milk. https://getrawmilk.com/browse/... [getrawmilk.com]