Voting no on Issue 2- Livestock care standards board Amendment

There are lots of things Ohio should regulate, and take care of- but, a Constitutional Amendment to create another layer of bureaucracy to “protect livestock and poultry” is an insult to the people of the Great State of Ohio.

Constitutional Amendments are special. It takes a whopping 70% of the vote to overturn or amend them. They are supposed to be passed to stop politicians from mucking things about on a whim.

That’s exactly why big agri-business is hot to pass this as an amendment, as opposed to being handled by simple votes in the legislature. This could be done easily by a vote in the Statehouse- instead of asking the people of your house to do it for them.

Animal welfare is important, but, if you think a regulatory body added to the Constitution is going to help- just take a look at what good the Securities and Exchange Commission has done for you lately. Let’s worry about protecting people with a Constitutional Amendment, not chickens.

Surely our fine legislators in Columbus can craft something without a constitutional amendment. I’m voting no on Issue 2.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! If you wish to support this blog, please head over and use our services at The Next Wave Printing for all your printing needs. We have 4 Color Business cards starting at just $13.50.

11 Responses

  1. Glen Brailey November 1, 2009 / 9:38 am
    Having just the slightest cursory knowledge of this issue, my understanding is that this amendment was proposed as a means to preempt even more restrictive and costly legislation promoted by fringe groups like PETA.  Issue 2 proponents seem to have bi-partisan support.  What is the truth on Issue 2??

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. David Esrati November 1, 2009 / 9:54 am

    Now we’re passing draconian legislation because of fear of other legislation by a fringe group?

    Again- constitutional amendments are very serious things.

    I can’t position myself as an oracle of truth- but, I can say that a constitutional amendment is like cutting off an arm because of a splinter.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Teri Lussier November 1, 2009 / 10:40 am
    My understanding of Issue 2 is that it is a proactive response to ’08 passing of California’s Proposition 2, which places economically unfeasible, and unnecessary restrictions on modern and humane farming techniques. If you don’t believe this is a serious threat to the future of Ohio, you’ve not been paying attention to the #1 industry in Ohio- agriculture- nor have you been paying attention to one of the richest non-profits- the HSUS, which has nothing to do with our local Humane Society.
     
    The fact that both Republicans and Democrats support this issue should give some indication to the seriousness of what’s at stake here. If the HSUS, which states “as California goes, so goes the rest of the country” has its way, it will ultimately end animal food production in this state, and in our country- a publically stated agenda. Nice? Don’t be silly.  The reality means Ohio’s farmers will go bankrupt, which we will all have to pay for, and then we’ll simply be trucking in eggs from Mexico, a country with little restrictions put on production or farming techniques. Yum! Salmonella anyone? And so pricey too!

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. David Esrati November 1, 2009 / 10:58 am

    @Teri- by the same reasoning- Ohio would have legalized medical marijuana long ago because California did. The reason it has both sides backing it- is agribusiness gave the politicians a lot of money.

    This can be handled by legislation- it doesn’t need to be a constitutional amendment.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Glen Brailey November 1, 2009 / 5:55 pm
    As always…”cui bono?”

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. David Esrati November 1, 2009 / 6:58 pm

    @Glen

    I had to look up “Cui bono” – thanks for introducing that to me.

    for the rest of you- look at the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono

    “Commonly the phrase is used to suggest that the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain. The party that benefits may not always be obvious or may have successfully diverted attention to a scapegoat, for example.”

    This explains a lot of large donations to political campaigns in my book.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Bruce Kettelle November 1, 2009 / 11:46 pm
    We operate our 200 acre farm as good stewards of the land.  Although we don’t raise any animals our friends that do, give their livestock the best care.  I and several farmers I know oppose Issue 2.  We don’t beleive a separate layer of regulators is necessary.  Nor do we think it appropriate that the legislature will have no say is animal regulatory practices.  Another that opposes this amendment is the head of the Montgomery County Cattleman’s Association Duane Plessinger.  Vote No, do not create this new board and all the expense that will go with it.  Do not create this board which can easily be stacked with supporters of mega beef, hog, and poultry operations so they can get bigger. 

    Vot no on Issue 2 and Do support the future actions of our state legislature to continue providing the realistic rules we are happy with.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Robert Vigh November 2, 2009 / 5:24 pm
    I am voting no.

    @ Teri: The lessor of 2 evils is still evil. In all cases, issue 2 or other, voting the lessor evil is a terribly unprincipled thing to do.

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Teri November 2, 2009 / 6:39 pm
    >@ Teri: The lessor of 2 evils is still evil. In all cases, issue 2 or other, voting the lessor evil is a terribly unprincipled thing to do.
     
    Yeah. It sucks. The whole damn thing sucks. There is currently no good way to work around this insidious problem.
    So you are voting for the bigger evil?

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Robert Vigh November 3, 2009 / 10:42 am
    Hey Teri,
    No, hopefully (sticking with our metaphor), I get to vote down both and keep it at no evil. I can understand your strategic thinking, it is valid. But, it is also a strategic maneuver by creators of such bills to get opposition to compromise on their principles. My point being is that we create (sometimes) these paradigms of thought where you have 2 options: 1) Crappy un-needed regulatory control or 2) Really terrible crappy un-needed regulatory control.
    Sometimes the populace gets caught in the Paradigm and forgets option 3) Neither.
     

    Brilliant or Bozo? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *