California's basic decency to pigs law - in the supreme court

[Leeea]

What about someone buying port outside of the state and bringing it into California for their own consumption ( not reselling it ).

Black market pork, secret pork cartels.

Life in prison without parole.

Before you laugh, that is what Oklahoma does* life in prison for the possession of 20 grams of marijuana.


*technically, it is two years to life, depending on what the mood of the judge is

 

[Leeea]

bringing it in for personal consumption is fine

Is it though?

A person in the possession of pork clearly has funded the cruel and inhuman torture of animals. We imprison people for funding terrorism, why not imprison people for funding sadistic cruelty?

 

[MrSquished]

Those who do not meet our standards are prohibited. Sounds like a boycott to me.
Or is that term supposed to be broader than that?

Terminology aside, I see no reason presented to explain why CA cannot or should not be allowed to set its own standards, for what is sold in CA.
Size, scale, and impact aside. CA is not forcing anyone to do business with it. The SCOTUS has no authority to tell CA who to do business with.

I think language is pretty important here. If you want to call having any regulations as boycotting then what regulations would actually be okay?

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think language is pretty important here. If you want to call having any regulations as boycotting then what regulations would actually be okay?

I personally am boycotting murder.

 

[pcgeek11]

bringing it in for personal consumption is fine, but how does black market come into play if it is for personal consumption?

That was a separate thought and why it was the start of another paragraph. If they make it illegal you know they are going to find a way around the law. People always do...

 

[pcgeek11]

My dad raised hogs when I was small and we had an open hog lot with plenty of room for them to move around. Of course that was before all the rules. Local hog farmers used to go by the schools and would collect the leftover waste food from school lunches and feed that to the hogs. They then changed the rules and disallowed this for hogs that were being sold on the market. It's ok to feed it to the kids, but can't feed it to the hogs.

Looks like Proposition 12 effects Hogs, Veal Calves, and Egg-Laying Hens also. Looks like even higher prices added onto already high prices.

 

[MrSquished]

My dad raised hogs when I was small and we had an open hog lot with plenty of room for them to move around. Of course that was before all the rules. Local hog farmers used to go by the schools and would collect the leftover waste food from school lunches and feed that to the hogs. They then changed the rules and disallowed this for hogs that were being sold on the market. It's ok to feed it to the kids, but can't feed it to the hogs.

Looks like Proposition 12 effects Hogs, Veal Calves, and Egg-Laying Hens also. Looks like even higher prices added onto already high prices.

Yes treating animals more humanely will increase costs. Do you think that is a fair trade-off?

 

[sdifox]

I assume you mean CARB?
Which applies to vehicles only sold in CA. CARB is not enforced outside CA unless other states opt to use that as their emissions requirements as well. CA doesn't force CARB onto other states.

CAFE is at the federal level

yeah that one. But I thought every car maker decided to match California standard so that they don't have two versions?

 

[pcgeek11]

If the CA law is overturned, as a CA resident I think CA should just ban pork. All pork.

Assist in state farms with transitioning to something else.

https://cdn.saffire.com/files.ashx?t=fg&rid=CowPalace&f=PDF_pork_fact_sheet_pg_1.pdf

Although California makes up less than 1% of the total US pork production, it accounts for 13% of the national pork consumption.

Maybe they can raise their own hogs as per the CA law requirements and not import from other states.

 

[sdifox]

Is it though?

A person in the possession of pork clearly has funded the cruel and inhuman torture of animals. We imprison people for funding terrorism, why not imprison people for funding sadistic cruelty?

Banning sale of such product is far enough. Beyond that would be over reach.

 

[Fenixgoon]

https://cdn.saffire.com/files.ashx?t=fg&rid=CowPalace&f=PDF_pork_fact_sheet_pg_1.pdf

Although California makes up less than 1% of the total US pork production, it accounts for 13% of the national pork consumption.

Maybe they can raise their own hogs as per the CA law requirements and not import from other states.

And conservative states receive far more federal tax dollars than they contribute. Maybe they should get better economies and not import dollars from other states.

See how dumb that argument is?

 

[fskimospy]

yeah that one. But I thought every car maker decided to match California standard so that they don't have two versions?

They usually do but that’s a business decision.

If California’s law is so onerous then this would be best addressed through federal legislation. We don’t need courts inventing any new standards where suddenly an in state regulation becomes a ’major question’ where the courts once again arbitrarily pick and choose what laws stay on the books.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yes treating animals more humanely will increase costs. Do you think that is a fair trade-off?

Yes, within reasonable limits. Hogs should be allowed to have some space and be fed properly. The same with chickens.

I refuse to eat veal due to how they are treated.

 

[fskimospy]

https://cdn.saffire.com/files.ashx?t=fg&rid=CowPalace&f=PDF_pork_fact_sheet_pg_1.pdf

Although California makes up less than 1% of the total US pork production, it accounts for 13% of the national pork consumption.

Maybe they can raise their own hogs as per the CA law requirements and not import from other states.

California should be able to make any laws it wants that govern the internal economics of their state.

If people don’t want to sell pork there they don’t have to. If this leads to a pork shortage presumably California will change their laws.

 

[pcgeek11]

yeah that one. But I thought every car maker decided to match California standard so that they don't have two versions?

Car makers do conform, but in states that do not enforce CARB Standards example: you can replace your Catalytic converter with on that isn't CARB Certified legally where in CA you cannot, it has to be CARB Certified or it is illegal.

 

[Thump553]

https://cdn.saffire.com/files.ashx?t=fg&rid=CowPalace&f=PDF_pork_fact_sheet_pg_1.pdf

Although California makes up less than 1% of the total US pork production, it accounts for 13% of the national pork consumption.

Maybe they can raise their own hogs as per the CA law requirements and not import from other states.

Why? CA is not restricting commerce-out of state producers can sell their product in CA at whatever price the free market will support. Your "solution" is both ridiculous and would be unconstitutional if any state tried to bar all imports in favor of local producers.

 

[pcgeek11]

And conservative states receive far more federal tax dollars than they contribute. Maybe they should get better economies and not import dollars from other states.

See how dumb that argument is?

Strawman disregarded.

It wasn't an argument. It is just a fact.

I suggested that if they want to restrict pork from other states they will need to produce more pork to support their 13% pork usage verses their 1% pork production. Or they could decrease their usage.


Why do you always have the need to argue about everything and attempt to belittle everyone that doesn't conform to your ideals?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Strawman disregarded.

It wasn't an argument. It is just a fact.

I suggested that if they want to restrict pork from other states they will need to produce more pork to support their 13% pork usage verses their 1% pork production. Or they could decrease their usage.


Why do you always have the need to argue about everything and attempt to belittle everyone that doesn't conform to your ideals?

California is perfectly within its rights to control what happens inside its borders. If pork producers want to sell their product in the most populous state in the country, it is arguably in their interest to meet the market requirements.

Or are you not a fan of states' rights?

 

[pcgeek11]

California should be able to make any laws it wants that govern the internal economics of their state.

If people don’t want to sell pork there they don’t have to. If this leads to a pork shortage presumably California will change their laws.

I agree. I made no argument to the contrary.

 

[pcgeek11]

Why? CA is not restricting commerce-out of state producers can sell their product in CA at whatever price the free market will support. Your "solution" is both ridiculous and would be unconstitutional if any state tried to bar all imports in favor of local producers.

Why what?

CA is attempting to prohibit pork sales in the state that doesn't conform to their specific standards in Prop 12. This is fine by me and it is within their control as far as I am concerned.

I was only pointing out that they produce 1% and use 13% of pork in the US. If out of state producers do not conform to their rules (prop 12) they will need to produce more pork within their standards in order to maintain their usage level.

I didn't think I needed to Spell it out for you.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I mean, the repercussions of USSC siding with pork and conservative interests would be that Texas would need to scrap their textbook purchasing guidelines since they would violate the Latent Commerce Clause as well, so there is that upside.

Sorry, no such implications in Calvinball.

 

[pcgeek11]

California is perfectly within its rights to control what happens inside its borders. If pork producers want to sell their product in the most populous state in the country, it is arguably in their interest to meet the market requirements.

Or are you not a fan of states' rights?

Making things up in order to argue about something I see. Where did I say that they weren't within its rights to create their own standards for pork, eggs and veal?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Making things up in order to argue about something I see. Where did I say that they weren't within its rights to create their own standards for pork, eggs and veal?

what you said - or rather, how you said it - says everything.

you didn't say california wasn't within its rights. but somehow california exercising its rights is a problem for you - thus the "maybe they should increase their pork production instead"

it's extremely telling that what you said follows an essentially identical format to popular conservative phrases such as:
if you don't like (insert government policy), then maybe you should (leave/go back to your own country).
if you don't like being poor, then maybe you should (invest more/work harder)

 

[soulcougher73]

Maybe the out of state producers should just stop selling to CA in order to force them to make changes to this law? People want their pork, and if you withhold, their will be consequences.

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe the out of state producers should just stop selling to CA in order to force them to make changes to this law? People want their pork, and if you withhold, their will be consequences.

What will happen instead is the courts will decide this is a ‘major question’ and then determine that the courts should instead regulate California agricultural policy.