SWing'R Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Ok, tomorrow is election day and I have no clue about ISSUE 2. I've tried to read about it and all it does is confuse me.Can someone please explain the difference in a NO or YES vote on Issue 2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironbuttwannabe Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Vote Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubguy85 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Vote YES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/state_regional/article/Issue_Two_Should_Ohio_Farmers_Use_The_State_Constitution_to_Establish_a_Liv/24659/I plan on voting yes at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20091031/OPINION02/910310310/-1/newsfront2/Analyzing-the-arguments-for--against-Ohio-Issue-2Groups in support of Issue 2 include the Ohio Farm Bureau, the Ohio Livestock Coalition and the Ohio Poultry Association. They argue Issue 2 will allow Ohioans to decide what is best for Ohio farmers and ensure the continued availability of locally-produced food. They also think the amendment will provide increased transparency about food production and give consumers additional assurance their food was raised responsibly and safely.Those opposing Issue 2 -- the Human Society of the United States and other animal rights groups -- argue this issue was rushed onto the ballot in order to prevent a serious discussion by legislators, interested parties, farmers and the public about improving Ohio's agriculture industry. Opponents also say the language creating the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board does not belong in the state's Constitution, as any future changes to the structure of the board or its mission also would have to be done via a constitutional amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natedogg624 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 all the farmers back home have yes issue 2 signs in the front yard, so im voting yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I am voting yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Issue 2 for dummies: Sets up a new bureau in Ohio’s government to set rules and regulations pertaining to the practices farmers use to raise, care for and sell farm goods. It appears to be in reaction to activities that Peta and animal rights groups who have successfully gotten laws passed which have made farming practices very difficult and expensive. It is not clear if it will in fact stop animal rights groups from changing laws regarding this but is thought to give small farmers more voice in changes that might occur. At least this is what I've gotten from the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 More government!? What are you guys voting yes for? The gov't needs to stay out of the farmers business.../stir pot and run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 More government!? What are you guys voting yes for? The gov't needs to stay out of the farmers business.../stir pot and run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironbuttwannabe Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 More government!? What are you guys voting yes for? The gov't needs to stay out of the farmers business.../stir pot and run Yeah but it seems like the government is the only group that can stop animal rights activists like HSUS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Kind of like how that same gov't is the only group that can stop health care insurance lobbyists... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Kind of like how that same gov't is the only group that can stop health care insurance lobbyists...And terrorists in the middle-east...But seriously, wrong government. It isn't federal government, it's state government. I am all for this one. I'm against big federal government. I really think this issue will benefit Ohioans, and especially the farmers. And, it's anti-peta so that just tickles my insides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 More government!? What are you guys voting yes for? The gov't needs to stay out of the farmers business.../stir pot and runYeah, I'm not big on that idea but I also know how ineffective the OSU ag extension and dept of ag have been in Ohio when it comes to dealing with farms that choose not to use best available standards and practices. This may provide a centeralized body that can be held responsible for the proper use and implementation of resources to enforce agricultural standards. On the down side it might also be another big hole in the floor that we get to dump $$$ into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 And, it's anti-peta so that just tickles my insides.My girlfriends mink coat tickles my outsides. That is, when I'm not wearing my leather one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 And terrorists in the middle-east...But seriously, wrong government. It isn't federal government, it's state government. I am all for this one. I'm against big federal government. I really think this issue will benefit Ohioans, and especially the farmers. And, it's anti-peta so that just tickles my insides.Don't be fooled Casper. This CAN NOT and WILL NOT trump laws passed at the Federal level reguarding farming! State laws must meet or exceed Federal standards via the code of federal regulations for the FDA. It only protects farmers from back door legislation within the state reguarding new laws effecting farming and farm product sales.It may actually have to make some Ohio laws stricter to meet Federal guidelines which are being proposed for how food is tracted from the farm to the dinner table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Don't be fooled Casper. This CAN NOT and WILL NOT trump laws passed at the Federal level reguarding farming! State laws must meet or exceed Federal standards via the code of federal regulations for the FDA. It only protects farmers from back door legislation within the state reguarding new laws effecting farming and farm product sales.It may actually have to make some Ohio laws stricter to meet Federal guidelines which are being proposed for how food is tracted from the farm to the dinner table.Oh I definitely understand that, but for the government haters this isn't bigger fed government. It's actually a benefit to Ohio farmers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 It's actually a benefit to Ohio farmers.Maybe? It is a stop gap answer in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 On the down side it might also be another big hole in the floor that we get to dump $$$ into. There's a good point. Who/what/where is the money coming from for all this? Are my T-bones going up $2/lb?I don't buy into the Federal (not OK) vs. State (OK) gov't thing... more gov't is more gov't. And I'm pretty sure most people know a lot less about our gov't on a state level than the Fed level, save for certain issues near and dear to their hearts (like CCW).Besides, state law making is going to give people a mishmash of rules. I understand what works in Ohio may be work in Utah... but it's still more bureaucracy.On Issue 2, I'm leaning yes, but I've read some tales of it putting unnecessary burdens on small farmers, while catering to the mega-land farmers, so it's basically like the 'Walmarts' of farmers want issue 2 because it'll put the mom&pop farmers out of business because of the investment necessary to meet certain state standards when they meet all the other standards currently in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 On Issue 2, I'm leaning yes, but I've read some tales of it putting unnecessary burdens on small farmers, while catering to the mega-land farmers, so it's basically like the 'Walmarts' of farmers want issue 2 because it'll put the mom&pop farmers out of business because of the investment necessary to meet certain state standards when they meet all the other standards currently in place.I'm in the same boat. It is certainly a gamble and just like issue 3 is being pushed hard based on peoples fears about the economy and jobs. If it passes I'm sure there will be people who come out winners and lossers on all levels. At this point I will vote yes simply because farmers seem to feel it is the best answer. If it doesn't work we may all suffer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubguy85 Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Issue 2 is a yes...Unfortunately I know more about this issue than I care to, it effects my job, but there is a lot more behind the scenes stuff (obviously) then just what this issue is about... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Well, then you should elaborate for us... so we can decide whether it's worth your job or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I can never give rep to the people that deserve it. Damn rulez and spreading it around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buildit Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I can never give rep to the people that deserve it. Damn rulez and spreading it around.+1 How can I help it if only 10 people are posting intelligent comments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Why would I, a staunch supporter of animal rights, vote "No" to this?(B) The Board shall have authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state, subject to the authority of the General Assembly. In establishing those standards, the Board shall consider factors that include, but are not limited to, agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being, biosecurity, disease prevention, animal morbidity and mortality data, food safety practices, and the protection of local, affordable food supplies for consumers. (D) The General Assembly may enact laws that it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, to facilitate the execution of the duties of the Board and the state department that regulates agriculture under this section, and to set the terms of office of the Board members and conditions for the Board members' service on the Board. This ammendment does NOT create standards for animal care, it creates the ability for a board of 13 Ohio citizens to CREATE standards if they so see fit... in other words... this is only as good as the 13 members of the board.And in fact, if this board decides that animals with e-coli should be sold because it means Ohio farmers can stay in business... they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.