SQ777

[joiei]

http://kirkpatrickfoundation.com/assets/docs/777_FAQs_Kirkpatrick_Foundation.pdf An analysis of SQ777 by the Kirkpatrick Foundation. Vote NO on this terrible piece of legislation.

[BKDotCom]

If for no other reason:  SQ 777 has absolutely nothing to do with casinos.

But in all seriousness:

The Legislature shall pass no law which abridges (take away)
the right of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to employ
agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching
practices without a compelling state interest

Why is this a bad thing?

[cynical]

It is a bad thing because it eliminates the balancing of interests that state regulation requires and substitutes in its place a total preeminence of agricultural interests. So my desire to establish a pig farm on the former Bobby Lorton property across the street from Philbrook could only be stopped if a compelling state interest was found and stopping it was the least restrictive means of doing so. Almost no regulation can withstand the degree of scrutiny the "compelling state interest" test imposes. Water quality. Gone. Air quality. Gone. Land use regulation. Gone. Pig farms everywhere. Someone wants to grow organic grain finds himself suddenly faced with someone planting Monsanto GM grain, can't prevent cross-pollenization. SOL. No one can stop anyone from doing whatever they want.

Whenever interests collide, someone's ox gets gored. The government at present can step in and regulate so that the interests are balanced. If 777 is enacted, government has to leave the field, so to speak. When ideology meets reality, it's not going to be pretty,

My example is extreme but illustrative.

If for no other reason:  SQ 777 has absolutely nothing to do with casinos.

But in all seriousness:

Why is this a bad thing?

[cannon_fodder]

Why is this a bad thing?

It makes Tyson's ability to dump chicken litter, guts, and industrial solvents wherever they want rise to the same level as your First Amendment rights. Just like it is nearly impossible to justify restricting a First Amendment right, it would be nearly impossible to come up with a justification to prevent Tyson's "right" of polluting the land, using unsafe practices, being a nuisance to their neighbors, etc.

It makes the owner of a 100,000 acres wheat farm's ability to spread raw pig manure as protected as your ability to carry a firearm.

Raising cocks or dogs for fighting? Arguably protected as "livestock." Want to try to enforce runoff, pesticide usage, carcass removal, or other standard environment laws? This is a blow. Need to take steps to stop an outbreak of something, protect the food supply, or otherwise protect other agricultural interests? Just made nearly impossible. Want to regulate antibiotics to livestock? Nope.  What if farmers were requesting a ban on a particular chemical that is killing off all their pollinators at the cost of ranchers having to use a different chemical... well, the state would effectively be barred from weighing those competing interests and making a decision about what is best for Oklahoma.

Want to require seat belts in tractors? Too bad. Safety features on grain elevators? Nope. This law also applies to safety laws.

All this... to gain nothing. Oklahomans already have a "right to farm." They are counting on ignorance and people saying, "gee, that sounds nice."

[rebound]

Farming family guy here.  This POS Bill is terrible and should never have seen the light of day.  There are plenty of protections already in place for farming.   "Right to Farm" is one of the most misleading bill names ever in the history of bill names.

[DTowner]

Whatever the merits, the Oklahoma Constitution is cluttered enough without adding to the mess by adding new rights/provisions.

[BKDotCom]

They are counting on ignorance and people saying, "gee, that sounds nice."

What'd you just call me?

[swake]

From reading it, couldn't a neighbor decide he wants to raise chickens or something anywhere in the city and probably be able to do so?

[Townsend]

Anyone have the probability of this passing?

[AquaMan]

Its a darling proposition from the Tpartiers. Might have been Kansas that started it. My understanding is that it was designed to keep green people at bay and allow farmers to not have to use responsible practices. They fear restraint of corporations in any way. And they don't want any interference from tree huggers.

[cannon_fodder]

What'd you just call me?

I can't tell if you are sarcastic, my sarcast-o-meter sucks. But I didn't mean to call you anything.

I said that the people pushing SQ777 are counting on ignorance on the subject of "right to farm." In that you previously stated your ignorance on the subject, I guess that would include you. But I'm not sure why you would take offense to being called ignorant on a subject on which you yourself previously stated your ignorance (to wit: "why is that a bad thing?").

Ignorance isn't an insult. Many seem to act like "ignorance" and "stupid" are the same thing when they are far from it. Ignorant simply means you lack knowledge, generally on a particular subject. For instance, when it comes to many matters of pop culture, I'm horribly ignorant. When it comes to how to operate a combine, birth a calf, or plow a field... I lack knowledge and am therefore ignorant.

[rebound]

Its a darling proposition from the Tpartiers. Might have been Kansas that started it. My understanding is that it was designed to keep green people at bay and allow farmers to not have to use responsible practices. They fear restraint of corporations in any way. And they don't want any interference from tree huggers.

The thing though, is that it's not "farmers".    It's "large agribusiness".   But "right to let large agribusiness do what it wants to" just doesn't roll off the tongue that easily...

[davideinstein]

No vote here.

[BKDotCom]

I can't tell if you are sarcastic, my sarcast-o-meter sucks. But I didn't mean to call you anything.

ya, I was being sarcastic..   accusing you of calling me ignorant.   I'm one of those who read the question and though "that sounds like a good thing"  

[heironymouspasparagus]

ya, I was being sarcastic..   accusing you of calling me ignorant.   I'm one of those who read the question and though "that sounds like a good thing"  

CF pretty well covered why it is horrible thing. 


One of the other things I have heard said about it as a "selling point" - and this one is just as vacuous as all the rest of the selling points - is that it will prevent PETA from shutting down animal agriculture in the state and keeping meat away from your table! 

I suspect that with only a cursory "sound bite" look, this one would appeal to a lot of people - I know I like meat from time to time and don't want anyone taking it away from me....  I am of the 'other' PETA group - People Enjoying Tasty Animals!   

That is an appeal to the weak minded - those around us whose idea of a deep thought is "which McDonald's do we go to for some McNuggets?"    Nothing against McDonald's - I do eat there from time to time - but PETA isn't gonna take away your hamburgers or McNuggets...this is purile pandering to irrational fears.