Comments on: Ohio: Vote No on Issue 2

By: Carey

Carey — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:00:00 +0000

Michael,

A bit off topic, but I have recently made the decision of only eating ethical meat. This has brought me much Piece of mind at home, but is a nightmare when I think of dining out. I live in Chicago. Do you know if there is any way of finding out if there are resaurants who share my beliefs so that I could patronize them? Any advice would be deeply appreciated!

By: DebbieQ

DebbieQ — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:00:00 +0000

I went back and forth on this issue. I don’t want animal rights activists dictating anything but I really didn’t think that an amendment to the Ohio constitution was the way to go with this. And then when I read the vagueness of the wording it was a “No” vote for me, which I cast at 7:30 this morning.

By: Tags

Tags — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:00:00 +0000

I can just barely believe the brazen half-cocked audacity of the agribehemoths trying to slip this in during an OFF-YEAR ELECTION when so few people vote.

This is why the status quo is so badly rigged.

By: Andrew Martin

Andrew Martin — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:00:00 +0000

Thanks for bringing some attention to this-I actually got a automated phone call with both Govenor Strickland and Sen. Voinavich urging a yes vote on two. I think that speaks pretty clearly to the power of the agribusiness lobby in the state of Ohio.

By: Curt

Curt — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:00:00 +0000

I’ve gone back and forth on this, as I figure I’m on the opposite side of HSUS on just about anything.

But what bothers me about this is that 1. it’s a constitutional amendment where I don’t know that one is needed, and 2. the definitions of the board make-up is way too vague.

By: Hema

Hema — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:00:00 +0000

Thanks for bringing this issue to the forefront. I’m worried, however, that the bucolic images presented by Issue 2, without any competing ads from the opposition that demonstrate the realities of Issues 2, means that Issue 2 will pass easily. I can only hope that the end result is a board that meaningfully represents small-ag business, too (though I won’t hold my breath)!

By: Allen Ross

Allen Ross — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:00:00 +0000

It seems that more government intrusion is always couched in deception carried by platitudinous words and ads. Thanks for your post Michael. I was going to vote yes until I read it.

By: kristin

kristin — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:00:00 +0000

Three words: Buckeye Egg Farm. Anyone who lives or has lived down near Columbus knows that they are the poster child for big farm and bad business. I never planned on voting for this issue. It is just bad news.

By: Paul Kobulnicky

Paul Kobulnicky — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:00:00 +0000

I’m with you Michael. The attempt to pluck heartstrings makes me deeply suspicious. The ads are designed to generate emotionally reactive based rather than analytical votes. Factor in the pervasive negative impact of industry on our regulatory processes and you have a recipe for disaster.

BTW, our small local meat supplier in Oberlin (Hickory Acres) is also urging a “NO” vote.

By: ntsc

ntsc — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:00:00 +0000

[Expanded from a Facebook comment]

One would assume that the state legislature already has the authority to a): pass such laws or b): create a board to pass regulations. Mandated boards outside the purview of the legislature are generally not a good thing.

New York is saddled with the NY-NJ Port Authority.

They built the WTC, which was explicitly not built up to NYC code because they didn’t have to.

By: Beanie

Beanie — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:00:00 +0000

Michael, thank you for writing this.

I did a similar post a couple weeks ago. This is SO critically important, both to having a truly SAFE local food supply, and also to preserving the integrity of our state constitution. Never, never amend a constitution to ensure a small number of for-profit gains!