California Restaurants Defy Foie Gras Ban: Does California Have Too Many Laws?
Fef
2012/07/10 22:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
352 votes
|
|
84% | |||
|
69 votes
|
|
16% | |||
California has earned a reputation as the "Left Coast," in more ways than one. Even Wikipedia has an entry that defines California as the "Left Coast": "Left Coast is a political expression that implies that the West Coast of the United States leans politically to the left or the expression can refer to states that lean politically left."
Some Californians argue that the state's government went too far in banning foie gras. California banned the food product made of liver of a duck or goose, because of its process of force-feeding the animal.
The Orange County Register reported that Antoine Price, owner of Cafe Mimosa in San Clemente, defied the ban, which went into effect on July 1, 2012. Mr. Price created a dish called, "Foie You!" and claimed, "They can lock me up if they want. I don't mind."
The Presidio Social Club (PSC) in San Francisco also defied the ban -- but on a different legal basis. The PSC claims that California law doesn't have jurisdiction over the restaurant because it sits on federal land not subject state laws. The PSC issued a press statement that read: “PSC will be celebrating two important independences this July: Bastille Day for the French, and the freedom to enjoy Foie Gras for Californians."
FOXNEWS.COM reports:
Some Californians argue that the state's government went too far in banning foie gras. California banned the food product made of liver of a duck or goose, because of its process of force-feeding the animal.
The Orange County Register reported that Antoine Price, owner of Cafe Mimosa in San Clemente, defied the ban, which went into effect on July 1, 2012. Mr. Price created a dish called, "Foie You!" and claimed, "They can lock me up if they want. I don't mind."
The Presidio Social Club (PSC) in San Francisco also defied the ban -- but on a different legal basis. The PSC claims that California law doesn't have jurisdiction over the restaurant because it sits on federal land not subject state laws. The PSC issued a press statement that read: “PSC will be celebrating two important independences this July: Bastille Day for the French, and the freedom to enjoy Foie Gras for Californians."
FOXNEWS.COM reports:
California may have banned foie gras, but soon you will be able to dine on the duck liver delicacy in one San Francisco restaurant.
Read More: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/07/10/restaura...
Top Opinion
-
No
+15This ban is not an example of a "nanny state." It is about preventing the abusive industrialized practices that many factory farms use. This law is about stopping animal abuse, and the profiting from it.
When the average person could commit a crime and not even know it, then we probably have too many laws.
As for the fois gras issue... why not just ban force feeding animals? That's pretty basic and easy to understand, and covers all abuses from force feeding rather than just a simple little product while the act is free to continue. Are we going to make a new law banning more and more food to prevent immoral acts? or will we attack the issue at the source.
I'd still prefer protests to fight against these issues without getting the government involved, but if you do get government involved then do it the intelligent way.
We still have issues with, for example, how Tyson is allowed to ignore laws and regulations but other businesses must obey, but that is another issue.
Besides, not all fois gras is produced from force feeding... You're throwing the baby out with the bath water by banning a product rather than the act you wish to prevent.
I never worry about what the effeminate easternera think, all with IQs of 60. Yaah, we see you on TV.
Only a Commiefornian would worry about a gosling's pain and suffering while real people die. Screw that Hell_Hole