Wisconsin passes bill banning poor from buying ketchup, pickles, potatoes and more

[riversedge]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by DonViejo (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Source: Facebook.com/WisconsinStateJournal



Jul 3, 2015 7:25 AM
by TJ Armour (@TJArmour)

Source: Facebook.com/WisconsinStateJournal

In what looks like a disturbing trend among Republican lawmakers, Wisconsin has recently taken steps to ban poor people who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits from purchasing certain foods.

Last week, GOP officials introduced Assembly Bill 177 which will effectively prohibit those who use SNAP benefits from buying items on a long list of foods including ketchup, potatoes, and shellfish.........

Take a look at some of the other foods banned from those using SNAP benefits by Assembly Bill 177:

Baked Beans
French Fries/Hash Browns
Canned Peas
Taco Shells
Creamed Vegetables
Pickles
Almond, Rice, Goat, Soy Milk
Natural/Organic Foods
Anything in bulk

Read more: http://rollingout.com/health/wisconsin-passes-bill-banning-poor-buying-ketchup-pickles-potatoes/

---

I myself and family buys many foods in bulk--peas, beans, rice. ect--saves money. What the hell are Republicans doing--telling folks on food stamps not to buy these staples.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Maybe we should restrict all who sponsored and voted on this bill from breathing.

[roguevalley]

72. I'll help you. We can call it the "Improve Amerikkka with this tournequet' bill

what the flying hell is wrong with this state.

[kimbutgar]

2. Another Alec written bill that will be passed in other Koch states

How cruel and inhuman.

[Jacoby365]

3. To quote Bernie

That's Extremism!!

[SoapBox]

4. WTF?

This has got to be illegal...somehow.

Criminal.

[former9thward]

9. Link to the actual bill in post #7.

The OP is untrue.

[DhhD]

74. The Wisconsin WIC Approved Foods List:

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/wic/approved-foods.htm

[former9thward]

94. The WIC list comes from the federal government.

33% of the benefit can be used on anything. The OP is untrue.

[heaven05]

86. what don't you understand

about the fact that the staples in that booklets would be limited even more for poor people trying to keep themselves and their children alive. Republikkkan psycho's are doing all they can to make life miserable for many who are just trying to survive. They will hurt anyone who is poor, especially POC, with no concern. Please understand, the underlying motivation for these cuts are understood by the people it will affect, loud and clear!!!!

[justhanginon]

5. In other news, the internet has seen a spike in requests

for plans and specs for home built guillotines. Maybe a go fund me site to help with material costs is in order.
Some way must be found for getting rid of these GOP despots.

[roguevalley]

73. justhanginon, you are my new hero

[Cleita]

6. My heart goes out to the people of Wisconsin for being put at the mercy of these legislators

who are probably enjoying very nice meals themselves.

[a kennedy]

11. I hear ya, but then I think they got voted in by someone......

The same stupid people that voted for the wanker.

[TBF]

68. I believe you're thinking of this lady -

County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus (Republican)

?resize=620%2C363

[a kennedy]

92. Hey TBF, good hearing from you.....

and you're right about that witch.

[former9thward]

7. This is untrue.

The language from the bill:

The department shall prohibit the use of benefits to purchase crab, lobster,
shrimp, or any other shellfish.

Nothing else is prohibited.

Posters can read the bill for themselves and will see the OP is not true.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/proposals/ab177

[still_one]

24. How many folks on food stamps does this affect? I would venture, not many. It is setup as a subtle

or not so subtle way to rub people's misfortune in their faces. Why do I say that, because Wisconsin is also one of the states trying to require drug testing before food stamps will be honored. Why would that even be proposed?

Frankly, at least in regard to some members of the Wisconsin legislature, and I hope NOT the majority, "poor people", are second class citizens

[KyleMcShades]

51. +1

They want to punish us for being poor.

[cstanleytech]

66. Wouldnt surprise me but the banned list is small and to be honest they are items which

are usually so damn expensive that if you are having to use food stamps to feed your kids you probably be better off to not buying shellfish and spending it on food that can last longer.
My main gripe though over the bill is is the fresh produce part because imo they should actually do a major increase in the amount of food stamps for people to buy more fresh produce than anything.

[still_one]

79. I agree, which I why I hope 2016 is able to throw some of these legislators out

[Journeyman]

34. "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown" . . .

Here you and I and femmedem (a little further below) try to bring a little perspective to the OP but it does no good. Minds were made up before the OP was posted. Anything after that is but an echo of Man of La Mancha:

"Facts, sir, are the enemy of truth!"

[riversedge]

36. I think the devil is in the details....

It is the WIC requirements that lend to the confusion--and stupidity. Since when do ordinary folks fit into a WIC--pregnant women and babies and small children diet?? WIC has many restrictions. Yes, admittedly it many be healthy but to put all food stamp folks on a WIC diet is stupid.



http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/assembly-to-take-up-food-stamp-restrictions-drug-tests-b99498841z1-303578561.html

.....The food stamp bill is opposed by a coalition of state business groups that say it could prevent the purchase of foods grown and made in Wisconsin.

"Though well-intentioned, Assembly Bill 177 is a threat to both job creation in our state and our right to decide for ourselves what to put in our grocery carts," a statement reads from the coalition that includes the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Midwest Food Processors Association, the Wisconsin Pork Association, the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers, and the Wisconsin State Cranberry Association.

Under the proposal, people couldn't buy crab, lobster or other shellfish with food stamps and would have to spend two-thirds of their benefits on produce, beef, pork, poultry, potatoes, dairy products or food available under the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program.......

If the proposal does go forward, it's expected to cost several million dollars because grocery stores would have to install new software to make sure people kept to the limits when they used the electronic-swipe cards to access food stamp benefits. The sponsors of the proposal don't want to push that cost onto the stores.

[Glassunion]

50. Not that I agree... But retailers would really not have to work

That much to ensure the proper items are eligible.

I work in the field.

[peacebird]

91. My local IgA doesn't have software or scanners, they use a cash register and cashier.

How would it work here without a lot of trouble?

[enlightenment]

44. From what I understand, this bill

uses the WIC foods list - which does contain many of the restrictions listed in the OP.

From the bill: "The bill requires DHS annually to review, and to update as appropriate, its list
of WIC foods and to publish a current list of WIC foods on its Internet site. DHS also
must publish on its Internet site a list of the foods for which 67 percent of a recipient's
benefits must be used."

This is the WIC list
http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/P4/P44578.pdf

[former9thward]

69. Which means that 33% can be used for anything else.

I am not saying this is a great idea but the list in the OP is simply made up.

[mountain grammy]

71. Thanks for the clarification..

the intent is still the same; a feeling of superiority over people on assistance that says "I'm paying for your food, I'll tell you what to eat." It's hypocritical to the max because people on assistance pay taxes too, contribute to the welfare of the whole, and are human beings.
That said, I'm glad the asshole GOP in the WI legislature were able to exercise some control over their mean spirited selves.

[a kennedy]

8. WTH????

I despise the Wisconsin repubs.

[mwooldri]

10. Ok, so they're anti Big Ag now?

I hope this **** gets the big thumbs down. There's bean growers, potato growers, corn growers, wheat growers there... and don't get me started on the other crops.

The best thing that should happen to SNAP in my opinion? Change it to a cash-based program. If it's got a $ sign on it, they can use SNAP to buy it. Gas for the car, to keep the lights on, to pay the rent, for an occasional treat, diapers for the baby... treat SNAP recipients like adults, eh?

[jwirr]

41. The original reason it was not a cash-based program from the beginning was an R idea to stop

"welfare fraud" - that is to stop families from drinking up the food money. In other words all of us were treated as if we were drunks or drug users who would not feed our kids if not forced to. They punished all of us for what a very small minority MAY HAVE been doing. No due process for the poor.

So they spent a lot of money to print a special type of money (stamps) that could only be used for food thus increasing the cost of the program. From the beginning it was humiliating for those of us who did spend the stamps correctly but heaven forbid that some bigot saw something in our grocery cart that they did not think we should be able to buy - like canned peas. Now we have the EBT cards and the humiliation is gone. They now want to restrict us in another way. Because you know - we are all drunks or drug users.

A cash-based program would make so much more sense. And yes I know that some family in the country may actually drink the money away. There are laws against that - let those who are investigating child abuse and neglect deal with them.

[OverBurn]

12. Unflucking believable

[yeoman6987]

60. Your right

The entire OP is incorrect. No need for outrage on this at least.

[still_one]

13. This is what concerns me about Wisconsin. Are the Democrats really favored in 2016 in Wisconsin?

Can Russ Feingold win? They voted for Walker three times, and that does not inspire optimism for me.

I have brought this up on other threads on DU, and have been reassured from those from Wisconsin that Feingold will win, and then I see this nonsense, and am reminded that this legislature was voted in by the majority of folks in Wisconsin.

Not trying to gang up on Wisconsin, hell California where I am from has had its shares of screw ups, but with these draconian policies that have been going on under republican rule in a lot of states, are people getting any wiser this time?

[Beartracks]

14. Wow. And Republicans claim FLOTUS wants to control what you eat??

You can always count on Republicans to DO what they only CLAIM liberals do. They are masters of hypocrisy and misdirection.

==================

[Faux pas]

15. They are evil

I'm sure they all claim to be good 'christians'.

[Journeyman]

16. So what is it: Was the bill passed (headline) or merely introduced (body copy)? . . .

It makes a hell of a difference.

Best -- only -- article I could find on the Wisconsin State Journal website paints a wholly different story and points to a considerably different resolution.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/wisconsin-lawmakers-to-discuss-bill-restricting-food-stamp-purchases/article_65af1ec8-2680-5452-b9a5-0e5fe1371e6a.html

[Wellstone ruled]

17. If you only get sixteen dollors in SNAP

funds each month,what the hell does on due. Yes,this is true for many in my old home State.

[femmedem]

18. The OP is not accurate.

From the text of the bill:

"...Under this bill, DHS must require that not less than 67 percent of the SNAP
benefits used by a recipient in a month be used to purchase any of the following foods:
foods that are on the list of foods authorized for the federal special supplemental
nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC foods); beef; pork; chicken;
fish; fresh produce; and fresh, frozen, and canned white potatoes. In addition, DHS
must prohibit using SNAP benefits for the purchase of crab, lobster, shrimp, or any
other shellfish...."

However, it is still disturbing that the bill dictates to any degree which foods a person purchases with their SNAP benefits. Why would white potatoes be specifically included as one of the foods falling into the 67%, but not the nutritionally superior sweet potato? We have a lot of cultures in the U.S.A., and hence a lot of culinary preferences.

Edited to add: it would also require a federal waiver to be enacted into law. http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/wifoodstamps.asp

[still_one]

29. and that is the point. I doubt very few folks under assistance take advantage of what they consider

as premium foods. The legislature also tried to pass a drug testing law in order to qualify for food stamps, so the intent of some in the Wisconsin legislature is not honorable.

[Igel]

35. Because the bill includes federal language by inclusion.

And the federal restrictions exclude white potatoes.

Just like the federal restrictions exclude most of the other things that are listed as excluded.

So when people are saying that the Wisconsin bill bans all these things, what they really are saying is that Wisconsin isn't overriding the federal government (as it does with white potatoes) or establishing an entirely different set of criteria de novo.

[riversedge]

45. seems there is an amendment to the bill-WI industry wants WI products....

wonder if honey and maple syrup are not permitted??




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/wisconsin-food-stamps_n_7283654.html



...An earlier version of the food stamp bill restricted two-thirds of a SNAP recipients' purchases to food approved for a separate federal program that serves pregnant women and mothers with infant children. After Democrats and a number of food industry lobbyists complained, the list of allowable items was broadened to include Wisconsin food-industry specialties such as cranberry and dairy products.

Jorgensen noted that the amendment allowing "all types of dairy products" essentially defeats the healthy eating purpose of the bill, since it would let a food stamp recipient spend his or her monthly benefit entirely on Dippin' Dots, for instance.

"The 'ice cream of the future' is now on the list of what’s acceptable to pay for, but a bottle of ketchup is not," Jorgensen said.

A spokesman for the Midwest Food Processors Association, which has led industry opposition to the bill, said the groups remain totally opposed to the legislation.

[procon]

19. Banning tortillas?

That's a staple food in my house, and probably for most families in the west and southwestern states, but I suspect it was just a cheap shot at people with Hispanic surnames.

Other than ignorance, and pure meanness on the part of Republicans, I don't understand the logic behind any of this. These aren't luxury foods, or extravagantly expensive delicacies, and Wisconsin's fresh shellfish like clams and mussels are plentiful and available locally as an affordable source of high quality protein. If they could get away with it, Republicans only allow poor folks to have dried beans, flour and lard.

[Igel]

48. No, actually, not "banning tortillas."

The federal regulations from early in the Obama administration (12/2009) ban white bread.

Tortillas are fine, as long as they're "soft corn or whole wheat tortillas."

Hence taco shells are a no-no, because they're not "soft corn."

The usual flour tortillas are a no-no because they're not whole wheat.

Remember Michelle Obama's "we need to eat healthy" kick? Yeah. You're looking at her influence in the regs. We liked it when it was being imposed ... on others.

However you have to work damned hard to figure out who, exactly, your outrage really should be directed at. Not only do you have to read the short little Republican bill that's the subject of rage here, but the long-standing Wisconsin statute that it refers to, and then the Federal regulations last updated by the Obama administration in late 2009 that the Wisconsin statute refers to. And in the Federal regs you have to look down in the footnotes. Elections have consequences.

The only change this little cowplop of a bill makes in the law is to prohibit things that some people just find expensive--shrimp, oysters, crabs, lobster, crawfish, other shellfish; and to allow white potatoes.

It ain't what you know that hurts you, it's what you know that ain't so.

Then again, what you don't know can also hurt you, can't it?

A lot of people are just in a world of hypervigilant hurt.

[procon]

59. I saw what you did there. nt.

[Live and Learn]

82. WIC is not SNAP.

The Federal regulations you are referring to are for WIC, a completely different program that was created to keep babies (pre and post birth) and young children healthy.

WIC has always been restrictive on foods. Please remove your totally baseless reply.

[C Moon]

20. Baked beans? Crazy bastards. Crawl away in a cave and die. It would do the world good.

[Ed Suspicious]

21. miserable fuckwits.

[azurnoir]

22. In order for this to become enforcable law WS has to get a federal waiver, no state has ever gotten

one for these types of 'laws', this is because the so called law places greater restrictions on SNAP purchases than federal law

[Igel]

49. The part that supersedes federal regulations in this bill are trivial.

Prohibiting shellfish;

Allowing white potatoes.

That's it. That's the outrage.

Everything else is long-standing regs, last updated 12/2009. That's all the ketchup, pickles, taco shell crap. And that's not (R), because those regs were proposed and implemented after 1/2009.

[jberryhill]

57. Those were restrictions in the WIC program

You are mixing apples and oranges here.

There are federal regulations requiring seatbelts in automobiles too, but that doesn't mean they are appropriate regulations for office furniture.

The WIC program involves recipients whose entire reason for food assistance is distinguishable from the general population.

[azurnoir]

93. Nope here from the USDA website what is allowable on SNAP

Households CAN use SNAP benefits to buy:

Foods for the household to eat, such as:
breads and cereals;
fruits and vegetables;
meats, fish and poultry; and
dairy products.
Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat. - eta (I was on foodstamps in the late 70's early 80's and was pleasantly surprised to these items remained eligible)

In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.

Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:

Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as:
pet foods
soaps, paper products
household supplies
Vitamins and medicines
Food that will be eaten in the store
Hot foods


Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items


http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items


and more about the article in the OP from Snopes

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/wifoodstamps.asp

[CrispyQ]

23. This is just mean.

Mean, mean, mean.

[jwirr]

25. And why are the Feds allowing them to limit a federal program in this way? This needs to be

taken to court. WIC was written with prohibitions from the federal level - SNAP was not.

[HassleCat]

26. Gezzuzz Guys!

It's the badger state, not the asshole state. I guess they banned these items because they figure people will have a picnic or something. Baked beans? Baked beans! Why not just ban all food? After all, some SNAP card holder might enjoy herself too much while drinking that glass of milk.

[progressoid]

27. Perhaps you should edit this OP since the bill doesn't ban these things.

It's a fucked up bill to be sure, but the headline is misleading.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/proposals/ab177

[IVoteDFL]

28. Beyond stupid as shit to ban bulk items

I kinda wonder if the restrictions on cow milk alternatives is their way of forcing SNAP recipients to support WI's dairy industry. Also as someone who loves pickles as much as life itself these Republicans can go fuck themselves to the moon and back.

[RufusTFirefly]

30. Not true. But don't let that stop anyone from hyperventilating.

Here's the bill
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/proposals/ab177

Other than shellfish, which is prohibited, none of the items in the OP's list are even mentioned.

[PSPS]

31. LOL. Even an editorial about a facebook post rates as LBN on DU.

[TreasonousBastard]

32. Absolutely amazing how many replied without...

reading the entire thread-- including the posts that claim this was BS.

[Historic NY]

33. Pretty detailed lists

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p4/p44578.pdf
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/foodshare/fsspending.htm

[Igel]

37. Yes, but they're not Wisconsin's lists.

Not mostly.

One does what one's masters say, at least from time to time.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. Do you think we can start a food bank for Wisconsin's poor?

I still don't understand the point of this law.

[Volaris]

47. The point is to cater to the mouth-drooler tea-party Base that still believes the WelfareQueen meme.

[Jack Rabbit]

63. I figured as much

But even those knuckledraggers know that some people, including small children, cannot tolerate cow's milk.

[Liberal Veteran]

39. Can the family get a waiver if the kids put in extra tesserae into the reaping ball?

/HungerGames

[Igel]

40. Understanding before outrage.

Not the fashionable thing, of course.

Others have pointed out the text of the bill.

For those who require seeing things 4 or 5 times to perceive them once, here it is again.
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/proposals/ab177

It's short. It's an easy thing to read, in the sense of "to decode and say out loud." It's harder to understand what it means, because it includes Federal statutes. So unless you trundle off to look at what Washington DC stipulates, some of the bill makes no sense.

First, this brief little bill references https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/253/06/1/a. Which is still internal to Wisconsin, but has been around for a while. So if you want to be outraged, you get to be outraged at what happened years ago and you couldn't be bothered to notice because probably the wrong party was in charge at the time.

Second, that link to 253.06(1)(a) references https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/246.10.
Notice, this is now Federal. And this is where the action is, in the federal statutes. Some of those date back to 1985; some were amended in 2008; some were amended in 2009. If you want to know the legislative history of any of the individual provisions, well, just enjoy.

So while it's nice to be outraged, you really have no idea who you should be outraged at, and what their motives were--(R) or (D), 2009 or 2008 or 1985.

And even at that, the WI bill allows white potatoes. The feds don't. And the feds do authorize soy milk. In limited quantities.

But stop spreading misinformation.

White potatoes, for instance, are prohibited in footnote 7 of the

[Iliyah]

42. Rice????

WTF

[Lobo27]

52. They are so sick....

Rice is an inexpensive food source. I remember during college that is all I had, and that is all many families have. Fuck the GOP.

[DustyJoe]

46. Stooopidity

Rice, beans and flour in bulk are 3 of the most cost effective, long lasting staples around.

What's the saying ? You'll need to pry the meat and taters from my cold dead hands ?

[immoderate]

53. If you harass the poor enough, they will become rich. --Republican proverb.

--imm

[roody]

54. Only junk food can be bought? wtf

[restorefreedom]

55. i notice they banned most non dairy milks

i guess they don't give 2 shits about people with dairy allergies.

just another nod to big ag and corporate rule.

oh, wait....it couldn't possibly be that. they are conservatives....they care about people

[shenmue]

56. How about a new bill called, "F&ck everybody, don't eat"?!

[Laser102]

58. Wow. It makes you want to cry.

Don't know what else to say.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

61. Isn't SNAP different from "food stamps"?

[appleannie1]

62. And just what is a child that is allergic to cow's milk supposed to drink?

[demwing]

75. debunked several times

the OP is not accurate

[olddad56]

64. how about cheese?

[CanonRay]

65. Potatoes? Really? Isn't that like basic food for the poor?

They are cheap and nutritious. That list is unbelievable. Why not just pick one brand of one product and say that's all you can buy with your assistance. I'm sure the company that make it would be happy and donate to their campaigns.

[abakan]

67. They just can't help them selves!

These people need to have the tables turned. Maybe then we can deny them food.

[JDPriestly]

70. This is particularly troubling to me.

Almond, Rice, Goat, Soy Milk

Many people are allergic to cow's milk. And it is often people of non-European decent. My granddaughter is sensitive to milk. We substitute almond milk for cow's milk.

Is that sort of a racist restriction?

[demwing]

76. debunked several times

the OP is inaccurate

[NotHardly]

77. The FEDS better step in and smack this crap down ...

Is it the intention of these states, Kansas and Wisconsin an others to starve people to death? Baked beans? Ketchup???
For the love of God, the Feds designed SNAP, it is a federal program and they need to step in and put a break on these strangling measures. A bit more and well have poor houses, requiring them to eat nothing more than gruel and dried bread, maybe a few little factories where they can work off their poor (children included).

I sometimes wonder if Hunger Games was a prophetic novel.

[Live and Learn]

78. Asshats. What a disgustingly senseless and discriminatory law.

Hopefully the producers of these items will sue along with the SNAP recipients.

[world wide wally]

80. It's time for you people in Wisconsin to do something to make this is national issue

This is the most absurd thing yet!

[get the red out]

81. Bulk?????

That is the cheapest possible way to buy food! That shows this is about punishment not economics.

[truebrit71]

83. People really need to stop voting for these assholes.

....

[heaven05]

84. as long as these

amerikkkans can keep black people from buying these healthy foods, they don't care if they hurt any others of any race of which there are thousands. That's republikkkan psycho's for you. 2015 and certain privileged types are still ugly after all these years.

[blackspade]

85. So much for 'freedom'

They can't politically kill SNAP...yet.
So, in the mean time they will try to starve to poor to death eliminating the need for a SNAP program.

It's fucking despicable.

[The Wizard]

87. Republicans are the scum of the Earth

This is not really news. Maybe pitchforks torches and rope will change their sick minds.

[Scalded Nun]

88. This, my friends, is what evil looks like.

[MADem]

89. That's insane. The headline is click-bait suckage, though--makes one think the measure is law.

Not the fault of the thread starter, I want to make clear--it's an exact reproduction of the clickbaity headline at the link.

The ASSEMBLY has passed it--the Senate has not passed it. It is not law....YET.

The Irish lived on potatoes; they provide a great many nutrients, as do beans. And bulk food? WTF?

About the only item that makes half a bit of sense is catsup--you can make your own, way better, way cheaper, too, with tomato paste or plain tinned sauce and a few simple spices.

Who in WI is following this closely--does this horrid thing have a hope in hell of actually passing, or is it just more wingnut drum-beating?

Another article I found said this and other GOP dumbass measures face an "uncertain future" when they go to the state Senate:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/assembly-to-take-up-food-stamp-restrictions-drug-tests-b99498841z1-303578561.html

[peacebird]

90. This is ridiculous... Utterly ridiculous. Not to mention unworkable. Can you imagine the grocery?

Where the checkout cashier has to ask in advance how you will pay, and then has to have a list of banned items to pick out of your grocery cart?
How exactly will that work? And is the cashier guilty of a crime if she lets a carton of soymilk through for a family with a lactose intolerant toddler?

[Warpy]

95. Anything in BULK?

Christ on a trailer hitch those people are stupid. Bulk buying is the cheapest way to do things, people getting together and pooling resources and divvying it up when they get home.

Been there, done that, ate a lot better.

And don't they have a clue that some of us are lactose intolerant? Allergic?

Fucking morons are as bad at playing nutritionist as they are at playing doctor.

We need a constitutional amendment to delineate the role of legislators and penalties for stepping outside it and pretending to be any other sort of professional.

[gregcrawford]

96. Just when you think Republicans can't possibly get any more despicable...

... they prove once again that there is no bottom to the cesspool of malice that spawned them.

[DonViejo]

97. Locking...

Forum Hosts agree, this OP does not meet the standards of the SOP for the LBN Forum:

From the SOP:

Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.

Comment #7 in this thread provides a link to the enacted law, which does not indicate anything as claimed by the article posted. Further, Snopes, a reliable source for disproving all kinds of rumors and claims, reports this article is false. Under these conditions, Forum Hosts are led to believe the source of this article is not a reputable mainstream, website or blog.