PROP B IS FOR THE DOGS
The people have spoken: Elected officials should respect the will of the people ["Missouri Senator Bill Stouffer Files Bill to Repeal Puppy Mill Law," Chad Garrison]. Overturning the judgment of voters is anti-democratic. Our system is built on majority rule, and a majority of Missouri citizens supported Prop B. The voters acted precisely because the legislature has failed to stop puppy mill abuses.
The new regulations — requiring adequate and clean food and water, exercise, properly sized and sanitary cages, veterinary care, protection from extreme heat and cold, and adequate time between breeding cycles — are very reasonable. They're also long overdue.
Missouri has been the puppy-mill capital of the country for far too long.
Barbara, via the Internet
Praise for the Legislature: Thank God our elected officials are intelligent enough to recognize what most of the yes-voters do not. This is, and has always been, a bad bill aimed at destroying the legitimate dog-breeding business (and affiliated businesses such as vets, dog food companies, vaccine and pet supply companies, etc.) in Missouri.
At the onset, approval rates were said by the Humane Society of the United States to be 90 percent for Prop B. Once many of the voters were educated about the truth, by Election Day, just 51 percent of voters were still ignorantly supporting the bill. Of that percent, many have since stated that they didn't know that the bill would not affect the unlicensed, illegal breeders who will still be raising dogs unchallenged and unchanged. Surprise!
ptbamdb, via the Internet
Not buying it: If all the legitimate dog breeders were already in adherence with the standards set forth in Prop B, then why go completely nuts about the need for repeal? If they really gave a crap about the "illegals" in the biz that they know so much about and who are giving them a bad name, they should have done some of their own policing.
Above all, the people voted. This was a democratic process. Repealing a bill that received majority vote is an injustice.
Oni, via the Internet
FEATURE, NOVEMBER 25, 2010
NOT ALL HOURS ARE HAPPY
The dark side of heavy drinking: Y'know, this article saddens me ["Wanna Drink Like a Fish?" Kristie McClanahan, Alison Sieloff and Kristen Klempert]. It glorifies drinking and the "heritage" that St. Louis has. "And it's not for the faint of liver"? Beer, wine and liquor ads are one thing; to have a cavalier attitude and chide people who might want to save their livers is quite another.
I know what I'm talking about. My father drank everything in sight, wore out his liver (and some other organs) and died a not-so-pretty death at 52. A few months ago, my brother, also an alcoholic, nearly killed himself with a blood-alcohol content about five times above normal. He was catatonic. The next time, I doubt he'll survive.
Sorry these thoughts are somewhat random; but I'm typing quickly while I'm still stunned at the attitude of this article.
T. J. Garrison, via the Internet
FEATURE, NOVEMBER 18, 2010
NO PAIN, NO IBOGAINE
An eye-opener: Interesting article ["Shock the Junkie," Keegan Hamilton]! Worth the long read. I never knew about this drug before, but now I hope it pops up in the news soon so I can follow the developments.
TX girl, via the Internet
Last week in Melissa Meinzer's feature story, "The Gay Divorcees," we erroneously stated that Iowa residents voted to extend marriage rights to all unrelated adults. In fact, it was a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court that did so.