State Question 777

[BReeves]

I'll be voting no.. Had this idea to plant an acre of corn out back next spring just for the heck of it and to feed the deer and birds. Discovered one has to be careful of what seeds you buy and finding generic seeds that can be saved and replanted can be difficult. Have decided to plant sunflowers instead.

 

[sanjuro893]

I'll be voting no.. Had this idea to plant an acre of corn out back next spring just for the heck of it and to feed the deer and birds. Discovered one has to be careful of what seeds you buy and finding generic seeds that can be saved and replanted can be difficult. Have decided to plant sunflowers instead.

Wait, is there a law making you do that or is that just personal choice?

 

[CHenry]

Wait, is there a law making you do that or is that just personal choice?

If 777 passes there will be a law about this...

 

[sanjuro893]

If 777 passes there will be a law about this...

I missed the train somewhere. I thought if 777 passes, they CAN'T make laws about this....... I need a beer.

 

[CHenry]

I missed the train somewhere. I thought if 777 passes, they CAN'T make laws about this....... I need a beer.

I stated that wrong I guess. I've gone back and forth on this in my understanding/misunderstanding.
Heres some info I copied.
Opponents argue that State Question 777 would be used to prevent the state and local governments from passing laws to protect small farmers and provide reasonable regulations regarding food and water quality, environmental protections, and animal cruelty. They claim the amendment would give large, corporate farms an advantage over small, local farms.

By giving large corporate farms an advantage as it states (if thats in fact true) then Monsanto can force there GMO seeds on the rest of the US thus forcing you to buy seeds from them or other large corps.
Heres some more reading
https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Right_to_Farm_Amendment,_State_Question_777_(2016)

 

[sanjuro893]

I stated that wrong I guess. I've gone back and forth on this in my understanding/misunderstanding.
Heres some info I copied.
Opponents argue that State Question 777 would be used to prevent the state and local governments from passing laws to protect small farmers and provide reasonable regulations regarding food and water quality, environmental protections, and animal cruelty. They claim the amendment would give large, corporate farms an advantage over small, local farms.

By giving large corporate farms an advantage as it states (if thats in fact true) then Monsanto can force there GMO seeds on the rest of the US thus forcing you to buy seeds from them or other large corps.
Heres some more reading
https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Right_to_Farm_Amendment,_State_Question_777_(2016)

Okay, I got it. Thanks!
Although I don't see what would stop me from paying a little extra and buying the small farmer's GMO seed if this passes....

 

[CHenry]

Okay, I got it. Thanks!
Although I don't see what would stop me from paying a little extra and buying the small farmer's GMO seed if this passes....

Small farmers can't profit selling seeds. They first have to buy them then any mark up would cause buyers to buy from the main source, Monsanto.

Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk

 

[Hobbes]

I checked and the most pro 777 money is coming from the Oklahoma Pork Council.
The most anti 777 money is coming from HSUS.

I am guessing that large corporate hog farms are what is driving this SQ mostly.
Complaints about the smell and polluted runoff water by people living near one of those hog farms would be futile.
I live in OKC so I doubt it will ever be an issue for me personally.

 

[Shadowrider]

If the state constitution is amended then wouldn't you have to vote to change the constitution again before you could vote on any measure that went afoul of the original amendment?

In a roundabout way yes. This thing doesn't take a single law or regulation off the books. It also doesn't stop any other laws from being written either.

But....when one gets challenged in court it'll likely fail to be kosher constitutionally. This is my biggest *****. It really needs some context as to the intent of the specific "rights" to be protected by the constitution. Like defining livestock and crops as being intended for food instead of just leaving it up to whoever wants to claim they are farming. Switzer's claim about puppy mills may well be legit. Can I start "farming" Anacondas in my back yard? I'd say I have a 50/50 shot. I swear we have the "no forward thinking'est" nimwits writing our laws. Do they teach that somewhere?

 

[tomthebaker]

Yeah, big corporate hog farms really need constitutional protections