Great news for a Sunday morning
From Newstalk ZB
Ashburton residents have voted against reintroducing fluoride to the town’s water supply. The results of a postal referendum on the issue have come out this afternoon.
Around 7,500 people took part in the vote, opting by a majority of more than 700 for the status quo. The council stopped adding fluoride to the water supply in 2002.
The Canterbury District Health Board says it is disappointed at the decision, saying fluoridation is the safest way to reduce tooth decay.
In a spirited campaign against the Health Board’s taxpayer funded propaganda, a small group of activists carried the day.
It is no secret that the Health Department wants to fluoridate the entire country if it can. This campaign should have been a sitter for the pro-fluoride lobby, but they were beaten by a better team.
Congratulations Don, Peter and all who chipped in. Truly a kick in the (pearly white) teeth for the health nazis.
14 thoughts on “Health Nazis Fail, Freedom Forces Prevail”
To Taumaranui-I have no opinion on the efficacy or otherwise of fluoride.
Thats not my point Fluoridation is medication-compulsory medication, which sets a dangerous precedent.
Chlorination kills pathogens to make the water safe-filtration is also a safety measure-a completely different principle.
Richard-the point i’m making is that even if a million vote for compusory prozac in the public water supply-as long as one person is against it-it ain’t kosher.
The people of Ashburton are no longer faced with having to ingest fluoride. Can’t see how that’s not a victory for freedom.
Oops, too much alliteration. I meant the forces of non-fluoridation.
Trevor, you ask, What has majority or minority got to do with it Richard?
Well, it’s simple. Ashburton residents have voted against reintroducing fluoride to the town’s water supply. I can’t think of anything that majority and minority have more to do with than the result of a democratic vote.
The problem I have with your post is that you tout this outcome as a victory for the forces of freedom. It is no such thing. It is a victory for the forces of fluoridation.
Trevor, you say, I pay for water-I don’t want medication added to it. End of story. But that’s simply not true. As I’ve already said, you don’t pay rates so the council may supply you water, you pay rates because it is a compulsory levy. Because it’s a compulsory levy, a rate-payer complaining about fluoride in their water is like someone whose house has been burgled complaining that the thief spent the proceeds on methamphetamine instead of marijuana. If we could somehow lobby the thief, and wean them off P and onto pot, well, that might be a victory for “harm minimisation” or some such, but it wouldn’t be a victory for freedom.
I was brought up in rural NZ in the 50’s. No fluoridation back then. Over the past decade I’ve spent around $US50,000 on my teeth – root canals, caps, implants, and orthodontics etc. Man, if they’d fluoridated the water back in my youth my dentist would be a pauper.
If you reject fluoride, you should also reject chlorination and filtration. That would set your water quality back to what they had in the middle ages. Back then, people drank beer instead of water because the water was so bad. Now, that’s a good idea.
Richard you have it all wrong.
If you want floridation, buy florodated toothpaste. That is your choice. How is pumping this water into everybodys houses choice?
I thought rates ensured water supply? When did that change?
What has majority or minority got to do with it Richard? I pay for water-I don’t want medication added to it. End of story.
I’m actually sruggling to see where you’re going here Richard. You seem to be arguing for compulsory medication from a libertarian viewpoint.
Doesn’t add up to me.
If the council is obliged to supply anything, under the terms of the contract allegedly entered into, it is to supply the services that the majority of rate-payers want. Not necessarily to supply potable but otherwise unadulterated water.
If your contract argument holds water then the council-supplied water should be fluoridated or not in accordance with the wishes of the majority. And that is, in fact, the case. So I don’t see that you have any cause to complain, specifically, about fluoride in your water.
Richard-by paying rates, you enter into a contract (forcibly) with the council, to supply you with water.
They can chlorinate it to make it safe from bacterial contamination and they could filter it to remove any naturally existing toxic chemicals.
Beyond that, they have no right to add any form of medication, whether fluoride, prozac or viagra.
Simple arguement Richard. You have a contract to be supplied potable water. The council decides to medicate it for your own good.
That is plain wrong.
How effective or harmful the medication is is secondary.
The Luddite slur is both false and irrelevant.
Nobody has a right to force you to ingest medication without your consent.
I agree. But that’s NOT the issue here. You are being forced to pay for fluoridated water. You are not being forced to drink it.
Unless, of course, you live in Ashburton, in which case you are being forced to pay for unfluoridated water.
The issue is that you are being forced to pay for services REGARDLESS of whether you want them or not. In a free market, fluoridation of water would be a non-issue, just as fluoridation of toothpaste is a non-issue.
I say privatise the water supply now – before the Luddites, heartened by their Ashburton victory, decide to put a stop to chlorination as well.
Firstly you pay rates to get services. Whether or not they are compulsory is irrelevant to this arguement.
Secondly, how conveniently or not fluoride can be removed is also irrelevant. Nobody has a right to force you to ingest medication without your consent.
If you are willing to allow the government to compulsorily medicate your teeth, you set a precedent in other area’s.
The medical arguement is secondary. The freedom principle is paramount here.
Fluoride. Presumably it is no more trouble for those who want unfluoridated water to remove it, than it is for those who want fluoridated water to add it. And, no, you don’t pay rates so the council may supply you water, you pay rates because it is a compulsory levy. So, in terms of convenience and freedom, fluoridation makes no overall difference. But it stops the rot.
I’m sure you wouldn’t consider it great news if Ashburton residents voted against reintroducing fluoridated toothpastes to the town’s supermarkets.
“If fluoride is added, those who don’t want fluoridated water can filter the water or just not drink it.”
So Richard-you pay rates so the council may supply you water. The council wants to adulterate that water for public health purposes.
You don’t want it so you have to pay to filter it, or you drink bottled water, or you die of thirst.
How is this in anyway promoting freedom of choice?
Prophylaxes Fail, Luddite Forces Prevail.
In cases where the town water supply is a monopoly, fluoride can be added, or not. If fluoride is added, those who don’t want fluoridated water can filter the water or just not drink it. If fluoride isn’t added, those who want fluoride can add it. Instant fluoride, just add water.
So no-one in Ashburton is more or less free as a result of this decision. But their children’s teeth continue to rot.