Quote:
|
Originally Posted by justindew
What are exactly ARE the compelling counter-arguments to today's "one-sided" arguments?
|
That racing is hardly doing nothing in many cases. That some of the issues brought up like the ones involving the sales have already been dealt with through regulatory changes and state laws. That there needs to be a whole lot more clarification than to simply say "drugs". That there are customers that wont appreciate paying more for the product despite the pleas of Moss, Van Berg, and Jackson. That this is a far more complex issue because many of the "drugs" that are being talked about are useful medications that would not be an issue in a human sport yet are in ours. That this whole endeavor would cost a tremendous amount of money that the industry simply doesnt have? That there is no reason for anyone to believe that the Federal government will be any more effective in its oversight than the states currently are? That the great majority of people in the business are against horse slaughter yet see the issues that arise because of the ban of it.