Kaitlyn DeShon
Article #2
North County Times
"Bill: Felony to sell fake maple syrup as real deal"
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/article_5326a122-af4b-5134-acfe-9fc69e21b637.html
Phony Maple Syrup is Now Outlawed in Vermont
A Vermont couple thought they found a good deal on organic, completely real Vermont maple syrup from the Internet. They ordered the syrup and, upon being told that the seller was a trucker from Rhode Island who was passing through Vermont, the couple arranged with him to meet in a town called Brattleboro to get the syrup. After receiving it, being from Vermont, the couple soon realized that the "maple syrup" was nothing more than cane sugar. In order to protect Vermont's name in maple syrup, which earns the state about $30 million a year at about $50 a gallon, a bill was passed by the state's two senators to outlaw the sale of phony maple syrup.
This connects to what we are learning in class because the Constitution states that the Legislative Branch is in charge of passing new bills. Also, the Constitution states that each state will have a certain number of senators based on the population. Vermont has two. It also connects to the Bill of Rights through the Tenth Amendment. The right retained by the state is that Vermont may pass laws involving their exports and imports (Maple Syrup).
This connects to my life because maple syrup is involved in almost everyone's life, including mine. If I were to replace my maple syrup with just plain sugar, not only would it taste completely different and most likely bad, it would make me extremely fat if I were to just eat plain sugar. Also, it is false advertising and that is, in fact, illegal.
I am under the impression that false advertising is already illegal. Therefore I believe that a new bill did not need to be passed in order to solve the problem. If a new bill were not to be passed, then the man that sold the couple fake maple syrup would have been put in jail and would not have gotten away because "the bill was not passed until after he performed the deed." However, apparently the law of false advertising either did not apply to Vermont or was not brought up until the new bill had been passed. Therefore, you can see that I do not believe that a new bill had to be made in order to outlaw the sale of false maple syrup because false advertising is already outlawed.
I don't agree with your opinion that the bill should not have been passed. I believe that, like other foods, maple syrup should need the sticker of approval that it is real. Even though there ins a law against false advertising, I don't believe that it's enough because people won't be able to figure out it is fake until after they bought it. Creating this bill makes sure people don't even even make fake syrup, stopping the problem before it occurs. This bill was also created to make the penalty for selling fake syrup worse.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a good job of explaining our opinion because you were kind of in the middle. You think it was bad for people to do this but you dont think it should be illegal. Great!!
ReplyDeleteI don't get why the main problem in Vermont is fake syrup. You don't need a law just to follow one person who did the crime. Also this is off topic but I'm pretty sure there are more problems the Vermont government can worry about than people trying to makie a couple bucks. I mean, Lemonade Stands. there not an industry but no one is arresting them. I just think this isnt AS important as other problems.
ReplyDelete