> [KB responds] Indeed. If you're going to be consistent in your > arguments, you also have to argue that the city shouldn't inspect food > preparation in commercial or other establishments and that people should > just stop eating in places that turn out to make them sick or worse. > That's how your argument about workers finding non-smoking environments > to work in translates.
I don't think this is true. In one case, smoking in bars, it is clear to the public the "health hazard" that is in front of them and they can clearly make an informed choice of whether to go in and get a beer or go across the street to the bar that is non-smoking or at least, less smoky. When it comes to food prep, the public would need to have access to the kitchen and previous stages of the food chain in order to make an informed decision to eat the food. This is something the public doesn't have. I cannot know how the food has been handled or what temp it has been stored at by peaking thru the window. because the information is not readily available, it is proper for the gov't to help us out there. John Harris webber-camden REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
