• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Woman Fined $700 for selling tamales

If you have ever been in the kitchen of a typical Chinese take out restaurant, you understand why we have health departments and regulations. It would have been pretty simple to get a food license and save the trouble. I once had a gourmet retail store. We conducted cooking classes one night per week and on Saturday mornings. We had a food permit and never had a problem with the health inspections even though the kitchen in our store was just like a home kitchen like you see in the cooking show sets rather than commercial one. We only had one sink but they let that go because we had a dishwasher. We had to install thermometers in the refrigerator and freezer but that wasn't a big deal at all. There were a few other details that represented no real issue. We had a couple of inspections per year and passed them all with flying colors. I think this small business could probably have done something similar.

There are good reasons for food service regulation. I don't think the fine was necessary in this case. I think a warning with advice that the couple get a food service license would have been appropriate.
 

Easy dodge: Designate visitors to the house as a private club. Substantiate it with a membership contract and nominal dues ($1 for 10 years).
 
It's simple! Here's a whole bunch of stipulations. What if I do live in my McDonald's franchise? It's a house now, therefore not subject to any regulation? What if I sell 10,000 burgers a day but my real income is from investments where I'm a billionaire. Because these thousands of burgers are just a pittance for me, they don't count?

She advertised a product and sold it. The product was food.

So, what's your magic number? How many burgers can I sell before I count as a business?
 
SDET said:
Easy dodge: Designate visitors to the house as a private club. Substantiate it with a membership contract and nominal dues ($1 for 10 years).
Click to expand...

People have tried to do that to get around public accommodation laws. "No blacks allowed! This is a private club! We just happen to sell memberships to literally any white person who asks."

Doesn't end well for the "club."
 

I'm disgusted by the overreach of the government. We are in an era where the government on all levels is seeking to side step the people, and rule citizens by regulatory decree.

However, food disease and potential death are real threats.

It's one thing to make up some food for friends and family. It's another to go into business. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Also, as a business, she needs to report her income, pay taxes, hold the necessary licenses, etc.

That may not seem fair, but with food, I'm a little less outraged by the governments actions.

For me, the action taken in this case is appropriate.
 
Damn, is that stupid!!

Patrickt said:
It's a stupid question but I'll take a shot at answering. A restaurant is a restaurant. A home is a home. If you don't know the difference it can be defined quite simply. For example, do you live in your "restaurant"?
Click to expand...

So if I own a restaurant that makes $1 million/yr, all I have to do to avoid any regulation is to set up a bed in the back and sleep there?

Does the "restaurant" represent 100% of your income or 1% of your income?
Click to expand...

So if I own a McDonalds *and* another business that makes far more than that one McD franchise, then the McD magically becomes "not a restaurant" because I make 99% of my income somewhere else?

Do you advertise the premises as a restaurant?
Click to expand...

The business you referred to earlier do advertise as a restaurant

Do you seat 300 people or no one? Do you serve 1,000 people a day or two?
Click to expand...

Under your definition, the majority of restaurants, including most fast food places, would not be restaurants

I think even a liberal government could define a business. Oh, wait, probably not. If you're not on the dole you're a business.
Click to expand...

Actually, the govt does define business. They sell goods and services for a profit.

Everyone but hackish right wingers know this

I see a rather significant difference between McDonalds and Ms. Cruz. Perhaps you don't.
Click to expand...

And yet, the characteristics you gave for a restaurant would define most McD's as "not a restaurant"
 

Apparently, one. Actually, for the regulators, it might be none. Just the attempt would cost $700.

But, why should the trigger for the government protecting poor helping people be making money. What if she invites you as a guest? Shouldn't have to have a license, a health inspection, OSHA inspections, and perhaps a fire marshal to establish an occupancy number? What about protecting your children from your cooking? Are you just going to let millions of children face sickness and death three times a time without any government oversight? Oh, the horror.

And, just think President Obama's shovel-ready jobs would be a reality but all they'd be shoveling is bull****. The ideal government solution.

Ms. Cruz is another victim of the government.
 

I agree with a warning for a first offense and not a fine but I would not this fine was for $700. If a business can't afford a $700 fine, it's not a terribly viable business to begin with. It's also the kind of marginal business that's likely to cut corners, either out of a desire to save money, or ignorance.
 

Of course, you're right. If you are killed by your mother's cooking that quite different. I eat off unregulated roadside stands, eat in regulated restaurants that bribe the inspectors, and I recently watched a Burger King close because no one ate there while the McDonalds is doing a great business.

I know some can't let the market decide and some can't accept that life is a risk. I bought raw milk so my kids could make butter and cheese. They also drank it. Now SWAT teams raid dairy farms and healthfood stores protecting people from buying clearly marked raw milk. All in the name of safety.

I support Ms. Cruz and think the people who empower the odious regulators need to be dealt with.
 

Uhh...

It's a public health issue.

And i'm shocked that you abet bribery.
 

And the fascists on the right can't let the people decide how they're governed. They want to be "the deciders" and to hell what the people want. If they want their food regulated (and there's no reasonable doubt that they do), they don't care about what americans want. Instead, they want to dictate to the people what kind of govt they can have
 

Ahh, so you're suggesting that McDonald's employees should legally be allowed to sell billions and billions of burgers without ever washing their hands or wearing gloves and intentionally spit in burgers!

See, two of us can play this dumb ass hyperbole game you've got going. Would you like to talk about this actual situation and the actual trigger, or keep whining about some bull**** you made up?
 

Controlling the population via regulatory action is the new liberal/socialist progressive paradigm.

I'm a regular visitor of Regulations.gov.

From there, the outrageous agenda of the left can be explored and quantified. I believe it is important because these actions are created behind closed doors, the press rarely reports on them, and shows complete disregard for what these actions mean to the average citizen.

It may be fair to say no other Presidential Administration has presided over more regulatory actions than the Obama Administration. The economic impact of this control mechanism is approaching $1 trillion, according to recent studies.

20,642 New Regulations Added in the Obama Presidency
 
so let me see if I get this straight, your official position as a police officer is people should be free to ignore laws regulating selling food commercially?
 

"These regulations are behind closed doors! Here's a website with a publicly-available database of all of them."

I get an email from the FAA when they propose a new regulation, with a period set for public comments before they make a decision on whether to adopt the new rules. And 99% of them are boring as ****, not an "outrageous agenda."

You then claim that it "may be fair to say" that Obama is regulating more. Is it? For some reason, you didn't post the numbers for a single previous administration. Oh, and does your link count the regulations that have been removed by the Obama administration?
 
You've got a good memory - that's the Mirage Tavern from Rush Street in the seventies!

But yeah, while corruption is wrong that doesn't mean we toss out *sensible* regulations. We end the corruption. No different than we don't just toss out all the good coppers when a bad one is dirty or does a bad shoot.

Failure to obtain a residential permit is a criminal act in your jurisdiction? Misdemeanor or felony?

And if it is, with all due respect why would you broadcast your sister's criminal activity over the internet where it's out in the world for good? :doh

That's an interesting one.

I suspect the window is required for fire exit in new construction (which I think is reasonable), but once in, you may be able to get a variance for some specific reason. I'd have to know more, but yeah, I can see your problem with this.

--

Look, I'm not going to argue that there aren't perhaps too many regulations, and some of them may have political motivation. But quite a few are good and reasonable, and I put commercial food sales in that category. If someone's selling food to me commercially for profit, I want to know they're meeting some minimal food prep and sanitation standards.
 

As a proud Texas Conservative I fully support regulations and laws that impose and enforce minimum health and safety standards for the food service industry

She should have been fined and instead of wasting time and energy complaining about it how about go and do whats necessary to come into compliance ?

There's nothing draconian about forcing food vendors to meet the minimal health and safety requirements
 

If I were making up stories you wouldn't have to pay for it. When the regulators make up stories you do have to pay for it.

But, I'm sure you'll cheer when fast food workers are required to wear surgical gloves and face masks. And you'll be so relieved when the government inspector shows up to inspect your home kitchen and presents you will a bill and a list of necessary improvements.

I would support restaurants having signs that say, "Government Regulated" or "Not Government Regulated". How would you feel about that, Deuce? Would you buy a hot dog from a shiny clean push cart that wasn't government inspected?

And, Deuce, I never doubted for a minute that you could play dumb ass games. It's one thing I would suspect you're very good at.
 

Talks about restaurant workers being required to wear surgical masks and gloves.

Complains about "dumb ass games"

:lamo
 
You know, at first I disagreed, but that's actually an interesting idea.

The concern I might have with that though, is I'm wondering if non-adults have the maturity to make that judgement call in their food purchases?
 

A very liberal position. Had you read the article, you would have seen that Ms. Cruz was not fined $700 for some violation of health rules. No, she was fined for not having government permission to sell her tamales. Could she have gotten permission? Probably not.

If I were buying tamales from someone in their home, would I expect them to have a government inspection? No. But, then, I'm not a liberal. I don't really expect government regulators to protect me. Did the regulators protect the victims of Bernie Madoff or Donald Trump? No. People who expect the government to protect them are in for a surprise.

I support Ms. Cruz.
 
And the police and any other regulating or authoritative agencies can do the same!

There's some percentage of crooked individuals everywhere in society.

So what's your point?
 
Does anyone see the irony in liberals claiming that by resisting regulators we're interfering with the right of citizens to decide?

Just think, a 2,000 page law a few years ago had 10,000 pages of regulations within days. And, if you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance, period. As long as it meets the new regulations which, of course, it won't. And for liberals, that's called the will of the people.

I support Ms. Cruz. Oh, and I buy uninspected tamales three or four days a week. When I take my dog out for his morning walk I buy a tamale for breakfast. That's my decision to make. Not your decision and not the government's decision. Now, the stand where I get my tamales is on the corner by the public health clinic and has doctors and nurses buying tortillas. I consider that an even better recommendation that a government inspectors good review.
 

Was this meant as a retort to my post?

You post something about one agency, as if that addresses every other? You're joking right? You couldn't help yourself? Right?

How many people do you think even know the website I linked to exists? How many people know that in the last 90 days 1,096 new regulations of various types became rules?

Red Tape Rising 2016: Obama Regs Top $100 Billion Annually

Government report finds regulations have spiked under Obama | TheHill


You might want to "inform up" before jumping the goat Deuce.

Utter fail on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…