Certainly a possiblity, but oddly, I'm not very comforted by the fact that someone might be able to sue on my behalf after death .
Don't murder people isn't a regulation so much as a law people who think that regulations are what keep people from serving bad food are funny. They've probably never been to many cheap restaurants that are well under code.
I'd rather have the regulation rather than risk being the one who helps to put such a bar out of business by going and dieing from their tainted beer.
The purpose of regulation is to prevent murder from neglect and health violations. It doesn't make the murder illegal. It makes the situations that lead to the murder illegal.
If the murder itself is illegal then the method of murder is also illegal without need for a specific regulation preventing that method.
The method of the crime is not illegal if it doesn't kill someone or can't be proven to kill someone. Making the method itself a crime prevents it from happening in the first place and saves lives.
Nonsense, is the method wrong if no one gets hurt? I'm not against food regulations per se, I just think this is a terrible argument that's been made in this thread.
If putting certain subsistence in food kills or harms people 90% of the time, then yes I'd say that method would be wrong even in those 10% of cases where no one gets hurt. (assuming there's no way to ensure the other 90% aren't affected) I'm not for food regulations per se, I just think its common sense that things that are almost guaranteed to cause harm should be regulated. -Meta
The question is not so much how long they stay open, but rather how easily they can be identified, and how quickly new businesses that are just as bad or ignorant pop up competing on price. Not to say that all regulations are good or needed, but there is a place.
