To be clear: it's not at all obvious to me why, in the internet age, we need any sort of violence in order to regulate food. I am happy to let the government be completely relieved from this obligation.
And regardless, whatever the law is, I'm happy to see it enforced, vigorously and to-the-letter. Hoping against the odds for executive "discretion" to result in anything but fomenting of privilege is simply contrary to the evidence of its conduct thus far.
"we need any sort of violence in order to regulate food. I a"
+ We need laws to regulate food esp. hygiene and sanitary standards. If you want to know why this is, then visit any less civilized place and look around. Restaurants are thin margin places - some of them will cut corners, do all sorts of stuff otherwise.
+ All laws need enforcement - and they are enforced with the threat of fines, confiscation, and ultimately the threat of violence.
For the same reason we need 'the threat of violence' to manage traffic, borders, and everything else.
The only time it's not obvious is when there is no physicality to the crime, i.e. fraud, corruption etc. but even then the 'threat of violence' is there when it comes to arrest/incarceration etc..
Exactly this. People are trying to sway the discussion with "single mother" and "mexican" implying that "people of color who make unfortunate choices" should somehow be exempt from the uniform and fair application of laws.
ICIM: I'm a "person of color who's made a lot of unfortunate choices" ;=D
She likely did do something wrong - you can't just go and cook food and sell it without the proper license = food inspection etc..
Obviously, she should be not facing any jail time, and a warning should suffice.
But let's not avoid the reality of this - we either have decent regulation or not.
The issue here 'proportionality' not 'culpability'.
Give her a 'speeding ticket' and it should be over.