Now I can't order a rare cheeseburger?!!

Lat Sunday in Long Beach, California, I stopped by a popular watering hole for a sandwich and a beer. I ordered the $8.95 1/2 pound cheeseburger. The bartender asked how I wanted it cooked. "Medium-rare" said I. She then informed me that it was their policy not to serve burgers less than medium. I replied that it was MY policy not to eat them more than medium-rare. She informed me that there was a new city/county (I'm not sure which) ordinance that requires restaurants to cook burgers to 165 degrees (medium). After a short go-round I left. I wandered a few blocks to a Rock Bottom Brewpub. They said no problem to a rare burger.

In other words (I'm responding to the majority of posts above,) we're libertarians, except when mommy-gubmint says she's acting to protect us against salmonella, against bicycle accidents, against swallowable toys, against playground accidents, against... shall I continue?

How familiar it all sounds: "All those congresscritters are bad. Except my own congressman!"

Here's a cure for gubmint mania: Try a tartar steak with a raw egg smack in the middle of it!

If hamburger weren't ground in 1000# batches with allowable levels of hair and feces, none of this would be a problem. Thanks to the antibiotics used on a continuous basis by the feed-lot industry, cattle are now full of resistant super-bugs just waiting to rip into your intestinal lumen.

You've got it. I wouldn't eat a rare hamburger on a bet, unless I'd personally raised & butchered the animal.

"I wouldn't eat a rare hamburger on a bet, unless I'd personally raised & butchered the animal."

I'm with you there; I now order them "medium."

But the point is that the FIRST poster in this thread, (hopefully aware of the possibility of infection from under-done beef), unlike us, nevertheless wanted his burger medium rare. I think he should have been able to get it that way without the government telling him he couldn't.

Now, I also understand that the restaurant might not want to serve rare meat and risk customers getting sick (for whatever reasons -- lawsuits, or simply out concern for their customers, or for the restaurant's own reputation). I assume the poster who wanted his burger medium rare would grant the restaurant the freedom of choice to serve it rare, or not to.

His beef (no pun intended), as I understood it, was with the apparent existence of an actual law mandating that the restaurant had no choice. There I have sympathy for his position. If an adult customer, knowing the possible risk, is willing to take the risk, and the restaurant owner is willing to serve the item he wants, then he should be able to get it without government intervention. (I would probably feel differently if we were talking about a child customer.)

The only thing I'm wondering about is, how far should this principle extend? Would it be logical to extend our anti-nanny-government principles to other areas in which government similarly intervenes for our own good, "to protect us against ourselves"?

How about drugs, for instance? What if the customer wanted marijuana brownies for dessert after the medium rare burger? Should the "watering hole" in question be able to dish up the brownies (assuming it was willing to do so) without having to look over its shoulder for the DEA or the local cops? And if not, why not?

I agree with what you say about the difference between steaks and ground meat. But there is another side to this. I've followed this controversy since the early '90s. As some have said this started with the eggs in NJ. (Personal note, if I over cook an egg to the point where the yoke don't run, it goes into the dog bowl. IOW, a hard cooked yoke is inedible to me.)

Now the other side of this. Believe it or not there is sometimes a political side to this. The WSJ reported on a guy in Oregon who was running for state office. One of his platform planks was that all meat, hamburger, steaks, rib roasts, etc., had to be cooked to well done before it could be served in a resturant. Turns out the guy was a PETA/Tree Hugger. When confronted with the accusation that his real intent was that if meat was only served well done, then fewer would order meat in resturants saving the rain forests and ensuring animal rights, he confessed. Once this was known he lost in a landslide.

Bottom line, as in all things, be sceptical when someone states they only have your best interests at heart.

What I'd heard is that now, if you insist on a rare burger, the restaurants make you sign a release saying that you ordered the burger rare, and you assume all the risks in case you become ill. I think that's a good compromise.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.