LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Debate over food trucks healthy

To the Editor: With a single exception, all of the comments have been accurate. Busch states that the trucks are "usually safer than Dining Services food." There is simply no basis for that statement. Dining Services, which dishes out thousands of meals per week, has not had a single case of food poisoning in the 22 years I have been at Penn. This is not to say that the trucks are not safe. I have no reason to believe otherwise. My complaint about the trucks is the manner that many, but not all, dispose of waste liquid food in the street drains, causing an increase in the rodent population. My comment about the safety of food at the trucks was limited to the fruit vendors who peel and serve unwashed raw fruit. Of the very few food-borne deaths in the U.S., a number have been the result of eating cantaloupe not properly washed?. Delpino claims that "comparing street vendors with a large institutional food service is as ludicrous as comparing an army combat medic with the Mayo Clinic." As a very proud veteran of the U.S. Army's 11th Airborne Division, I particularly understand his point. The troops I served in the field sure did enjoy coming back inside to the dining halls, and I don't recall too many compliments about field food! The Dining Service employees who showed up to work every day during January's blizzard are real people with families. The men and women who braved the conditions are truly interested in serving the students at Penn. We are also a "family enterprise," just like the folks who work at the trucks. The DP is to be commended for bringing the "debate" forward because the information is bound to help us all pay attention to both food and environmental safety. Don Jacobs Executive Director, Hospitality Services Pot legalization article unfair To the Editor: I would like to protest your portrayal of the debate over the legalization of marijuana ("Marijuana legalization spurs heated debate," DP, 4/11/96). I have already submitted a correction to try and repair the horrible job you did quoting Stephen Hager. I resent the fact that you twisted the issues and tried to make the debate about sexual prowess. Nothing that Hager said had anything to do with cannabis being an aphrodisiac except for the one comment that he made in response to Sliwa's claims. It is very childish that the subhead for the article read, "Proponent claims drug increases sex drive," as if that is the reason why Hager believes in legalization, as if that was the one big positive effect of cannabis. I wonder if the author of the article was present at the debate. If so, she would have heard Hager quoting medical journals, stating statistics, stating all of the positive uses for cannabis, including medication and religion. This debate was not about sex, it was not about "getting high," it was about freedom of choice. I wish the DP were mature enough to accurately portray both sides of the issue. Erin McKeon College '98 Poor coverage of Festival Latino To the Editor: I am writing about the poor coverage given to Festival Latino de Penn this year. I am very disappointed at the lack of support we received from the DP. Articles covering two events were in the DP several days after the actual event had taken place; throughout the week (March 25-29), there were no photographs taken. This is clearly a lack of respect for an event that has been taking place for the past 14 years. The Latino community at Penn is not taken seriously. Something needs to change, and the DP can take part in this. Next year, I hope the festival will be given more attention and a lot more coverage. Jennifer Trejo Wharton '98 Festival Latino de Penn Planning Committee Nothing wrong with scalping To the Editor: Contrary to several assertions made in Letters to the Editor in the wake of the Billy Joel/Connaissance ticket fiasco, there is nothing inherently wrong with ticket scalping. If you wait in line, enter a raffle or otherwise acquire a ticket in an aboveboard manner, you own that ticket. It's yours! If you then contract with another party to transfer possession of said ticket for a specified price (i.e., sell the godamned thing), what have you done that's so wrong? I dare say: nothing at all. In fact, if you've done a good deal, that's right. Because the agreement was entered into voluntarily on all sides, you stand on firm moral ground. Economically, by meeting the buyer's needs at a price amenable to both of you, you've made everybody happier by allocating a scarce commodity in the most efficient way. No one gets hurt; everyone wins. You get the money; he sees the show. Granted, you may indeed be a jerk for scalping a ticket which you know your best friend has eyes for. And if somebody gives you a ticket out of goodwill, with the understanding that you're going to attend the performance, you are a hoser if you sell it for a quick buck. But it would be you who is wrong in those cases, not the scalping. I would like to publicly thank the unknown gentleman (I hesitate to say "the stranger") who sold me a ticket Wednesday night on the steps of Irvine Auditorium, five minutes before showtime, for the low, low price of $10. Spend the bread wisely, my friend -- you missed one hell of show. Jeremy Hildreth Wharton '96