First things first: we don’t have any other info about this hypothetical situation. We don’t know if the hypothetical OP could’ve provided their own mini-fridge, we don’t know if the hypothetical OP’s hypothetical lunch needed to be refrigerated, nor do we know if the hypothetical laxative for the hypothetical OP’s in-universe hypothetical constipation was necessary to mix in with the hypothetical food.
THAT SAID…
I enjoy these kinds of thought experiments, so I already have a personal take based on only the info that is given in this hypothetical situation; i.e. there is only one fridge, the food must be refrigerated, and the hypothetical OP had a good reason to mix the laxative in with the food (hence the multiple “POISON - DO NOT EAT” warnings).
From the information given, if legal action was taken, the “booby trap” angle likely wouldn’t work. If it could be proven that the “POISON - DO NOT EAT” labeling was clear and obvious, then it could be argued that OP had provided ample warning to the food thief, thereby negating any “booby trap”, as the thief would have been well aware of the risk of eating something with such a label - their own personal beliefs be damned.
I’ve seen this pop up many times.
First things first: we don’t have any other info about this hypothetical situation. We don’t know if the hypothetical OP could’ve provided their own mini-fridge, we don’t know if the hypothetical OP’s hypothetical lunch needed to be refrigerated, nor do we know if the hypothetical laxative for the hypothetical OP’s in-universe hypothetical constipation was necessary to mix in with the hypothetical food.
THAT SAID…
I enjoy these kinds of thought experiments, so I already have a personal take based on only the info that is given in this hypothetical situation; i.e. there is only one fridge, the food must be refrigerated, and the hypothetical OP had a good reason to mix the laxative in with the food (hence the multiple “POISON - DO NOT EAT” warnings).
From the information given, if legal action was taken, the “booby trap” angle likely wouldn’t work. If it could be proven that the “POISON - DO NOT EAT” labeling was clear and obvious, then it could be argued that OP had provided ample warning to the food thief, thereby negating any “booby trap”, as the thief would have been well aware of the risk of eating something with such a label - their own personal beliefs be damned.