
The Inexplicable War on Lemonade Stands - DanBC
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/
======
ck2
When you have insanely overly funded law enforcement geared for massive
threats that don't exist, then they are most certainly going to use all that
manpower and equipment go after easy targets that cannot defend themselves, to
justify their salaries somehow.

They know it's a hassle to go after people who are wealthy and can afford
their own lawyers so they avoid it unless there is something political to be
gained.

This theme repeats itself at every level, local, state and federal.

This is why when I see things like a national database for facial recognition
it's pretty easy to accurately predict for every one "terrorist" caught each
decade, thousands of people will experience life-traumatizing hassle that they
didn't deserve.

Just look at the TSA and their VIPR "squad" - if they are not defunded soon,
they will become the nightmare of the USA, never catching one "terrorist" but
themselves terrorizing millions of citizens for no purpose but to "keep us in
our place".

I think we will really get a demonstration of this at the upcoming RNC and DNC
conventions (ironically funded by taxpayers).

~~~
d0ne
The terrorist in the USA won a long time ago. The unfortunate lives lost on
September 11th will never be forgotten and the wars fought over them won't
either.

Sadly, the freedoms lost because of these events set back the Unites States
many many decades. I remember growing up a proud US citizen who was happy to
be patriotic because my country stood for the right things for the right
reasons.

Now, I'm ashamed. My country took a head first dive into the quick sand of
ignorance and fear even though there were countless, larger than life, signs
warning us it was right there.

To my fellow citizen, and the rest of the word, I'm sorry America is no longer
the beacon of freedom it once was.

~~~
kiba
_The terrorist in the USA won a long time ago._

I don't think terrorists actually win. What they got on 9/11 is more
intervention in the middle east. The fact that it terrify the US government
into terrorizing their own citizen is just incidental.

~~~
jonnathanson
The goal of terrorism is to cause terror. Was the US sufficiently terrorized
by 9/11? It'd be near-impossible to argue that we weren't. Not only did we
shed quite a few civil liberties, and subject our own citizens to a wide range
of inconveniences and violations, but we also spent trillions of dollars in an
ongoing "War on Terror" that seems to have no end and no realistic, tangible
goals. (As with the "War on Drugs," it reifies an intangible concept, and then
attempts to fight that concept as if it were tangible).

Getting the US out of the Middle East is a long-term goal of Al Qaeda and
similar organizations. But the short-term goal, i.e., how they plan to get us
out of the Middle East, is by causing our society to collapse -- financially
and socially. To paraphrase one of OBL's treatises, Al Qaeda wants to "bleed"
us to death. Terror is their chief tactic in pursuit of that strategy.

OBL is dead, and depending on whom you ask, Al Qaeda is either spent or
significantly weakened. But that's sort of beside the point. Those guys never
really expected that 9/11 would cause us to withdraw immediately from the
Middle East. In fact, their entire plan was to _draw us deeper in_ , where we
could waste blood and treasure and engender further ill will in the region.
And the fact that we whipped up a security frenzy in our own country (PATRIOT
act, airport security theater, paranoia, etc.)? That's either icing on the
cake, or part of the cake itself, but it's certainly a big win in Al Qaeda's
column.

Now, if you take the long view, you could argue that there's still time for us
to correct our course. The terror and repurcussions of our reaction to 9/11
can still be undone. We recovered from McCarthyism. We recovered from the
Alien & Sedition Acts. Time and again, our country has temporarily threatened
its own principles or abandoned rationality, and then come back to its senses
in the long run. It's entirely possible that the post-9/11 security frenzy
ends up being another historical footnote.

~~~
kiba
On the other side, the United State government benefits, as they are seen as
more important than ever and they can justify further tax increase In other
words, they benefit from a situation they did not create.

Of course, it was not rational in the long run. But for the careers of certain
individuals, it is a good thing. The harm may be so dispersed that they barely
felt it or they are shielded from it altogether. Furthermore, they are fueled
by our irrationality of perceiving rare, media-worthy like a terrorist attack
as more important than many common death scenarios and the more common(and
arguably more important) horror.

Keep in mind that organizations will either choose to expand, or disappears.
If the US government choose the rational way for society and enlightened self-
interest, it would have make itself disappear by unemploying themselves in the
process. Of course, the government choose to makes job for the insider
instead.

In some sense, this is what the party of the US government wanted and what
terrorists desire. But if they aren't so wrapped up in the government or being
a terrorist, they might have a different perspective.

It's like being a luddite at the dawn of the industrial revolution. We saw
that we are losing our jobs, but we don't see that eventually our quality of
life is going to increase. Now that we don't have to make clothes, we can
enjoy the finer thing in life.

------
Lagged2Death
I think it's hilarious that Forbes is framing this sort of thing as crazy-
berserk anti-business activity, when it's just a valid to interpret it as pro-
_big_ -business activity.

The fees and licenses are barriers to entry that prevent established
businesses from having to compete with a thousand nobodies. To an established
business, the permit and license costs are trivial.

Once your food stand / hot dog cart business reaches a certain level of
reliable revenue, it's rational to _support_ increases in license costs for
this very reason. I don't know, of course, but it wouldn't surprise me to
learn that this is exactly what happened.

~~~
smokeyj
I believe in principle you can only be pro-business or anti-business. If 'pro-
big-business' means keeping some people out of business to make more business
for other business, that isn't business at all -- rather a rehash of violent
coercion comparable to the regular operations of mafias and gangs. In essence,
established business -- like a mafia, is staking their territory and using
their strong-arm (cops) as muscle, to stifle competition and maintain their
monopoly. These kids did not have permission from any 'family leaders',
therefore their operation was disassembled.

~~~
anigbrowl
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>

~~~
smokeyj
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29>

------
trebor
This has a simple explanation.

A permit, as defined by Black's law dictionary (paraphrased[1]), is
authorization to commit an otherwise criminal/forbidden act. Thus if you had a
skulking permit that authorizes you to steal and kill, you legally could
commit what was a crime.

Permits, as treated/used by the US Government, are just another form of
taxation. It has become "pay up, or it's illegal". According to my
understanding of the Constitution this is illegal—but that's never stopped our
government before.

So, with the requirements in place to make it illegal to manufacture/brew/sell
food (including beverages, like lemonade or even tea) without a permit, we get
a crackdown on kids selling bottled drinks or lemonade made from a mix, to
enforce the laws.

And that's still ignoring the peddling license and the business license.

Just take a look at the permits/licenses required to operate shop today, and
what is illegal because of it. I can't even finish my basement off without
paying for a permit. For example, a heterosexual couple can't get married in
most states without a permit. This practice came from interracial marriage
being illegal in the 1900s and requiring a permit; prior to this time marriage
was a (primarily) religious institution and people married without
governmental interference. The idea of a marriage permit has since been
promulgated as a "good idea," and "common-law marriages" are considered "bad
ideas".

Give the government an inch and they take a mile...

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

[1]: I had to paraphrase because I don't own a copy. I had to look it up in
the library a while ago, and the definition stuck with me.

~~~
wisty
It's a shift from the philosophy "that which is not expressly forbidden is
permitted" to "that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden".

It seems it's good to have health inspectors, and shut down the dodgy
operators. It's also good to force restaurants to follow good practices. But
the regulations always seem to grow, and don't always prevent disasters.

The problem is, disasters are "black swan" events. Builders take reasonable
steps to avoid hitting their fingers with hammers, because it's a high
incidence / small impact kind of thing. But low incidence / high impact things
(like cutting off your hand with a buzzsaw) need a bit of regulation.

The problem is, regulation _doesn't work_. Someone will put up a sign spelling
out how to use the buzzsaw, which people will follow for about 30 seconds
before putting their hands in danger again.

You need education (safety signs), but you also need enforcement. And one of
the best methods of enforcement is encouraging whistle-blowers. Whenever a
real disaster happens, there's usually a clear paper trail of people making
complaints about the potential hazard. People _know_ the risk, but aren't able
to escalate it to someone who can force mitigation. Obviously this is a sort
of inverted survivor bias (no-one cares about paper trails when there's no
body), but the point remains - people usually knew the disaster was waiting to
happen, and weren't able to figure out what to do about it.

The most important regulation (I believe) is that safety complaints need to be
made, and dealt with. No system is perfect, but overregulation encourages a
system that looks perfect on paper while problems go unnoticed.

~~~
Zak
_But low incidence / high impact things (like cutting off your hand with a
buzzsaw) need a bit of regulation._

We used to, for the most part accept that such things would happen, and not
try too hard to prevent them when the impact was mostly limited to the person
making the poor decision leading to the accident. I'm not sure that's such a
bad thing; regulations shift the responsibility and costs away from the person
actually doing the potentially dangerous thing on to the organization as a
whole. The whole process slows down as a result.

I'm not against regulations or some equivalent (such as best practices plus
liability) in situations where someone being stupid puts many people or the
public at large at risk, but don't tell me I need certification to use a
buzzsaw. I learned to use one when I was 12.

------
noonespecial
The thing that bothers me is that its not "too much" law enforcement overdoing
it. Where I live now, the code inspector's office is cruising around town
shutting down all of the "haunted houses" that charities are running because
its a public gathering and those need alarm activated sprinkler systems, don-
cha-know.

No, its not an over-abundance of a thing, its a different kind of thing
altogether. Some time in the last decade or so, we turned into something
altogether different than what we were before and it feels like its just
getting started.

~~~
jakeonthemove
It's the quest for "safety" - it got so much media attention what with all the
terrorist threats and attacks (which existed long before 9/11), that it has
been engrained in the minds of people as "safety and security at all costs"
and has extended to most parts of life, not just external threats to the
country (which is understandable, since most Americans never see any real
terrorism but know that they have to fear it and protect themselves, so they
find something else to protect themselves against).

~~~
noonespecial
All that is true. But I don't think that's it alone. The core of the problem
is that there are public officials, "public servants" as they try to call
themselves, that come to work and say "Gee what am I going to do today? I know
I'll go harass some little girls. Yeah, they're breaking the rules, after all.
Good job! Go me!" and are completely ok with it.

Its not even so bad that _they_ are ok with it. There have always been rotten
apples. Its that (despite the small outrage), everyone else has just sort of
become numb to this kind of ass-hattery. Try to imagine what would have
happened in Mayberry in 1960 if the code enforcement office pulled something
like this. I believe nearly everyone at the office would have instantly found
themselves looking for a new line of work. It quite likely would have been
difficult for them to even continue living in that area.

The whole idea of putting a human being at that post was to avoid this
machine-like enforcement without discretion.

There's some kind of deep intractable cynicism that's changing the worldview
of the United States (probably the whole "western world" to a lesser extent).
Its more than just fear-"save me from the terrorists!", it has a raw edge of
hopelessness to it that has never been present in the USA before.

~~~
anigbrowl
_The core of the problem is that there are public officials, "public servants"
as they try to call themselves, that come to work and say "Gee what am I going
to do today? I know I'll go harass some little girls. Yeah, they're breaking
the rules, after all. Good job! Go me!" and are completely ok with it._

Not so. A lot of times, in fact probably the majority, they are responding to
complaints from other vendors.

This is especially true at events; vendors pay a _lot_ of money (often a few
thousand a day, paid months in advance) to the organizers for the right to set
up a food or refreshment stall, and are subject to safety inspections
themselves. So they object to anyone else coming along and doing the same
thing for free, even if they're only selling small amounts. Event vendors live
on fairly thin margins; since they're transient they can't count on repeat
business of any kind. If it's a kid that's cute, but if the kid is selling
commercial beverages rather than home-made lemonade (as shown in the photo
accompanying the article), then professional retailers see that as a front for
the parent who is buying the stuff in bulk at Costco. Having worked as an
organizer on a few musical festivals, I regret to say that they're sometimes
correct about this.

------
derfclausen
When I think of a good ol' fashioned lemonade stand, I think of kids picking
lemons and mixing up a big pitcher of homemade lemonade. In this article, the
main photo shows kids selling bottled drinks and putting cash in a strongbox.

Would it change your opinion if you found out these kids were making $1000 a
day? What if their parents were food vendors and didn't want to deal with
permits, so they had their kids operate a stand? What if someone got
salmonella from their lemonade?

I'm all for the cutesy kids killing a summer afternoon by selling homemade
lemonade at the end of their driveway. The parents buying flats of drinks from
Costco, a steel cashbox, and taking them to a street fair? Not so much.

~~~
ianhawes
Actually, I have a problem with that. Even if it was a front for parents to
sell food without a permit, frankly I'd be okay with that. The fact that our
government has produced an environment where I need permits, approval, and
licenses to sell something is ridiculous.

~~~
evgen
I hate to break it too you, but it has _always_ been the case that a permit
has been required to sell food to the public for your entire life. The rules
may have been selectively applied more frequently in the past, but the laws
are not new.

~~~
burgerbrain
There is a keen difference between _"on the books it is illegal"_ and _"there
are actually men with guns walking around that will enforce this"_

------
daimyoyo
This reminds me of the major undercover sting operation that took place
several years ago against a group of people who had formed a private poker
club in Colorado. It sickens me that the police would waste the time
prosecuting this, instead of catching murderers and rapists who are free. As
if they have nothing better to do. May God save this pathetic country.

~~~
GHFigs
_It sickens me that the police would waste the time prosecuting this, instead
of catching murderers and rapists who are free._

Do you honestly believe that the two are exclusive?

~~~
noonespecial
To hear the police talk about their budgets and shortages nowadays, _yes_.

------
HaloZero
I was expecting the title to be a metaphor for something, the fact that it's
completely serious and that cops are actually shutting down lemonade stands
for permits is utterly pointless.

I could maybe get if they were selling complex food stuff that the kids
couldn't make themselves and the parents were using them to make some money
using a loophole.

But I highly doubt this is the case with 25c lemonade stands.

~~~
MortenK
I had the same expectation, thought it would be a witty article on some over-
zealous law enforcement on small businesses or similar. But shutting down
actual lemonade stands run by a few kids? I'm very surprised this is actually
real. How silly.

------
padobson
This is not just a few isolated events. My brother set up a lemonade stand on
family property a few years back, and they didn't operate for more than an
hour before they were visited by the township health inspector and, after they
refused to move, the police. They were a bit older, sophomores or juniors in
HS, but it should be clear that local townships are not fans of micro
entrepreneurs.

------
AzAngel
I do not know if anyone else here is or was a fan on NationStates, but this is
right out of the game: "The private sector is almost wholly made up of
enterprising ten-year-olds selling lemonade on the sidewalk, although the
government is looking at stamping this out."

------
gerggerg
What's unknown is if the police are shutting down the lemonade stands on their
own volition or if they are acting on complaints from residents. Not that
either is right, but if they're acting on complaints it kind of shifts the
anger.

~~~
ticks
That's what I was thinking. Neighbours talk less often to each other these
days, and instead, they rely on the police to fix these sorts of issues. It's
just a side effect of an increasingly individualistic society.

------
skulvr
Wow. I thought the lemonade stands was a metaphor for small startups. Not
actual lemonade stands by 6 year olds.

------
rmc
I'm slightly glad about this. For a long time, undesirables (junkies, blacks
etc) would have gotten more police harassment if they were running businesses
from the street whereas a blind eye was turned to nice middle class kids doing
what is almost the same thing.

Now the cops have to apply the law to everyone, and yes, if you want to give
the police the power to move that person who makes you uncomfortable then you
must give them the responsibility to shut down the lemonade stand.

~~~
fr0sty
There is a difference between setting up shop on a public sidewalk and
conducting business on private property.

------
DanBC
I was reading the "My Dad taught me cash flow"
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3167630>) article and I thought "I bet
kids couldn't do that in the UK." So I had a quick search, and it turns out
that some places in the US are cracking down.

But why? What is the risk here? I'm not asking about the actual risk, but what
the perceived risk is from 7 year olds selling lemonade at 25c per cup.

~~~
anigbrowl
Well, you could get food poisoning:
[http://foodsafetyinfosheets.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/6-13...](http://foodsafetyinfosheets.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/6-13-07.pdf)
or
[http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/07/espn_re...](http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/07/espn_report_finds_health_viola.php)

Now if someone is selling food or beverages at an event, and people get sick
from consuming the product, what od you think will happen? They sue the event
organizer or whoever has the deepest pockets, saying 'you permitted the sale
of the food that made me sick.' One could say that such people are litigation-
happy weenies, but one also has to consider the sky-high cost of hospital
treatment. Sometimes people's insurers will sue on their behalf to recover
their treatment costs.

------
cafard
The map shows thirty points in a country of 300 million persons.

The enforcement actions I saw in the article were done by local police. Well,
there are city councilmen out there who really like to be city councilmen, and
will respond when home-owning, voting, constituents call up and complain.
Before you start imagining yourself James Otis up against the Writs of
Assistance, pick up the phone.

------
beej71
If you really wanted to teach them a lesson on doing business in America,
you'd charge them $1 for a permit and make them put a fictitious business
statement in the local paper. ;-)

------
dpkendal
If kids' lemonade stands were made illegal, it could be the most devastating
thing ever to hit that country's entrepreneurship, long-term, if we follow
Jason Fried's getting-good-at-making-money theory.
[http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1985-making-money-takes-
pract...](http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1985-making-money-takes-practice-
like-playing-the-piano-takes-practice)

~~~
georgieporgie
You know, the only lesson I took away from a lemonade stand is that people
don't want to buy lemonade. This may have been a result of our rural
environment and, therefore, complete lack of traffic traveling under 55mph
past our sign.

Seriously, though, there are a lot of other ways for kids to show
entrepreneurship and make money. Lemonade stands, if anything, teach that
being cute gets you handouts. Mow some lawns, wash some cars, cut some hedges.

~~~
DanBC
Why are kids not allowed to sell lemonade but are allowed to mow lawns? What
makes you think that children will be allowed to use dangerous machinery if
they're not allowed to sell some drinks?

~~~
SageRaven
Duh! Because a 12-year-old can mostly only hurt himself by losing control of a
lawn mower or weed eater. Give that same kid a 5-gallon tainted cooler of ice
and lemonade-flavored Kool-Aid, and he could poison an entire neighborhood!

But seriously, this topic makes me wonder about all sorts of things we did as
kids that might have been technically illegal but we all did anyway. Such as
mowing lawns and babysitting while too young. Did you know most states
technically require sitters to be 16 years or older?!? The paperboy as we
fondly remember it (I want my two dollars!) might be technically illegal. I
mean, don't labor laws restrict non-farm employment to 16 years and older?

I'd be curious to see a real, thorough analysis of the legality of so many
things we take for granted.

~~~
georgieporgie
_The paperboy as we fondly remember it (I want my two dollars!) might be
technically illegal_

I was a paperboy. Technically, I was an independent contractor. Therefore,
they had no legal responsibility to me. Of course, I was entirely responsible
to them, and I wasn't allowed to run my route like a proper business (e.g. no
payment for three days, cut them off). Basically, it was training for being
taken advantage of by large(r) corporations.

Nowadays, it looks like all the paper delivery around here is done by adults.
One drives while the other walks and tosses papers at 3am. Better experience
for the customer, billing is automated, and no kids are exploited. A loss of
an American tradition, perhaps, but a tradition which became a mild form of
exploitation rather than empowerment.

Incidentally, on the subject of machinery, tasks should be relegated by age. A
twelve year old is _probably_ capable of handling basic lawn machinery, though
14 or 16 is probably better. An eight year old can certainly rake leaves, dig
holes, and trim bushes. A four year old can rake leaves and move rocks. I did
lawn work for my grandparents every summer and, despite being disallowed the
riding lawnmower, I was reasonably effective.

Another point I'll make is that both lemonade stands and paper routes are
basically dead-end. You can't franchise a lemonade stand. As a paperboy, you
can conceivably upgrade to a scooter to cover more distance, but you're still
stuck personally collecting money from all the deadbeats. It's really just
wage-labor under an entrepreneurial fog.

~~~
DanBC
> _Another point I'll make is that both lemonade stands and paper routes are
> basically dead-end._

That's a good point, but you would only want the child to do the stand for a
weekend or so, or maybe a couple of weeks over a summer, to teach them
simplistic stuff about adding value, and making profit.

~~~
georgieporgie
Better hope you kids are cute, or they won't learn they're lesson. ;-)

Another tangential point: I learned much more from manning my family's garage
sale than from any other single money-making endeavor. I suppose the modern
equivalent is eBay. In fact, come to think of it, what could be better than
getting rid of the junk cluttering your house than telling your kid he/she can
keep all the profit?

------
nazgulnarsil
I'm not shocked by the original article. I've known about this sort of thing
for awhile. I am shocked at some of the responses in this thread. "What if you
cause X dollars in damage through some unbelievably unlikely sequence of
events?" can be used to prevent anyone from doing anything at any time.

------
njharman
Buy your kids a soda machine and teach them real business.

------
rsheridan6
The land of the free, the home of the brave.

~~~
hachiya
The land of the fee, home of the slave.

------
dos1
Inexplicable indeed. Have we solved every other major problem facing society
to the point where we should be focusing energy on child run lemonade stands?
I am doubtful.

I think the bureaucratic state has gone far enough. This is a shining example
in my mind of why smaller government is better. Just think, every one of those
people responsible for shutting down a lemonade stand is making a living wage,
made possible by my 33% tax contribution. Sickening.

------
georgieporgie
Meh. I don't really want to drink potentially contaminated, lukewarm fluids
served up by a child at the side of the road. I'm reminded of the horror story
of a coworker's husband who bought a coconut cream pie from a roadside vendor
in the Philippines...

A kid will learn much more by doing odd jobs for older people in the
neighborhood. Mowing, yard raking, hedge trimming, window cleaning. The only
thing you learn at a lemonade stand is that being cute earns handouts, and
very basic change-making.

That said, local licensing and business registration needs a special < 18
category. Oregon, for example, has a minimum incorporation fee of, I think,
$250. It should be $40 or $20 if you're under 18.

~~~
shabble
Then...don't?

If you were genuinely concerned, you could always ask them how they made it,
and if anything seemed fishy (improper cleaning, ingredient prep, etc) you can
always walk away. The existence of the stall isn't in itself a hazard, and in
the majority of cases, there won't be any problems at all.

The problem is in the 0.1% of cases where someone didn't wash their lemons, or
has been snacking on peanuts near an open container or something similar, and
there's a major incident. Risk/benefit analysis suggests you should avoid it
and go grab a coke instead, but there's nothing stopping you picking up a cup
of lemonade and tipping it down the drain if you wanted to encourage some
neighbours children to pursue their business ideas.

I agree that there's less to learn, but also there's much lower risk to the
children (gardening work will often involve pointy things and/or power tools),
and it could well be a good place to start.

I'm not sure how the licensing issue could be dealt with, since AFAIK a minor
can't enter into the majority of contracts that might be necessary to obtain
permits/handle licences.

~~~
georgieporgie
_If you were genuinely concerned, you could always ask them how they made it,
and if anything seemed fishy_

The number of cases of food poisoning in the US food service industry each
year leads me to believe that it's not so easy to detect contaminated food
sources.

And yes, you can buy a cup and throw it out, but we're really back to asking
what lesson you're teaching. I maintain you're teaching "be cute, get
handouts, ignore costs" early with a lemonade stand.

------
rorrr
I actually support this. Why these stands should be magically exempt from all
the permits? It's a business. Plus they don't have insurance. What if that kid
serves poisoned lemonade (by mistake or on purpose)? Who will pay the
liability of (potential) millions of dollars?

------
rsanchez1
The situation is that bad in my town. You need a permit to do anything. Want
to charge people for parking on Game Day? Gotta get a permit. It's ridiculous.

------
jellicle
Bad title. Should be "The nonexistent war on lemonade stands that we just made
up as part of our publisher's long-standing propaganda efforts".

~~~
scythe
reason has been posting articles about this for a while.

[http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/18/lemonade-stand-
crackdown-c...](http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/18/lemonade-stand-crackdown-
conti)

<http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/10/free-the-lemonade-three>

[http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/24/concord-cop-threatens-
came...](http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/24/concord-cop-threatens-camera-w)

[http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/17/saturday-is-lemonade-
freed...](http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/17/saturday-is-lemonade-freedom-d)

<http://reason.com/blog/2005/08/03/when-lemonade-is-illegal>

<http://reason.com/blog/2009/08/06/lemonade-is-not-a-crime>

[http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/01/reasontv-the-war-on-
lemona...](http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/01/reasontv-the-war-on-lemonade-s)

But hey, I personally enjoy the smell of sand, so I wouldn't blame you for
keeping your head there as long as you like...

~~~
anothermachine
I read 4 of those articles, none of which are a "war against kids' lemonade
stands", and all of which involve violations/disputes that tangentially had
kids or lemonade involved, before I stopped giving you the benefit of the
doubt.

I saw:

* Anti-competition ordinances around a special event * Lemonade stand on a busy intersection * At a specially permitted farmers' market, a vendor (not even a kid) crashing the market to sell his stuff, with a bonus dispute over the right to film police

The "War on Lemonade Stands" angle is propaganda: it's inventing a misleading
emotionally-powerful angle in order to add rhetorical power to an argument
over a separate issue.

~~~
scythe
Uh, what? Top story, top link.

>Police in Georgia have shut down a lemonade stand run by three girls trying
to save up for a trip to a water park, saying they didn't have a business
license or the required permits.

>Midway Police Chief Kelly Morningstar says police also didn't know how the
lemonade was made, who made it or what was in it. [...]

>The girls needed a business license, peddler's permit and food permit to
operate, even on residential property. The permits cost $50 a day or $180 per
year. [...]

>The girls are now doing chores and yard work to make money.

That was nothing like you described.

------
gexla
Am I the only person who thinks this article is silly?

"...but many of the regulations that come down the pipeline are pushed by
brick-and-mortar competitors who want to keep competition at a minimum."

Or perhaps the brick-and-mortar competitors simply want for the competition to
be on even ground. If the kids were required jump through the same hoops as
the legit stands, then the kids likely need to sell lemonade at higher prices
than a quarter.

"Police said the girls needed a business license, a peddler’s permit, and a
food permit to operate the stand, which cost $50 per day or $180 per year
each, sums that would quickly cut into any possible profit-margin."

Correct. These fees cut into profit margins for all stands. Why should kids
get special treatment?

"Who stands to lose from a couple of six-year-olds selling lemonade?"

Any purchase I make at one stand is a lost opportunity for another stand.
Again, why should kids receive special treatment?

"Kids have been selling lemonade for decades without permits of any sort. They
often set the stands up just for fun, but many lemonade stands (or bake sales)
are used to raise money for schools, cancer, or sick pets. Lemonade stands
represent the most innocent, optimistic side of capitalism out there."

Lemonade stands for kids is a great learning experience. Having to deal with
the law is part of that learning experience. A lemonade stand run by kids and
shut down by the police is as good a learning experience as one that is able
to run without interference from the government. If the startup costs of a
lemonade stand are too high, then perhaps the kids should try a different line
of business.

~~~
kiba
Programmers are not licensed to program. So, it's unfair that other jobs need
license. We should also make programmers go through the licensing process!

Look, just because brick and mortar pay fees doesn't mean it's also justified
for them to impose it on their competition. Maybe the fee or the law are
unjust. Just get rid of them and let them run their business.

~~~
gexla
Sure, maybe the kids should offer a colonoscopy (they're kids! why should they
need a license for that?) service for 50 cents rather than lemonade. This is a
ridiculous example, but the license / permit scheme is probably in place for
good reasons. I don't know what those reasons are in this case, but I imagine
it's to keep the event from being overrun by vendors.

~~~
rwmj
This is a ridiculous thing to say. No one would go to a kid for a colonoscopy,
and if they were stupid enough then they deserve what they get. Common sense
says that adults should be licensed for dangerous operations because the
customer can't tell by looking if an adult is trained to do the operation or
not. You can tell a kid is not a doctor simply by looking.

Back to lemonade stands: use your common sense. If kids are running it and you
don't trust kids' hygiene or ability to make lemonade or whatever, don't buy
the lemonade. There is no possible reason why a license is required.

~~~
gexla
Right, you are repeating what I had already admitted, that my example is
ridiculous. My response was to the suggestion that we should get rid of
licenses and just let people run their businesses. In some cases, this is fine
(and in these cases you probably don't need a license, programming is an
example of this.) In other cases, not so much.

I'm thankful for the U.S. being strict on food safety / handling standards.
I'm currently living in the Philippines and I had traveler's diarrhea for the
first few months I lived here and I still get it regularly after a few years.
Common sense helps, but it only goes so far.

