• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fear the Cookie Police

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Too often laws that are claimed to protect the people are in fact intended to protect special interests. That seems to be the case in New Jersey and Wisconsin, the two states where homemade cookies can't be sold.

Moms Who Bake vs. the Cookie Police
James Varney, RealClearInvestigations

Courteney Wilds' cinnamon rolls and other treats were such a hit at dinner parties and her Woodbridge, N.J., church that she thought she might make a little extra money selling them.
But when the 50-year-old opera singer and marketing researcher took a closer look at New Jersey law governing small business, she couldn't believe it. An obscure provision meant selling her goodies could make her a criminal.
409712_5_.jpg

Courteney Wilds
Courtesy of Courteney Wilds

“I was in shock, I was really surprised,” she said. “You’d see people selling stuff at street fairs. I’m just looking to be a small business owner, an entrepreneur. I’ve lived here for 14 years and there’s only one main bakery. Is the law designed to protect them?”
Along with Wisconsin, New Jersey is one of only two states that still ban small-scale sales of home-baked goods outside the occasional church function and the like, according to the Institute for Justice, a libertarian organization seeking to overturn the laws. If small-scale bakers in those states don't spend tens of thousands of dollars to build or rent commercial kitchens, secure licenses and follow strict state regulations, they can face fines and even jail time for selling cookies, though anecdotal evidence suggests written and verbal warnings are more common.
It seems to matter little that there is widespread bipartisan support in both states to lift the unpopular regulations: Thus far a lone lawmaker in Madison and another in Trenton have beaten back efforts to eliminate them. . . .
 
When it comes to this issue the libertarian in me is strong. A person should be able to make things in their homes and sell them without shelling out a ton of money. As long as the consumer is aware the product is made in an uninspected facility. And a posted disclaimer should be sufficient for that.
 
Doesn't matter how small and inoffensive it is; if it's business, someone wants to tax and regulate it into oblivion.
 
There is an issue more than just 'being able to sell cookies'. There is a matter of 'do you make the health standards'.
 
RAMOSS said:
There is an issue more than just 'being able to sell cookies'. There is a matter of 'do you make the health standards'.
Click to expand...
Hence the "ininspected facility" disclaimer.
 
Being in business in the US is not something you do if you want more freedom. If you want to deal with endless regulations, being unpaid tax collector, and no longer have your right to association or property protected then being a business owner in the US is the right choice for you.
 
RAMOSS said:
There is an issue more than just 'being able to sell cookies'. There is a matter of 'do you make the health standards'.
Click to expand...

We better shut down all the kids Kool Aid stands. Ya never know if those little cherub's washed their hands after potty time.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
When it comes to this issue the libertarian in me is strong. A person should be able to make things in their homes and sell them without shelling out a ton of money. As long as the consumer is aware the product is made in an uninspected facility. And a posted disclaimer should be sufficient for that.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree having done quite a bit of 'contract baking' and making salads, baked beans, etc. for various events, though I've never made any serious money doing that.

And when we first moved to Albuquerque, I took a temp job for 30 days. I was assigned to a liquor import outfit near downtown. It was a long commute and I had to clock in at 8 a.m. so I never had breakfast before going to work. And around 9 am every morning this little guy who spoke almost no English came by selling breakfast burritos his mom made in her home kitchen--they were filled with wonderfully seasoned potatoes, green chili, homemade salsa, and some mystery meat I never identified.

We had no clue what might be in them or under what conditions they were prepared, but at $1.50 they were positively the best breakfast burritos I had ever eaten before or since.

We could easily have all been seriously sickened or killed, but nobody ever was though I'm sure that operation was entirely illegal. Probably the people selling them were illegal. But we didn't care and in retrospect, I believe it was our right to take that risk.

At the same time, I want the restaurants we eat at to be health inspected. I have inspected some myself (for insurance purposes) that I wouldn't want to eat any food coming out of those kitchens.
 
Henrin said:
Being in business [in general] is not something you do if you want more freedom. u.
Click to expand...
Going into business necessarily restricts you, you now have to abide by some contract, if nothing more than buyer/seller contract verbal...that's *necessarily* less freedom. In the best nations in the world, you have a lot more restrictions like you can't sell poison to people, you can't claim your miracle concoction cures things, and you have to follow industry best practice for food safety, etc. Anyone who wants to roll that back is simply missing the reality that the system was far worse without it. There are a few scattered old or bad regulations, none of which means all the good should be thrown out. Owning a business is a responsibility, you to some degree influence a lot more lives than just your own, and your actions and those you train and direct can affect far more than you can alone. The regulation should match the reach and risk, as would any sensible system designed by any sensible person. Even giving all that up, you still gain far more freedom if you are a financial success, to outweigh any perceived reduction due to government.
 
RetiredUSN said:
We better shut down all the kids Kool Aid stands. Ya never know if those little cherub's washed their hands after potty time.
Click to expand...

Those are already waived, not an issue.
 
Mach said:
Going into business necessarily restricts you, you now have to abide by some contract, if nothing more than buyer/seller contract verbal...that's *necessarily* less freedom. In the best nations in the world, you have a lot more restrictions like you can't sell poison to people, you can't claim your miracle concoction cures things, and you have to follow industry best practice for food safety, etc. Anyone who wants to roll that back is simply missing the reality that the system was far worse without it. There are a few scattered old or bad regulations, none of which means all the good should be thrown out. Owning a business is a responsibility, you to some degree influence a lot more lives than just your own, and your actions and those you train and direct can affect far more than you can alone. The regulation should match the reach and risk, as would any sensible system designed by any sensible person. Even giving all that up, you still gain far more freedom if you are a financial success, to outweigh any perceived reduction due to government.
Click to expand...

Being in business means you have less freedom, period. The government doesn't even protect your constitutional rights because they believe business doesn't fall under them for some stupid reason. The government also puts your under clauses that don't even apply to private citizens like the commerce clause and the fourteenth amendment if you own a business.
 
Jack Hays said:
Too often laws that are claimed to protect the people are in fact intended to protect special interests. That seems to be the case in New Jersey and Wisconsin, the two states where homemade cookies can't be sold.

Moms Who Bake vs. the Cookie Police
James Varney, RealClearInvestigations

Courteney Wilds' cinnamon rolls and other treats were such a hit at dinner parties and her Woodbridge, N.J., church that she thought she might make a little extra money selling them.
But when the 50-year-old opera singer and marketing researcher took a closer look at New Jersey law governing small business, she couldn't believe it. An obscure provision meant selling her goodies could make her a criminal.
409712_5_.jpg

Courteney Wilds
Courtesy of Courteney Wilds

“I was in shock, I was really surprised,” she said. “You’d see people selling stuff at street fairs. I’m just looking to be a small business owner, an entrepreneur. I’ve lived here for 14 years and there’s only one main bakery. Is the law designed to protect them?”
Along with Wisconsin, New Jersey is one of only two states that still ban small-scale sales of home-baked goods outside the occasional church function and the like, according to the Institute for Justice, a libertarian organization seeking to overturn the laws. If small-scale bakers in those states don't spend tens of thousands of dollars to build or rent commercial kitchens, secure licenses and follow strict state regulations, they can face fines and even jail time for selling cookies, though anecdotal evidence suggests written and verbal warnings are more common.
It seems to matter little that there is widespread bipartisan support in both states to lift the unpopular regulations: Thus far a lone lawmaker in Madison and another in Trenton have beaten back efforts to eliminate them. . . .
Click to expand...

1) Umm, it does not cost tens of thousands of dollars to rent a commercial kitchen. It does not even cost ones of thousands of dollars.

2) The Constitution does not include a right to sell home baked cookies
 
sangha said:
2) The Constitution does not include a right to sell home baked cookies
Click to expand...

So the Constitution doesn't protect peoples right to sell their own property?
 
sangha said:
1) Umm, it does not cost tens of thousands of dollars to rent a commercial kitchen. It does not even cost ones of thousands of dollars.

2) The Constitution does not include a right to sell home baked cookies
Click to expand...

But it does cost on average about $25-30 per hour and there is probably a minimum number of hours that would be involved. So if a baker rented a kitchen at say $100 for the morning, by the time she hauled in the ingredients, baked the cookies, cooled them on racks, boxed them up, hauled them to the car, and did the requisite clean up, working alone she would have to work very fast to bake a whole lot of cookies to make any kind of serious profit. And she would still not be licensed and inspected to legally sell the cookies.

That's why I think very small operations selling limited quantities should just simply be exempt.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But it does cost on average about $25-30 per hour and there is probably a minimum number of hours that would be involved. So if a baker rented a kitchen at say $100 for the morning, by the time she hauled in the ingredients, baked the cookies, cooled them on racks, boxed them up, hauled them to the car, and did the requisite clean up, working alone she would have to work very fast to bake a whole lot of cookies to make any kind of serious profit. And she would still not be licensed and inspected to legally sell the cookies.

That's why I think very small operations selling limited quantities should just simply be exempt.
Click to expand...

Your argument is incoherent. You describe her needing to make, and I quote
a whole lot of cookies
Click to expand...

and use that to conclude that people who do not bake “a whole lot of cookies“ should be exempted
 
sangha said:
Your argument is incoherent. You describe her needing to make, and I quote


and use that to conclude that people who do not bake “a whole lot of cookies“ should be exempted
Click to expand...

Okay. I don't have time to explain it because we're about to leave the message board world and go watch "Survivor". I'm sure you'll understand.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Okay. I don't have time to explain it because we're about to leave the message board world and go watch "Survivor". I'm sure you'll understand.
Click to expand...

Enjoy

I will look forward to reading your explanation for how this baker, who needs to make “a whole lot of cookies“, should be exempted because she will not be baking “a whole lot of cookies“
 
sangha said:
it can <> it must
Click to expand...

When barriers to entry are discussed, this is exactly the kinds of regulations they mean. In my state, commercial grade cooking equipment is necessary to sell most food types.
 
Mach said:
Those are already waived, not an issue.
Click to expand...

Not in some areas

The Inexplicable War on Lemonade Stands

In Coralville, Iowa police shut down 4-year-old Abigail Krstinger’s lemonade stand after it had been up for half an hour. Dustin Krustinger told reporters that his daughter was selling lemonade at 25 cents a cup during the Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Race Across Iowa (or RAGBRAI), and couldn’t have made more than five dollars, adding “If the line is drawn to the point where a four-year-old eight blocks away can’t sell a couple glasses of lemonade for 25 cents, than I think the line has been drawn at the wrong spot.”

Nearby, mother Bobbie Nelson had her kids’ lemonade stand shutdown as well. Police informed her that a permit would cost $400.
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not in some areas

The Inexplicable War on Lemonade Stands
Click to expand...

I augh when people defend the existence of business licensing or permits.

The government does not need a license or permit to hold businesses accountable.
The government does not need a license or permit to handle health concerns for businesses. Notice how that is pretty much covered by one already?
The government does not need a license or permit to keep track of business finances for taxes. Did you notice how that is technically spying on American citizens?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom