Here are some regulatory bloopers I’ve uncovered recently:
- Burping in church is illegal in Nevada unless it’s accidental.
- In Arkansas, it is illegal to spend more than 5 minutes voting.
- Los Angeles city regulations place a limit of one rooster per household.
- If you buy a burger on a Sunday in Oklahoma, you are legally required to eat it in the restaurant. No takeout or drive-through allowed.
- In Texas, “No person may possess, manufacture, transport, or sell an illicit beverage.” Licit beverages are allowed.
- Reptile sellers in Illinois are required by law to advise customers to not “muzzle or kiss your pet reptile.”
- The Texas House of Representatives once unanimously passed a resolution honoring the Boston Strangler. The resolution’s sponsor wanted to point out to his colleagues that they should read bills before voting on them.
- In 2008, the city of Brighton, Michigan made it illegal to be annoying.
Yesterday, I noted that Portland, Oregon is banning city workers from wearing perfume or cologne. Nevada’s legislature, not to be outdone, is considering restricting or banning pesticides, potpourri, air fresheners, candles, and pretty much anything with a scent in public places.
You can read the bill, AB 234, here. The restrictions on pesticides have to be read to be believed. It doesn’t take much imagination to see regulations that burdensome leading to less pesticide use. That means more pests. It also means public places would be less healthy, not more.
What will legislators go after next in the War on Scent? Body odor? Because there will be a lot more of it in Nevada if this bill passes.
Posted in Nanny State, regulation
Tagged ab 234, body odor, candles, fragrances, nevada, nevada assembly, nevada legislature, paul aizley, potpourri, scent, the war on scent
Want to be a barber in Nevada? You’ll need to get a license first. One of the requirements is a chest X-ray, of all things. And a blood test.
More onerous is the 18-month apprenticeship under a licensed barber, which requires its own license – plus another chest X-ray and blood test.
Occupational licensing regulations are rarely in place to benefit consumers. Their primary purpose is often to limit competition by putting up barriers to entry. Why do this? Because keeping the supply of barbers artificially low means that existing barbers can keep their prices artificially high.
Three of the four licensing board members must be licensed barbers. They write the apprenticeship rules and the license examination. They decide who gets in, and who gets left out. They have plenty of excuses built into the rules for excluding potential competitors.
Owing child support payments, for example, is by itself grounds for exclusion. What this has to do with cutting hair is beyond me. And getting a job cutting hair is one way to be able to make those payments. But there it is, encoded in state law. The board can legally keep you from being a barber if you owe child support.
A sure sign of an anti-competitive practice is using the force of law to prevent competitors from entering the marketplace. Where is the antitrust investigation into Nevada’s barber licensing?
Posted in Antitrust, Regulation of the Day
Tagged absurdities, barbers, certification, child support, nevada, occupational licensing, protectionism, regulation, Regulation of the Day, regulations, x-rays