Free the Lemonade Three!

In recognition of Lemonade Freedom Day, Will Duffield, Meg McLain and Kathryn Dill decided to sell 10 cent cups of lemonade on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol. Now they face jail time:

Will Duffield, Meg McLain and Kathryn Dill pleaded not guilty in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on Oct. 4 to “sale of goods on U.S. Capitol grounds” — a crime that carries a 180-day maximum prison sentence.

The three face an additional 180 days in jail after refusing to submit to a urine test and being held in contempt of court.

<If you absolutely must, insert lemonade/urine humor here.>

Reason has celebrated the nation's (young) citrus entrepreneurs in quite a few blog posts, and on video as well:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Herb Weinstein||

    In recognition of Lemonade Freedom Day, Will Duffield, Meg McLain and Kathryn Dill decided to sell 10 cent cups of lemonade on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol. Now they face jail time:

    Sounds like a first amendment issue to me.

  • Unfair||

    Why can't we protest without consequences?

  • ||

    What the hell isn't speech with you people?

  • smarter than tulpa||

    Selling lemonade on a regular day.

  • you people||

  • RandomGermanDude||

    A urine test? Why?

  • Greer||

    I'm thinking that the LEOs think that someone selling lemonaide at the Superior Court is probably high. But, that's my take on it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    When it comes to arbitrary state thuggery, the question is never why, but why not?

  • RandomGermanDude||

    Yeah, I kinda figured. Still am astounded everytime I read shit like that on this blog.

  • NotSure||

    Have you read Animal Farm, if not I suggest you do, it best describes exactly what will happen should these people have their way.

    Any person who calls themselves a libertarian while at the same time endorsing these people is an idiot. Wearing a Guy Fawkes mask is infantile, all it means is that you are willing to be a useful idiot to the people that really will gain power should this go anywhere, and those people are 100% not libertarians.

  • Skr||

    Because if they refuse you have an extra 180 days of leverage?

  • Iron Rule #9||

    You're not free unless you have the freedom to sell lemonade.

  • NotSure||

    Have you read Animal Farm, if not I suggest you do, it best describes exactly what will happen should these people have their way.

    Any person who calls themselves a libertarian while at the same time endorsing these people is an idiot. Wearing a Guy Fawkes mask is infantile, all it means is that you are willing to be a useful idiot to the people that really will gain power should this go anywhere, and those people are 100% not libertarians.

  • ||

    Mock not the Iron Laws.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    A new Iron Law? Perhaps the zeroth law?

  • ||

    On someone else's property?

  • ||

    Their property - the sovereign people. Asshole.

  • Agent for the Man||

    The national pee reserves have reached dangerously low levels. Give pee today. It's patriotic!

  • Robinson–Patman Act||

    Lemonade 10 cents? Hers was fifty: predatory pricing

  • ||

    Raw milk is also illegal.
    Could you sell regular milk there? I suspect not.
    Lemonade stands on top of that.

    Milk, milk, lemonade.

  • Oopsy!||

    FRESNO, Calif. — Dozens of foreign insects and plant diseases slipped undetected into the United States in the years after 9/11, when authorities were so focused on preventing another attack that they overlooked a pest explosion that threatened the quality of the nation's food supply.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/nation.....97662.html

  • Oopsy!||

    A look at the damage:

    — No fewer than 19 Mediterranean fruit fly infestations took hold in California, and the European grapevine moth triggered spraying and quarantines across wine country.

    — The Asian citrus psyllid, which can carry a disease that has decimated Florida orange groves, crossed the border from Mexico, threatening California's $1.8 billion citrus industry.

    — New Zealand's light brown apple moth also emerged in California, prompting the government in 2008 to bombard the Monterey Bay area with 1,600 pounds of pesticides. The spraying drew complaints that it caused respiratory problems and killed birds. Officials spent $110 million to eradicate the moth, but it didn't work.

    — The sweet orange scab, a fungal disease that infects citrus, appeared in Florida, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, which all imposed quarantines.

    — Chili thrips, rice cutworms and the plant disease gladiolus rust also got into Florida, which saw a 27 percent increase in new pests and pathogens between 2003 and 2007.

    — The erythrina gall wasp decimated Hawaii's wiliwili trees, which bear seeds used to make leis.

    — Forests from Minnesota to the Northeast were also affected by beetles such as the emerald ash borer, many of which arrived in Chinese shipping pallets because regulations weren't enforced.

  • jasno||

    After reading a few Ron 'Cane Toad' Bailey articles I was under the impression that Reason supports such 'diversification' efforts.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    You realize that the vast majority of flora and fauna on the island of Hawaii was directly or indirectly imported by man. The endemic species were some grasses and a bug or two (ants, always the ants).

  • No||

    Incorrect, Hawaii is in a major sea bird migration route.

  • sevo||

    Which means the birds that show up are fugitive.

  • sevo||

    So we're all gonna DIE!?

  • ||

    Haven't you heard? It's all due to global warming.

  • Skeletroll||

    Every time I hear about global warming I think of Al Gore singing Coolavin:

    Long, long ago the Elves were everywhere
    Taking care of the Earth
    Till the humans came, they had to go underground
    Back to the place of their birth

    The Dagda said to take the magic
    Hide it where it couldn't be found
    Keep it safe from humankind
    In the sacred faerie mound

    We need an elf to watch the gates
    To let no humans in
    Till its safe for them to share with us
    The Magic that's within…

  • The Legend of John Fox||

    He leaves his DNA
    At every place he stays,
    So don't drink what you think is apple juice,
    Or eat the mayonnaise.

  • DJF||

    “sale of goods on U.S. Capitol grounds”

    But I can still rent a Congressman or Senator right?

  • Paul||

    But I can still rent a Congressman or Senator right?

    Not for 10 cent you can't. Gonna cost you at least fitty.

  • DJF||

    fitty, no way, 2-bits maybe, but only if they mow my lawn too.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    "YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!"

  • sevo||

    "But I can still rent a Congressman or Senator right?"

    Yeah, but no griping about the smell.

  • chrispy||

    Is KMW an anarchist? I was under the impression that she was not.

    It seems perfectly clear that the accused were in fact selling goods on the capitol grounds, and if that is illegal, then they're guilty. This may be a stupid law, but I find it hard to justify the outrage over its enforcement when you've already given the government the authority to create laws in the first place.

  • Hugh Akston||

    "If you give the government the power to pass laws, then you have no right to complain about any law they, in fact, pass."

    Congratulations, that is the dumbest shit I have read all day, and I've spent the morning reading all about Occupados.

  • chrispy||

    Perhaps you could expand on your argument a little. Does the government have the authority to pass laws? Should those laws be enforced? Should they be enforced consistently?

    Of course anyone has the right to complain about anything they want. I just think it's hypocritical to claim the government has the authority to create laws and also complain that they go ahead and do so.

  • Greer||

    You're new here, aren't you? Find out where they fuck you are before making lame argurments like that.

  • chrispy||

    I'm not new, although I don't post much. I don't understand your second sentence at all, so I can't reply.

  • ||

    So... if I'm reading you right, you're an anarchist because any other philosophy leads to government creating laws you will not agree with?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So, chrispy... tell us where breaking this particular law, merits mandatory urine samples from the suspects.

  • sevo||

    "Of course anyone has the right to complain about anything they want. I just think it's hypocritical to claim the government has the authority to create laws and also complain that they go ahead and do so."

    Hint:
    No where in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence does it say:
    "All *laws* are created equal"

  • ||

    So, once the government is given authority to pass any law, ALL of its laws are perfect? That's weird to me.

    The notion that every law must be enforced with mindless consistency is one of the many reasons that the State should simply be done away with.

  • ||

    I think he's on the same page as you, just coming at it from a different angle. He's accusing KMW for being a hypocrite for not being an anarchist, yet criticizing a law.

    Something like any consent to be governed automatically gives consent for all laws passed under that governance.

  • Greer||

    yeah, selling lemonaide on OUR propety is anarchy.

  • chrispy||

    This is confusing. My point isn't that selling lemonade is anarchy. My point is that it's weird to be in favor of some laws and also to be selectively against some other laws.

    It seems much less outrageous to me that the government should ban the sale of lemonade in a certain area compared to (for example) taking 20% of someone's income.

  • Greer||

    I've got nothing.

  • ||

    My point is that it's weird to be in favor of some laws and also to be selectively against some other laws.

    No it's not, it's perfectly normal.

  • ||

    Law I favor: Prohibition of murder.

    Law I am against: Prohibition of pot.

    Doesn't seem weird to me.

  • sevo||

    Yeah, but you're weird that way.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, RC, you're just a scamp!

  • ||

    If you're for spending money on police, you should be for full-on communism!!!1! /trollage

  • Mr Whipple||

    My point is that it's weird to be in favor of some laws and also to be selectively against some other laws.

    Does somebody need a Red Bull?

    I'm in favor of the law against murder, but I'm against the law banning marijuana.

    Hint: One is a "victimless crime" and one initiates the use of force.

    No victim, no crime.

  • Nelson M||

    victimless crime
    Like punching someone in the dark!

  • Another Phil||

    My point is that it's weird to be in favor of some laws and also to be selectively against some other laws.

    Huh?

  • ||

    "There are laws that enslave men. And laws that set them free."

    Sean Connery, "First Knight"

  • ||

    These people don't own the US Capitol.

  • sevo||

    Satire?
    Yes, they do.

  • ||

    Shouldn't they be shooting all those trespassers then?

    Public property is not owned by individual members of the public. It is formally owned by the community as a whole but for all intents and purposes is managed by the government. If everyone could treat it as their own property there would be chaos.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Agreeing that public property can still be subject to some regulation, for the benefit of order; I still don't see what the point is of banning the sale of goods inside. Sales don't have to be disruptive or dangerous.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Agreeing that public property can still be subject to some regulation, for the benefit of order; I still don't see what the point is of banning the sale of goods inside. Sales don't have to be disruptive or dangerous.

  • Sailor||

  • ||

    The three face an additional 180 days in jail after refusing to submit to a urine test and being held in contempt of court.

    Orders were followed.

    Threats were mitigated.

    Terrorists were neutralized.

    Jobs were saved justified.

    et c

    et c

    et c

  • ||

    “sale of goods on U.S. Capitol grounds”

    "Are you trying to turn this hallowed ground into some sort of middle eastern bazaar? If you have something to sell, get your permit like everybody else and do it inside the Capitol; we have traditions to uphold."

  • ||

    I was thinking it was something like, "If you want sell your ass here, get yourself elected like everyone else."

  • ||

    Ron Paul/Mojo Nixon 2012

    Most excellent.

  • Sailor||

    It just might get me to the polls

  • juris imprudent||

    And nothing else happened! (tm)

  • ||

    C-

  • ||

    Somebody turns into Mr. Crankypants when he doesn't have a boot to lick.

    Don't worry, tiger, I'm sure the nice policemen will be over tomorrow for their weekly shoe shine. You'll have all the jackboots you can lick!

  • NotSure||

    Those little girls clearly are part of the 1% and are thus an enemy of the people.

  • ||

    Mojo is ranting in the background right now (via the magic of satellite radio).

    I cannot think of another American better suited to be president of the United States Senate.

  • ||

    "Just put some gin and a cherry in it, and you won't know the difference."

  • Private Idaho||

    In recognition of Lemonade Freedom Day, gullible activists Will Duffield, Meg McLain and Kathryn Dill...

    ...got their asses busted. Said Duffield, a part-time student and street performer, "Dude, somebody tweeted about Lemonade Freedom Day and we wanted to stick it to the man. And then they busted our asses! They got some law against it. Dude!"

  • Mr Whipple||

    I checked Meg's FB page and found this, if anybody is interested:

    http://meg4ronpaul.chipin.com/.....b68ae2ecfa

    and this:

    http://megmclain.com/2011/10/0.....-detailed/

    Amazing.

    But I've said it before, and I'll say it again, never go to any court without a private attorney.

  • ||

    Out in the hallway, Eddie was able to ask the prosecutor how he feels about putting peaceful people in cages. He replied something to the effect of, “Those white suburban kids need to learn they are not above the law.”

    That's straight up racist.

  • ||

    I wonder if there is case law where the act of selling is considered "speech" in the right context. This is clearly "speech".

    Of course, there may be "free speech zone" issues, but it seems they weren't arrested for that.

    And the piss test is pure bollocks.

  • ||

    I'm mystified by why there isn't an absolute right under the 5th Amendment to refuse to piss in a cup for the cops free of any sanction or punishment.

  • nicole||

    Yeah, me too.

    Oh, just kidding. I'm totally not. Everyone knows the Bill of Rights is suspended for operations in the War on Drugs.

  • ||

    There is such a right, unless you are engaging in a licensed activity where intoxication can be dangerous. I hope you're not opining that requiring jumbo jet pilots to undergo drug tests is unconstitutional.

    In any case, if you RTFA, technically the urine test was a substitute for going to trial for disorderly conduct / disobeying an officer. If you don't want to take the urine test then you go to trial, it's not a sanction or a punishment.

  • sevo||

    "If you don't want to take the urine test then you go to trial, it's not a sanction or a punishment."

    Satire? Or stupidity?

  • ||

    Look, sevo has another content-free reply. Color me shocked.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/10.....e-trouble/

    "First of all, we want to go to trial because we feel we’ve done nothing illegal," McLain said. "Second, it’s a Fourth Amendment issue: We shouldn’t be compelled to hand over samples of our urine if we’ve done nothing to give probable cause of drug use."

    Are we going to stand by idly while these pig-fuckers find yet another shallow-assed excuse to do drug tests?

    I wouldn't take that deal either, Tulpa, and anyone who did would be a fool.

  • Anwar al Awlaki's ghost||

    Why didn't they give me that option?

  • sevo||

    How do you know you're not the boss' favorite prosecutor?
    You get assigned to *this* case.....

  • ||

    "Go ahead, punk, make my day.

    "Start dancing."

  • reasonable proposition||

    Hey Reason, you should implement some sort of comment rating system, like reddit uses. Or even better some sort of collaboration where reason has its own subreddit mirroring all your posts and a 'comment on reddit' link at the bottom of each article/video. Just an idea.. I think it could be a really useful feature

  • Nelson M||

    -199999

  • reasonable proposition||

    why not?

  • Nelson M||

    shut up and watch Lingo

  • ||

    The last thing in the world we need is an influx of redditards coming here. We have enough retarded trolls as it is.

  • Nelson M||

    +199999

  • Nelson M||

    +199999

  • reasonable proposition||

    K that makes sense, but would you agree that the commenting system could definitely use an overhaul?

  • ||

    We had one, just one, glorious day when the comment section was as it should be: free!

    There was color, so many colors, and blink-tags, Oh the wonderful blink-tags...

    But the Kochtopus was having none of that, so we're stuck with the system we've got. And complaining will only bring about more vicious beatings.

  • Sailor||

    A website overhaul would obviously cut into the nice salaries of our favorite Reason writers. I mean they really need 100plus a year.

    I guess that is what the market pays for what they offer. I don't know.

  • ||

    A couple of years ago Reason had a reader satisfaction poll where you could make your complaints heard concerning the comment section. Despite all of the bitching people generally liked the way it was.

    Besides, Reason has so many doodads and gizmos slowing it down that any more, coupled with a Palin, thread could shut this site down permanently.

  • Dr Marvin Munroe||

    As John's General Practitioner, a Palin thread is not advisable at this time.

  • nicole||

    Besides, if anyone listened to the commenters, this shit would not be threaded.

    Oh, my dear, dear unthreaded comments...how I miss you.

  • Dr. Gonzo||

    As your attorney, I advise you to take a hit out of the little brown bottle in my shaving kit. You won't need much, just a tiny taste.

  • Skeletroll||

    Illicit lemonade?

  • ||

    The commenting system was overhauled to make it threaded about two years ago. Though it seems like it should be an improvement, threaded comments made discussions much harder to follow, and gave trolls the opportunity to shit all over threads, whereas before, you could only post at the bottom. There are a number of people here, such as P Brooks, who refuse to use them regardless.

    Adding more shit to the commenting system will make it worse, not better.

  • ||

    I like how Slate used to have their comment section set up. Each story had a section where you could start a topic and in that folder would be a conversation, kinda like a subthread. You could scroll the subthreads folders for interesting topics and to see when a new comment was added. Of course, Slate commenters are half 'tard, so there's that.

  • Threaded Comments||

    It's a chat room. Everybody knows it.

  • Sailor||

    I like retards and trolls. But only b/c I then feel better about myself, most times.

  • reasonable proposition||

    Also I feel like the main audience for this site and thus commenting would already be libertarian leaning and have more intelligible things to say than the average redditor

  • ||

    In past experience, whenever a reason story has been linked by some outside, heavy volume site, the end result has been an influx of retards for that post.

    Constant linking to reddit, which is very heavy volume (when Amazon cloud services are working, ha), will inevitably result in a ton of retards coming here. For every libertarian leaner on reddit, there are 10 full retards from TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE.

  • nicole||

    And 10 half-retard libertarian-leaners who are more clueless than is worth dealing with. Epi and I can only explain that we are anarchists so many times before passing out in frustration. (At least that's what happens to me.)

  • Hugh Akston||

    So wait, you're in favor of some laws, but against other laws? Because I don't understand that.

  • ||

    It is weird.

  • ||

    I can only explain that we are anarchists so many times before passing out in frustration

    Not only that, but we have to fight with our own resident anti-anarchists like The Commodore and John while doing it.

  • nicole||

    And now I feel I should commit some kind of seppuku in honor of my generation now that I know The Commodore is in it. At least with John you can write some off to age.

  • ||

    Not only that, but we have to fight with our own resident anti-anarchists like The Commodore and John while doing it.

    Someone call a waaaaaaambulance for the anachrists. Someone is being mean and arguing against their ideas.

    "Who's the fucking nihilist here?! What a bunch of crybabies!"

  • ||

    For every libertarian leaner on reddit in life, there are 10 full retards from TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE.

    Joking aside, what episarch says is true, and every one of those retards think that they are the first person to use 'loserdopians' to describe Reason readers.

  • Warty||

    FOR A MAGAZINE CALLED REASON YALL ARE FAGOTS

  • ||

    PWN'D

  • Warty||

    New trolls would be acceptable if they replaced the old ones, though. Rectal and her White Indian sockpuppet are very old at this point, and the Tony joke has been beaten into the ground.

  • ||

    Well, I think it's acceptable if better trolls replace worse trolls. But that isn't what seems to happen, because our current crop are the worst pieces of shit I've ever seen.

    Can you believe that we used to have LoneMoron, Dick Hoste, etc., and now we fucking have rectal, all the myriad sockpuppets she runs, and Tony?

    Man, our standards have plummeted.

  • Warty||

    I miss Dick Hoste. We never got to dick him before he dicked us.

  • ||

    Not as much as he misses you.

  • Funny||

    Shitty Epi gets shitty trolls. Life is so unfair. Whaaa!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Just go to reddit already and leave us in peace.

  • sevo||

    "Hey Reason, you should implement some sort of comment rating system,"

    Already here.
    Just read the replies. But then you have to read rather than count the clicks.

  • sevo||

    Oops.
    I see P Brooks kinda beat me to it.

  • ||

    "Hey, reason; I can't figure out how to tell good comments from bad ones. Tell me what to think."

  • Nelson M||

    +0.199999

  • reasonable proposition||

    Sorry to offed you guys, just an idea I feel is worth thinking about

  • Nelson M||

    Shut up and watch the Rosie Show

  • ||

    Sweet Cthulhu, s/he is being amiable. There is no reason to be a dick. Save it for the people who deserve it.

  • PantsFan||

    What we should have is a 'confirm post' button where you have to answer a skill testing question that only a monacled top-hat wearing mustache stroking libertarian can answer.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    ewww, that's not a mustache!

  • ||

    Geez, a piss test for selling lemonade. The only thing crazier than that is watching our resident statists trying to defend it, because everything the State does is glorious and right!

  • ||

    What a fucking racket. Fuck the District, fuck the federales, and fuck licensing regimes.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Yeah, it probably is a racket. The court and probation department probably have a deal with a private drug screening company, where the court is required to provide a certain number of screenings per month.

  • Dan||

    This is so crazy.

    I'm having a harder and harder time commenting on reason blog because it is just more and more crazy.

    No comment can top jail time for selling lemonade and refusing a piss test.

  • ||

    Let's just, pause a moment, and wallow in the utter cruel idiocy of a year in jail for selling lemonade and refusing a piss test.

    A year. In jail.

  • nicole||

    When you put it that way...can't people challenge this stuff on cruel and unusual punishment grounds? I mean, srsly.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    What do you care? Aren't the words of the Constitution meaningless babble to the anarchist crowd? Maybe you can take up arms and go see if your gang can take their gang.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It is a waste of jail resources. Save that space for people who commit fraud, or murder, or armed robbery, or acts of Congress.

  • ||

    I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "maximum" in the phrase "maximum sentence". And if you RTFA you'll see that the piss test was offered to get them out of the disorderly conduct charge, it's not a charge in itself.

  • sevo||

    "And if you RTFA you'll see that the piss test was offered to get them out of the disorderly conduct charge, it's not a charge in itself."

    So if they yield the 5th protections, the loving government will look kindly on them?
    Satire or stupidity? You decide.

  • ||

    Submitting to a drug test is not "yielding the 5th [amendment's] protections." Any more than talking to a cop during a traffic stop or testifying at your trial is.

    The 5th proscribes COERCED self-incrimination, not that which is freely chosen. Once you break the law you accept the punishments for your lawbreaking. It's not coercion for the govt to offer you a deal to lessen the punishment that you have earned by your choices.

  • Funny||

    Reading is hard, Tulpa. The Chicago Seven "Lemonade Three" [snigger] haven't even been sentenced, yet the peanut gallery has them doing hard time in Leavenworth. Behold the power of propaganda...and stupidity.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It's a false choice, Tulpa... if these clearly non-violent people consent to a urine test, they are giving up a piece of their humanity.

    This isn't about piloting jet planes while doing brain surgery... it was a bullshit arrest, and the DA is just trying to make life shit for these people.

    Totally un-called for.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I am confused - how is this a bullshit arrest? Vending on those public grounds is not permitted. You may have questions about the wisdom of that law, but is there any question in your mind that they did break this law?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It's bullshit because it was an UNNECESSARY arrest, Rev. It was done To Make an Example. Period.

    Hey, in my town there's an ordinance requiring me to take down a yard sale sign in a timely fashion; if I fail to meet the deadline, would you be comfortable with me having to pony up proof of drug use?

    THAT, is double-bullshit. The crime was for selling something on public property, which is totally unrelated to drug use.

    Get it now?

  • Funny||

    Mr. FIFY|10.11.11 @ 12:50AM|#
    It [the arrest] was done To Make an Example.

    Like the act of selling lemonade where selling is prohibited was done to "make an example." Hey kids, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Gosh, Funny, you're just a bag o' fuckin' sunshine.

  • ||

    If I start selling lemonade in front of a mattress store, on their property, without their permission, and refuse to stop and refuse to leave, would you consider my inevitable arrest to be "bullshit"? It's basically the same thing. The property is open to the public and there are no competition issues.

    I mean, you guys are actually arguing that it would be less despicable for the govt to give them no option to reduce their (possible) sentence.

  • ||

    you guys are actually arguing that it would be less despicable for the govt to give them no option to reduce their (possible) sentence.

    The argument is whether or not running a simple lemonade stand is criminal activity and should the party involved be subject to an unreasonable search and seizure for a perfectly acceptable method of commerce.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    The argument is whether or not running a simple lemonade stand is criminal activity

    No. That is not up for debate. It is criminal. Whether it should be may be the question...

    should the party involved be subject to an unreasonable search and seizure for a perfectly acceptable method of commerce.

    Begging two questions at once - whether the search is unreasonable AND whether the commerce is acceptable are both up for debate. Nice try stealing two more bases.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If no force or fraud was used, let the punishment fit the crime.

    And that includes not having to piss in a fucking cup as a condition of a lighter sentence for a NON-drug-related offense.

  • ||

    Trespassing and adverse use of others' property is force.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And offering a lighter sentence if a drug test is taken - for a non-drug-related offense - isn't a use of force in itself?

    Proportionality, Tulpa. Seriously.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "you guys are actually arguing that it would be less despicable for the govt to give them no option to reduce their (possible) sentence"

    In my case, it's HOW the option is "given" (or, more correctly, how the bribe is dangled like a heavenly carrot from our betters).

    How about NO jail time, instead?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Is it satire or stupidity, sevo, that you meant a different Amendment?

    Oooh, joez law fuckin' smarts, dunnit?

  • ||

    One could argue that forced drug tests violate the 5th's prohibition on persons being "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", and I think sevo is referring to that argument. Personally, I think that forcing someone to urinate so that you can test the urine would violate this right, but collecting urine from a freely chosen urination (which is inevitably going to happen with no compulsion) would not. The latter case is no different from sampling blood that is on your skin or clothes when you're suspected of murder.

    Of course, the fifth amendment doesn't have exceptions for probable cause or warrants, so that's why anti-drug-test people would want to push that argument.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Where is the probable cause here?

    "You sold goods on public property" is pretty thin syrup for that stack of wheatcakes.

  • ||

    There's no need. The drug test would be voluntary.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It's only "voluntary" in the sense that, should they refuse, they run the risk of a harsher punishment.

    It's bribery, is what it is.

  • ||

    No, they run the risk of getting the punishment they incurred by their illegal actions. Big diff, scro.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    But that risk is only mitigated IF they give up a piss sample for a crime where drugs are not even part of the equation.

    Why are you defending this?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Um... why did you call me "scro"?

  • Meg McLain||

    No, actually we were ordered to take the piss test by the judge, so we could be entered into a defferment program, meaning our charge would remian, but not be prosecuted (unless we are arrested in the near future). However, we actually want to goto trial, so we refused the drug test, meaning we are now in violation of a court order (and face a possible contempt charge, that carries 6months in jail and a $1000 fine). We had NO CHOICE. It was take the piss test or face jail time for refusing.

  • Meg McLain||

    actually, you're wrong. the piss test was a mandatory condition set by the judge at our first hearing. we had not been found guilty of anything, but were told we HAD to take a urine test or we would be charged with a new crime, "contempt of court". that is an additional charge, added to our other charges, none of which we had been found guilty of. however, to refuse the test is an almost automatic guilty verdict of the "contempt of court" charge, with a max of 180 days in jail for that charge alone.

  • ||

    Tulpa, your density rivals lead. The point is "Why was the piss test necessary and why were these beverage merchants being hassled in the first place?"

    Jeepers, what could be more "American" than running a lemonade stand!?

    Only in your mind would selling lemonade rise to the level of disorderly conduct.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    So the American public should just be able to open a flea market in the local courthouse then? Because if you are going to carry this "do what thou wilt" to the logical conclusion with respect to "public property" then hells bells guess I get to sit on the bench for a while and make fart noises at the jury.

    Jesus, do you think?

  • Funny||

    What the anarcho-libertarians want is to be able to do whatever they please, whenever they please, with no rules or consequences or adults telling them that they can't. You know, like whim-driven two-year-olds.

  • ||

    I wouldn't go that far. Two year olds certainly don't subscribe to the non-aggression principle.

    I stick to arguing about arguments, not people. Maybe that's why you love me.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Not Funny.

  • ||

    So the American public should just be able to open a flea market in the local courthouse then?

    Yes. Next?

    Because if you are going to carry this "do what thou wilt" to the logical conclusion with respect to "public property"

    Logic FAIL. Assuming the conclusion and a Slippery Slope combo platter.

    then hells bells guess I get to sit on the bench for a while and make fart noises at the jury.

    Far be it from me to pass judgement on your proclivities and odd projections.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Yes. Next?

    Like, in the courtroom? During trials?

    OK - way to not be the adult in the conversation.

    Logic FAIL. Assuming the conclusion and a Slippery Slope combo platter.

    Care to tell me on what principle you would block certain actions on public grounds but not other certain actions? And how your scheme is somehow less arbitrary than this one?

  • ||

    Like, in the courtroom? During trials?

    You specified making Bronx cheers whilst in the courtroom. I did not. If you want to do so, fine. I personally wouldn't attempt to sell trinkets during a trial, as that could prove a distraction for the parties involved.

    Care to tell me on what principle you would block certain actions on public grounds but not other certain actions? And how your scheme is somehow less arbitrary than this one?

    Specify "certain", your vagueness.

    It isn't. However, the guiding principle here is "Do the actions negatively affect another party in an actionably harmful way?"

    Selling plain ole lemonade in a public square does not rise to this standard.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I personally wouldn't attempt to sell trinkets during a trial, as that could prove a distraction for the parties involved.

    Selling trinkets during trial - outlawed? Yes or no? No waffling, no attempts at anarchist doublespeak; have the courage of your convictions.

    However, the guiding principle here is "Do the actions negatively affect another party in an actionably harmful way?"

    Huh...that sure is a lot of vague terms you're tossing about. I bet that stuff like "negatively", "affect", "actionably harmful" (forget for a second that that phrase begs the question!) are tough to define.

  • ||

    Selling trinkets during trial - outlawed? Yes or no?

    Determined by the judge, it's his or her courtroom. I would not sell trinkets in the courtroom; the distraction could have a negative impact on the trial and cause demonstrable harm to the presentation of the parties involved. Again, you specified courthouse, and selling baubles in the halls of a courthouse, a problem with I have not.

    Huh...that sure is a lot of vague terms you're tossing about. I bet that stuff like "negatively", "affect", "actionably harmful" (forget for a second that that phrase begs the question!) are tough to define.

    Show me where harm demonstrably occurred because of where the stand was located and the sale of lemonade.

  • ||

    One guy making fart noises for 15 seconds in a courtroom wouldn't cause any significant harm. But once you let one guy make fart noises for 15 seconds you have to let anyone who wants make fart noises at every courtroom, every day, which WOULD be disruptive.

    Similarly, if we allow these folks to sell lemonade on capitol grounds we must allow anyone to sell anything they want, even if they fill the lawn with their stands. Which would severely disrupt the functioning of the Capitol as the seat of government.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Which would severely disrupt the functioning of the Capitol as the seat of government

    Is there a downside to this scenario?

  • ||

    Yes. Next?

    I'll pull a sevo here and just gape in disbelief. Satire?

  • ||

    Satire?

    Hardly. Imagine if a group of Girl Scouts decided to set up a booth in the halls of the courthouse and sell cookies. Wouldn't you buy a box of Do-si-Dos from some cheerful doe-eyed girl scouts while walking to pay a court fine?

    Or, more to your liking, off duty plain clothes were selling raffle tickets or bars of chocolate for the Policeman's Ball? Or for charity, like a fellow cop's critically ill child?

  • ||

    I only buy do-si-does from consenting adults. I don't want to have to live under a bridge after I get out of jail, yo.

  • ||

    I only buy do-si-does from consenting adults. I don't want to have to live under a bridge after I get out of jail, yo.

    And you accuse me of satire, you prune requiring, plant cellulose deficient jester.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Does the punishment fit the crime, in this instance?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    What was that punishment, exactly?

  • ||

    180 days is the MAXIMUM sentence. Which they almost certainly won't get for selling 10c lemonade.

    It's more directed at memorabilia sellers I suspect.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Okay, Rev, if you insist on correct verbiage:

    If convicted, will the punishment (of ANY jail time, let alone three months) fit the crime in question here?

    Of course, the separate argument of "If you pee in this cup, we *might* cut you a deal, dirtbags" argument being "given" to these low-grade scofflaws FAR outstrips what they actually *did*.

    It's like getting jail time for jaywalking AND having to pony up piss.

  • ||

    The point is "Why was the piss test necessary and why were these beverage merchants being hassled in the first place?"

    The piss test isn't necessary. Whatever my density (thx btw doc) at least I noticed that the piss test isn't being compelled, which puts me at a more rarified state than most of the peeps here (including KMW apparently).

    Jeepers, what could be more "American" than running a lemonade stand!?

    Ah, here's the problem. It mirrors the snowball fight thread quite nicely. You remember lemonade stands fondly from your youth (like snowball fights) as a wonderful innocent bag of fun, and this blinds you to the sober realities of this situation -- primarily, that this lemonade stand was situated on property that did not belong to the operators and whose owner's agent (the government acting on behalf of the people) had made expressly clear that goods were not to be sold there.

    Only in your mind would selling lemonade rise to the level of disorderly conduct.

    Not even in my mind! Selling lemonade violated the law against selling goods on Capitol grounds. You can't possibly be "dense" enough to have missed this...even KMW's carefully excised quote included that information. The disorderly conduct charge is separate, probably added on for what the stand operators did when told to close up shop.

    It's times like this I'm glad I don't need doctors anymore. Like this morning, I had a situation that 20 years ago would have required a doctor visit...but in 2011, I just typed in "green poop" to Google and within 90 seconds breathed a sigh of relief as I realized it was just the 4 liters of grape soda I drank yesterday. Nyaaaah, no rectal exam for you.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Like I said earlier... it's a false choice. Get a lighter sentence by forking over bodily fluids when the crime in question had nothing to do with drug use... or roll the dice on spending ANY time in jail.

    It's bad enough this [technically a] crime is going this far, considering what the crime in question really is. Adding insult to that - by way of forking over human waste products to prove... what, exactly? - is total bullshit, Tulpa.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    BTW, there is no comparison to the "snowball fight" story from last winter, as no one was attacking anyone with cups of lemonade.

  • ||

    Trespassing is a form of attack according to libertarian dogma.

  • Funny||

    Punishment fitting the crime, Tulpa. Remember?

    If they had set fire to the trees, hell yeah toss 'em in jail for a few months.

    What's wrong with a little proportionality?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Shit, forgot to change names. Squirrels in my late-night beverage.

  • ||

    at least I noticed that the piss test isn't being compelled

    Hmmm. Being threatened with arrest and jail time isn't compulsion?

    this lemonade stand was situated on property that did not belong to the operators

    Public property? Those merchants are members of the "the public", no?

    Selling lemonade violated the law against selling goods on Capitol grounds.

    The soundness of the law is the crux of this argument.

    You can't possibly be "dense" enough to have missed this...even KMW's carefully excised quote included that information. The disorderly conduct charge is separate

    I didn't. The valid charge followed from a capriciously applied and unnecessary law, therefore rendering the charge invalid.

    It's times like this I'm glad I don't need doctors anymore.

    Ah! You must have a fine sewing kit for your WebMD driven home appendectomy kit.

    Like this morning, I had a situation that 20 years ago would have required a doctor visit...but in 2011, I just typed in "green poop" to Google and within 90 seconds breathed a sigh of relief as I realized it was just the 4 liters of grape soda I drank yesterday. Nyaaaah, no rectal exam for you

    Why you persist in your weird DRE fantasies is beyond me. Your boat, whatever floats it.

    Green poop. Yes, only 4L of Nehi could have caused that. Did you include your entire meal selections of the last 24 hrs?

    Did you also perform a GUIAC test on your stool? Occult blood is not visible to the naked eye, and certainly not to Google.

    If that is the routine amount of Grape Nehi you're chugging, have fun Googling your way out of possible kidney stones, Dr. DIY.

  • ||

    Occult blood is not visible to the naked eye, and certainly not to Google.

    Dude, I don't partake in satanic sacrifices. I think that question was actually on the form I had to fill out at the doctor's last time, between the one about seat belts and the one about asbestos buttplugs.

  • ||

    Dude, I don't partake in satanic sacrifices.

    That was so painfully and ridiculously amusing, I couldn't help but laugh.

    Almost as silly as arresting people for selling harmless lemonade.

  • ||

    And google has a ton of hits for kidney stone remedies, thx. Anus candling, herbs of Wu-Tang, and Haverhills has an ultrasound-emitting girdle if all else fails.

  • ||

    Anus candling, herbs of Wu-Tang, and Haverhills has an ultrasound-emitting girdle if all else fails.

    Caveat emptor, DIY'er.

  • What's next?||

    Public canings?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Don't give anyone ideas. These alleged criminals are in enough shit as it is.

  • Funny||

    They must pay for their heinous crimes!

  • ||

    Responding to yourself with an assumed name? That should be illegal.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I figured that's how he would have replied. Roll of the dice.

    At least I won't go to jail for it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Okay, Tulpa - and anyone else of a like mind - what would you have done if you were Mayor Bloomberg, and the permits for the ridiculous OWS protests ran out?

    a. Jail every one of the fuckers for breaking the law

    a1. Piss-test every goddamn one of 'em while we're at it

    b. Do what Bloomberg did, and ignore the elapsed permits

    c. Not issue permits in the first place

    Okay... pencils down. Let's see those scores.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Bonus question:

    Should every lawbreaker - from serial killer all the way down to letting the parking meter expire - be forced to give a urine sample, as a bribe leading to a possible lighter judgement?

  • Skeletroll||

    Only if they're hawt.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    This seems to be the best place to me that is still on the main page to post a nomination for Nanny of the Month

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....rules.html

    clickable link

    I wonder when they are going to also link these to global warming.

  • lemonade/urine jokes?||

  • Sheriff Sonny-Bubba Mark||

    When I read articles about hardened criminals like these, I gotta tell you: I just don't understand all the resistance we're getting on militarization of the police force.

  • twenty-something||

    Did I miss something because I'm confused as to what a urine test has to do with selling lemonade illegally. Is there some crime involving selling lemonade under the influence?

  • Sheriff Sonny-Bubba Mark||

    You sassin' the law?

    That there's evidence and we gonna use it.

    Now, either urine or yer out!

    Hardened criminals just flauntin' the law and he gonna bring up all that..."lemonade day" and tomorrow they'll be a-cookin' up crystal meth...

  • Nike Dunk High Women||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement