New Hampshire Nannies: Why is the "Live Free or Die" State Banning Fish Pedicures?

The always-expanding Nanny State does more than treat adults like children, it can also smother job creation—even in the "live free or die" state of New Hampshire.

So as the national debate "pivots" from health care to jobs, Reason.tv suggests that politicians looking to"do something" about the stubbornly high unemployment rate first undo the regulations that ensnare entrepreneurs like Kim Ong.

Ong's parents brought her family from Vietnam to the United States in 1985. "They said this is a country of freedom, a country of opportunities," recalls Ong, who took their words to heart and now owns Kim's Spa & Nails in Derry, New Hampshire.

When the recession hit she began looking for new ways to generate business. Her thoughts turned to a luxurious practice that's popular in parts of Asia—fish pedicures.Ong spent over $6,000 to purchase fish and equipment, a big investment for the small business owner. However, her gamble paid off when she saw how much customers loved having their feet exfoliated by tiny fish.

Soon Ong had a waiting list for this hip new service. But instead of hiring more employees, Ong hired a lawyer to plead her case to state regulators who questioned the safety and hygeine of fish pedicures.

Unfortunately for Ong and her customers, New Hampshire's Board of Barbering, Cosmetology, and Esthetics banned the practice.

That's right, the state that lets adults motorcycle without a helmet or drive without a seat belt won't tolerate tiny fish nibbling at the dead skin on your feet.

This is just one small example of a larger problem. Most people have no idea how many local, state, and federal regulations entrepreneurs struggle against, notes Adrian Moore, an economist with Reason Foundation. "Every day new businesses try to start but find out they're not allowed to because of some regulation or it's too expensive because of some regulation," Moore says.

And if the Nanny State is spreading into New Hampshire, the one place we thought was immune to it, we may all be in bigger trouble than we thought.

"New Hampshire Nannies" is written and produced by Ted Balaker, who also hosts. Producer: Hawk Jensen; Associate Producer: Paul Detrick, Additional Camera: Meredith Bragg. Special thanks to Yvonne Hair & Nails in Alexandria, Virginia. Approximately 5.30 minutes long.

Go to http://reason.tv for iPod, HD, and audio versions of this video.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel and receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• reason.tv
• reason.com
• reason.org
• reason magazine
• reason foundation
• nanny state
• fish pedicures
• libertarian
• ted balaker
• hawk jensen
• paul detrick

[XxdementedDOLLXx]

Wow. Of all the things the government worries about, it's fish pedicures.

[dugong369]

yeah, walking barefoot in locker rooms should be illegal, also swimming in lakes, rivers and oceans - they may contain unsanitized fish!!!

[juki0h]

wow, these fish pedicures are used all over the world, how can the government be that stupid!

[laurierchick11]

I've never heard of this before. 

[PrettyTigerlilly]

Regular pedicures are very dangerous, also, if the fish get ill they die so this ban is retarded.

[antiquefeminist]

@asleeperj So, you aren't aware that NH passed a law legalizing gay marriage. It was Democrats who did it, btw. Not your libertarian buddies. They're working with the GOP and the Christian right to overturn the law.

I loathe Ron Paul - but your embrace of him explains why you're trolling a NH website. Paullowers have unlimited time to hassle people on the internet.

[asleeperj]

@antiquefeminist Is this the same free state that has banned fish pedicures? You want a true libertarian, Ron Paul. You guys have a bunch of posers who want to get elected in a state full of independents, who are sick of the single party system we have. Not my fault, I vote true libertarian, not neo cons. New Hampshire was the FIRST state to recognize gay civil unions WITHOUT a legal challenge. Progressives didn't do it, Neo Cons didn't. Who did?

[antiquefeminist]

@asleeperj So that's a yes. You aren't from NH, and therefore you don't know what you're talking about. Are you really suggesting that the members of the legendary Free State Project aren't real libertarians? *Gasp*!

[asleeperj]

@antiquefeminist I do not care who calls themselves libertarian. Again, just because some Neocon calls himself a libertarian does not make him so, just like sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken. Any association that is voluntary should be allowed in a free society. I'll ask, do you believe that individuals should be free as long as they do not infringe upon others right to life, liberty, or property?

[antiquefeminist]

@asleeperj Check out the voting records of the REAL libertarians serving in the NH government. Except that you aren't from NH, are you? That's why you don't get it.

[asleeperj]

@antiquefeminist This is a libertarian video. IE for the real libertarians. Ask a libertarian if the government should be involved in marriages. Any marriages, straight or otherwise. If they really are a libertarian they would say no.