Teeth Whitening Without A License
Since I drink coffee like the coffee bean is going extinct, I whiten my teeth whenever I have a few uncaffeinated minutes. This has not caused me to go into a coma or had other horrible side effects. I simply put some whitening stuff into some plastic models of my teeth and put them on for 20 minutes or however long I have.

Well, it turns out that the teeth whitening biz is the latest to get shut down by restrictions meant to help dentists keep the business all their own and the prices high. The Institute for Justice filed a 2011 lawsuit over this. An excerpt from their site:

Dentists routinely charge four times more than non-dentists for teeth-whitening services similar to those Lisa offered. Rather than try to compete by lowering prices or improving their services, the dental cartel is using government power to put their competition out of business.

The U.S. Constitution protects the right to earn an honest living free from unreasonable regulations designed solely to benefit special interests. That's why on November 16, 2011, the Institute for Justice teamed up with Lisa and teeth-whitening entrepreneurs Steve Barraco and Tasos Kariofyllis, owners of Smile Bright, to file a federal constitutional lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut to vindicate their right to earn an honest living.

With Connecticut's unemployment rate at nearly nine percent, this case raises a constitutional question of vital importance: May the government prohibit entrepreneurs from selling safe, over-the-counter products that people use at home every day just to protect a group of politically connected insiders from honest competition?

In the WSJ, IJ's Angela C. Erickson and Paul Sherman write that dozens of states have now passed laws or applied existing ones to shut entrepreneurs out of the teeth whitening biz -- an activity plenty of consumers engage in themselves, at home:

Of the 97 complaints about non-dentist teeth whitening provided to the institute from 17 state agencies, only four came from consumers. All four alleged reversible side effects, like gum inflammation and tooth sensitivity. Academic dental research shows that such side effects are common to all forms of teeth whitening, wherever it is done.

The remaining 93 complaints came from dentists, hygienists, dental boards, associations and anonymous individuals. They didn't allege harm to consumers as a result of commercial on-site whitening. The complaint was that entrepreneurs offering teeth-whitening services are practicing dentistry without a license.

As a result of these unlicensed-practice complaints and pressure from licensed dentists and associations, at least 30 states have taken action against non-dentist teeth-whitening businesses. Some of the states have passed new laws or regulations to ban them from the trade. Others have simply reinterpreted existing laws against the unlicensed practice of dentistry.

These restrictions hurt business owners and consumers. For Keith Westphal, who runs a teeth-whitening location in North Carolina, it means that he is prohibited from expanding his business into Alabama, which outlaws non-dentist teeth whitening. That means fewer job opportunities for Alabamans and higher prices for consumers. The only winners are licensed dentists, some of whom charge six times as much as entrepreneurs like Mr. Westphal for their teeth-whitening services.

What's the solution? First, state dental boards--whose business ought to be protecting public health, not stifling healthy competition--should resist calls by the dental industry to expand the scope of licensed dentistry to include teeth whitening. State boards should halt ad hoc regulatory efforts to shut down teeth-whitening businesses.