An iced drink sits next to a laptop computer in use Monday, Feb. 11, 2008, at a Starbucks Corp. store near the University of Washington in Seattle. Starbucks and AT&T Inc. will start offering a mix of free and paid wireless Internet service in most of the international coffee retailer's U.S. shops, beginning this spring. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)
An iced drink sits next to a laptop computer in use Monday, Feb. 11, 2008, at a Starbucks Corp. store near the University of Washington in Seattle. Starbucks and AT&T Inc. will start offering a mix of free and paid wireless Internet service in most of the international coffee retailer's U.S. shops, beginning this spring. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren) Credit: Ted S. Warren—ASSOCIATED PRESS

Most of us love our coffee, especially the iced versions in hot weather. And everyone wants to get his or her money’s worth when sliding that debit card through the card reader at the local cafe.

So what’s a consumer to do when she feels a particular vendor has his thumb on the scale? 

Well, Stacy Pincus, an Illinois woman, has gone to court — suing Starbucks for putting too much ice in her ice coffee, and, she contends, selling her 14 ounces of “drinkable liquid” in what it bills as a 24-ounce “Venti.” 

Maybe this is a symptom of a world that sees too many people trying to make a fast buck through litigation and lotteries or other get-rich-quick schemes rather than through hard work and fair play. Maybe the system is skewed in that direction these days. Sue someone with no real chance of winning because they’ll pay you to go away.

If that’s what American society has come to, it saddens us.

People should be able to sue if they feel someone has legitimately wronged them. The courts should be a place where consumers can take on corporations or other entities that rip off consumers, cause physical or environmental harm and subject workers and others to unnecessary risks.

But diluted coffee? That just isn’t an issue that should tie up the limited time and resources of our public court system. We hope that suits like these will remain outliers and gets tossed out as frivolous to discourage similar suits.

What’s next? Should we sue every time a candy bar shrinks but is cleverly packaged to disguise the fact? 

Maybe Stacy Pincus really isn’t fishing for a quick and easy $5 million but simply hopes her suit will have a chilling effect on other food vendors who shortchange customers. Maybe she isn’t just trying to make a quick buck for herself and her lawyers.

But there’s a better way. For those who feel their coffee is too watery, the remedy doesn’t involve lawyers and tax-funded courts. Simply complain loudly to the merchant, and if that doesn’t work take your business elsewhere.

Make ours a large cup of common sense, hold the legal fees.