Laws you disagree with?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Dragonclaw:

Legalizing drugs...ONLY and I repeat ONLY in the privacy of one's own home, but regulate it's content, regulate where it can be sold, tax it, just like alcohol, I'd go as far as imposing MUCH steeper fines for DUI and being under the influence in public but what you do in the privacy of your own home is not my concern...

So you are saying that someone who is high in public would still be breaking the law?

My biggest one is the Patriot act. It violates the Constitution in numerous ways. It's a disgusting bill that should never have been considered, and it's implications scare me. Aside from that, many people have already mentioned drug laws, gay marriage, the hipocrasy of the availability of alchol and tobacco, three strikes, really any victimless laws.

I also believe that Obama's healthcare plan is flawed. If you're going to go for public health care, go all the way and go european. Don't force people to buy insurance, that forces them into the hands of those the bill is supposed to be trying to protect them from.

i disagree with gun control laws. I am extremely anti-gun control.

I'm also against hate speech laws and hate crime laws. Not because I don't think those crimes and speech are bad, but because A. we have the freedom of speech. Regulating it with 'hate speech' is a very bad idea and very slippery slope. And B. hate crime indicates that just because someone's skin is a different color, it means that crimes done to them are worse. Hate Crime laws do the opposite of their intention. They actually precipitate the racism they claim to stop.

Kwaren:

TestECull:

Kwaren:
If I'm dead, Why do I care about your car?

Because I'm going to sue the pants off anyone related to you until it's fixed. That's why.

Still not my problem if I'm dead.

Such a selfish little thing you are.

Also it would have been my fault not theirs so you have no case.

Actually I'd have a pretty strong case considering your dumb ass would be dead. Kinda hard to sue the dead, now isn't it?

Burs:
Im amazed at the amount of people who are wanting less drug control especially for Cannabis.
Im a Special Constable (volunteer Police officer) and the amount of people who do stupid moronic things when stoned is definatly more for me then it is for drinking (I do the Friday/saturday evening shifts in a party town so i know what im talking about) seeing people climb up walls and buildings "cause I can!" whilst off their faces with god knows what annoys me.

I know A lot of people do stupid things when drunk (I have been one of them) but Alchohol doesn't trap as many people into addiction as do illegal drugs as they would if they were legal.

Also remember kids every time you buy Heroin you've funded the IED's that wound/kill/traumatise ISAF soldiers.
The drug trade is a killer stop it.

HAHA, just because you get angry by people having fun, isn't a real reason to ban drugs. I climb on stuff all the time under influence and if i die because of it thats not really your problem is it? I'd feel kinda bad for the one who has to take me to the morgue afterwards but i'm not that heavy so they should be fine.

And alcohol not trapping people in addiction as much? Are you sure? Just because it's accepted does not mean it's less addicting (it's also a lot of fun i used properly and not to often)

And if drugs were illegal the only thing you would support by buying them would be your government..

In the UK, I've grown to hate the law which states shops larger than 280 square metres can only open for 6 hours. Sure, it sucks more elsewhere, but have you ever been stuck at 7pm on a Sunday, in need of something you can probably only purchase from a Superstore? Yes, I'm a selfish narcissistic capitalist - screw small businesses and screw my dissertation which defended small businesses.

I also hate self defence laws. The idea that I could be in the wrong if someone comes into my home and attacks me first and I use 'excessive force' makes me worry. Not that someone might break in, but if they did, I could be sentenced because I punched them 'one time too many'.

duncants:
HAHA, just because you get angry by people having fun, isn't a real reason to ban drugs. I climb on stuff all the time under influence and if i die because of it thats not really your problem is it? I'd feel kinda bad for the one who has to take me to the morgue afterwards but i'm not that heavy so they should be fine.

And alcohol not trapping people in addiction as much? Are you sure? Just because it's accepted does not mean it's less addicting (it's also a lot of fun i used properly and not to often)

And if drugs were illegal the only thing you would support by buying them would be your government..

I have no problem with Free-runners, but people thinking "ooh bridge lets jump off it" and then landing in 1 foot of water, then when in hospital complain that "the police wernt there to prevent me!" The amount of time I provide first aid to drug-users is astonishing.

Burs:

duncants:
snip

I have no problem with Free-runners, but people thinking "ooh bridge lets jump off it" and then landing in 1 foot of water, then when in hospital complain that "the police wernt there to prevent me!" The amount of time I provide first aid to drug-users is astonishing.

Sorry, my bad then, must have misunderstood. I just think people should face the consequences of their decisions, they're lucky someone is there to help fix them up. You sure you shouldn't be payed for doing that? :P

Burs:

duncants:
HAHA, just because you get angry by people having fun, isn't a real reason to ban drugs. I climb on stuff all the time under influence and if i die because of it thats not really your problem is it? I'd feel kinda bad for the one who has to take me to the morgue afterwards but i'm not that heavy so they should be fine.

And alcohol not trapping people in addiction as much? Are you sure? Just because it's accepted does not mean it's less addicting (it's also a lot of fun i used properly and not to often)

And if drugs were illegal the only thing you would support by buying them would be your government..

I have no problem with Free-runners, but people thinking "ooh bridge lets jump off it" and then landing in 1 foot of water, then when in hospital complain that "the police wernt there to prevent me!" The amount of time I provide first aid to drug-users is astonishing.

I agree, the amount of people who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions is astonishing, if someone gets hurt while under the influence they are going to sue the owners of where ever they got hurt.

duncants:

Burs:

duncants:
snip

I have no problem with Free-runners, but people thinking "ooh bridge lets jump off it" and then landing in 1 foot of water, then when in hospital complain that "the police wernt there to prevent me!" The amount of time I provide first aid to drug-users is astonishing.

Sorry, my bad then, must have misunderstood. I just think people should face the consequences of their decisions, they're lucky someone is there to help fix them up. You sure you shouldn't be payed for doing that? :P

For me it's not the drugs that are the problem it's the idiot people who will sue anyone and everyone to push the blame off themselves

duncants:

Burs:

duncants:
snip

I have no problem with Free-runners, but people thinking "ooh bridge lets jump off it" and then landing in 1 foot of water, then when in hospital complain that "the police wernt there to prevent me!" The amount of time I provide first aid to drug-users is astonishing.

Sorry, my bad then, must have misunderstood. I just think people should face the consequences of their decisions, they're lucky someone is there to help fix them up. You sure you shouldn't be payed for doing that? :P

No probs ^.^ but Im a Special aka Volunteer, I dont really want to join the full-time force -.-

artanis_neravar:

Dragonclaw:

Legalizing drugs...ONLY and I repeat ONLY in the privacy of one's own home, but regulate it's content, regulate where it can be sold, tax it, just like alcohol, I'd go as far as imposing MUCH steeper fines for DUI and being under the influence in public but what you do in the privacy of your own home is not my concern...

So you are saying that someone who is high in public would still be breaking the law?

Yes, just like someone who is intoxicated with alcohol is currently. Do what you want at home, but drunk / high and disorderly in public, where your actions can and do affect others should still be a no-no.

Dragonclaw:

artanis_neravar:

Dragonclaw:

Legalizing drugs...ONLY and I repeat ONLY in the privacy of one's own home, but regulate it's content, regulate where it can be sold, tax it, just like alcohol, I'd go as far as imposing MUCH steeper fines for DUI and being under the influence in public but what you do in the privacy of your own home is not my concern...

So you are saying that someone who is high in public would still be breaking the law?

Yes, just like someone who is intoxicated with alcohol is currently. Do what you want at home, but drunk / high and disorderly in public, where your actions can and do affect others should still be a no-no.

Ok then I agree, except that committing crimes while under the influence should carry a more sever penalty.

Kwaren:
I don't like the mandatory seat belt laws. It's my body, let me put it through a windshield if I want to.

I think you need to look at the bigger picture though, as is the case with a lot of laws.

Let's say you don't die when you go through the window. You end up on the hood of your car with broken bones that'll take months to heal. Now you're in the hospital, bogging down an already stressed medical system and taking up the time of professionals who could be helping someone else if you had only decided to wear your seatbelt. Most laws are developed around the whole "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" mentality, because even laws that seem like they're only protecting one person are actually protecting or benefiting others.

Take the jaywalking example made by the starter of this thread. I can't count how many times some idiot has walked out into the street in front of me, and it's only because I wasn't speeding and saw him in time that I didn't have to slam the brakes or swerve (possibly into traffic or onto a sidewalk) in order to avoid him/her. Would it be a problem if most people were smart about it and chose the most appropriate time to cross the street? No. Unfortunately, enough people have proven that they aren't smart enough, crossing the streets under the assumption that drivers are going to stop for them and causing accidents, that it's become a law.

Anyways, more on topic, for the most part, I personally don't really have any problems with laws as they stand. Although I do think that preventing homosexuals from marrying is pointless. Also... I guess I don't really have a problem with the legalization of marijuana. But the legalization of all drugs? Don't see that ever happening.

Maybe some drugs that are currently illegal could get away with it, but the "I'm only hurting myself" defense is exactly the reason that most drugs won't ever be accepted. Many laws have been created for the express purpose of protecting people from themselves, because people who hurt themselves are still seen as a detriment to society. No government (that I know of, I admittedly haven't done any research on this so for all I know they might exist) would ever get away with the legalization of something like heroin, because even if it would solve some problems, it basically sends the message that "Hey, we have no issue with making money off someone ruining themselves".

A lot of people argue that you can go out and get substances that harm you, regardless. This is true. However, many of these examples are substances that aren't designed for the purpose of addicting an individual with full knowledge of the detrimental effect it'll have on their life. The only reason cigarettes get away with it is because they've been around for so long, well before government mandates were an issue, and because compared to many drugs, their effects take longer to notice and aren't behavioral. I honestly question how well they'd be received had someone patented the cigarette a year ago and was trying to push it out now though.

There's a lot and I'm only going to cover the US because I live there.

Obscenity law and the FCC's censorship guidelines (they're different laws but I'm grouping them together)
Criminalizing the use of drugs like weed and heroin.
Prostitution is illegal.
Making the really big bulky guns illegal. Criminals don't use them for the most part so there's really little reason to keep them illegal.
Gay marriage is illegal.

SaetonChapelle:
The law that states that In Tennessee, you can't shoot any game other than whales from a moving automobile. Until recently, it was illegal to fish for whales off the coast of Oklahoma. Likewise in California, it is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

I still cant find the whales...

Well we all know that soon the whales will try to invade so we need our laws to match.

By the way does it really say any moving vehicle or just a moving car?

A boat that's bobbing up and down in the waves could be considered a moving vehicle (probably not legally, but technically it is).

Vandy:
The ones that say I gotta wear pants when I leave the house. What's up with that?

AFAIK it's not illegal for a man to wear a dress.

EllEzDee:
That 200+ year old one that allows every Tom Dick and Harry from the US to own a gun.

Not everyone in the U.S. can get a gun. Criminals and people with certain mental disabilities (read insane people), aren't allowed to own guns.

JoobNoob:
The law of gravity.

Who ever thought of that one needs to check their head.

Sure, it can be argued that the law is the most prevalent force in the Universe, and shapes the planetary bodies we live on, but legislation has been criticized for the lax outlook on the untold deaths caused by falls, trauma from falling objects, and allowing the formation of interstellar objects that have caused the destruction of the previous administration on Earth, the reptilian overlords, during their term in office 65 million years ago.

The information about the interactions between quantum mechanics and gravity is being withheld by the panarchy, and have left the Human administration to develop without extra funding or support, even since inception of Human authority.

Occasionally, large particles enter our atmosphere, but there is no guarantee of a retraction from the main governing body, and instead they may use a loophole withing the laws to "provide" with usable supplies (As based on conjectures from Human science communities from yet again our established developments in lieu of actual supportive information from the main governing body).

In the form of mile-wide asteroids.

You'd think that after billions of years the governing body would at least try to reform this faulty law and enforce a more 'user-friendly' fundamental?

/Sarcasm to the nth degree

That law has been so ingrained in our society that we literally do not know how to work without it.

Oh sure we've tried to send ambassadors to a place without that law, do you know what happened? They needed to exercise all the time so that it didn't screw with their bodies and that still didn't work. No that law is needed and will remain in effect indefinitely. What we need is better planetary border control to protect ourselves from those pinko asteroids.

artanis_neravar:

Dragonclaw:

artanis_neravar:
[quote="Dragonclaw" post="18.286225.11286653"]

snip ?

Yes, just like someone who is intoxicated with alcohol is currently. Do what you want at home, but drunk / high and disorderly in public, where your actions can and do affect others should still be a no-no.

Ok then I agree, except that committing crimes while under the influence should carry a more sever penalty.

Then actually we're in total agreement :)

For me it's got to be some of those 'health and safety' laws (I assume their laws so feel free to correct me), or lack thereof, that have allowed people to sue companies because 'their coffee was hot' or something similar. Do people really need a CAUTION: HOT sign on every hot beverage? Do people really think that their freshly brewed cup of coffee is going to be drinkable immediately? IMO these laws and the others like it are actually enforcing the notion that being stupid is a good or at least acceptable thing. Whatever happened to common sense?

There are other laws that irritate me but I've been pretty much Ninja'd on all of them!

Oh yeah, the idea of 'positive discrimination' in certain areas of business. Isn't 'positive discrimination' still just as bad as ordinary 'discrimination'?

I believe that the second amendment of the US constitution should be stricken and made null.

Mr. Omega:
The fact that you can legally own a tank, but not marijuana. Seriously.

Submarine, flamethrower, lion, but plant matter? Noooooo, too dangerous.

I think that most people would agree that 3 strikes is unfair, or at least I do.

Kipohippo:

Mr. Omega:
The fact that you can legally own a tank, but not marijuana. Seriously.

Submarine, flamethrower, lion, but plant matter? Noooooo, too dangerous.

I'm not going to disagree with you there, but to be fair there aren't gangs running around selling tanks and submarines.

mcnally86:

Iron Lightning:
Drug laws, there's no good reason to prohibit victimless actions that do not necessarily affect anyone other than the user.

I'm thinking second hand crack pipe is and issue. Or are you talking Mary Jane? Cause I can't wait untill someone gets away with a heinous crime because someone smoked to close to a crazy with a good lawyer.

I don't quite understand what you mean by that. If I'm interpreting your broken syntax correctly then you're wondering what sort of recreational drugs I think ought to be legal and what would happen to a criminal who commits a crime while under the influence of a drug.

It is my belief that all recreational drugs should be perfectly legal. The only substances I think ought to be banned are harsh toxins that produce no positive side effects and other contaminants (e.g. cyanide, rat shit, etc..)

As for crimes committed under the influence of a drug, I think that being under the influence of a drug should not affect the judging that crime unless the crime fall in one of two special cases:
1. If the crime is endangering the public by doing something dangerous while being too intoxicated to do it properly (e.g. driving an automobile.)
2. If one or more of the persons involved in the crime is too intoxicated to legally give consent (as in a date rape situation.) I'm a bit iffy on this one since judgement impairment is a very hard thing to prove and this may lead to the law declaring that imbibing any amount of drugs make consent impossible to give.

Iron Lightning:

mcnally86:

Iron Lightning:
Drug laws, there's no good reason to prohibit victimless actions that do not necessarily affect anyone other than the user.

I'm thinking second hand crack pipe is and issue. Or are you talking Mary Jane? Cause I can't wait untill someone gets away with a heinous crime because someone smoked to close to a crazy with a good lawyer.

I don't quite understand what you mean by that. If I'm interpreting your broken syntax correctly then you're wondering what sort of recreational drugs I think ought to be legal and what would happen to a criminal who commits a crime while under the influence of a drug.

It is my belief that all recreational drugs should be perfectly legal. The only substances I think ought to be banned are harsh toxins that produce no positive side effects and other contaminants (e.g. cyanide, rat shit, etc..)

As for crimes committed under the influence of a drug, I think that being under the influence of a drug should not affect the judging that crime unless the crime fall in one of two special cases:
1. If the crime is endangering the public by doing something dangerous while being too intoxicated to do it properly (e.g. driving an automobile.)
2. If one or more of the persons involved in the crime is too intoxicated to legally give consent (as in a date rape situation.) I'm a bit iffy on this one since judgement impairment is a very hard thing to prove and this may lead to the law declaring that imbibing any amount of drugs make consent impossible to give.

You must be pretty high. I'm not sure side effects can be considered positive. I mean if it is a side effect what is the primary reasoning behind it? Also I am not sure you are qualified to tell anyone what a "harsh toxins that produce no positive side effects" is. What is allowed and whats not. I mean not many people are. As for the crime things I'm referring to second hand smoking. the original post quoted states these substances don't harm anyone besides the primary user. What if someone commits a crime because they live in an apartment over a heavy user. Can they claim impairment or damaged health? What if a child lives over a meth user? This is a serious crime now but in your future.

Any of the ones that nowadays it would be insanely stupid to bust you on.

like um... uh....

OH! Oka, (from Pennsylvania, United STates, so this may not apply to every state or evren the rest of the world), but like this on in Just Bensalem (though I dont live there)

Operators of bingo games may not advertise the prizes offered.

Or um... uh...

Oh, this one!

It is illegal to have over 16 women live in a house together because that constitutes a brothel.

What if I'm a mormon?

or this one here

Motorized vehicles are not to be sold on Sundays.

BUt Definitely this one:

Fireworks stores may not sell fireworks to Pennsylvania residents.

DO you know how annoying it is to drive to *shudders* West Virginia to buy my fireworks? Especially when we have Zambellis do the PNC park fireworks (which look awesome by the way).

Source

Lemme break out my list.

1) Any law forbidding equal treatment of homosexuals thus barring them from adoption, careers or marriage.
2) Statutory rape laws that grant maximum punishment to the accused even if he can prove far beyond reasonable doubt that he was tricked, drunk, or other.
3) that one law where it says you have 5 seconds to pull out if a woman changes her mind or else its rape. A little more time would be nice.
4) Any law that grants a tax free status to a religion.
5) Any law that says i cannot say what i like
6) Any law and i cannot stress this enough; That removes MY personal freedoms for a little safety because some little bitch is afraid someone will blow up the plane.
7) Any law forcing religion onto someone. They have the right to chose but should also be protected from having it chosen for them by there parents.
8)Any law that says i am required to go fight for a state that is not for me.

In my city, it's illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk. Seriously, WHAT?

I understand that the law is in place to protect pedestrians, but realistically:

A) WHO wants to ride a bike on the road, when all the people in cars hate you?
B) Bike vs. Person = Both Survive. Bike vs. Car = Car is fine, bike is not.

Lots of them. Patriot Act, DMCA, illegal drugs, gay marriage, and really everything else that infringes on people's personal freedoms for no justifiable reason.

EDIT:

RT-Medic-with-shotgun:
Lemme break out my list.

1) Any law forbidding equal treatment of homosexuals thus barring them from adoption, careers or marriage.
2) Statutory rape laws that grant maximum punishment to the accused even if he can prove far beyond reasonable doubt that he was tricked, drunk, or other.
3) that one law where it says you have 5 seconds to pull out if a woman changes her mind or else its rape. A little more time would be nice.
4) Any law that grants a tax free status to a religion.
5) Any law that says i cannot say what i like
6) Any law and i cannot stress this enough; That removes MY personal freedoms for a little safety because some little bitch is afraid someone will blow up the plane.
7) Any law forcing religion onto someone.

Basically this.

mcnally86:

You must be pretty high. I'm not sure side effects can be considered positive. I mean if it is a side effect what is the primary reasoning behind it?

Okay then, primary effects, sorry if my wording was unclear.

mcnally86:
Also I am not sure you are qualified to tell anyone what a "harsh toxins that produce no positive side effects" is. What is allowed and whats not. I mean not many people are.

I never said that I was qualified. However, there are a few substances that obviously should not be consumed (e.g. cyanide, rat shit, etc..) Most currently illegal drugs, however, produce a positive primary effect with relatively minor harmful side effects (relative to powerful poisons, pure carcinogens, and the like) and people ought to have the right to consume them.

mcnally86:
As for the crime things I'm referring to second hand smoking. the original post quoted states these substances don't harm anyone besides the primary user. What if someone commits a crime because they live in an apartment over a heavy user. Can they claim impairment or damaged health? What if a child lives over a meth user? This is a serious crime now but in your future.

Well, quite simply we ought to have the same rules with smoking marijuana, cocaine, or what-have-you that we have now with smoking tobacco.

If you're worried about the potential explosive danger posed by meth labs, then I will clarify something. Producing meth dangerously without a license would, of course, still be illegal because of the public endangerment that such a practice produces.

strict gun control

Simalacrum:
I don't really have any laws I 'disagree' with, I just keep to the philosophy of 'obey the law, unless the law is not worth obeying'.

Right there with you, pal. I do have to disagree with this law:

Seattle, WA: "You may not carry a concealed weapon that is over six feet in length." Guess I won't be taking my greatsword to PAX this year.

I vote for speed limit laws.

How can 65 be the limit when I can obviously go faster than that. Speed limit is determined by the friction between between the tires and the road not revenue hungry politicians.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked