Topic: STUPID LAWS

[86bobbedtoy]

not exactly a law but close
dmv handbook atated driving is a privlidge not a right
well I think if you were born in the usa its your right!
if you abbuse your right it should turn into a privilidge, and be so to get it back.

that always bothered the he!l out me.


next drug laws,
it should be a crime to sell illiegal drugs
not to use them, how are they putting users in prison, there flopp!ng fenes not criminals
put the seller in prison for destroying lives.

Im not talking about weed.
weed should never have beem illiegal
how flopp!ng dumb are people.
never heard of someone O.D.ing from to much weed

the fucke!s just want to tax it like alcohol.
possibly more.
if you grow your own the cant tax it, but they will try

take into consideration I have only done a few drugs, all when I was a teenager
dont do them anymore, nore do I ever plan on it
but any iddiot can see the laws are FN stupid

[Shamb]

I didn't read through everyone's post so I dont know if this has already been posted but...


California


California is one big stupid ass law.   

[kneedownnate]

is what in my opinion

Ding ding!  People have been talking and driving the entire time wheeled vehicles have been around.  How many old westerns have you seen where the stage coach driver veered off the dusty trail cause he was talking to his gun-man?  Yes, talking is a little bit of a distraction, especially if you're dumb, but it's the handling, holding, answering, fumbling and talking on the phone which is the biggest distraction.  And yes, driving with one hand to the ear is different than driving with one hand on the arm rest.  Lots of people can successfully pull it off, but for most it just plain isn't safe.

[BLACKDOG]

Mary-J needs to be legalized really bad.  Its a stupid ass law that you can go to jail for growing a damn plant

agreed.  But to add a bit more.
1) If legalized, it can be taxed and regulated similar to tobacco products.  This will actually end up in a decrease in cost for users, and a HUGE increase in revenue for the state and fed.
2) It will open up a whole new world of products.  Bio fuels, better fabrics, ropes, more efficient crop rotation, etc.
3) It will effectively eliminate an entire group of prison inmates, easing the burden on the prison systems throughout the US.
4) It will help eliminate small time dealers.
5) Save local municipality PD costs pertaining to dealing with small time dealers and small time users.

There's more I'm sure, but those are the first few that come of the top of my head.

In addition,
how about Helmet and Seatbelt laws?

IMO, It is up to me if I choose to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle (or bike) or a seatbelt when riding in or driving a car.  We know that they save lives, but If I choose to take the risk, then that falls on me.  It shouldn't be at the government's discretion.

[86rustbucket]

x2 on the hate crime laws... lets talk parking laws too

i got a freakin' $65 dollar ticket for blocking my own driveway.  WTF? ? ?   

it's the only way i can keep the tweakers of fresno from borrowing my toyota is by blocking it with a car that has a decent security system.... $65 BUCKS?? THATS RAPE

[46&2]

agreed.  But to add a bit more.
1) If legalized, it can be taxed and regulated similar to tobacco products.  This will actually end up in a decrease in cost for users, and a HUGE increase in revenue for the state and fed.
2) It will open up a whole new world of products.  Bio fuels, better fabrics, ropes, more efficient crop rotation, etc.
3) It will effectively eliminate an entire group of prison inmates, easing the burden on the prison systems throughout the US.
4) It will help eliminate small time dealers.
5) Save local municipality PD costs pertaining to dealing with small time dealers and small time users.

There's more I'm sure, but those are the first few that come of the top of my head.

In addition,
how about Helmet and Seatbelt laws?

IMO, It is up to me if I choose to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle (or bike) or a seatbelt when riding in or driving a car.  We know that they save lives, but If I choose to take the risk, then that falls on me.  It shouldn't be at the government's discretion.

Amen, x100

[85yotabox]

i got a parking ticket for parking with two wheels on the curb in fornt of my own house! the reason i parked there is because i live in a bissy intersection an my dads work van has been hit twice form people comming arond the corner too fast and the police dont do s**t about it.  the ticket wasent for a lot but isnt that my property anyways?  the part between the sidewalk and street?

[Dingman.]

Damn...

i park with about half of my truck in the street and about half in our yard.. (no sidewalks here)
Hasn't been an issue yet.

[axled89]

the city owns like 15-20 feet from the center of the road.    i have trees between the sidewalk and the street.
the city says there going to trim them back if don't.   so the garbage truck can reach the arm out and grab the trash cans.   now my whole street looks funny cause they came buy and sheerd all the trees straight up and down.   next to the road.   so i don't think we really own man.  if they really want to do somthing they can.

[BLACKDOG]

the city owns like 15-20 feet from the center of the road.    i have trees between the sidewalk and the street.
the city says there going to trim them back if don't.   so the garbage truck can reach the arm out and grab the trash cans.   now my whole street looks funny cause they came buy and sheerd all the trees straight up and down.   next to the road.   so i don't think we really own man.  if they really want to do somthing they can.

Look into what exactly the city owns from the center of the road.  Generally, they're more than happy to let you maintain their property ( trees, grass, etc.) as long as it doesn't affect them. 

I've had the county come out and tell me that I need to clear sage brush around the hyrant at the front corner of my property (which I do anyway, being a firefighter , just hadn't done it for the summer yet. ) I know where I stand, and they have full responsibility for the maintenance of that hydrant, as well as the ditch in front of my property.  Know your rights, know the boundaries, and you'll win in the long run.

[axled89]

i really didn't care if they want to trim my trees.  that saved me more chair time and truck time.

[BLACKDOG]

i really didn't care if they want to trim my trees.  that saved me more chair time and truck time.

exactly.  In my case, it's something I would have done anyway.  But seeing as they told me to do their work for them, I told them exactly what they could do with their direction to clear the area. 


Needless to say, it got cleared, and the ditch got cleared that year, and I never touched it. 

Personally, I'd rather do it myself, and I do it now, because it affects how my property looks, but if someone is going to tell me to do their work for them, I'm going to get stubborn.

[axled89]

i should go work for the city and then get paid to do it.     

[germ]

In addition,
how about Helmet and Seatbelt laws?

IMO, It is up to me if I choose to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle (or bike) or a seatbelt when riding in or driving a car.  We know that they save lives, but If I choose to take the risk, then that falls on me.  It shouldn't be at the government's discretion.

Dude, i so agree with you in principal. If you make a choice, you should be responsible for the consequences of your decisions. I'll argue one point however, and that is that some people only buckle in their kids because of the law, and the burden of trying to save these kids lives, and the costs associated with it are astronomical when they dont. The kids don't know any better, and will do whatever their parents do.

I wear my seatbelt to save my own bacon, but I argued for years that it was a stupid law, and we shouldn't be "forced" into it.

[DD85runner]

Dude, i so agree with you in principal. If you make a choice, you should be responsible for the consequences of your decisions. I'll argue one point however, and that is that some people only buckle in their kids because of the law, and the burden of trying to save these kids lives, and the costs associated with it are astronomical when they dont. The kids don't know any better, and will do whatever their parents do.

I wear my seatbelt to save my own bacon, but I argued for years that it was a stupid law, and we shouldn't be "forced" into it.

i totally agree with everything you said the seatbelt law is just a way for the government to get money. but whats up with the diesel smog law? i heard its gunna be 97' and newer is that true?

[Stocker]

IMO, It is up to me if I choose to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle (or bike) or a seatbelt when riding in or driving a car.  We know that they save lives, but If I choose to take the risk, then that falls on me.  It shouldn't be at the government's discretion.

I agree in principle.... however, there's the long-standing sticky issue of using tax dollars for medical treatment of those who chose not to use helmets or seat belts. To state the obvious, it's gonna cost a lot more on average.

At the risk of over-simplifying (something I tend to do), there are two solutions.

1) If the use of helmets & seatbelts are legally required and you choose not to use them, any injuries you sustain in an accident are your own responsibility. Either you pay or you don't get medical assistance. This is not a practical solution, especially in our society, but you get the point. Your injuries will likely be far greater and taxpayers should not have to pick up the tab. If you choose to go this route, maybe you could be 'self-insured', which could involve either a private insurance policy or setting aside a very large sum of money to be used in the event of an accident.

2) A two-tiered vehicle insurance system, with one set of rates for those who use seat belts and helmets, and a second set of rates for those who choose not to. This might actually work (guess which rates will be higher). If you buy the less expensive policy (stating that you will use belts/helmet) and are involved in an accident (any reportable accident, whether injuries are sustained or not) and were not using belts/helmet, your claim will be denied and payment of any type will not be made by your insurance company, because you were trying to defraud them. All accident-related costs incurred by you or any other involved party will be your responsibility.

[BLACKDOG]

I agree in principle.... however, there's the long-standing sticky issue of using tax dollars for medical treatment of those who chose not to use helmets or seat belts. To state the obvious, it's gonna cost a lot more on average.

At the risk of over-simplifying (something I tend to do), there are two solutions.

1) If the use of helmets & seatbelts are legally required and you choose not to use them, any injuries you sustain in an accident are your own responsibility. Either you pay or you don't get medical assistance. This is not a practical solution, especially in our society, but you get the point. Your injuries will likely be far greater and taxpayers should not have to pick up the tab. If you choose to go this route, maybe you could be 'self-insured', which could involve either a private insurance policy or setting aside a very large sum of money to be used in the event of an accident.

2) A two-tiered vehicle insurance system, with one set of rates for those who use seat belts and helmets, and a second set of rates for those who choose not to. This might actually work (guess which rates will be higher). If you buy the less expensive policy (stating that you will use belts/helmet) and are involved in an accident (any reportable accident, whether injuries are sustained or not) and were not using belts/helmet, your claim will be denied and payment of any type will not be made by your insurance company, because you were trying to defraud them. All accident-related costs incurred by you or any other involved party will be your responsibility.

I agree fully  

In addition, as far as children are concerned, I have no problem enforcing the seatbelt law in their case.  In accordance to societal norms, until they are 18 years old, they are not allowed to make big decisions for themselves, and the responsibility for them is placed in the hands of the parents, not themselves.  I speak in general terms, I realize kids do make big decisions and they are held responsible ( or should be) for crimes, etc. 

Essentially, until a person turns 18, they are under the guardianship of the parent.  That parent's duty is to create an environment constructive to the child's growth, education, health, and safety.  Doesn't mean they won't get sick, hurt, do stupid things, but the idea is that they're cared for.  Seatbelts fall under that condition IMO.  Parents who neglect the simple act of buckling in their children should be held responsible at an elevated level.

Its not fun pulling a child seat with child inside out of the front seat of the car after an accident when it started in the back (Thank God the kid was ok, minor injuries only). Seat wasn't strapped in, but at least the kid was strapped in the seat.

[kneedownnate]

I have no quams with the helmet law for a very simple reason:  If I were to crash at a high rate of speed without a helmet and hit my head on a metal reflector post, there'd be a hell of a mess to be cleaned up, not to mention something potentially terrifying for passers by to see, especially children. 

Now if I were to have the same accident with a good high quality helmet on, I may only have some memory issues and start to black out when looking over my right shoulder to back up 

[yotaneck13]

so ive been watchn this thread for a while an with the seatbelt and helmet law heres my 2 cents the way i look at it is everyone dies someday right? so if its your time to go then your gonna die wether you hit a wall with or with out a helmet or a seatbelt thats the way i see it my yota dont have belts at all

[axled89]

ya seatbelts and helmets should be your choice.

[Stocker]

I have no qualms with the helmet law for a very simple reason:  If I were to crash at a high rate of speed without a helmet and hit my head on a metal reflector post, there'd be a hell of a mess to be cleaned up, not to mention something potentially terrifying for passers by to see, especially children. 

Now if I were to have the same accident with a good high quality helmet on, I may only have some memory issues and start to black out when looking over my right shoulder to back up 

Not to mention it would be a hell of a thing for your family to deal with.  Thanks for wearing the helmet.   

[kneedownnate]

Not to mention it would be a hell of a thing for your family to deal with.  Thanks for wearing the helmet.   

 

[98yota]

i was in a toyota that rolled. it was a 85 single cab and there was three of us and me and the other passenger were ejcted at about 60. if we were wearing seat belts then me and my buddy wouldnt be here today. i agree with the post earlier, if its your time to go then its your time to go.

worst part about it is that after "I" payed my hospital bills, not the government i got a ticket in the mail for not wearing a seat belt. WTF?

[yotaneck13]

i believe my point was just proven

[46&2]

i was in a toyota that rolled. it was a 85 single cab and there was three of us and me and the other passenger were ejcted at about 60. if we were wearing seat belts then me and my buddy wouldnt be here today. i agree with the post earlier, if its your time to go then its your time to go.

I agree. A seatbelt is not a guarantee on anything. Just depends on the accident. I have two friends who likewise are alive today solely because they DID NOT wear a seatbelt. One was ejected from the back seat of an extra cab ranger that hit a wall doing 60 mph. The back of the cab was so smashed there is no way he would have lived if he had his belt on, keeping him inside the truck.

The 2nd was ejected in a rollover and actually ended up an a coma for 3 months. Had he been strapped in, he would have been killed instantly. When the Bronco II he was driving rolled, it landed upside down on a fire hydrant which came through the roof and punctured into the seat he had been sitting in. He still suffered serious injuries, but he lived. Without being ejected, he would have been crushed. He had to go through extensive rehabilitation, but is doing AWESOME considering how damaged his brain got and also considering that when the accident took place our senior year of high school, doctors told us he would either die, or be a vegetable his whole life. He is alive and doing great now, in fact he is even a member of this message board and just got another yota to wheel.


Likewise, several years ago I witnessed a 3rd gen 4runer roll doing 100 mph on the freeway. 3 of the 4 people were not wearing seatbelts and I saw them get ejected and 2 of them died instantly in front of my eyes The 3rd died the next day. When the 4runner stopped rolling, the sole survivor, a 20 year old kid, stumbled out of the back seat virtually unharmed. Everyone else died because they weren't wearing seatbelts. So you never really know, the seat belt may save your life or end it, just depends on the circumsances of the accident. In the scheme of things, being a good, safe, and defensive driver is really the only way you can ensure the best survival rate driving anywhere. A seat belt is by no means a guarentee, and should not be enforced as a law.

[98yota]

the last post is totally what i was trying to say

[BLACKDOG]

Nate, how is a helmet law any different than gun laws that restrict ownership?  (not talking about felons and such).

Basically, it comes down to restricting your decision making, determining that the government is better at making personal decisions for you.  I certainly agree with your post above in principle.  As a society, we know that helmets are a good thing.  I saw some percentages not long ago, that even in states with no helmet law, less than 10% of riders go without helmets.  And of that less than 10%, many said it is only at low speeds (parades, events, etc.) and not on the highway.  Granted the risk is still there, but lesser speed is lesser risk. 

Its the same with seatbelts.  Your odds of survival are greatly increased by putting on a seat belt, and most people know this.  Yes, there are the freak accidents that occur, where wearing a seatbelt would have killed someone or did, but they are far less frequent than your typical collision (in order of occurence, rear ending, t-bone, headon.)


My opinion on many laws (drug, safety, etc.) is this:
As long as it doesn't affect someone who doesn't have a choice, let them be.  Our society has gotten away from personal and familial responsibility.  Bringing this back would be a huge step in the right direction. 

[abnormaltoy]

Nate, how is a helmet law any different than gun laws that restrict ownership?  

Uh...there is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to ride without a helmet.




The Libertarian in me wants as little government interference in our daily lives as is possible...just shy of anarchy. Society's attempt to "protect" itself financially from the idiotic actions of some, have always infringed on the rights of others. I wouldn't ride a bike without a helmet for all the tea in China...but, the Conservative in me can't bring myself to force another to act as I see fit. I think a reasonable work-around to the whole helmet issue would be to require anyone wanting to risk splattering their brain all over the nearest Armco barrier to:

Sign and carry a DNR release.

Post a bond or carry an assigned risk insurance policy.

There are enough stupid people in this world...that we can afford to lose a few without having to pony up an enormous hospital bill when one of them doesn't quite make it to Darwin Award status.

Otherwise...I'll just keep tuning in "World Worst Drivers" and shaking my head.

[BLACKDOG]

Uh...there is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to ride without a helmet.

Somehow I knew as soon as I saw that you replied, that would bit me in the ass

You sir, are absolutely correct.  I was speaking in reference to gun laws that restrict ownership of certain guns, waiting periods, etc. 

I am speaking generally, but I think many of us would agree that those laws are stupid, excessive, whatever word you choose. 


I would however put it to you, that just because something is not in the Constitution, doesn't mean the government has a right to restrict whatever/whomever it wants.

[junya92toy]

It is illegal to sell drugs......

not exactly a law but close
dmv handbook atated driving is a privlidge not a right
well I think if you were born in the usa its your right!
if you abbuse your right it should turn into a privilidge, and be so to get it back.

that always bothered the he!l out me.


next drug laws,
it should be a crime to sell illiegal drugs
not to use them, how are they putting users in prison, there flopp!ng fenes not criminals
put the seller in prison for destroying lives.

Im not talking about weed.
weed should never have beem illiegal
how flopp!ng dumb are people.
never heard of someone O.D.ing from to much weed

the fucke!s just want to tax it like alcohol.
possibly more.
if you grow your own the cant tax it, but they will try

take into consideration I have only done a few drugs, all when I was a teenager
dont do them anymore, nore do I ever plan on it
but any iddiot can see the laws are FN stupid