Remove the alcohol curfew. I find it stupid that in my area I can't buy a few six-packs after midnight to resupply a house party, but I could still hypothetically go out to a bar to get hammered and then drive home. Um, what?
Don't legalise drugs. Decriminalise all drugs for possession (a practice adopted by Italy, Spain, Portugal, Mexico and several other countries, which led to major decreases in drug related death and crime in all thsoe countries). Drug trafficking should still be illegal, but hard drug addicts should have access to medicinal, government controlled drugs to either manage, or get them off their habit so they don't die from impure crap traffickers sell. They care about money over the lives of people they sell to.novixz said:Maybe sell it in small amounts and have waiting periods before you can buy another portion? I know it seems extreme, but sometimes you just have to look at the underbelly of society to harness it's true power.aba1 said:I can agree with this but I have to say having legal crytal meth doesn't seem like a good idea maybe somthing light like a bitta pot which is bearly illegal anyways but hard drugs I dunno thats not the kinda thing I want my kids to so simply be able to pick up educated or not that stuff is actually dangerous.novixz said:In you'r country, state, city, village, etc. remove a law you think is stupid. Or add a law. I personally would legalize drugs. Before you think I'm some stoner or cocaine fiend or whatever I've never have nor do I plan on doing drugs. I would make people get a special license for certain narcotics and tax them. A lot. I think it would help the economy to a great extent and take down most of what street gangs and mafias get their funds from.
So you would deny yourself an experience that you could have in your brief time on this planet because you do not deem it worthwhile? Pretty ironic when you consider itFetzenfisch said:(i neither do drugs , nor do i want to waste that little time of existence that was given to me, ....)
This is why I love living in the Southern US. If someone kicks in the door of my apartment and steps inside, I can grab the 12 gauge shotgun by my bed and shoot them.xXxJessicaxXx said:I would change, that in Britain, once someone has broken into your home or property it's fair game to reasonably defend yourself if they wont leave or they attack you.
Sick of hearing of people going to prison because they killed or injured a burglar who attacked them etc. It's complete crap.
S'cool. It happens.fibchopkin said:Ahhh crumbs... you guys are right- for some strange reason I confused the soldiers and sailors act with the patriot act. Sorry- I agree, communications monitoring and illegal entry being legalized sucks- and is big brotherish.inFAMOUSCowZ said:If any police officer or anything in law enforcement remotely believes or just feels like it. They can search my house believing I am a terrorist, completely ignoring the 4th amendment. You need a search warrant to do such things.fibchopkin said:Why? That's kind of a weird one to have a thing against.inFAMOUSCowZ said:Patriot Act GONE, damn I'd be so happy if it was gone.fibchopkin said:Ahhh yes. As both an Iraq vet and an army wife,(not to mention a paralegal) I'm pretty well versed on it... and in favor of it. Are you actually able to answer my initial question, (which was in no way meant to be offensive) or are you just going to be snarky?
Kroxile said:Do you even know what the Patriot Act is?fibchopkin said:Why? That's kind of a weird one to have a thing against.inFAMOUSCowZ said:Patriot Act GONE, damn I'd be so happy if it was gone.
I even got all snarky myself w/ the paralegal bit, sorry... Let this be a lesson- no forum posting before my first cup of coffee...
CM156 said:Any law that requires pants! FREEDOM FROM OPRESSION!
Hey, wait, I can add a law? I demand a 50 ft gold statue of me!
Really though, I'd add Castle Laws for all states.
Lol. No guesses on what kind of toy will be taken at this point... XPnovixz said:The thinning the herd was a joke. A sick and twisted joke that if you take seriously could lead to you being somebody's toy in prison. Other than that, the test seems fairly valid.brandon237 said:Jeez, why does everyone associate eugenics with genocide? That is like saying anyone who drives a VW Beetle is a hypocritical Aryan Supremist. There would be no murder, only a "you cannot have children, if you do, said children will be taken away by the government and you will have to pay a fine, if neither person in the couple can give evidence that a contraceptive was used and the pregnancy was a freak accident (after being denied permission to have children), then their ability to have children must be removed (vasectomy, Not castration).novixz said:brandon237 said:You are right, not letting parents who cannot look after and pay for their children bring them into a poor world where they are likely to be given up for adoption and add to the myriad of social problems society faces would be a bit cruel now...novixz said:Dularn said:The law I would introduce would be a parenting licence. All individuals who want to have a child wiil need to pass a test that determines whether they are fit to raise children.
That can be a bit cruel.
I agree with Dularn whole-heartedly, I live in a country plagued by illiteracy and children growing up in townships, 5 per family, dying young, getting diseases and going into drugs they get cheap on the street that are as much shoe-cleaner as plant, growing up to become criminals, homeless, poor and brining the economy down. This shit needs to stop.
Maybe you should start to "thin the herd" yourself a bit.....
OT: What kind of test would this be?
People are also a lot more like pests than we like to admit, and our over-population does not make this better (and indeed our overpopulation of people who cannot look after themselves, the birth rate rises in poor countries and lowers in rich ones). In nature, fast breading, hardy, adaptive animals that change their environment quickly and violently are always seen as the worst pests, yet we are the epitome of all these traits.
The test:
Financial:
-qualifications and ability to get a job.
-current job.
-current savings and extra income.
-surety in case your job fails, you have to have someone willing to pay for the child if you can't.
Medical:
-No severe hereditary conditions that would, with a high degree of certainty, give the child a very miserable life.
-No Severe STDs that could be passed onto the child at birth or that it would likely have from conception.
-The mother must not have any complications that would make pregnancy or birth too dangerous for her or the baby.
Educational:
-Financial aspect, must be able to pay for the child's education, or at least get the child to state-funded education.
-Must pass a basic parenting and hazard test.
I think that is VERY reasonable, the test would have to be taken every time a new child was wanted (the medical bit could be especially open to sudden changes), and could be taken until passed. There would probably be a few more regulation laws to make this more viable, but that is the basic gist of what I would like to see.