What are some illegal things that should be legal?

Well, I mean, someone's evil ex shouldn't park in front of their house. And people should not park for a nap in a handicap spot. And not in the driving portion of a road, not in the breakdown lane of a major highway, not on anyone's lawn.

But yeah, basically any place where parking is allowed, sleeping while parked should be allowed and protected.

parks perpendicular to the flow of traffic across the California 101 freeway

Camp anyplace you need to camp. Keep your car where it belongs.

Waking someone up being illegal is the stupidest thing I've ever heard

Agreed. Hope you got room in your bed cuz I'm joining you tonight.

That's what I'm going for, yes.

In the US, it depends on the State or municipality. I've slept in my car plenty of times while traveling, although it was often in parking garages and out of sight, so maybe I just got lucky. It will really depend on how uptight the town or store manager is. I've heard that RVs are generally welcome at Walmarts, so I'd like to heard the logic on why RV are ok to sleep in but not cars.

Not in the US we don't lmao.

We really need a constitutional amendment in the United States to explicitly protect bodily autonomy

Why?

Let's break the matter in two parts:

if the adults involved in such a relationship are all informed and consenting, no harm is done to anyone. No one has the right to interfere or comment on those people way of life.

If, eventually, there is the decision to have children, the chance of them growing in a dysfunctional home is as high as any other.

The family may be unconventional but it does not imply nor it is a given it is unable to properly care for children and pass down values of good individual and social behaviour.

polygamy and polyamoury are not the same thing. You're welcome. I often do that with actors, thinking two different people are the same person.

So what's your thoughts about gay couples with children?

As someone with experience in poly relationships, (gently) you know not of what you speak. I'm merely a data point, but there is proof behind it vs 'seems' and assumptions.

Most businesses lock the dumpsters because trash service is expensive, and if you don't lock them people will pull up with a pickup bed full of trash and fill them up.

Ah, so getting things out of the trash could be legal, but making a mess from a dumpster should have consequences

If capitalism could be trusted not to put valuable items in the trash, it wouldn’t be a problem.

I know a family that had 6 hours of pregnancy, and they, like most in the same situation, did not seek a late term abortion. By the time labor sets in, the fetus is developed enough to survive outside the womb, so anyone seeking to end the pregnancy without taking possession of a child, should be allowed to simply demand that the fetus be removed. It should be up to the medical staff to decide how.

That's not a gotcha, it's very simple. Doctors decide whether a fetus is viable outside the womb, and if it is, then it's a birth. The line for this keeps shifting earlier as neonatal medicine improves. Doctors aren't going to destroy a child that can live, they took a hypocratic oath. Once it's outside on its own, "my body my choice" no longer applies.

In fact, the opposite is frequently a problem, where enormous intervention is given to keep an extremely premature child alive when all you are doing is guaranteeing them a lot of suffering. There are plenty of parents who wish in retrospect that the option to simply not intervene had been offered, because they see how much pain their child goes through. It is already perfectly fine, legally and ethically, to decide that a child is simply too weak to have a good quality of life. You can offer them milk (if they feed on their own that is a sign of good health and probably won't ever happen with a case like this), but after that hold them and say goodbye.

People talking about late term abortions and killing babies after ripping them out of the womb at 40 weeks are completely divorced from reality. That's Alex Jones level bullshit.

Being illegal means you can't have humane and stressless suicide devices available to market. Instead one has to rely on tools which are uncertain, or cause you too much stress at the end of your life. And at the same time you have to dodge the state, so you can't just announce it and spend your last hours with your loved ones.

I remember a story, of which I don't know if it is true or not. But basically a man in Japan was sentenced to death for suicide, after a failed attempt.

Many places make it illegal to allow police to intercede. In most places, the police can intervene if they believe a crime is about to be committed.

There is a huge line between someone who is terminally ill, and wants to die on their own terms, and someone having a mental health crisis. The first should be legal, but still needs support and checking, the 2nd need immediate help.

They will make your life hell if you fail though.

Dark. And I like.

But if you fail, you get stuck in a bad place.

😖

Also I want to like just take some poison and die. Like an "official" way to do it. I don't know if I can have the courage to jump off a bridge. And even then, its not 100%. The nearesr bridge near me is like 100 ft in height, not sure if thats enough. People survived Golden Gate and thats even higher.

Like I wanna one day just wait till my parents yell at me and tell me to "kys" then I just take a poison and die in front of them. I mean like some type of poison that let me just peacefully die, zero pain, 100% guarantee. Like imagine their reaction lol.

I love the idea of someone being brought up for tax evasion charges because they were only claiming a blowjob rate when they were doing anal.

This could be the most interesting audit in the history of the IRS.

Pets*

Punching overt nazis (like assholes that use the salute or wear swastikas in the open), in order to avoid punching innocent people by accident

If you feel personally attacked by the idea of punching nazis, you're probably a nazi.

I've definitely been fucked by a few landlords, but it's not a service I'd recommend to anyone else.

Why not both?

Why would it matter if felons voted while imprisoned or free? We should not be incarcerating so many people that their vote has anything beyond a trivial, marginal affect. That is to say the real question is why do we convict so many people of crimes?

Some banana republic? Or a country like Switzerland that's probably missing from the list, but not because there aren't any banned books?

People already choose to buy and use fentanyl without a doctors prescription, why should they be treated as criminals? If a junkie commits crimes because they are high, that should be criminal, and if a junkie commits crimes to get more drugs, that should be criminal, but I do not see a purpose in criminalizing fentanyl for consenting adults.

Same in Switzerland. Most of Europe I'd assume.

This varies significantly by state in the US

That's really not always true in the US.

Times are limited in Canada. For example, in Quebec you can't buy alcohol between 11pm and 6am except in bars, and bars have to close at 3am.

Ask the record/movie/book/game companies that want you to buy the same content every time they come out with a new medium for you to consume it

That explains a lot. Why is it inaccessible?

Both, international law or country law doesn't apply outside of the territorial waters of a country.

I should have been more precise, you're right: decriminalize the consumption of all drugs.

There is a valid reason why you don't want Bobby Noname to cook meth and that is you don't want him to blow up the whole block because his meth lab practices are unsafe.

So you're saying they should be free?

Feel free to sell them. Just tax them so high that any profits are nullified, then the tax can be used to help those that need help getting off the drug. (Though this would likely put it right back where it is, and the black market would continue to supply)

Excuse me, Mx. "Devil's Advocate," but nothing you said is contradictory to/incompatible with providing gender affirming care to children. In fact, therapy and understanding/acceptance are a major part of that.

The biggest issue I have is that trans children's needs and well-being are thrown under the bus to save the small minority of genuinely confused cis people. Given the current state of their rights, any argument for waiting until some more idealized treatment arrives is an argument against trans rights and our entire community's well-being.

More give doctors the right to treat their patients

Youre right I’m not thinking big picture

limited but not illegal. punishing people for using drugs is so backwards...

Fair, not yet but the bill has passed and it's now being written into law in Australia, where I live. I agree that it'll be difficult for the child to be the odd one out if most people in society are doing something that they're banned from doing at home but when has that stopped society from progressing? Why teach to cave into societal pressure when you can apply critical thinking as to why it's being limited in the first place?

Because they are an absolute poison. And just like other poisons they should be illegal.