Smoking
yes because alcohol prohibition and the WaR oN dRuGs worked out so well /s
killing animals
Richness
Billionaires
Ads for medication
Campaign contributions greater than $n from people and greater than $0 from corporations
Civil forfeiture
Prosecuting attorneys withholding exculpatory evidence
Firearms which aren’t single action for civilian use (police are civilians)
Receiving gifts greater than $250 USD as a supreme Court Justice or family member of the supreme Court Justice.
Engaging your turn signal against traffic when the light turns green.
Advertisements for prescription medication
That’s only legal in like two countries.
I’m in one of them. I wish it wasn’t.
I left the US to work overseas and when I came back the law changed and everyone was hooked on viagra, the “little purple pill” and everything else…it was VERY obvious what happened…after we sttled down we went to establish care woth a GP & I walked out of my initial appointment with 6 prescriptions.
ridiculous…
Advertisements in general. Imagine world without ads and sponsored content.
I don’t think that’s realistic. Even the guy at the local market shouting “get your potatoes here” is technically advertisement.
What could work instead is to make both the company that advertises and the one that displays the ad liable for the ad itself. If it’s inappropriate, contains malware or is in any way malicious, the company displaying it should also be liable for endangering the customers. Also outlaw tracking for advertisement purposes altogether
This one is pretty location specific but I agree that US law doesn’t make any sense. Like, physician and pharmacist spend 10 years at university to learn all the details about prescription medication and then have to get yearly retraining, so how do you even do ad’s for that
Well that highly depends on location. I think that’s illegal in most of Europe
Most places other than the US. I know it’s illegal here in Canada.
We get medication ads here in Canada, they’re just very restricted in what they can actually say, but Sportsnet runs a rybelsus ad every hockey game
Forced arbitration
For-profit prisons and hospitals.
Also education
Infinite return customers = infinite profit!
Man, just reading this plain sentence. It’s so glaring as to why this should be illegal.
Not only they are bad ideas, but the incentives are horrible.
I could see the point of prisons if there was “warranty”. If a person guess back to jail, the first sentence was useless and the prison should be financially punished. You’ll see then how quickly therapy and quality job trainings are implemented.
Nah, they’d just have hitmen ready to kill anyone who leaves the prison.
The exit leads to an airlock, except the open button turns on the incinerator.
Lobbying and lobbyist groups.
Gonna overturn the 1st Amendment?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I’m sure there are ways to dial in the abuse, but what legislator is gonna vote for that?
God the nerds in here are annoying.
“Ackchually banning lobbying would mean nobody could talk to politicians anymore blah blah…”
Everyone knows what you mean when you say that lobbying should be illegal.
Everyone knows what you mean when you say that lobbying should be illegal.
People who don’t know anything about lobbying know what you mean when you say lobbying should be illegal.
Everyone knows what you mean when you say that lobbying should be illegal.
Could you explain?
Probably the part where they’re straight-up bribing politicians to rubber stamp the garbage that ALEC writes.
Lobbying as in “bribery with extra steps” where companies give money to politicians, ask them to do something, then say it’s ok because it’s “lobbying” and therefore not bribery, but people are coming in and pointing out how lobbying technically just means talking to politicians, but that’s not what RotatingParts meant.
Does that include unions?
Banning lobbying would mean no one would be able to talk to a politician/official about an issue. Not even writing your local officials, proposing a local ordinance to making bike lanes or spending money to fix-up/improve a local park. Because that’s lobbying. You’re asking a government to wield their official power and/or spend public money, for your (and potentially others’) benefit.
Even lobbying groups aren’t necessarily bad. The Sierra Club, EFF, ACLU. These are American, but I’m sure there are equivalents of these in other countries.
So banning lobbying doesn’t really work. Now if you’re talking financial contributions and gifts and nice dinners from those who lobby, yeah that probably needs to be more highly regulated or stopped altogether. Generally speaking, any kind of quid pro quo.
But just talking to a politician should not be made illegal. In democracies, talking to people, talking to politicians, and trying to convince them to align with your view is the name of the game.
Owning shares when you are an elected official with jurisdiction over the industry you own shares in.
Also, any political figure owning shares in a media organisation, regardless of whether it is traditional media or “new media”.
Lobbying in and of itself isn’t bad, it makes our politicians aware of issues and alternatives.
Unrestricted lobbying is the problem, I recently read that lobbyists from Amazon would no longer have access cards to the European parliament so they no longer could come and go as they liked.
I just wonder why lobbyists ever got that access in the first place…
Screwing over a large number of people to benefit a small number of people. Religion and corporations immediately come to mind.
That’s very vague and sounds like it would mainly affect minorities in a negative way. Not that I think that’s your intention of course.
Alcohol (beer, wine…).
Rather than downvoting, I’d like to ask why you think all forms of alcohol for consumption should be illegal
It’s proven that is toxic for our organisms. It hurts our body and creates depressions.
More info: https://www.who.int/health-topics/alcohol
“No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health” https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health
Also, thanks for asking and just not downvoting. 💖
Probably because they’re basically poison that has to be filtered out and fucks up your liver and kidneys.
If we forbid things just because they are mildly toxic, we would need to forbid almost everything. Including oxygen and water.
and bacon.
Alcohol is pretty significantly toxic, especially compared to oxygen and water.
I’m not in favour of banning it outright, but alcohol is more dangerous than some drugs that are illegal in many parts of the world, including the US.
False,
“No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health” - https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health
There is a safe level of oxygen and water you not only can, but must take. Your phrase sounds cool, but it’s 100% misinformation.
Oh yeah, a lot of people die because they drink too much water. Don’t forget how moch money is wasted because people break shit and beat each other up when theu are high on water.
Isn’t that more a social issue? Getting drunk and becoming violent isn’t a cause-effect. Someone that becomes abusive after drinking would be abusive without alcohol as well, that’s just a trigger for the behavior.
This is closer to an actual answer, though. It’s easier to remove drinking than to change drinking culture. It just didn’t work the last time they tried to ban alcohol (in the USA), so if behavior around drinking is the issue that is trying to be solved there are probably other ways to go about it.
Ok, but there are plenty of other items that that do that as well. It’s not a call out of “all drugs, including tobacco and alcohol”. It’s not a callout of microplastics. So there’s something specific to alcohol.
So there’s something specific to alcohol.
Being widespread. One bad set of laws in bad place in bad time (propination laws in eastern Europe in XVIII-XIX century) caused untold suffering and is keenly felt to this day, showing how easily hundreds of millions of people can be fucked up by poisonous commodity.
I’m not for entirely banning alcohol, but only because it would be rather futile, but for restrictions in its selling and far going educational campaigns to finally get rid of it - and it is possible, even if not entirely, looking at the decline of consumption of other poison, tobacco.
USA tried banning these once…
Passing on the right.
Definitely illegal in Belgium, is that not the norm elsewhere?
Apparently, and perhaps not surprisingly, the US allows it on highways. Which helps explain why their traffic related deaths rate per capita is almost twice the European average.
Not just on highways. It happens sometimes on surface streets as well.
I’ve never seen anyone do it so I’m pretty sure it’s illegal in all countries were I’ve found myself on a highway. The US and Germany (due to their free speed generally quite weird autobahns) come to mind as countries that might allow it.
It’s illegal in Germany as well.
Where else are you meant to pass?
Downvotes from all the Americans who don’t realise people drive on other sides.
To be fair, this is one of those times where the US is actually in alignment with most of the rest of the world.
Assuming lef hand drive country, then don’t use the passing lane for not passing.
I’m turning left on a two-lane street, waiting for incoming traffic to clear, and some jackass pulls into the right-turn cutout to pass me. It’s both rude and dangerous.
What. So this “jackass” and all the people in the right lane should pull up behind you and wait for you to turn left? That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. That’s partially why there are two lanes, so traffic can continue to flow instead of waiting for you.
Edit:
Hold up. When you say “two lane street” do you mean one lane on each side? Because that changes everything. Whenever people I talk to refer to a two lane street they mean two lane in your direction.
Passing on the left in regions with LH traffic (RHD)
Since it is the opposite of Overtaking, it is typically called undertaking, especially if you try to undertake a large truck with limited visibility on the passenger side.
deleted by creator
Passive income.
musicians in shambles
There were musicians far before passive income for creative work was a thing. And it’s not like the €0.003 per play Spotify pays is making bank for most musicians.
we already are
Passive income isn’t a bad concept. People in the creative and research field would clearly benefit from crowd-funding and recurring donations.
Government should found more art and research, also donation and crowd funding aren’t passive income. I believe OP talked about the Marxists bourgeoisie the class of people who live off dividends or rent and doesn’t need to work
Does that include a ban of UBI (universal basic income)? Because that is a idea I do indeed support
Going by the traditional definition, UBI is indeed passive income. I don’t think it is as bad as other forms of passive income, but I would prefer subsidies over just giving people cash.
Zero hour contracts in the uk don’t actually have to have an actual contract so if your boss says that something is in your job description you can’t argue otherwise because there was never a contract that said what your job roles were to start with.
How is that even legal somewhere ?
For context this is how the vast majority of jobs work in the US by default.
Religion
I don’t think it should be illegal. It should just be laughed off and not be taking seriously.
Except for the parts where, in the name of religion, people are subjected to barbaric surgical procedures; “cures” for their sexual preferences; and pedophiles in positions of authority, among many other terrible things.
In the history of humankind, religion is responsible for more human suffering than all other causes combined.
Public practice atleast
Where do we draw the line what is or isn’t a religion? If you have definition, try applying it to Pastafarianism, Communism, Budhism and a bunch of other ideas and practices from Asia.
Personally, I prefer to go with a super simple and completely arbitrary list definition. If it’s on my secret list, it’s a religion. If not, it’s a philosophy.
Careful, son, you might cut yourself on all that edge.
