Smoking. Millions of euros of taxpayer money spent every year on those lung cancer patients which could be well spent elsewhere. It's also an activity that negatively affects not just the smoker but everyone around them.
What I find amusing is that the cigarettes packages where I live have disgusting images with the potential sickness it comes from its usage, and yet people still buy them 'hey man, this will literally kill you someday" warning does not work.
I thought this was a well known measure but it seems that my USA cousin did not know about this kind of marketing.
They ought to increase it by 2 years every time. That way people have to get clean. Also, we ( US citizens) should take control of all tobacco companies, and wind them down, putting all profits and assets towards addiction recovery services, and cancer treatments.
They've been making billions off of slowly killing people for the last 100+ years, they don't need one more fucking day.
Thanks to taxes (81½% of the price is tax on average), smokers are currently making my government a profit, including all the cancer care. Old people need a lot of healthcare, so people dying of cancer saves a lot of healthcare cost in the long term.
At least here in Germany this is apparently still not true as smokers in particular add a huge cost to the healthcare system due to the long-term and repeated damage. For example, once they get parts of their feet amputated from clogged arteries, most actually continue to smoke ("Ah well now it's too late anyways"), and hence will get half a dozen such amputations over time.
Obesity is the issue these days not tobacco. Tobacco use is a fraction of what it once was. Now a huge portion of the EU and USA is obese, which causes way more strain on the healthcare system.
A report commissioned by the tobacco company Philip Morris, when the Czech government proposed raising cigarettes taxes in 1999, concluded that the effect of smoking on the public finance balance in the Czech Republic in 1999 was positive, an estimated net benefit of 5,815 million CZK (Czech koruny), or about US$298 million. 77 The analysis included taxes on tobacco, and health care and pension savings because of smokers’ premature death, as economic benefits of smoking, and these benefits exceeded the negative financial effects of smoking, such as increased health care costs. The report created a furore; public health advocates found the explicit assumption that premature death is beneficial morally repugnant. The controversy was described by the journalist Chana Joffe-Walt on the radio program This American Life,78 and was reported in the British Medical Journal.79 According to This American Life, Philip Morris distanced itself from the report in response to the controversy, banning its employees from citing the findings. In fact, the report’s claim that smoking was beneficial relies on its inclusion of taxes as a benefit, not any savings due to smokers’ premature deaths80 Costs associated with smoking while the smoker was still alive totalled 15,647 million CZK, 13 times more than the ‘benefits’ associated with early death. The net benefit reported in the analysis arose because the tobacco tax revenue of 20,269 million CZK was regarded as a benefit. As detailed in Section 17.1.1, taxes are not an economic cost (or benefit); they are a transfer payment. The recipient (the government) gets richer, while the taxpayer gets poorer.
So darkly amusingly it has actually been reported before, but in the Czech Republic.
Yeah, and unlike what people commonly think, it doesn't just directly affect the user (first hand smoke) and the people around it (second hand smoke), but also the furniture and nature around it (third hand smoke).
I despise those cigarettes laying around everywhere in nature. You can even smell them on remotes if someone was a hardcore smoker.
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I have less problems with the "luxury" items, such as cigars.
They're usually hand-crafted expensive stuff that's made to enjoy once and a while, compared to cigarettes which are mass produced with the sole purpose to get you addicted.
I think the same is true with alcohol. There's the cheap, mass produced stuff vs the more expensive "hand"-crafted stuff.
I wish we could just enjoy these things without corporations trying to get us addicted to them at every opportunity, disregarding any of the dangers associated with consuming them.
Expiration dates on packaged food are almost always about how enjoyable the food is to eat, not safety. Donating expired packaged food with legal protection from liability would be good for the world.
ITT: people so used to lobbying that they got convinced it's a necessary evil so that minorities and common folks can lobby as well.
It's clearly absurd. Many places call lobbying with its real name: corruption. And there are laws in place to fight it.
Are they perfect? No. Is it then more effective to legalyze corruption? OF COURSE NOT ARE YOU INSANE?!?
In what universe a politician does not have, nevermind intrinsecally in its raise to popularity, but explicitly active tools and relationships that keeps him up to date with the issues and needs of his community?
Very few politicians have the time get down and understand the issues enough to make an informed decision, which they have aids and use lobbyists to learn about the subject.
A decision about deciding about subsidiaries for specific crops for instance, lets say that a farmer used to farm wheat, but then realized that he could get more money by farming tobacco, ok, so he switches to tobacco, but the nation still needs a stable supply of wheat, so wheat needs to be subsidized by the government to make it worth it for farmer to farm wheat, most politicians won't know if there is a need for this or how large it needs to be.
This is where lobbyists come in, they inform politicians about what they believe is needed, show reports and other data, to influence the politician about how to vote and what to argue for. Wheat farmers and baker advocacy groups will argue for high subsidies, tobacco farmers and cigarette companies will argue against it.
No dude there's experts, specialists, entire departments within any (?) human government that knows shit, talks with experts, calculate and runs stuff.
They don't just wait for farmers to walk up and explain what vegetables are.
And why would you think it's normal that cigarette companies are at this whymsical table? Why put cancer inducing products in a debate with food with baby politicians that knows nothing and wait for the "debate" to play out?
No dude there’s experts, specialists, entire departments within any (?) human government that knows shit, talks with experts, calculate and runs stuff.
Yes there are departments for healthcare, having reports full of stats, that no politician will ever read, lobbying can bring attention to demetia and bring some context to the data.
They don’t just wait for farmers to walk up and explain what vegetables are.
Correct, but they want farmers to come up and talk to them about problems that they see that might be missed, for example, how young people can be encouraged to go into farming, or if there is something killing the crops that they can see faster than the governments experts can write a report about.
And why would you think it’s normal that cigarette companies are at this whymsical table?
Because they are a huge industry.
Why put cancer inducing products in a debate with food with baby politicians that knows nothing and wait for the “debate” to play out
Because farmers need money, and if tobacco pays more than wheat, then the farmer will farm tobacco.
They ignore the reports? So why would they not ignore the "people"? Because money? Then it's just corruption and the policy won't reflect any genuine need.
Why being a "huge industry" has any political weight? Drugs cartel move tons of money, do they get a say in the matter too?
I get what you mean, but that would backfire increadibly quickly.
Civil rights organizations would no longer be able to talk with politicians directly, possibly never, as demonstrations and manifestations could be classified as lobbying depending on how strict it would be enforced.
Environmental groups could no longer invite politicians to important conferences.
Lobbying isn't just something that monolithic companies do, take it away, and it will only be something the bad guys does.
Yup, a late friend of mine was a lobbyist at the state level for a mental health lobbying group. His daughter has schizophrenia and that was his way to give back in his retirement. Without lobbying, it's hard for politicians to know when there is a problem they need to fix. They have a small staff and they don't just magically know when there is a problem. The problem is when a politician either can't sniff out unethical lobbyists or just doesn't care.
Keep in mind that the person you reply to isn't wrong: Big corpos would still be lobbying, as they got the resources to hide it effectively and keep everyone trying to sue them over suspicions of lobbying stuck in litigation hell.
Anybody less affluent would however find it impossible to do any lobby work. Environmental agencies etc.
This is one of those situations where just outlawing something does the least affect the very party you would want to hit most.
That's a better approach I think, yes. It'll be difficult to prevent collusion but effectivey capping the size of most companies and maybe their across-border reach would be a good way to keep a tighter leash on them.
Wut? It is supremely American to think you can only talk to politicians if you have money... and only because so many other people are willing to purchase a slice of their time.
I can just walk to Peter Julian's office and, assuming I'm not rude, talk to him about something that matters to me. I've had conversations with Peter Welch and Bernie Sanders - I used to board game with a state senator. It it might be hard to get a lunch date with Joe Biden but politicians spend the majority of their time just talking to folks... it's only when the rich can use their money to monopolize time that shit breaks down.
Those meetings you have had with politicians could absolutely be classified as lobbying, and would be made illegal if lobbying was outlawed.
A company have the resources to make a smokescreen around meetings like that, making it harder to prove lobbyism, the lobbyist just happened to stay at the same hotel as the politician did, they even arrived a week before, and left two days after the politician arrived, it's not like a meeting was set up on the one overlapping day, that would be crazy....
Those meetings you have had with politicians could absolutely be classified as lobbying, and would be made illegal if lobbying was outlawed.
It's not just classified as lobbying, it's litterally what Lobbying is about. Meeting politician to tell them that the environmental law reforms means that the factory will close or that the consumer need better protection regarding toxic chemical in their food is what Lobbyist do. It's sometimes get even funnier when they change employer and therefore political side
I personally think the "how good is it" part of "advertising" should literally just be a percentage value of "how many existing customers say it was worth it".
But even that would get gamed the way 5/5 amazon reviews can be bought today already.
So maybe it should really just be "it's a insert thing made out of insert material produced in insert country by insert labour conditions and it costs insert price".
I get where you're coming from, but I think you'd just see companies divide into tiers where one tier would subcontract to the tier below. Think "cleaning services companies" all the way down.
Canada passed 'rational servings' laws a few years ago to this exact end. No more cases where a single-portion package would contain 1.6 servings, or whatnot.
Campaign financing in general. If you get enough signatures you'll get a fixed amount of money from tax payers for your campaign. If you accept money from anyone else you're barred from public office for life. End of corruption right there.
Qualified immunity for police officers. Prosecutors and judges basically get qualified immunity, too-- in that they can be caught engaging in all sorts of inappropriate and illegal activity without facing punishment because like police, it usually doesn't even get to the extent of being charged.
Requiring agreement to some unspecified ever-changing terms of service in order to use the product you just bought, especially when use of such products is required in the modern world. Google and Apple in particular are more or less able to trivially deny any non-technical person access to smartphones and many things associated with them like access to mobile banking. Microsoft is heading that way with Windows requiring MS accounts, too, though they're not completely there yet.
I want to live in a world where "stop cutting bits of babies dicks off" doesn't require any further explanation.
"No, actually, its you who needs to justify cutting bits of babies dicks off. Not the other way round. Unless its hair, nails or connected to the mum, the default position is actually not to cut bits of the baby off."
Because it serves a genuine function, because the process poses an unnecessary risk, because there is no way to know how big the penis is going to get when the kid grows up, and that is part of the reason for the foreskin, to have a ton of give so it doesn't happen like it did to my ex. He got circumcised as a newborn, and by the time he finished puberty, his penis grew far more than the leftover foreskin, so he wasn't even able to have full erections without a tremendous amount of pain and sometimes, even tearing.
vocabulary.com: "When a person or an object has been altered or damaged in a permanent way, that's a mutilation."
it can desensitize the penis and cause health issues and/or sexual dysfunction (arguably its intended consequence). forced body alteration is mutilation
If you chop someone's leg off without consent for no good reason, that's mutilation. If you amputate it with consent for legitimate medical reasons that's a medical procedure.
This 100% reads to me as an anti-trans post. Maybe that's not your intent, but that's the way it reads. Esp. since anyone under 18 con not legally give consent to anything.
It's not because young trans people can consent to transitioning. Consenting to sex is not the same thing as consenting to medical procedures. Would you forcibly hold down a 12 year old to give them a vaccine despite them refusing and resisting? If not, then clearly you recognise that under 18s have a degree of bodily autonomy and have to consent to the medical procedures they receive once they are mentally capable of understanding and expressing a choice on those procedures.
It would be pro-trans given the habit of surgical mutilation of intersex infants, which causes a lot of problems down the line for trans intersex people seeking transition surgery that would essentially reverse the mutilation they experienced as infants when they couldn't consent.
If they meant it in an anti-trans way then they would be factually wrong insofar as transition procedures are, by definition, consensual. The non-consensual procedures (which may be the same procedures) are done to "correct" children's (usually, though some cis adults opt to have them done) sexes towards the one they were assigned.
Would you forcibly hold down a 12 year old to give them a vaccine despite them refusing and resisting?
That can and does happen. Do you think that children enjoy getting shots? Children generally do not have bodily autonomy, no. Parents can refuse certain non-critical medical care for their children, even if the child wants that care. The state can force a child to receive certain medical care, even if the child doesn't want it. Whether it's morally right or not to deny a minor bodily autonomy is a different question, but as a matter of law, they do not generally have bodily autonomy.
Well I guess the laws where I live are quite different to where you live. I don't have the statistics but I imagine that a non-insignificant number of countries set the age of medical consent to a reasonable age at which people understand and have their own preferences as to the medical care they receive.
Do you think that children enjoy getting shots?
I said 12. 12 year olds can refuse vaccines (and those who do are not physically forced to, that sounds insane to me), in my experience at school when vaccines were offered at that age almost everyone opted to have them though.
But less people work on weekends than on weekdays.
There is no universal day for everyone to make it, which is why Sweden offers pre-election voting and voting by mail, plenty of other countries does as well.
Absurd? Yes. Surprising? No. If you put children in bathing suits to decide which is the hottest child? It's not shocking to hear that they want to marry these hot children.
victims don't "encourage" their abusers. these are predatory practices designed to hook in as many people vulnerable to gambling addiction as possible. you have a misconception about the people that get hooked into these things. most of them are not "idiot gamers" nor oil barons, they are either children or neurodivergent people.
It's naive to think that someone is at fault for falling prey to the psychological tactics publishers use to push people toward micro transactions.
If you think about it, it's really not that different from saying people with gambling addictions deserve to be broke. Microtransactions might seem like an obvious scam to a lot of people, but a lot of people fall it and waiving it away and saying they deserve it will only make the problem worse.
While there are gamers hooked on gambling machines, the industry will continue to produce more and more blatant gambling machines... instead of actual balanced games.
It's fine as a concept, it allows you to live somewhere without making a commitment long-term.
But there needs to be more regulations in place, like maybe making it illegal for corporations to buy residential property and requiring by law that any new residential building must have the option to buy as well as rent, with regulations to ensure it's a fair price.
Housing shouldn’t be gatekept. Rent as we know it is broken. Someone owns a property, while you pay the mortgage. But you’re not paying down to own, you’re paying it down for someone else to own. Sure, renting is fine for people who move a lot, but that money shouldn’t be flushed down the drain every month—from the position of the renter. Rental credits, to where that money you’re putting down acts as a credit toward getting the opportunity to own. This would take a massive restructuring of the way we behave as a society, but it’s desperately needed.
making it illegal for corporations to buy residential property
It's not quite that simple though. What do you mean by "residential property"? Single-family homes? A duplex? Okay, that sounds fine, but what about an apartment high rise? That's a residential property, and there's not a great way to have it all be rental property without being owned by a corporation of some kind. Even when you talk about renting far few units--such as an owner-occupied apartment building with 4 units in total (these are fairly common in Chicago, which is the rental market I'm most familiar with)--a "corporation" may be something like an LLC in order to shield the owner from personal financial liability in case of catastrophic loss. (And yes, I'm aware that incorporating as a small business can and does get abused. In theory there are checks against that, in practice they don't help in many cases since there's too much going on for any municipality to go after every single case of business fraud.)
Of course, you don't want individuals owning vast tracts of residential properties either; that takes all the problems of corporations owning property, and concentrates them into the hands of one person.
I think that there might be a way to regulate and incentivize behaviour through tax policy, but I'm not sure what it would be. Perhaps a system that put a hard cap on profits, and required certain percentages of rent to always go into maintenance and improvements? You'd probably also want to exempt corporations that owned or had control over 6 or fewer units.
This would be a fun (read: complex and challenging) area of public policy to get involved in, because you want to make housing affordable, but you also don't want to disincentivize development.
Ninja edit: I'm saying all of this not because I'm pro-corp, or pro-gov't, but because any time you try and fix a problem, you're going to have bad actors that are going to try and break your system in order to get as much personal profit out of it as they can. Trying to find the weak points and then reinforcing them makes it harder for good ideas to be abused to a negative end.
Okay, that sounds fine, but what about an apartment high rise? That's a residential property, and there's not a great way to have it all be rental property without being owned by a corporation of some kind.
Then not all of them have to be for rent. In my country at least you can buy individual apartments.
Also you could allow them to own the property they build, but once sold off, they or another corporation (or individual with too many properties, maybe the limit can be 3 or 4) cannot buy them again.
Obviously I'm not a lawyer and this was just a quick suggestion. I expect people more familiar with the law can word this better.
Yep. It’s insane to me how society goes to such lengths to make road transportation, driving, cars etc safer, and then is perfectly fine with billboards. It’s super illegal to be distracted by your phone whilst driving, but a giant graphical ad on the side of the road is totally cool. Whut
If you want to argue for the ethical treatment of animals or that they deserve care and respect, that's one thing, and I can respect it. But equating that to what humans, especially children, deserve is ridiculous. If it came down to saving the life of a child or an animal, it would be immoral to not choose the human child.
If you create intelligent life, it doesn't matter who it is or how it came to exist. Your moral responsibilities to that specific creature are identical. I'm sure you can find edge cases where you have to make a decision between a human and a non-human animal, but even if those edge cases all go to the human, it does not excuse all the other cases where there is no human that has to suffer for you to live up to your responsibilities.
Humans have not created intelligent life, so your whole point is moot. Maybe it'll become more relevant in the future, but at this current point in history, the only intelligent life that we "created", has been our own children.
I think tacking on irrelevant laws onto popular bills to get them passed shouldn't be allowed.
Politicians shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks, especially when they're in a position to pass laws that would directly affect their holdings.
Super PACs, it's absolutely wild that that's a thing IMO.
I think there should also be a "cooling off" period of some sort over passing/repealing laws. I'm thinking as an example of the Republicans after Obamacare was passed, when they tried to repeal it something like 70 times in 10 years. I get that things change and laws sometimes need to be amended or updated, but there should really be some system in place to prevent people from spamming up the whole system like that.
It defintly is a slippery slope. I work for a municipalitylies utilities company. Part of my job is working with a utilities companies union to lobby politicians to make laws that will actually improve the way we can work. I think we actually do improve things for the German public by bringing desperately needed knowledge to the table.
But I think we are a small minority among lobbying institutions.
Small print, excessive legalese and outright deceptive language in ads, agreements and such. All the "free" (not really free) trials, "unlimited" (not really unlimited) plans, "best value" (according to the producer and their mum) deals and shit like that.
There really should be a law prohibiting that - if reading through terms and conditions for using a damn website or a toothbrush or whatever requires 4 hours of free time, a magnifyibg glass and degree in law, such t&cs should be illegal. Same for disclaimers and such in ads - any 4pt text displayed for 2 seconds on screen should automatically result in a massive fine.
Honestly? Alcohol. I used to work security at a rehab, and it was always the worst addiction. The withdrawls are horrible, up to and including death. Yes, even worse than heroin.
Read up on US prohibition and how it funded the Mafia. It just changes the form of the societal disease.
The answer to addiction is having support and care on place for those that fall to it so society helps pick them up again. You can't stop the abuse of substances unless you fix why people are crawling into a hole to avoid the world. Lack of mental health is a disease of society as well as the individual.
Its so mad that we have such a literal example of exactly what happens, due to prohibition, yet society refuses to see like for like. The mafia simply used the exact same routes to smuggle heroin. They didn't disappear or die out, due to alcohol prohibition ending. They got into bed with the CIA, under operation gladio. What they did with crack wasn't the first or the biggest example.
Like you said, you can't people abusing substances. They remain illegal because somewhere some very powerful people are making too much money from them remaining so.
I am in my late 30s. Drank in college with friends at parties. I dont anymore just not into it. I like things that make me faster, smarter, or stronger. I dont understand why all TV shows and movies seem to be centered around drinking when its a social scene. (I live in north america). Nothing good comes from drinking alcohol. They make it seem like if you're relaxing or want to have fun you need alcohol. I just need a good brisket for both those.
Why? Simply because this was actually tried in America? All I'm doing is answering the question. Just because this country failed at making it illegal does not mean it still shouldn't be illegal.
People are allowed to make their own decisions, even if they're bad decisions. And it shouldn't be illegal because it has been proven that making it illegal only makes everything worse.
"By buying [unnecessary product] you will help [marginalized group] to gain a livable income and also send their kids to school instead of sending them to [work place with - even for adults - horrible work conditions]. Also, when buying [product] we will save [arbirtary area] of [rainforest/ coral reef/ mangrove swamp] that would otherwise have been destroyed [but not by us]. Additional to that, your purchase helped us to save [arbitrary ammount of CO2 - at least in a completely hypothetical scenario]. While using [product] you will make the world a better place."
As a customer there is barely any way you can ensure or check that these things are true. It cannot be possible to save the enviroment while buying stupid products like, for example, internet-of-shit-devices which will be phased out in no time or single use products made from plastic or other harmful materials that are not recycleable.
All these claims are just an indulgance trade - like it is done for centuries in a religious context. It is just that you have an excuse to consume more, because they to something to help people/ enviroment. If there was a product that would have been advertised as: "Well, we irretrieveably destroyed 100 km^2^ of nature, and for each single product in average two workers died and at end-of-life this product will fuck up the environment once more - also it will impair your health just by existing", it would be horrible - but at least it would be honest.
That's not necessary. What's needed is to treat religious beliefs as a personal choice, and no more. You can get protection from being discriminated against based on your beliefs so long as it doesn't extend past actual disadvantage (so yes to not being disadvantaged in your workplace for being religious, but no to not wanting to bake a cake for gay people). Other than that, your religion buys you nothing. No 'medical exemptions', no special treatment, and especially no influence on other people's lifestyle choices. True freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. It stays in your home and place of worship. In public, in government, in education and healthcare, religion does not exist.
I would also specify that your religion doesn't get to negatively (and of there's any confusion about what is negative, err on the side of caution) impact their children in any way. Otherwise, as children are a very vulnerable group that will grow into an adult, it's just a loophole for religious people to continue to propagate their religion without arguing against an opponent qualified to actually think sceptically, or commit harms against minors unable to protect themselves.
First step to achieving that is banning homeschooling - way too many people use that as a way to avoid their children getting educated about stuff they don't want them to know.
It violates the theory of inalienable rights that implied the abolition of constitutional autocracy, coverture marriage, and voluntary self-sale contracts.
Inalienable means something that can't be transferred even with consent. In case of labor, the workers are jointly de facto responsible for production, so by the usual norm that legal and de facto responsibility should match, they should get the legal responsibility i.e. the fruits of their labor
I think that it depends on the nature of the contract. Sure, most of them are terrible.
On the other hand, NDAs are a form of employment contract that are often a necessity. Non-compete contracts can serve a legitimate purpose, in preventing unfair competition or using company secrets for person gain. They're usually written in an overly broad manner though, or prevent legitimate employee activities.
Private cars in cities.
They're noisy, unhealthy, cause massive damage to infrastructure, transport one person at a time while taking up enough space for ~10 in the road, fill open spaces for parking, sometimes while being completely unusable, endanger everyone else on the roads....
Sustenance doesn't mean "the only thing available".
Look, I'm excited for lab-grown meat. I've reduced my meat consumption significantly over the last year or two. I may not be "in your camp" exactly, but I'm an ally. And it's probably better to earn and keep allies than to argue semantics in an adversarial way. Win more flies with honey and all that.
I assume you agree o the general statement "Animals shouldn't be killed for pleasure."
If you then have two options for food, one including animal meat and one without, all other things being equal, even nutrition wise, then how is it not "for pleasure" to chose the option with meat?
Absolutely, the biggest nature lovers in my family are all hunters, they enjoy being in the woods, they enjoy seeing animals, they follow the rules to only harvest as much they are allowed and only during the season permitted.
It's usually not that much extra effort to take the carcass and bring it to a butcher, so they do that sometimes. But yeah. Often, just leave it.
It's actually not all that bad because we have a lack of natural predators (because we already hunted them almost to extinction) so hunting keeps the deer population from exploding.
Surprised to see no one has said cigarettes yet. Not only are you poisoning yourself, it's harmful to everyone else around you that has to inhale that shit.
Not really something that is legal that should be illegal, but I would love to see this nonsense that corporate executives can't be held criminally responsible (the corporation is) for their illegal acts.
I think it would correct an awful lot of shitty things corporations do really quickly (assuming enforcement).
I think all those in the management chain should be held responsible. Maybe with a weighting of the proportion of those under them engaged in the criminal behaviour.
Products purposefully manufactured to be unfixable. Main example being anything apple...you can't even add ram to a iMac anymore and they have the audacity to sell the lower end model with 8 gigs of ram as if that's enough when everyone knows its not. Basically selling a 1400$ piece of shit.
It is far worse if you look at the radmom no name brand products sold by Amazon, they are straight manufactured trash, that is only barely functioning when it comes out of the factory.
Lying if you're a politician. You should be in a state similar to "under oath" in court, but at all times.
Advertising. I should have the legal right to not be advertised at. I should have the right to not have to accept advertising in order to access services, especially so if I already pay a subscription to that service. I cannot put into words how much I loath and despise advertising and advertisers. I hate them. Hate, in the real sense of the word.
Loot boxes in video games, whatever age group the game in question is aimed at, but especially so in kids' games.
Microtransactions in video games for anything other than non-essential/non-advantageous items, like cosmetics. Even then, their presence should upgrade the PEGI rating to adult/18, regardless of the actual content of the game. This might help prevent their inclusion at all.
Whatever the fuck is going on in Gaza right now.
Shielding police or soldiers from prosecution for crimes they've committed. If you stand in the way of the due process any other citizen would face, you should be heavily penalised for that. Like, the murderer soldiers who carried out Bloody Sunday are currently being protected by the British state and its lackeys, and I cannot fathom why. Cops in the US who murder people are frequently protected by unions and get to retire rather than be fired etc. All of that shit should be illegal. Get the fuck out of the way of due process.
Naziism and related nonsense like Holocaust denial. Germany already has laws about this, but that shit needs to be legally smothered in its crib everywhere.
Conspiracism surrounding public health issues like vaccines and masks.
It would be nice if prisoners of non-violent/minor crimes could (voluntarily) work (at maybe a lower wage than usual) and and they would be able to get what they earned once they get out of prison.
Oh come the fuck on. You want to live in world that puts the same people this guys claims (rightfully so just using his words) are skirting the around the law, to also regulate political lying, advertising, video games, conspiracy theories, uneducated opinions and Joe Rogan? I mean I don't even know where Rogan fits into any of this. I assume his podcast bit fuck me that means you all support governing who can amd can't have a public voice? I'm not saying his whole list is out there and yeah I'll admit I cherry picked the shit out if it but since when has there ever been any legal or legislative framework designed exactly as the voting people wanted? I'm not fuckin Libertarian and will prolly vote for Harris but damn I am not about to allow the buffoons to metaphorically get the foot in the door when they are on record of not even checking if they're in the right house before blindly opening fire on innocent civilians.
Tipping is fine, but only as a bonus for excellent service. There shouldn't be a "suggested gratuity" or some shit like that and also obviously shouldn't be counted as part of the employee's salary, like in the US
Everyone not having access to a 1-bedroom apartment or living space that is all theirs and affordable. So much crime is because people are forced to live with others they shouldn't be around and can't get along with in a shared living space.
Additionally, so many people are driven by the fear of homelessness so they just suck it up to their detriment until they snap and go really nuts and end up with shelter either way
I'd be fine with copyright being like 20 years or so, that's plenty of time to make a good amount of money from your work IMO. But yeah the current system where some corporation gets to keep cashing in on something half a century after the author is dead is pretty ridiculous.
the statute of Anne was the first copyright law and it was written to stop printers in London from breaking each others' knees over who was allowed to print the world of Shakespeare who was already long dead.
copyright is a bill of goods when packaged as a protection for creatives.
Not for something like medicine or crops that people will die if the copyright holder abuses their copyright. In that case we have to act for the greater good and make medicine first, compensate creators later, if at all.
Also ban talking on the street, public transport, and trees. All of these can be very noisy, and I can't stand it! Oh and bikes too, their bells are very infuriating, especially when it's bad and rings all the time.. and better not let your kids play in the front of the yard!
Seriously, I have seen loud motors, but haven't any loud scooters. Which one do you think is loud?
In my experience cars and newborns are louder, not by a little margin, just to give a few examples.
That's why I said compared to their speed. I don't know any brands or example models, all of them are obnoxiously loud and driven by simple minded fools imho. Cars make relatively little noise, and newborns and trees do not belong in this comparison in my opinion.
Yeah, I think many people thought you were talking about those electric scooters, which are, well pretty damn silent and good to make cities less car focused (like in the US). I mean things like this.
Yeah it's my bad as apparently most of the world uses the word differently :-) I'm a big fan of electric vehicles, both the noise and pollution are reduced which is great!
No worries, it appears that most of the world uses the word "scooter" differently than we do in the Netherlands :-) with your definition of scooter I agree that my statement was ridiculous haha.
non-consensual advertising (consensual being things like steam discovery queue, where I actively want to be advertised to), "lobbying" (bribing), fossil fuels and friends, gerrymandering (US), the electoral college (US), publically trading your company
My aunt works in oil, if it was made illegal tomorrow that wpuld dirsupt her life. I would be glad to help her and glad that the future of everybody just got brighter?
If oil was made illegal tomorrow, society would collapse.
Supply chains would collapse, artificial fertilizer would not be made, crops would die, massive famine would set in, medicine would not be able to be made, power generation would stall, including emergeny generators, and vast numer of people would die globally.
Congratulations, who ever makes oil illegal, will be responsible for the biggest mass death globally ever.
Most people in countries where guns are regulated would not get access to a gun for hunting, mind you. Unless your job is to be a forester, which over here includes selectively shooting animations to balance populations if something goes out of balance.
"I want to get my own deer meat from the forest" is not a valid reason to get a gun. Or even a bow!
You can only get a gun if you are actively in need of one, there are only two legal way to be in need of one, hunting and competition.
You need to get a hunting license from a school, join a hunting society and be an active member to get a permit for gun, or you need to actively compete in a shooting club to get a competition permit. You also need to demonstrate competence and skill before you get a permit regardless of if you are a hunter or a competitor.
Getting a gun for personal safety is not permitted, and to be frank, it isn't really needed here, we have few dangerous animals, and despite the rise of gang violence, Sweden is still a safe country.
Yes. Every hunter is ethical and will absolutely nail every shot to make sure the animal doesn’t suffer and die a slow death. A hunter missing the killshot and instead wounding the animal? Never happens.
Of course it happens, but for the absolute majority of it's life, even a wounded animal has lived a life in freedom and nature, a proper hunter would absolutely track and deal with a wounded animal to reduce suffering and preserve the meat.
Possibly controversial but prostitution. Allows for regulation and workplace safety. Would probably calm a lot of men down as well and help them focus on the more important aspects of getting into a relationship.
Edit: misread the title and thought it said "legal".
The cars are generally bought at auction. That means car dealers took them in trade and didn't want to sell them because they were too bad/too big a risk to their reputation.
The cars were bought cheap and "repaired" enough to get them running, and then they DETAIL the hell out of them.
Bottom line is, they sell a car they own for 2-3000 for 7k+ and get their cost back so quick they're making profit almost from day one, and whether you pay high interest forever to them or they repossess it and resell it to someone else for more profit, they don't care.
I feel like my answer might break AskLemmy's rule 2 about "Overt Politics", but so do a lot of the other answers? Feel free to delete if so.
::: spoiler overtly political answer, also CW for violence.
As far as the current American system goes... nothing. By and large, even laws that seem good are mostly only used in service of the elites, against the people. Consider this series of events:
In 2015 a white supremacist in South Carolina commits a mass shooting, killing 9 people.
In 2017, the Georgia state gov expands the state's domestic terrorism laws, directly in response to this shooting, because the previous version wouldn't have covered it.
In 2022, this expanded law gets used... against people protesting police brutality, who hurt no one, despite the fact that the cops killed one of them.
Unfortunately, this general sequence is not uncommon at all. Neither is the inverse, where the bureaucrats/judges/etc decide "that doesn't count, actually" when it comes to an elite very clearly breaking an existing law, or else changing the law so it doesn't apply to them in retrospect.
:::
From my industry: Perhaps the purchase of chemicals for the manufacture of fireworks. It's surprisingly easy to order pounds and pounds of different oxidizers and fuels.
The one I need is highly controlled. I need to make my own strike anywhere matches since Uco quit, need red phosphorous, don't want to scrape it off of match strikers for hours, want a big ol' jar. Apparently it's also used to make "MeTh" so I can't buy it.
I assume you mean while on a plane and not onto a plane. Also assuming you mean while on a public plane. Pretty sure masturbating while in public might be a bit illegal at least for dudes, and for anyone whipping it out to get off wouldn’t the exposing ones genitals in public just top it off?
Why? I have to imagine it would be nice if I lived in a walkable city to wake up in the mornings by going for a walk with a coffee to wake up— I mean I might just go to coffee shop so I don’t have to lug it about but it doesn’t seem especially egregious
Smoking. Millions of euros of taxpayer money spent every year on those lung cancer patients which could be well spent elsewhere. It's also an activity that negatively affects not just the smoker but everyone around them.
Smoking is something I truly despise, we all know that it is bad, really bad for you, we teach kids about it, yet people still start smoking.
Do as New Zealand did, set a cut off year, if you are born after 2015, you will not be permitted to buy tobacco at all.
then have a right leaning government win the next election and roll it back https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510439/smokefree-generation-law-scrapped-by-coalition-government
Damn it...
Blame tobacco lobbies and gullible fools.
Great. You've just made another illegal narcotic, a black market and a way of financing illegal activity.
I'd agree with you on that if tobacco was completely banned, but banning from a specific age, seems like a fairly low impact.
...and as time marches on?
The use would be drasticly cut down, we'll never get every one....
What I meant was that "a ban from a certain age" is a total ban eventually. Black market will grow as the ban becomes more and more complete.
What I find amusing is that the cigarettes packages where I live have disgusting images with the potential sickness it comes from its usage, and yet people still buy them 'hey man, this will literally kill you someday" warning does not work.
I thought this was a well known measure but it seems that my USA cousin did not know about this kind of marketing.
They ought to increase it by 2 years every time. That way people have to get clean. Also, we ( US citizens) should take control of all tobacco companies, and wind them down, putting all profits and assets towards addiction recovery services, and cancer treatments.
They've been making billions off of slowly killing people for the last 100+ years, they don't need one more fucking day.
You been hanging out with Sir Humphrey? ;-)
Nice try, tobacco marketing executive...
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Exactly, and the rhetoric "it pays for themselves" also doesn't hold up, since there is still second hand and third hand smoke.
The tax on cigarettes is so high, it's been claimed they pay more into the system than they claim out, as they die too soon. 🫣 (In Australia)
At least here in Germany this is apparently still not true as smokers in particular add a huge cost to the healthcare system due to the long-term and repeated damage. For example, once they get parts of their feet amputated from clogged arteries, most actually continue to smoke ("Ah well now it's too late anyways"), and hence will get half a dozen such amputations over time.
Obesity is the issue these days not tobacco. Tobacco use is a fraction of what it once was. Now a huge portion of the EU and USA is obese, which causes way more strain on the healthcare system.
X
That sounds like marketing by tobacco companies.
Haha I had to go digging.
So it is mentioned in an Australian page about the costs of Tobacco in Australia:
https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-17-economics/17-2-the-costs-of-smoking#17.2.6
So darkly amusingly it has actually been reported before, but in the Czech Republic.
...in a study funded by a tobacco company.
Thank youj for the link, I read the section you linked to and the cancer council seems like a good soruce, and it was about what I expected.
Australian here, in Finland. Holy shit it seems everyone smokes like chimneys here.
Never really thought about how much smoking has declined in Aus over the last 20-40 years, but yeah coming over here has been an eye opener.
Seems to be a Europe thing, or really a rest of the world thing. It's very rare to smell cigarettes, particularly after vaping took off.
In my country there was like 10 wonderful years when almost nobody smoked.
In the last 5-10 years all that got reversed by vaping, it’s everywhere now. Not as bad as smoking though.
Yeah, and unlike what people commonly think, it doesn't just directly affect the user (first hand smoke) and the people around it (second hand smoke), but also the furniture and nature around it (third hand smoke).
I despise those cigarettes laying around everywhere in nature. You can even smell them on remotes if someone was a hardcore smoker.
They need help in kicking off from it.
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I have less problems with the "luxury" items, such as cigars.
They're usually hand-crafted expensive stuff that's made to enjoy once and a while, compared to cigarettes which are mass produced with the sole purpose to get you addicted.
I think the same is true with alcohol. There's the cheap, mass produced stuff vs the more expensive "hand"-crafted stuff.
I wish we could just enjoy these things without corporations trying to get us addicted to them at every opportunity, disregarding any of the dangers associated with consuming them.
Btw its written "once in a while"
Supermarkets and businesses throwing food away and not allowing people to take it for free. ("If I can't sell it nobody can have it").
Would only work if you also made them immune from lawsuits due to people getting sick from eating expired food.
they already are under the good samaritan laws; they use lawsuits as an excuse for their shitty behavior.
Depends on your location. Good Samaritan laws vary widely.
The food would presumably "last moment before expiry" i.e. we can't sell this tomorrow so we give it away tonight.
Expiration dates on packaged food are almost always about how enjoyable the food is to eat, not safety. Donating expired packaged food with legal protection from liability would be good for the world.
Requiring the purchase or use of proprietary software or formats to view or submit public records.
Or medical. Or educational.
Collection of personally identifiable information on every website ever.
Corporate murder.
Making a profit from healthcare and health insurance.
Or even just make private health insurance illegal.
Lobbying.
Lobbying is fine. Lobbying with money should be illegal.
ITT: people so used to lobbying that they got convinced it's a necessary evil so that minorities and common folks can lobby as well.
It's clearly absurd. Many places call lobbying with its real name: corruption. And there are laws in place to fight it. Are they perfect? No. Is it then more effective to legalyze corruption? OF COURSE NOT ARE YOU INSANE?!?
Lobbying isn't the same as corruption.
Lobbying is informing politicians about an issue while pushing your agenda.
Corruption is giving a politician an incentive to vote as you want.
In what universe a politician does not have, nevermind intrinsecally in its raise to popularity, but explicitly active tools and relationships that keeps him up to date with the issues and needs of his community?
I guess in a monarchy.
Very few politicians have the time get down and understand the issues enough to make an informed decision, which they have aids and use lobbyists to learn about the subject.
A decision about deciding about subsidiaries for specific crops for instance, lets say that a farmer used to farm wheat, but then realized that he could get more money by farming tobacco, ok, so he switches to tobacco, but the nation still needs a stable supply of wheat, so wheat needs to be subsidized by the government to make it worth it for farmer to farm wheat, most politicians won't know if there is a need for this or how large it needs to be.
This is where lobbyists come in, they inform politicians about what they believe is needed, show reports and other data, to influence the politician about how to vote and what to argue for. Wheat farmers and baker advocacy groups will argue for high subsidies, tobacco farmers and cigarette companies will argue against it.
Is that a government for ants?!?
No dude there's experts, specialists, entire departments within any (?) human government that knows shit, talks with experts, calculate and runs stuff.
They don't just wait for farmers to walk up and explain what vegetables are.
And why would you think it's normal that cigarette companies are at this whymsical table? Why put cancer inducing products in a debate with food with baby politicians that knows nothing and wait for the "debate" to play out?
No this is normal.
Yes there are departments for healthcare, having reports full of stats, that no politician will ever read, lobbying can bring attention to demetia and bring some context to the data.
Correct, but they want farmers to come up and talk to them about problems that they see that might be missed, for example, how young people can be encouraged to go into farming, or if there is something killing the crops that they can see faster than the governments experts can write a report about.
Because they are a huge industry.
Because farmers need money, and if tobacco pays more than wheat, then the farmer will farm tobacco.
You are blind to so many options...
They ignore the reports? So why would they not ignore the "people"? Because money? Then it's just corruption and the policy won't reflect any genuine need.
Why being a "huge industry" has any political weight? Drugs cartel move tons of money, do they get a say in the matter too?
I get what you mean, but that would backfire increadibly quickly.
Civil rights organizations would no longer be able to talk with politicians directly, possibly never, as demonstrations and manifestations could be classified as lobbying depending on how strict it would be enforced.
Environmental groups could no longer invite politicians to important conferences.
Lobbying isn't just something that monolithic companies do, take it away, and it will only be something the bad guys does.
Yup, a late friend of mine was a lobbyist at the state level for a mental health lobbying group. His daughter has schizophrenia and that was his way to give back in his retirement. Without lobbying, it's hard for politicians to know when there is a problem they need to fix. They have a small staff and they don't just magically know when there is a problem. The problem is when a politician either can't sniff out unethical lobbyists or just doesn't care.
I'd accept such an outcome.
Keep in mind that the person you reply to isn't wrong: Big corpos would still be lobbying, as they got the resources to hide it effectively and keep everyone trying to sue them over suspicions of lobbying stuck in litigation hell.
Anybody less affluent would however find it impossible to do any lobby work. Environmental agencies etc.
This is one of those situations where just outlawing something does the least affect the very party you would want to hit most.
That's a better approach I think, yes. It'll be difficult to prevent collusion but effectivey capping the size of most companies and maybe their across-border reach would be a good way to keep a tighter leash on them.
You'd accept possibly loosing the right to demonstrate or to hold a manifestation or protest?
That is not the world I want to live in.
Wut? It is supremely American to think you can only talk to politicians if you have money... and only because so many other people are willing to purchase a slice of their time.
I can just walk to Peter Julian's office and, assuming I'm not rude, talk to him about something that matters to me. I've had conversations with Peter Welch and Bernie Sanders - I used to board game with a state senator. It it might be hard to get a lunch date with Joe Biden but politicians spend the majority of their time just talking to folks... it's only when the rich can use their money to monopolize time that shit breaks down.
Those meetings you have had with politicians could absolutely be classified as lobbying, and would be made illegal if lobbying was outlawed.
A company have the resources to make a smokescreen around meetings like that, making it harder to prove lobbyism, the lobbyist just happened to stay at the same hotel as the politician did, they even arrived a week before, and left two days after the politician arrived, it's not like a meeting was set up on the one overlapping day, that would be crazy....
It's not just classified as lobbying, it's litterally what Lobbying is about. Meeting politician to tell them that the environmental law reforms means that the factory will close or that the consumer need better protection regarding toxic chemical in their food is what Lobbyist do. It's sometimes get even funnier when they change employer and therefore political side
Members of Congress trading individual stocks, bonds, and other investments.
Lies and exaggerated advertising.
No, it's not "best in the world" or "lightning fast", it's an entry level $200 GPU!
No, it doesn't have "crystal clear high-res screen", it's just a budget phone!
No, that tampon will not change my lifestyle!
No, that perfume will not make guys drooling over me!
I'm ok with "it's decent quality with an affordable price".
I'm ok with "it's the best budget-friendly option".
I'm ok with "it's not the best in the world, but it's definitely worth a try".
I personally think the "how good is it" part of "advertising" should literally just be a percentage value of "how many existing customers say it was worth it".
But even that would get gamed the way 5/5 amazon reviews can be bought today already.
So maybe it should really just be "it's a insert thing made out of insert material produced in insert country by insert labour conditions and it costs insert price".
For-profit healthcare.
Making more than 10x the money of your least paid employee.
I get where you're coming from, but I think you'd just see companies divide into tiers where one tier would subcontract to the tier below. Think "cleaning services companies" all the way down.
Well I don't expect the exact phrasing of the code of law to be 11 words.
Simple : let's make that illegal too
This.
Boneless chicken with bones
Nutrition information based on unrealistic serving sizes.
I've seen an individually wrapped muffin "servings per pack: 2".
Then there's that Tom Scott video on how "zero calory" sweetener can be 4 calories.
There's a great video by Vihart about how even when accounting for servings per unit it can still be manipulated to fit their marketing goals.
Europe has "per 100g"
Thank you! That had6 given me much more to be outraged about!
Canada passed 'rational servings' laws a few years ago to this exact end. No more cases where a single-portion package would contain 1.6 servings, or whatnot.
Unlimited political spending, particularly by corporations - see Citizen's United.
Campaign financing in general. If you get enough signatures you'll get a fixed amount of money from tax payers for your campaign. If you accept money from anyone else you're barred from public office for life. End of corruption right there.
Locked bootloaders
Qualified immunity for police officers. Prosecutors and judges basically get qualified immunity, too-- in that they can be caught engaging in all sorts of inappropriate and illegal activity without facing punishment because like police, it usually doesn't even get to the extent of being charged.
I don't even understand how qualified immunity could even be implemented without massive social unrest
Maybe fix the social issues as well so there's no need to riot
I'd love to but even our most citizen aligned presidential terms only side with the people 20% of the time...
Requiring agreement to some unspecified ever-changing terms of service in order to use the product you just bought, especially when use of such products is required in the modern world. Google and Apple in particular are more or less able to trivially deny any non-technical person access to smartphones and many things associated with them like access to mobile banking. Microsoft is heading that way with Windows requiring MS accounts, too, though they're not completely there yet.
Billionaires. Nobody ever needs that much wealth. Resources better used elsewhere for the public good.
Mutilating the bodies of people too young or otherwise unable to give consent.
I want to live in a world where "stop cutting bits of babies dicks off" doesn't require any further explanation.
"No, actually, its you who needs to justify cutting bits of babies dicks off. Not the other way round. Unless its hair, nails or connected to the mum, the default position is actually not to cut bits of the baby off."
Oh lmao I was way off, I was like "damn I'm surprised to see an anti abortion post at +9 -0 on lemmy, wtf?!"
I didn't realize until I read your post lol.
So im asking this question as a person who has had to have an adult circumcision, I get the consent part, but why is this considered mutilation?
Again, im genuinely ignorant of the subject beyond medical requirements
Because it serves a genuine function, because the process poses an unnecessary risk, because there is no way to know how big the penis is going to get when the kid grows up, and that is part of the reason for the foreskin, to have a ton of give so it doesn't happen like it did to my ex. He got circumcised as a newborn, and by the time he finished puberty, his penis grew far more than the leftover foreskin, so he wasn't even able to have full erections without a tremendous amount of pain and sometimes, even tearing.
This is a complicated way to flex with a big dick. But thanks for the insight. Didn't know about this specific problem circumcision has.
vocabulary.com: "When a person or an object has been altered or damaged in a permanent way, that's a mutilation."
it can desensitize the penis and cause health issues and/or sexual dysfunction (arguably its intended consequence). forced body alteration is mutilation
If you chop someone's leg off without consent for no good reason, that's mutilation. If you amputate it with consent for legitimate medical reasons that's a medical procedure.
This 100% reads to me as an anti-trans post. Maybe that's not your intent, but that's the way it reads. Esp. since anyone under 18 con not legally give consent to anything.
I read it as an anti-circumcision post. You ckuld be right, though.
It's not because young trans people can consent to transitioning. Consenting to sex is not the same thing as consenting to medical procedures. Would you forcibly hold down a 12 year old to give them a vaccine despite them refusing and resisting? If not, then clearly you recognise that under 18s have a degree of bodily autonomy and have to consent to the medical procedures they receive once they are mentally capable of understanding and expressing a choice on those procedures.
It would be pro-trans given the habit of surgical mutilation of intersex infants, which causes a lot of problems down the line for trans intersex people seeking transition surgery that would essentially reverse the mutilation they experienced as infants when they couldn't consent.
If they meant it in an anti-trans way then they would be factually wrong insofar as transition procedures are, by definition, consensual. The non-consensual procedures (which may be the same procedures) are done to "correct" children's (usually, though some cis adults opt to have them done) sexes towards the one they were assigned.
That can and does happen. Do you think that children enjoy getting shots? Children generally do not have bodily autonomy, no. Parents can refuse certain non-critical medical care for their children, even if the child wants that care. The state can force a child to receive certain medical care, even if the child doesn't want it. Whether it's morally right or not to deny a minor bodily autonomy is a different question, but as a matter of law, they do not generally have bodily autonomy.
Well I guess the laws where I live are quite different to where you live. I don't have the statistics but I imagine that a non-insignificant number of countries set the age of medical consent to a reasonable age at which people understand and have their own preferences as to the medical care they receive.
I said 12. 12 year olds can refuse vaccines (and those who do are not physically forced to, that sounds insane to me), in my experience at school when vaccines were offered at that age almost everyone opted to have them though.
Most countries have elections on thw weekend.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_day
Lots of people work on weekends.
Yep?
But less people work on weekends than on weekdays.
There is no universal day for everyone to make it, which is why Sweden offers pre-election voting and voting by mail, plenty of other countries does as well.
Child marriages. Fact that's legal in any US States is absurd.
Absurd? Yes. Surprising? No. If you put children in bathing suits to decide which is the hottest child? It's not shocking to hear that they want to marry these hot children.
Speaking as a non-American: it's a fucking obscenity
What the fuck really?
predatory microtransactions in video games that are essentially gambling.
I got zero problems with idiot gamers who continue to pay for and encourage this behavior.
victims don't "encourage" their abusers. these are predatory practices designed to hook in as many people vulnerable to gambling addiction as possible. you have a misconception about the people that get hooked into these things. most of them are not "idiot gamers" nor oil barons, they are either children or neurodivergent people.
It's naive to think that someone is at fault for falling prey to the psychological tactics publishers use to push people toward micro transactions.
If you think about it, it's really not that different from saying people with gambling addictions deserve to be broke. Microtransactions might seem like an obvious scam to a lot of people, but a lot of people fall it and waiving it away and saying they deserve it will only make the problem worse.
While there are gamers hooked on gambling machines, the industry will continue to produce more and more blatant gambling machines... instead of actual balanced games.
ffs people, stop treating addiction like it's something that people 'deserve' for doing bad decisions.
I appreciate them in the cases where they subsidize a free game for me, when all they're spending money on is some dressup doll equivalent
Insane rent hikes. Landlords and corps shouldn't be able to raise rent from $1,700 mo to $8,000 mo in a single period, let alone a handful of years.
To piggyback off that: the concept of rent.
It's fine as a concept, it allows you to live somewhere without making a commitment long-term.
But there needs to be more regulations in place, like maybe making it illegal for corporations to buy residential property and requiring by law that any new residential building must have the option to buy as well as rent, with regulations to ensure it's a fair price.
Housing shouldn’t be gatekept. Rent as we know it is broken. Someone owns a property, while you pay the mortgage. But you’re not paying down to own, you’re paying it down for someone else to own. Sure, renting is fine for people who move a lot, but that money shouldn’t be flushed down the drain every month—from the position of the renter. Rental credits, to where that money you’re putting down acts as a credit toward getting the opportunity to own. This would take a massive restructuring of the way we behave as a society, but it’s desperately needed.
It's not quite that simple though. What do you mean by "residential property"? Single-family homes? A duplex? Okay, that sounds fine, but what about an apartment high rise? That's a residential property, and there's not a great way to have it all be rental property without being owned by a corporation of some kind. Even when you talk about renting far few units--such as an owner-occupied apartment building with 4 units in total (these are fairly common in Chicago, which is the rental market I'm most familiar with)--a "corporation" may be something like an LLC in order to shield the owner from personal financial liability in case of catastrophic loss. (And yes, I'm aware that incorporating as a small business can and does get abused. In theory there are checks against that, in practice they don't help in many cases since there's too much going on for any municipality to go after every single case of business fraud.)
Of course, you don't want individuals owning vast tracts of residential properties either; that takes all the problems of corporations owning property, and concentrates them into the hands of one person.
I think that there might be a way to regulate and incentivize behaviour through tax policy, but I'm not sure what it would be. Perhaps a system that put a hard cap on profits, and required certain percentages of rent to always go into maintenance and improvements? You'd probably also want to exempt corporations that owned or had control over 6 or fewer units.
This would be a fun (read: complex and challenging) area of public policy to get involved in, because you want to make housing affordable, but you also don't want to disincentivize development.
Ninja edit: I'm saying all of this not because I'm pro-corp, or pro-gov't, but because any time you try and fix a problem, you're going to have bad actors that are going to try and break your system in order to get as much personal profit out of it as they can. Trying to find the weak points and then reinforcing them makes it harder for good ideas to be abused to a negative end.
Then not all of them have to be for rent. In my country at least you can buy individual apartments.
Also you could allow them to own the property they build, but once sold off, they or another corporation (or individual with too many properties, maybe the limit can be 3 or 4) cannot buy them again.
Obviously I'm not a lawyer and this was just a quick suggestion. I expect people more familiar with the law can word this better.
Conflicts of interest. Sometimes illegal, but not nearly as much as they should be (almost always)
Like congress members being allowed to trade stock, which can then be affected by their vote
Or one of the specifically carved out exceptions to the medical kickbacks laws is for the people who negotiate drug prices for pharmacies
Advertising. I just hate how it’s crept into every facet of our lives and it’s not done intruding in on our daily lives either.
Yep. It’s insane to me how society goes to such lengths to make road transportation, driving, cars etc safer, and then is perfectly fine with billboards. It’s super illegal to be distracted by your phone whilst driving, but a giant graphical ad on the side of the road is totally cool. Whut
Forced arbitration clauses.
selling boneless chicken wings with bones.
The animals we create are morally equivalent to our own children and are owed the exact same unconditional love and protection.
If you want to argue for the ethical treatment of animals or that they deserve care and respect, that's one thing, and I can respect it. But equating that to what humans, especially children, deserve is ridiculous. If it came down to saving the life of a child or an animal, it would be immoral to not choose the human child.
If you create intelligent life, it doesn't matter who it is or how it came to exist. Your moral responsibilities to that specific creature are identical. I'm sure you can find edge cases where you have to make a decision between a human and a non-human animal, but even if those edge cases all go to the human, it does not excuse all the other cases where there is no human that has to suffer for you to live up to your responsibilities.
Humans have not created intelligent life, so your whole point is moot. Maybe it'll become more relevant in the future, but at this current point in history, the only intelligent life that we "created", has been our own children.
I have been assured there are cows in the wild who live 20 years on average. it's not true but people(vegans) definitely think that
Nope, good try tho.
I think tacking on irrelevant laws onto popular bills to get them passed shouldn't be allowed.
Politicians shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks, especially when they're in a position to pass laws that would directly affect their holdings.
Super PACs, it's absolutely wild that that's a thing IMO.
I think there should also be a "cooling off" period of some sort over passing/repealing laws. I'm thinking as an example of the Republicans after Obamacare was passed, when they tried to repeal it something like 70 times in 10 years. I get that things change and laws sometimes need to be amended or updated, but there should really be some system in place to prevent people from spamming up the whole system like that.
I'm also not a big fan of the filibuster.
Monopolies
Lobbying.
It defintly is a slippery slope. I work for a municipalitylies utilities company. Part of my job is working with a utilities companies union to lobby politicians to make laws that will actually improve the way we can work. I think we actually do improve things for the German public by bringing desperately needed knowledge to the table.
But I think we are a small minority among lobbying institutions.
Predatory advertising... commonly is the form of fear mongering, but any form should be illegal.
When you are in a political position you are not allowed to lie.
We have to develop the technology to perfectly detect lies and give everyone who wants to be in office a collar which gives them seizures when lying.
Every Parlament around the world would look like a Harlem shake gone wrong.
Small print, excessive legalese and outright deceptive language in ads, agreements and such. All the "free" (not really free) trials, "unlimited" (not really unlimited) plans, "best value" (according to the producer and their mum) deals and shit like that.
There really should be a law prohibiting that - if reading through terms and conditions for using a damn website or a toothbrush or whatever requires 4 hours of free time, a magnifyibg glass and degree in law, such t&cs should be illegal. Same for disclaimers and such in ads - any 4pt text displayed for 2 seconds on screen should automatically result in a massive fine.
Honestly? Alcohol. I used to work security at a rehab, and it was always the worst addiction. The withdrawls are horrible, up to and including death. Yes, even worse than heroin.
Read up on US prohibition and how it funded the Mafia. It just changes the form of the societal disease.
The answer to addiction is having support and care on place for those that fall to it so society helps pick them up again. You can't stop the abuse of substances unless you fix why people are crawling into a hole to avoid the world. Lack of mental health is a disease of society as well as the individual.
Its so mad that we have such a literal example of exactly what happens, due to prohibition, yet society refuses to see like for like. The mafia simply used the exact same routes to smuggle heroin. They didn't disappear or die out, due to alcohol prohibition ending. They got into bed with the CIA, under operation gladio. What they did with crack wasn't the first or the biggest example.
Like you said, you can't people abusing substances. They remain illegal because somewhere some very powerful people are making too much money from them remaining so.
We tried that in the US. It went very poorly.
In fact in the US it can't be illegal federally without a constitutional amendment.
Because they saw just how badly prohibition went, shame it took them a century to catch up with weed.
Weed was made illegal in the 70s, no?
Nope, it was just returned to public spotlight in the 70s as a tool to fight the counterculture
I am in my late 30s. Drank in college with friends at parties. I dont anymore just not into it. I like things that make me faster, smarter, or stronger. I dont understand why all TV shows and movies seem to be centered around drinking when its a social scene. (I live in north america). Nothing good comes from drinking alcohol. They make it seem like if you're relaxing or want to have fun you need alcohol. I just need a good brisket for both those.
Go pick up a history book.
Why? Simply because this was actually tried in America? All I'm doing is answering the question. Just because this country failed at making it illegal does not mean it still shouldn't be illegal.
People are allowed to make their own decisions, even if they're bad decisions. And it shouldn't be illegal because it has been proven that making it illegal only makes everything worse.
OK and I think it should be illegal, so you think however you want.
Social- and greenwashing proposals.
"By buying [unnecessary product] you will help [marginalized group] to gain a livable income and also send their kids to school instead of sending them to [work place with - even for adults - horrible work conditions]. Also, when buying [product] we will save [arbirtary area] of [rainforest/ coral reef/ mangrove swamp] that would otherwise have been destroyed [but not by us]. Additional to that, your purchase helped us to save [arbitrary ammount of CO
2- at least in a completely hypothetical scenario]. While using [product] you will make the world a better place."As a customer there is barely any way you can ensure or check that these things are true. It cannot be possible to save the enviroment while buying stupid products like, for example, internet-of-shit-devices which will be phased out in no time or single use products made from plastic or other harmful materials that are not recycleable.
All these claims are just an indulgance trade - like it is done for centuries in a religious context. It is just that you have an excuse to consume more, because they to something to help people/ enviroment. If there was a product that would have been advertised as: "Well, we irretrieveably destroyed 100 km^2^ of nature, and for each single product in average two workers died and at end-of-life this product will fuck up the environment once more - also it will impair your health just by existing", it would be horrible - but at least it would be honest.
The selling of personal information.
Minor being member of religious (or political) organization
That's not necessary. What's needed is to treat religious beliefs as a personal choice, and no more. You can get protection from being discriminated against based on your beliefs so long as it doesn't extend past actual disadvantage (so yes to not being disadvantaged in your workplace for being religious, but no to not wanting to bake a cake for gay people). Other than that, your religion buys you nothing. No 'medical exemptions', no special treatment, and especially no influence on other people's lifestyle choices. True freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. It stays in your home and place of worship. In public, in government, in education and healthcare, religion does not exist.
I would also specify that your religion doesn't get to negatively (and of there's any confusion about what is negative, err on the side of caution) impact their children in any way. Otherwise, as children are a very vulnerable group that will grow into an adult, it's just a loophole for religious people to continue to propagate their religion without arguing against an opponent qualified to actually think sceptically, or commit harms against minors unable to protect themselves.
First step to achieving that is banning homeschooling - way too many people use that as a way to avoid their children getting educated about stuff they don't want them to know.
And religious schools in general, banning the private school exemption.
In the US slavery should be illegal since ages but isn't yet.
The employer-employee contract
It violates the theory of inalienable rights that implied the abolition of constitutional autocracy, coverture marriage, and voluntary self-sale contracts.
Inalienable means something that can't be transferred even with consent. In case of labor, the workers are jointly de facto responsible for production, so by the usual norm that legal and de facto responsibility should match, they should get the legal responsibility i.e. the fruits of their labor
@asklemmy
I think that it depends on the nature of the contract. Sure, most of them are terrible.
On the other hand, NDAs are a form of employment contract that are often a necessity. Non-compete contracts can serve a legitimate purpose, in preventing unfair competition or using company secrets for person gain. They're usually written in an overly broad manner though, or prevent legitimate employee activities.
Private cars in cities.
They're noisy, unhealthy, cause massive damage to infrastructure, transport one person at a time while taking up enough space for ~10 in the road, fill open spaces for parking, sometimes while being completely unusable, endanger everyone else on the roads....
I'm a fan of a nested zone approach. City center, no cars, pedestrians, bikes and busses only.
A few blocks away, compact cars only.
A few more blocks from that, all cars, no trucks or SUVs
A few more from that, All cars trucks and SUVs allowed, no trailers.
Absolutely outer edge, drive whatever you want.
Killing animals for pleasure.
Edit: I love how the voting discrepancy here shows the hypocrisy lol
This is generally illegal and heavily fined as well. Depends on where you live, I guess.
Also depends on which animals
It’s generally legal and heavily subsidised. See also animal agriculture.
Sustenance is different from pleasure
So you agree that if it isn't for sustenance, in the case where you can just simply eat something else, it should be illegal?
Sustenance doesn't mean "the only thing available".
Look, I'm excited for lab-grown meat. I've reduced my meat consumption significantly over the last year or two. I may not be "in your camp" exactly, but I'm an ally. And it's probably better to earn and keep allies than to argue semantics in an adversarial way. Win more flies with honey and all that.
I assume you agree o the general statement "Animals shouldn't be killed for pleasure."
If you then have two options for food, one including animal meat and one without, all other things being equal, even nutrition wise, then how is it not "for pleasure" to chose the option with meat?
Killing for pleasure implies hunting for sport.
Chopping up a cow so that tons of people can buy its meat is different than someone hunting bears for sport and leaving the corpse where it lands.
for most people making taht decision does not involve killing anything. both options have already been harvested and presented.
no one said that. you're making a leap of logic.
It was a question. I said that.
that's not killing for pleasure.
Does your country not allow hunting?
Hunting isn't purely done for fun, it is also done to harvest meat
and ecological conservation
Absolutely, the biggest nature lovers in my family are all hunters, they enjoy being in the woods, they enjoy seeing animals, they follow the rules to only harvest as much they are allowed and only during the season permitted.
In my country it's mostly done for fun.
So people go out, shoot a deer and just leave it there?
Seems like an extreme waste to me...
It's usually not that much extra effort to take the carcass and bring it to a butcher, so they do that sometimes. But yeah. Often, just leave it.
It's actually not all that bad because we have a lack of natural predators (because we already hunted them almost to extinction) so hunting keeps the deer population from exploding.
Ok, so they also do make a good deed in adition to just hunting.
Trophy hunting, after all this time, is still legal and big business.
Taste pleasure.
Surprised to see no one has said cigarettes yet. Not only are you poisoning yourself, it's harmful to everyone else around you that has to inhale that shit.
Not really something that is legal that should be illegal, but I would love to see this nonsense that corporate executives can't be held criminally responsible (the corporation is) for their illegal acts. I think it would correct an awful lot of shitty things corporations do really quickly (assuming enforcement).
I think all those in the management chain should be held responsible. Maybe with a weighting of the proportion of those under them engaged in the criminal behaviour.
It should be treated as in the military, "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.
Yeah, I like that! 👍 Corporations don't make decisions... Those people do
Products purposefully manufactured to be unfixable. Main example being anything apple...you can't even add ram to a iMac anymore and they have the audacity to sell the lower end model with 8 gigs of ram as if that's enough when everyone knows its not. Basically selling a 1400$ piece of shit.
It is far worse if you look at the radmom no name brand products sold by Amazon, they are straight manufactured trash, that is only barely functioning when it comes out of the factory.
It would be nice if prisoners of non-violent/minor crimes could (voluntarily) work (at maybe a lower wage than usual) and and they would be able to get what they earned once they get out of prison.
Lol they asked for what should be illegal not for a list of shit that annoys you🤣
Holds true for most of what this guy said, save a few things.
Oh come the fuck on. You want to live in world that puts the same people this guys claims (rightfully so just using his words) are skirting the around the law, to also regulate political lying, advertising, video games, conspiracy theories, uneducated opinions and Joe Rogan? I mean I don't even know where Rogan fits into any of this. I assume his podcast bit fuck me that means you all support governing who can amd can't have a public voice? I'm not saying his whole list is out there and yeah I'll admit I cherry picked the shit out if it but since when has there ever been any legal or legislative framework designed exactly as the voting people wanted? I'm not fuckin Libertarian and will prolly vote for Harris but damn I am not about to allow the buffoons to metaphorically get the foot in the door when they are on record of not even checking if they're in the right house before blindly opening fire on innocent civilians.
Arbitrary surcharges and fees. Like "5% to offset the rising minimum wage" bullshit restaurants are doing.
If that gets rid of tipping, I don't see an issue with it.
Tipping is fine, but only as a bonus for excellent service. There shouldn't be a "suggested gratuity" or some shit like that and also obviously shouldn't be counted as part of the employee's salary, like in the US
Everyone not having access to a 1-bedroom apartment or living space that is all theirs and affordable. So much crime is because people are forced to live with others they shouldn't be around and can't get along with in a shared living space.
Additionally, so many people are driven by the fear of homelessness so they just suck it up to their detriment until they snap and go really nuts and end up with shelter either way
Are you saying what should be legal but isnt?Whoops my bad, curse this episodic dyslexia
Popups.
Using lies, especially lying about the beliefs of important historical people or of gods in someones religion, for a political campaign is legal
Copyrights
Nope, copyrights isn't the issue, they enable people to earn money from their creativity, the issue is rather that they are way too long.
Back in the 1780s copyright lasted 14 years after the work was created.
This is fine, the current obscene legnth of copyright is terrible.
I'd be fine with copyright being like 20 years or so, that's plenty of time to make a good amount of money from your work IMO. But yeah the current system where some corporation gets to keep cashing in on something half a century after the author is dead is pretty ridiculous.
people have always been able to earn money from their creativity. copyright is just corporate greed.
Copyright provides the legal framework to ensure the copyright holder has their rights protected.
it's a fictional right.
Technically every right and every prohibition is fictional...
oh shit. now you're on my level
We only really run into trouble when we start treating corporations like people and copyright as a commodity in it's own right.
Non-transferable copyright for the life of the author would be perfectly acceptable.
the statute of Anne was the first copyright law and it was written to stop printers in London from breaking each others' knees over who was allowed to print the world of Shakespeare who was already long dead.
copyright is a bill of goods when packaged as a protection for creatives.
Not for something like medicine or crops that people will die if the copyright holder abuses their copyright. In that case we have to act for the greater good and make medicine first, compensate creators later, if at all.
Factory farming
Leveraged buyout, cutting yourself a huge check, folding the company and walking away.
Eh... where? This seems like a very location-specific question.
if no location is given, assume an american asked the question without realizing there's more to the world
No just answer for your location or name global/international examples.
What is this rest of the world you speak of?
Being noisy in public.
Ugh yes, and ban scooters and motors as well, they make such a ridiculous amount of noise compared to their speed.
Also ban talking on the street, public transport, and trees. All of these can be very noisy, and I can't stand it! Oh and bikes too, their bells are very infuriating, especially when it's bad and rings all the time.. and better not let your kids play in the front of the yard!
Seriously, I have seen loud motors, but haven't any loud scooters. Which one do you think is loud?
In my experience cars and newborns are louder, not by a little margin, just to give a few examples.
Yes please. People should shut up in public transportat and other crammed public places.
That's why I said compared to their speed. I don't know any brands or example models, all of them are obnoxiously loud and driven by simple minded fools imho. Cars make relatively little noise, and newborns and trees do not belong in this comparison in my opinion.
Edit: tried to find a picture, seems these are not universally called scooters even though they are where I live. I mean models like this: https://www.scooterforyou.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/34_G7_99_KISBEESPORTLINE-1.jpg
Yeah, I think many people thought you were talking about those electric scooters, which are, well pretty damn silent and good to make cities less car focused (like in the US). I mean things like this.
Yeah it's my bad as apparently most of the world uses the word differently :-) I'm a big fan of electric vehicles, both the noise and pollution are reduced which is great!
Oh I see, about those, I can agree that they are relatively loud. I was thinking about the "rolling metal posts" at first.
Sorry for being rude
No worries, it appears that most of the world uses the word "scooter" differently than we do in the Netherlands :-) with your definition of scooter I agree that my statement was ridiculous haha.
"Disturbing the peace" you mean?
Not putting your shopping cart in a corral.
Alcohol. It's more dangerous than it seems.
Stock trading.
I am fine with companies issuing stock and with people selling that stock back to the company. Everything else should be illegal.
MlM's. They're predatory.
Those chainsaw discs for angle grinders.
non-consensual advertising (consensual being things like steam discovery queue, where I actively want to be advertised to), "lobbying" (bribing), fossil fuels and friends, gerrymandering (US), the electoral college (US), publically trading your company
Rent seeking and usury (the charging of interest)
Without charging of interest, why would a bank lend you money?
Also you would not get interest on money you have in the bank.
I agree that limits on charged interest on loans are needed, but abolishing them completely would destroy a big part of our society.
Usury means a paticoularly high interest rate.
Also, destroying a big part of our society sounds great!
It might sound great untill it starts affecting you or someone you care about
My aunt works in oil, if it was made illegal tomorrow that wpuld dirsupt her life. I would be glad to help her and glad that the future of everybody just got brighter?
If oil was made illegal tomorrow, society would collapse.
Supply chains would collapse, artificial fertilizer would not be made, crops would die, massive famine would set in, medicine would not be able to be made, power generation would stall, including emergeny generators, and vast numer of people would die globally.
Congratulations, who ever makes oil illegal, will be responsible for the biggest mass death globally ever.
Thanks for making me feel smarter.
"illegal" is overrated, anyway. Trump did a ton of illegal stuff and yet, here we are.
Ridiculous rental prices and annual rent increases with no improvements to show for it.
Witch hunting.
Witch ones.
Guns
Already illegal (without proper licence) in most first world countries. Or at least not as unregulated as as in Murica
They shouldn't be illegal, but heavily regulated.
I mean, hunting and harvesting meat is far more ethical to the normal meat industry.
Most people in countries where guns are regulated would not get access to a gun for hunting, mind you. Unless your job is to be a forester, which over here includes selectively shooting animations to balance populations if something goes out of balance.
"I want to get my own deer meat from the forest" is not a valid reason to get a gun. Or even a bow!
I like the theory of gun laws in Sweden.
You can only get a gun if you are actively in need of one, there are only two legal way to be in need of one, hunting and competition.
You need to get a hunting license from a school, join a hunting society and be an active member to get a permit for gun, or you need to actively compete in a shooting club to get a competition permit. You also need to demonstrate competence and skill before you get a permit regardless of if you are a hunter or a competitor.
Getting a gun for personal safety is not permitted, and to be frank, it isn't really needed here, we have few dangerous animals, and despite the rise of gang violence, Sweden is still a safe country.
Yes. Every hunter is ethical and will absolutely nail every shot to make sure the animal doesn’t suffer and die a slow death. A hunter missing the killshot and instead wounding the animal? Never happens.
/s
Of course it happens, but for the absolute majority of it's life, even a wounded animal has lived a life in freedom and nature, a proper hunter would absolutely track and deal with a wounded animal to reduce suffering and preserve the meat.
Cigarettes
Possibly controversial but prostitution. Allows for regulation and workplace safety. Would probably calm a lot of men down as well and help them focus on the more important aspects of getting into a relationship.
Edit: misread the title and thought it said "legal".
Gambling, overtime working.
Buy-here-pay-here car dealers
Pawn shops
Payroll advance loans
Title loans
Private prisons
Bankruptcy-proof loans
Bankruptcy for corporations
Just spitballing here, feel free to add any I missed...
i'm sorry, but what is that first one, and what's the alternative?
Here's a little bit about buy here pay here from one perspective.
The cars are generally bought at auction. That means car dealers took them in trade and didn't want to sell them because they were too bad/too big a risk to their reputation.
The cars were bought cheap and "repaired" enough to get them running, and then they DETAIL the hell out of them.
Bottom line is, they sell a car they own for 2-3000 for 7k+ and get their cost back so quick they're making profit almost from day one, and whether you pay high interest forever to them or they repossess it and resell it to someone else for more profit, they don't care.
Social media.
I feel like my answer might break AskLemmy's rule 2 about "Overt Politics", but so do a lot of the other answers? Feel free to delete if so.
::: spoiler overtly political answer, also CW for violence. As far as the current American system goes... nothing. By and large, even laws that seem good are mostly only used in service of the elites, against the people. Consider this series of events:
Unfortunately, this general sequence is not uncommon at all. Neither is the inverse, where the bureaucrats/judges/etc decide "that doesn't count, actually" when it comes to an elite very clearly breaking an existing law, or else changing the law so it doesn't apply to them in retrospect. :::
Unlimited campaign finance
Hanging the toilet paper the wrong way.
Why does people care how they hang their toilet paper in their own bathroom?
It was a joke.
From my industry: Perhaps the purchase of chemicals for the manufacture of fireworks. It's surprisingly easy to order pounds and pounds of different oxidizers and fuels.
The one I need is highly controlled. I need to make my own strike anywhere matches since Uco quit, need red phosphorous, don't want to scrape it off of match strikers for hours, want a big ol' jar. Apparently it's also used to make "MeTh" so I can't buy it.
Powdered aluminum though no problem, go figure.
double-dipping your dessert sausage into the fish oil bucket
AI. And PoW-based cryptocurrency.
Talking to me.
Take me to prison then.
But it isnt illegal!
Driving a blue car on orange or vice versa.
People are allowed to make their own decisions. Heroin should be legalized. /s
This thread: what do you think should be illegal, but isn't?
Me: Answers, as asked
Everyone: how dare >=(
Masturbating on a plane.
I assume you mean while on a plane and not onto a plane. Also assuming you mean while on a public plane. Pretty sure masturbating while in public might be a bit illegal at least for dudes, and for anyone whipping it out to get off wouldn’t the exposing ones genitals in public just top it off?
Legal names.
Lying.
Alcohol
Using coffee mugs outside on a walk. Jail. Now.
Why? I have to imagine it would be nice if I lived in a walkable city to wake up in the mornings by going for a walk with a coffee to wake up— I mean I might just go to coffee shop so I don’t have to lug it about but it doesn’t seem especially egregious
It was a joke because it feels weird/funny to see household items outside, even in w walkable city. Not serious of course.
What about eating a popsicle while I walk my dog