PDA

View Full Version : Here are 10 of the strangest laws still on the books in the US




RCA
10-21-2013, 01:54 PM
Someone needs to start a website called RepealALaw.com. The below laws would be a good place to start:

10. In Utah, it's illegal for first cousins to marry, but this no longer applies if they're both over the age of 65.

9. In Georgia, it's against the law to use profanity in front of a corpse.

8. In Mohave County, Arizona, a person found stealing soap must wash themselves until the bar of soap has been completely used up.

7. In Indiana's lawbooks, pi is 4, not 3.1415.

6. It's illegal to sing off-key in North Carolina.

5. It's illegal for a man to give his significant other a box of candy weighing in excess of 50 pounds in Idaho.

4. It's illegal to mistreat oysters in Maryland.

3. You can be arrested or fined for harassing Bigfoot in Washington state.

2. It's illegal to get a fish drunk in Ohio.

1. In Eureka, Nevada, it's illegal for men with moustaches to kiss women.

http://now.msn.com/upcounsel-rounds-up-the-strangest-laws-still-on-the-books-in-the-us?ocid=vt_fbmsnnow

Scrapmo
10-21-2013, 02:27 PM
Im sure some of these have awesome stories behind their inception.

ItsTime
10-21-2013, 02:47 PM
I thought the idea that a government can forcefully take part of your income would be the strangest.

Prog Snob
10-21-2013, 07:54 PM
I thought the idea that a government can forcefully take part of your income would be the strangest.

This

phill4paul
10-21-2013, 07:58 PM
#6

Three felonies a day. Without even trying. ;)

Keith and stuff
10-21-2013, 08:18 PM
These are the strangest? The strangest laws IMO are primary seat belt laws for adults. I mean, these laws call for the killing of pedestrians and bikers. Why would a law call for the killing of children and the elderly? I don't know but 33 states have primary seat belt laws that call for the murder of innocent pedestrians and bikers. It's really sad. IMO, those at the 33 strangest laws in the US.

axiomata
10-21-2013, 08:55 PM
I still remember one I read on a kids menu oh so many years ago.

It Kentucky, it is illegal to walk down the street with ice cream in your back pocket.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
10-21-2013, 09:03 PM
The stories behind these seemingly quaint laws are no more ridiculous or really different than laws passed today.

Anti Federalist
10-21-2013, 09:26 PM
If ONLY these were the idiotic laws we had to deal with.

Occam's Banana
10-21-2013, 11:37 PM
If we're gonna have political elites making rules that're gonna be forced on everyone, then those rules should at least be as edifying & entertaining as possible. Like the following ...

In 1995, State Senator Duncan Scott of Albuquerque, New Mexico introduced the following bill for consideration by the New Mexico State Senate:


When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant’s competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts.

Additionally, a psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding a defendant’s competency, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong.

This bill actually passed the New Mexico State Senate, although it never became law. [I haz teh sad. :( - OB]

Source (PDF): http://mitpress2.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262017237chap1.pdf

Carson
10-21-2013, 11:51 PM
I'm reminded of one of the sanest laws I've heard of.

I can't remember all the details or where it was but there was a rule that the guy in charge of the laws had to recite them out loud in a public forum. I'm thinking there was a special day when he would start.

Bringing that law back might solve a lot of problems.

XTreat
10-22-2013, 02:52 AM
These are the strangest? The strangest laws IMO are primary seat belt laws for adults. I mean, these laws call for the killing of pedestrians and bikers. Why would a law call for the killing of children and the elderly? I don't know but 33 states have primary seat belt laws that call for the murder of innocent pedestrians and bikers. It's really sad. IMO, those at the 33 strangest laws in the US.

Please expound, obviously I am against seat belt laws, but how do they kill pedestrians?

XTreat
10-22-2013, 02:52 AM
double post

XTreat
10-22-2013, 02:58 AM
triple post

Keith and stuff
10-22-2013, 04:16 AM
Please expound, obviously I am against seat belt laws, but how do they kill pedestrians?

I am glad you aren't in favor of adult seat belt laws, i.e. murdering people.

Here is Bob Murphy's thoughts on a bunch of stuff, including seat belt laws. The part relating to seat belt laws starts at 11:40 in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpUuM8KoHds

Seatbelts Cause More Pedestrian And Cyclist Deaths
February 27, 2010
http://www.libertariannews.org/2010/02/27/seatbelts-cause-more-pedestrian-and-cyclist-deaths/


While listening to a lecture on economics by Robert P. Murphy, he made note that economists actually found that seatbelt laws INCREASED fatalities among the general population.

I found this claim to be fairly incredible so I had to investigate for myself.

Of course, the information was buried amid a torrent of statist agitation, but I managed to find studies that backed up Murphy’s claim.

What happens is seatbelt laws cause drivers to drive more aggressively. Because drivers feel safer with quick acceleration and breaking while wearing seatbelts, accident rates actually increase.

All of the statist agitprop that calls for mandatory seatbelt laws only looks at deaths saved by calculating the accident rate compared to the fatality rate of vehicle occupants. This gives the misconception that seatbelts actually save lives, when indeed the exact opposite is true.

While it is true that you are much more likely to survive a car accident while wearing a seatbelt, the additional risk drivers take increases accident rates which wipes out any gains made by saving lives through mandatory seatbelt laws. In addition to this, it drastically increases fatalities of cyclists and pedestrians – all due to the increased risk taking of drivers.

When looking at society as a whole, seatbelts actually increase the number of fatalities involving motor vehicles.

This article in the British Medical Journal highlights the key findings:

Cyclists were the only group of road users in Britain whose death rate increased sharply during the 1990s,1 yet cycling was in decline throughout the decade.2 How could this happen, when attention on casualties was the most intense in the history of the bicycle? Perhaps a vision of the near future will be instructive . . .

It is worth pausing here to consider the meaning of “road safety.” The roads can get more dangerous, yet total deaths still fall. Compulsion to wear a seatbelt cut deaths among drivers and front seat passengers by 25% in 1983. But in the subsequent years, the long established trend of declining deaths in car accidents reversed, and by 1989 death rates among car drivers were higher than they had been in 1983. Evidently the driving population “risk compensated” away the substantial benefits of seatbelts by taking extra risks, putting others in more danger. This period saw a jump in deaths of cyclists (fig ​(fig1).1). Although temporary, the jump can be explained fully only by cyclists having adapted to a more dangerous road environment through extra caution, retreat, or giving up. Is it coincidence that the long decline in cycling began in 1983?

Between 1974 and 1982 cycling mileage in Britain increased 70%, but there was no increase in fatalities until the seatbelt law was introduced in 1983 (fig ​(fig1).1). The more cyclists there are, the more presence they have, the less individual danger there is. This truth is confirmed by experience in the Netherlands and Denmark, where cycling is far safer despite a tradition of segregation. All road users should gain. Pedestrians benefit because (skilful) cyclists are little threat to them and because a large increase in cycling should reduce traffic speeds and thus risks to all. Then there are the health benefits.

Economist John Semmens writes:

The plausibility of the aggressive driver hypothesis cries out for more research. For example, Hawaii, the state with the most rigorously enforced seat belt law and the highest compliance rate in the nation, has experienced an increase in traffic fatalities and fatality rates since its law went into effect in December 1985…

A recent statistical study of states with and without seat belt laws was undertaken by Professor Christopher Garbacz of the University of Missouri-Rolla. This study seems to support the altered driver behavior hypothesis. Dr. Garbacz found that states with seat belt laws saw decreases in traffic fatalities for those covered by the laws (typically drivers and front-seat passengers), but increases in fatalities for rear-seat passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Further, the patterns of changes in total traffic fatalities among the states showed no consistent relationship with the existence of a seat belt law in the state.

Mani
10-22-2013, 04:31 AM
The stories behind these seemingly quaint laws are no more ridiculous or really different than laws passed today.


In New York it's illegal to sell a sugary beverage over 16 ounces in size.

In Ga. it's illegal to setup a Lemonade stand, even on your own private property.


LOL. One of those weird laws from the a couple hundred years ago I guess....Crazy stuff..

Keith and stuff
10-22-2013, 04:33 AM
In New York it's illegal to sell a sugary beverage over 16 ounces in size.

LOL. One of those weird laws from the a couple hundred years ago I guess....Crazy stuff..

No it isn't. The NYC measure the mayor was pushing was found illegal.

Mani
10-22-2013, 04:43 AM
No it isn't. The NYC measure the mayor was pushing was found illegal.

Sorry I didn't include the sarcasm tag on that one.


Although this is a new one for 2013: In wellington Kansas it is illegal to have more than 4 cats per household.


CAT ladies are going to be pissed about that. CAT LADIES UNITE!!!