Sleeping in a car that you own.
I think there should be restrictions on where to park for this, but in general people found sleeping in cars should be protected by the law against theft and harassment.
Restrictions on where you can park
Nah fuck that noise. This is how you let them corral you into slums.
Park where you want. Out front of parliament, the prime minister’s house, on the street out front a billionaires house, wherever. If they don’t like it, them they should fix it.
Camp anyplace you need to camp. Keep your car where it belongs.
A public parking lot or parking space seems to be a good place for a car.
It is. It is a good place to park. That’s not what is being discussed.
Having a place to live is an unmitigable human need. Having a car is not. A car left too long on public land should become a shelter for OTHERS.
I think you might have missed something in your zeal, which is fine. We need more passion about such things. Just directed the right way.
But the point being made before your comment was that anyone should be allowed to sleep -at least in their own- car, which you seem to agree with. And any public parking places where a car can sleep should be fine for a human to also sleep within said car, which you also seem to agree with.
This isn’t about having a car or not, and its not really about sleeping in a car you find, it’s about how it’s used if it is owned by the person who wants to use it that’s being discussed. So if someone already owns a car and wants or needs to live out of it, we can agree that’s ok (everyone involved in this thread is agreeing here). And if there’s a place that is appropriate for cars to be whether anyone is in them or not, that place should be fine with people sleeping as well. (Pretty sure everyone is agreeing with that, too)
So, everyone agrees, yay! No need to condescend when everyone agrees with you :)
If you want to expand the topic to shelter wherever you find it, that’s a great conversation to have. It’s just not actually the one being had.
A car being used as a place to live becomes a need for the owner of said car.
parks perpendicular to the flow of traffic across the California 101 freeway
Well, I mean, someone’s evil ex shouldn’t park in front of their house, not in a handicap spot, not in the driving portion of a road, not in the breakdown lane of a major highway, not on anyone’s lawn.
But yeah, any place where parking is allowed, sleeping while parked should be allowed and protected.
All of those places already have laws preventing those. Don’t need a special one for no sleep in car in those instances
I don’t think it’s illegal, but rather where you park can make it illegal.
In the US, it depends on the State or municipality. I’ve slept in my car plenty of times while traveling, although it was often in parking garages and out of sight, so maybe I just got lucky. It will really depend on how uptight the town or store manager is. I’ve heard that RVs are generally welcome at Walmarts, so I’d like to heard the logic on why RV are ok to sleep in but not cars.
Sleeping anywhere. It should be illegal to wake somebody up, unless there’s reason to believe they require medical intervention.
Agreed. Hope you got room in your bed cuz I’m joining you tonight.
If you make it through the door, and you manage to fall asleep, I won’t kick you out until you wake up.
Waking someone up being illegal is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard
It is illegal to wake up children who are napping in childcare. Sleeping is a fundamental need, and waking somebody is akin to grabbing their sandwich and throwing it on the ground.
Waking up an adult is really different from waking up a kid. It should only be illegal if it’s being done repeatedly and purposely to someone who’s just sleeping and not at the detriment of anyone else. (Unless they asked them too)
I mean sure there are specific instances where waking somebody makes sense. On transit if you know their stop or the end of the line. If they are in danger. If they are covered in vomit or if they wet themselves. But otherwise, you can’t leave it to law enforcement to make humane decisions so don’t give them the choice.
Just imagine like a really nice town and an old retired guy who fell asleep on a park bench with a good book. Not in danger, not bothering anyone, don’t wake him.
The same dignity applies to a junkie who is passed out on the lawn. This could be his only quality sleep in the past 20 hours. You don’t know if somebody asleep has narcolepsy. You don’t know how much they need it. But they do need it or they’d be awake.
Again it’s a need not a want. Deprivation of sleep is a torture technique. Police officers are using it legally without repercussion right now. I’m saying, it should be considered a form of assault and/or harassment under the law. It is an act of violence. And it’s not right.
Instead of being robbed and harassed by the law? Agreed.
That’s what I’m going for, yes.
Yay, none in my country!
Some banana republic? Or a country like Switzerland that’s probably missing from the list, but not because there aren’t any banned books?
You really think it’s common for free countries to ban books. I’m pretty sure my country of Finland (not "some banana republic) does not have any banned books.
Not a banana republic. And we simply don’t ban books. Like, some might be banned implicitly because of illegal content, for example a child porn book wouldn’t really fly here, but that’s because of the content, book itself wouldn’t be banned, you would just go to prison for sharing child pornography. I assume I could find other illegal content that would result in an implicit ban.
But there’s no government body that even can create a list of books that should be banned. Hopefully it stays that way.
Freedom of speech in China.
deleted by creator
For some people, existing.
deleted by creator
To play some devils advocate here, this is still a very sensitive subject. Not because the kids don’t have a right to that care but because kids are kids, and things can change drastically for them as they grow. For every kid who genuinely needs that care, there is another who doesn’t but is searching to discover themselves. Some forms of affirming care are safer than others, but others can have drastic life long effects on growing people. Unfortunately there are also some parents that will force care (or lack thereof) on kids in one way or another.
I think that therapy and understanding should be promoted heavily for kids so they can identify and understand how they feel and why, but blanket statements are challenging because they can be very easily spun (ex. All the “the left wants to force drugs on kids” bullshit that gets spouted.)
Not saying that I’m right or that you’re wrong, but I think this is a discussion that still has to be opened/presented further for it to gain traction in the public eye.
deleted by creator
Give children the right to buy alcohol too.
More give doctors the right to treat their patients
Euthanasia/medically assisted suicide.
The cruelty to force people to stay alive while slowly dying and suffering with terminal diseases is horrible. It’s traumatic for everyone involved, and it’s pointless.
We give animals more dignity in death than we do humans.
Pets*
*animals. If people come across (irreparably) hurt wild animals, those tend to get killed as well
I think male chicks get treated worse than humans when they are identified at the factory farms
Yes but also there are some diseases where I’d take death by shredder over slowly wasting away
Decriminalize all drugs. Drug addicts have enough problems with them without also getting the boot from the legal system.
Ya but not selling hard drugs.
So you’re saying they should be free?
Of course not, there is a reason some things are banned, like extremely dangerous things and I put hard drugs in that category.
So why do you answer with “Ya but …” but to “Decriminalize all drugs” … when actually you just mean “no”? The keyword was “all” here.
Usually when people say “decriminalise” it isn’t for crack. It’s for marijuana, psych drugs, recreationnaly drugs mostly.
That is why I said “but” to spell it out better. Decriminalising the selling of crack & meth is just 100% stupid.
Usually when people say “decriminalise” it isn’t for crack. It’s for marijuana mostly.
But when they say “decriminalise ALL drugs” … they are not mostly talking about marijuana. They are talking about ALL drugs.
Decriminalising the selling of crack & meth is just 100% stupid.
I’m not familiar with these US derivatives, but Cocaine and amphetamine/MDMA should totally be legal, nothing stupid about it. They are excellent drugs.
So for you, a drug addict should be treated the same as a druglord? There is a distinction here, addict and seller.
Do you seriously think cocaine should be sold like cigarettes? If you do then you have a lot to learn about drug abuse IMO.
Feel free to sell them. Just tax them so high that any profits are nullified, then the tax can be used to help those that need help getting off the drug. (Though this would likely put it right back where it is, and the black market would continue to supply)
Just tax them so high that any profits are nullified
So, make them illegal in any meaningful sense and drive them back underground. Dude, pick one.
Got tired and couldn’t read the whole post?
I should have been more precise, you’re right: decriminalize the consumption of all drugs.
There is a valid reason why you don’t want Bobby Noname to cook meth and that is you don’t want him to blow up the whole block because his meth lab practices are unsafe.
Thank you!
Yes, this is 100% the right thing to do IMO.
Dumpster diving. Doesn’t matter if it’s food or merchandise. It should be illegal to lock a dumpster or willfully destroy usable goods.
Dumpster diving laws are more about trespassing and removing liability anyway.
You’ve never had to repeatedly clean trash slurry off of a concrete slab because junkies are terrible people who have no manners. If people could be trusted to not redistribute the trash across the land I wouldn’t mind so much
Ah, so getting things out of the trash could be legal, but making a mess from a dumpster should have consequences
Enforcing that would take a lot more money than a padlock.
A better idea would be to charge businesses for the downstream costs of externalities like waste. Make them self-enforce by making it more expensive to dump recyclable or reusable materials.
If capitalism could be trusted not to put valuable items in the trash, it wouldn’t be a problem.
If it’s in the dumpster, it’s garbage.
What you really want is the usable food to not end up in the dumpster in the first place.
If you don’t want Amazon trashing all their returns, don’t buy from them in the first place.
Locking dumpsters is important in some areas so wild life dosen’t get into them. To quote the National Parks service,
“There is a significant overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest humans”.
Most businesses lock the dumpsters because trash service is expensive, and if you don’t lock them people will pull up with a pickup bed full of trash and fill them up.
Everything’s legal when you’re at sea!
Because of the implication?
Both, international law or country law doesn’t apply outside of the territorial waters of a country.
deleted by creator
That explains a lot. Why is it inaccessible?
deleted by creator
Sex work.
Sex work is real, dignified work that contributes to civilization.
Unlike being a landlord.
I’ve definitely been fucked by a few landlords, but it’s not a service I’d recommend to anyone else.
drugs
Some, but… Certain super-addictive drugs should be limited.
limited but not illegal. punishing people for using drugs is so backwards…
Switzerland:
- buying / smoking weed
- use recycling facilities on a sunday
- buying alcohol after 22:00 around train stations
Meanwhile here in north America, you can usually buy alcohol any time at gas stations…
This varies significantly by state, in the US
Same in Switzerland. Most of Europe I’d assume.
So you can buy any time of day at the gas station but not a train station where it highly unlikely you are the one driving the train?
Yeah, the train station thing must be some weird exception, I never heard of it. There also 24h beer delivery services.
That rule only applies to shops that are inside train stations owned by the offical rail company. Doesn’t apply to any other shops.
Don’t ask me why.
Times are limited in Canada. For example, in Quebec you can’t buy alcohol between 11pm and 6am except in bars, and bars have to close at 3am.
Is there really a watchdog though? Ontario just put alcohol in gas stations and several of my friends have been buying after the legal hours.
Taking food when you have no food
Jaywalking
Giving water to voters standing in line
Punching nazis in the fucking facedeleted by creator
If you feel personally attacked by the idea of punching nazis, you’re probably a nazi.
deleted by creator
See how you replaced punching with executing? That destroys the entire analogy.
Besides, I don’t feel personally attacked by the idea of executing criminals, I’m opposed to it based on principle, and because it doesn’t even achieve its goals.
deleted by creator
Punching overt nazis (like assholes that use the salute or wear swastikas in the open), in order to avoid punching innocent people by accident
I’m going one step further… shoving nazis into active volcanoes.
Punching nazis in the fucking face
There’s no way this can backfire, right?
Actual marriage equality.
