What law would you change?

Post Reply New Topic

The ban came in the 1970's. At the time it was said to be about animal welfare. At the time pet shops didn't have UV fluorescent tube lamps, and with the short summers it was decided that reptiles weren't fit pets here.
While there has been mismanagement of reptiles and some reptiles have had much shorter life spans than they should have, the technology to give them UV light has been available at Norwegian pet shops since the 1990's.

There have been lots of attempts to get the law changed, but they have always been rejected.

One of the reasons they have given were fear that the pets could be set out by owners who didn't want them anymore, or run away, and that these animals then could establish themselves. They pointed to this happening in continental Europe.
Because you know, climate wise we are so similar to Italy and Germany, which are some places it has happened.

Another thing they have used to not change it is the danger of disease, especially salmonella. That is why good hand hygiene is important. Maybe the people refusing to change it don't wash their hands regularly

But neither of these were even mentioned when the law forbid herpetological pets in the 70's. It was supposed to be about animal welfare.

The result: An estimated 100 000 illegal pets that won't see vets if they need to because the owners know that their pet might be put to sleep if the vet follows the law (some heroes haven't because they think it's wrong - which it is).

When the law was softened in August they went for reptiles that were supposed to be easy to care for, and they picked 9 snakes, 7 lizards and 3 turtles.
One of the turtles picked was Chinese three-keeled pond turtle, because it is easy to keep. It was picked instead of red eared sliders because they thought it had less messy excrement, so it was thought to be less likely to transfer disease to humans.

No. In the US, they don't directly elect the President. Instead they elect someone to vote on behalf of the state (or district). If the elector doesn't vote the way that the state voted, then they are called a "faithless elector". Some states punish them.

The Lords Spiritual are not part of the government. They sit in the House of Lords. I think anyone who wants to abolish them has got their sights set too low, just make the whole House elected or abolish it outright.

If I were to remove one law (or set of laws) in this country then I think it would have to be the aspects of planning permission that allow NIMBYism, maintain the Green Belt, and put height limits on buildings in residential areas. That would do a lot to bring down rents and ease the housing crisis.

My two dream policies - Universal Basic Income and Land Value Tax - would be new laws rather than abolishment of old ones.

I would legalize all recreational drugs; and ideally, I'd want to increase the severity of punishment on those who commit crimes while under the influence of drugs. The reason why I would want to legalize recreational drugs, to which I'm personally against drugs, is to reduce the power of the drug cartels whose largest market is the United States. Legal recreational drugs would be then fostered in a legal, competitive market -- so long as regulation doesn't make it so that cartel drugs are cheaper.

If it were something I feel relatively strongly about lately - I go for something like a CCW vetting type of process for personal use of psychedelics. That we know as much as we do about so many chemicals and yet live under national treaties still that proceed from 1970's backlash and 1980's paranoia, categorizing anything remotely psychoactive as 'drugs', particularly considering the tremendous upside to human potential and self-insight with some of these, is a shame and current policy will likely be looked upon as a historical/cultural embarrassment a century from now.

I'm quite relieved to hear increasing numbers of people, Sam Harris prominent among them, speaking well of LSD in the right contexts as well as expressing dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs where our laws seem completely out of line with current medical knowledge.

After that though, I think I might want to raise the bar on the current list of basic human rights to include food and shelter and to take that one seriously. With our current state of innovation and technology, if we fail much of anyone on that, we're getting carried away from what matters a bit much - let alone what kinds of miseries you have to prevent at the bottom to avoid revolutions. I think this one is likely to happen on its own within my lifetime anyway since the cost of what are currently major expenses will probably keep going down with innovation but still, we need this for real peace and stability.

If I ruled the world (or at least the U.S.), I would:

1. Prohibit all taking of human life, from conception to natural death. The only exception would be to save your own life or the life of another human being. Yes, this includes a ban on IVF and certain forms of birth control. No, this does not include a ban on all forms of birth control. When a couple is not prepared to raise children (which is pretty much all unmarried couples and some married couples), they need to be regulating their births.
2. Write pro-family, pro-child policies. This includes encouraging the raising of children in stable two-parent homes (while supporting and encouraging those who find themselves unexpectedly expecting), cracking down on deadbeat parents (married and unmarried), getting rid of no-fault divorce (at least when minor children are involved), allowing every couple with a newborn baby or newly adopted young child one year of paid parental leave to split as they like, removing restrictions on domestic adoption, encouraging the adoption of babies born through unplanned pregnancies, and encouraging parents to support their young adult children so they can start families of their own and then go back to work.
3. Forgive people's student loans in exchange for public service in their area of expertise, and pay the college tuition of any high school graduate willing to do a more blue-collar form of public service beforehand.
4. Redirect a lot of our public assistance dollars to subsidize the work of private charities helping the poor. Private organizations tend to be more effective than government agencies.
5. Make it easier to immigrate to the U.S. legally. Immigrants, more than anyone else, embody the American Dream.
6. Allow religious ideas to influence (not control!*) government. Yes, religious philosophies are controversial, but so are political philosophies! Since religions tend to hold human beings in very high regard and view them all as brothers and sisters, religious philosophies often support policies that promote the common good.

*I do not mean requiring everyone to agree with or practice one religion. Such a policy would be antithetical to a free society. I mean allowing people's opinions, including those of elected leaders, to be influenced by their faith.

double post

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 18 Dec 2017, 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'd ban the manufacturing of new plastic...I would allow recycling old plastic into new plastic products, or finding ways to break it down, however I'd entirely ban new plastic and push for biodegradable packaging and such as it is very much within our means of technology and not using it is laziness and greed. I mean you know at this point there are probably bits of plastic in any fish you eat...I don't know about anyone else but I think that's gross so something ought to be done.

...that would severely hurt the economy. Everything you use will go up in price. In addition, plastic isn't much of a problem in most of the country -- I notice it's mostly a problem in urban places or the west coast.

Economics is the reason we don't have a ton of that yet -- the technology is fairly new, and it costs more to manufacture biodegradable plastic. Also, I doubt biodegradable plastic would suit well in cars, computers, various tools, certain pipes, etc.

We are moving to using more and more recycled materials and biodegradable plastic, but to outright ban it would be ignorant of the economics behind it. Let the transition happen on its own, as it already is; don't jack up the economy, and don't outright ban plastic.

Last edited by Hyeokgeose on 18 Dec 2017, 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, a lot of huge changes are needed, and this is one of them.

Do what Florida does: clean up litter, and discourage littering as well as encouraging recycling. I've been all over the south and been to California. Urban California, I can say, has a lot of trash, especially their state capital. While I was in Houston, I was pleased with the lack-of garbage with the exception of some of the ghetto parts.

Don't kill the economy because people are being too lazy to recycle or throw their trash away properly, and let social pressure continue to bring change on its own; in doing so, it allows for a smooth, natural transition, that doesn't hurt the economy. If one wants change, then one must work for it -- no one should sit there and be all talk while having others do the action.

California:
http://thankyouocean.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/trashed-beach-875.jpg

North Florida:
http://www.visitflorida.com/content/visitflorida/en-us/florida-beaches/florida-emerald-coast-for-families/_jcr_content/editorial_parsys/vf_col_ctrl_605088606/column_parsys1/vf_image.img.jpg

Miami during Spring Break from foreigners:
http://ecomb.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/DSC08716.JPG-Version-2.jpg

Edit
Just to be clear, I am all for biodegradable plastic bags and bottles (technically, all plastic is biodegradable, but I mean the kind that is considered 'safe') or finding a better material (i.e. water soluble exterior, water proof interior... which can be done, but it's costly) or going back to paper bags. Personally, I do recycle and have encouraged others to not litter and recycle as well.

Ultimately, my point is, continue to use social pressure as a means of change instead of resorting to the government. Social pressure has worked and has proven to be way more beneficial than the government, of which in itself has its own interests and acts as its own "greedy corporation."

Any laws I would make, in regards to promoting a cleaner environment, would be more on the local or state level. This is a state issue if it must come down to using the law.

Last edited by Hyeokgeose on 18 Dec 2017, 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Plastic is a global problem, but mostly look at what it is doing to the ocean, floating islands of peoples plastic waste, and bits of plastic in our sea food. It takes 450 years to break down, but within that it can break into smaller paticles that sea animals eat so enjoy eating plastic fish. Also there is plenty of technology and resources for renewable and biodegradable packaging that does not use plastic. I don't see why collecting that plastic and making new things out of it would prevent profit...or how banning new plastic and pushing for renewable packaging would be damaging, maybe in the short term for some people but we are talking about the entire planet and future generations being able to survive, the only way forward is sustainable energy and resources.

Problem is a lot of people don't have access to recycling...there isn't a local center, or maybe they don't actually collect all the recyclables...I mean actions need to be taken, its not a freaking joke anymore the ocean is literally being choked with plastic. I try to contribute as least as possible but from time to time I might have a plastic fork or this or that with no receptacle so I just have to throw it away and i always feel bad when I think...'but I could have recycled that' but there was nowhere to do it and I couldn't carry it with me. Have certainly gotten weird looks for taking a soda can I was drinking and crushing it to put in my back pack to recycle later.

But why is it a 'weird' look, shouldn't everyone crush their can and recycle it? It's like yeah...me the pot smoking person who also smoke cigarettes is crushing a can to recycle and putting out my cigarette butt and putting it in my pocket till I can find a garbage can and people look at me weird while maybe they throw their plastic straw on the ground.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 18 Dec 2017, 2:56 am, edited 3 times in total.

First: supply and demand. At the current rate, recycled material is not being recycled fast enough to fulfill all demand. In addition, not everything can be made of recycled material yet. It's not just about profit, but it's also about the market demands.
Currently, in the United States, social pressure has done well to transition us properly. To suddenly legislate a radical change like this would hurt the economy.
Also, you can't really speak of sustainable energy while wanting a radical transition to recycled plastic. Recycling plants and factories use electricity, which is largely powered by fossil fuels. Though, on the bright side, we will probably have nuclear fusion energy, which is safe, clean, and basically provides a significant amount of unlimited energy (basically).
So, it's wise to let the nature of society and the economy take its course, as our innovations and ideas play hand in hand and will continue to naturally improve our environment. Have faith in your neighbors.


EDIT (to prevent double posting):


Honestly, trash washing up on the beaches is not so much a problem down here -- it's a west coast problem, and not just the west coast of the US, but also Korea and Japan, who receive trash and polluted air from China. We can't create laws for other countries -- the only time that has been accomplished is through war, whether it be violent war or economic war (i.e. sanctions) or threat of war.

As for weird looks from people, that's unusual. Where I live, people are quite environmentally conscious, especially the folks in the rural parts who get pissed off all the time when people come here on vacation and litter.

Edit
As for people not having access to recycling, I assume you're largely referring to very small rural towns and developing countries (such as Mexico, Bulgaria, etc.) or third world countries (Liberia, Somalia, etc.).

Screw the economy this is literally a potential death to life as we know it, if it's not properly addressed. I don't care about profit margins and this and that, I care that plastic is contaminating the planet, the ocean and human consumed sea foods. Also recycled plastic should not be a 'radical' idea in freaking 2017, by now we should be beyond plastic.

You know what happens when we screw the economy? Venezuela, Greece, USSR -- economic hardship is not pretty. People lose their jobs, become homeless, starve to death, die of disease, et cetera. Tell me, do you know what's going on in Venezuela right now? Essentially, the Bolivarian Regime said, "Screw the economy" and now their people starve.

Also, I am in support of recycled plastic -- but, I am not in support of just abruptly creating a law to ban traditional plastic products. Are you aware of how much is created by plastic? Cars, computers, utensils, tools, pipes -- we use plastic for a lot of things. Human life is precious, and to want to compromise the lives of other humans to bring immediate change that is already happening, is wrong.

Economics is not about "greed."
https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics- ... 0465002609