Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Jack Roeser wants Shaw to replace Brady
Next Post: Two more weekly orders of business announced
Posted in:
* Rep. Dwight Kay (R-Glen Carbon), on the House’s vote to ban hand-held mobile phone calls while driving…
“Our government needs to stop interfering with our day to day lives. What’s next, banning dogs and cats from riding in your vehicle since they can be distracting?”
I agree. Our government needs to stop banning two people of the same sex from being married and should also stop banning people from smoking a certain naturally growing weed.
That “nanny state” stuff can cut both ways, Rep. Kay.
Just sayin…
* The Question: What one state law do you consider to be the most personally intrusive? As always, explain your answer in comments, please. And no snark. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 1:49 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Jack Roeser wants Shaw to replace Brady
Next Post: Two more weekly orders of business announced
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Any state law that applies to the general public but not the Illinois General Assembly.
Comment by Onr of the 35 Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 1:54 pm
seat belts
Comment by Dazed & Confused Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 1:58 pm
Explain, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 1:59 pm
Since Rich already mentioned drug laws, I’ll say blue laws: why shouldn’t people be able to buy or sell cars on Sunday?
Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:01 pm
I can’t stand the speed limits in areas of the state that you go for miles between urban areas. I understand the need for speed limits in urban areas, but can anyone explain to me why 65 is the limit between places like Bloomington and Springfield, or places like Chambana and Decatur or LaSalle and Rockford. Are we too stupid to handle going 75 (I know give 75 they will go 85)?
Comment by Give Me A Break Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:08 pm
I’m annoyed that there are no liquor sales before 11 am on Sundays. I mean, really. I go grocery shopping on Sundays sometimes, and it’s a drag not being able to do everything all at once. Just because some people choose to go to church on Sunday mornings should have no bearing on when others can buy alcohol. And since Rich mentioned it, banning marijuana is just plain meddling in people’s personal decisions.
Comment by phocion Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:08 pm
The seat belt requirement wins hands down. I will be fined for not wearing one even though failing to do so poses no risk to any other driver or even any one else in my car. On the other hand, the law allows for under-age children to ride on a school bus without using a seat belt and some of them are injured in accidents as a result.
Comment by Esteban Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:13 pm
This could be fun! The laws that prevent me from carrying a firearm. Reason: I refer you to the pro-gun posts from almost every day last week.
One of the 35 has a good idea, too. Reason: why should legislators have special privileges?
Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:13 pm
Anti smoking laws.
Apart from the fact that the law turns smokers into second class citizens (instead of ‘back of the bus’, it’s ‘have to go outside to smoke and be at least 15 feet from any entrance - regardless of conditions’). And then the State of IL dumps the enforcement onto the locals (normally the health dept.), who already have too much to do, and too much of the time these types of ‘cases’ ends up hitting the States Attorney’s office, and in the overall scope of things, it utterly, incredibly trivial.
Gun laws in the State are a close second.
Comment by Judgment Day Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:15 pm
As a whistleblower and occasional journalist, I find the ban on recording public officials engaged in corruption a significant intrusion into personal liberties.
It also reduces the quality of public services.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:17 pm
Traffic laws that prohibit you from using some common sense. Reason: a stop light at 2:00 in the morning, without another vehicle in sight. Should be allowed to stop, and then go on….
Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:18 pm
I am annoyed that we can’t buy or use real fireworks in Illinois. Take a drive to any border fireworks stand in Missouri in late June and count the Illinois plates in the parking lot. It seems to me that this is missing revenue for Illinois, albeit not a whole lot of money I’m sure. When bottle rockets are outlawed, only outlaws will have bottle rockets! Ok…not really “personally intrusive”, but annoying nonetheless.
Comment by Old Shepherd Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:20 pm
Although its been a while since anyone carded me, 21 for booze still bothers me especially on college campuses where bars let 18 and 19 year olds in.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:21 pm
Red light/speeding cameras. They’re designed to generate revenue and likely have little-to-no bearing on actual safety.
Comment by Joe Bidenopoulous Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:24 pm
===(instead of ‘back of the bus’, it’s ‘have to go outside to smoke and be at least 15 feet from any entrance - regardless of conditions’)===
Please don’t tell me you’re comparing smoking, which at best smells terrible and at worst can make other people sick, with being black.
Comment by TooManyJens Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:25 pm
I agree with seat belts. Although I wear one routinely, why is it a law that I must protect myself in the event of a car accident?
But on the flip-side, to people like Rep. Kay, govenment is always “intrusive” until you need it. I suppose the words “I am from the government and I am here to help” have different meanings if you are a victim of a flood or a tornado. God forbid a loved-one gets seriously hurt due to a distracted driver.
Comment by Knome Sane Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:27 pm
Not eliminate, but rationalize speed limits. Metro Detroit traffic flows more quickly and, apparently safely, with its 70MPH limit, while we all pretend to obey 50 or 55. And 40 on Lake Shore Drive? Please!
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:28 pm
“… comparing smoking, which at best smells terrible and at worst can make other people sick”
Nice try.
A lot of things smell terrible. Personally, people who keep their cats indoors can easily create smells far worse than tobacco smoke.
As for making people sick, well, you can apply that to a whole lot of substances - not just tobacco.
Last time I checked, smoking wasn’t necessarily tied to any particular race, creed, or religion. So why are you bringing it into question?
I just think it’s incredibly stupid legislation which is wasting a vast amount of time and money that could be better spent elsewhere - like paying our past due bills.
Comment by Judgment Day Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:36 pm
Our tax laws penalize us for being productive, for saving, for planning our futures, and lessens our freedoms to choose how we live our lives.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:39 pm
I am actually annoyed that there is no animal restraint law. Maybe this doesn’t answer the question, but I feel it is related to the post since the Representative mentioned it. I feel as though it is sick and inhumane to have a helpless, defenseless animal free wheeling it in a car…all up in the driver’s lap and subject to the laws of inertia. I feel animals not in cages or at least in an animal car-seat or restraint pose as much risk as cell phone use. I am all for mandatory animal restraint laws. Stop the needless killing of dogs and cats in car accidents and get those animals in 5 point restraints where they belong!
Comment by So. ILL Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:44 pm
Stepping on soap box:
Seat belt laws are in place to protect the public, not the individual in the car. The likelihood of major injury rather than minor or no injury when not wearing a seat belt is astronomically higher. This means a much higher burden on public resources like police, fire, ambulance. Additionally, such injuries often require medical services that can run into the tens of thousands or more. Can anyone say higher medical costs? The burden on the individual to put on a seat belt compared to the burden on society to deal with the aftermath of the non-seat belt wearer’s injuries is insignificant.
As to smoking laws, sorry, but the state’s police powers are intended to protect the public health. In addition to all the extra medical costs placed upon society (see above) smoking is always damaging to the people around the smoker inhaling the smoke second hand. There is no safe level of cigarette smoke. Is it too much of a burden that the state doesn’t allow individuals to put rat poison in the public water supply?
Stepping off soap box.
I really hate that Chicago is getting speeding cameras!
Comment by DAK Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:46 pm
===Last time I checked, smoking wasn’t necessarily tied to any particular race, creed, or religion. So why are you bringing it into question?===
I was saying that your “back of the bus” comparison was inappropriate.
Anyway, there are several good examples in this thread, but the law I find most personally intrusive is probably the one requiring me to take an annual ethics test (which they will time you on and penalize you if you finish it too quickly) because I work for the U of I. The ethics problems we’ve had here didn’t come from the low-level employees, but we have to jump through the hoops anyway.
Comment by TooManyJens Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:49 pm
Marijuana prohibition. I don’t smoke weed, never have and don’t intend to — but I watched a friend’s hateful and painful death from cancer be more miserable than it needed to be because lawmakers insist that cannabis is a naughty plant. A doomed woman should have the right to determine what substances can go into her dying body.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:54 pm
==Our tax laws penalize us for being productive, for saving, for planning our futures, and lessens our freedoms to choose how we live our lives.==
Taxes also pay for roads, schools, police, fire dept, etc. which our society seems to value.
To the question, I think the standard set by Jefferson applies. “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”
By that standard, we should get rid of a lot of the laws banning recreational use of drugs; however, the laws could still restrict where they are used. We could allow same sex marriage. We could take a closer look at the drinking age. We could allow open containers of alcohol in a car I should be allowed to have an open beer in the car as long as the alcohol has not impaired my ability to drive.
Under that standard, if it can be shown that a certain behavior does put others at risk, such as smoking in a public space or talking on a cell phone while driving, then the gov’t should look at ways to minimize the risk posed to others.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:54 pm
“As to smoking laws, sorry, but the state’s police powers are intended to protect the public health. In addition to all the extra medical costs placed upon society (see above) smoking is always damaging to the people around the smoker inhaling the smoke second hand. There is no safe level of cigarette smoke.”
On that basis, you are going to make the advocacy of legalization of marijuana much more difficult.
At best, Marijuana will end up being treated exactly the same as tobacco or alcohol. As long as they are all treated the same.
Comment by Judgment Day Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:01 pm
This is not even as bad as last week when Kay compared the rules of the house to the holocaust.
Comment by John Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:02 pm
I guess there should be criteria for an intrusive law, and I’d propose that they are laws that restrict my behavior without conferring a benefit on society as a whole that at least offsets that restriction. So I would argue that requiring me to wear a seat belt, while it does restrict me, protects society from having to pay my medical bills in the event I get catastrophically injured. Also, I believe there’s data that show that an unbelted driver is more likely to be in a crash in the first place. Same with smoking — my ‘freedom’ to smoke hurts those nearby, particularly the employees in restaurants and bars who had to endure smoke filled rooms for 8 hours a day.
Comment by Silent Citizen Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:07 pm
=== The seat belt requirement wins hands down. I will be fined for not wearing one even though failing to do so poses no risk to any other driver or even any one else in my car. ===
Not true… unbelted people in a car wreck can throw people around in a car into other belted passengers — like a missile. That said, I’m not a big believer in government imposed seat belt use.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:20 pm
@Give Me A Break
Some of that is dictated by insurers and some of it by plain old safety.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/10/21/4350727/can-texas-drivers-handle-an-85.html
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/09/07/1522219/texas-opens-fastest-us-highway-with-85-mph-limit
@So. ILL
One failed in the last term of the GA
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2653&GAID=11&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=63004&SessionID=84&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=97
@Pot calling kettle
The drinking age should not be raised. Medical science is why its at 21.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/public-health/promoting-healthy-lifestyles/alcohol-other-drug-abuse/facts-about-youth-alcohol/minimum-legal-drinking-age.page
For myself, I’d choose to eliminate blanket pot prohibition and put into place recreational use for those 21 and over.
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:21 pm
How about the law that has banned the slaughter of horses for meat in Illinois? I personally do not want to eat horse, but it’s pretty irrational to ban horse slaughter and not the slaughter of cows, chickens, lambs, goat, etc.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:24 pm
Sorry Rich, one’s faith bans same sex marriage, not our government. Big difference.
Comment by Wild West Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:24 pm
Just about any of the drug laws for adults of capacity, as long as those adults bear full responsiblity for the financial consequences to their health from their use.
AND….while we’re at it….banning 18 year olds from the same privileges as other “adults”, like drinking alcohol.
They should be subject to the same consequences of those over 21 for public intoxication or DUI, but for gosh sakes 18 year olds can fight and die for their country, pilot a tank or jet aircraft, fire and kill people with automatic weapons that will rip a person in half, but aren’t deemed responsible enough to have a shot and a beer at a bar? Pretty twisted if you ask me.
Comment by Palos Park Bob Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:25 pm
The law that prevents Illinois horse racing bettors from engaging in “advance deposit wagering” from their home computers (allowed in most if not all other states and formerly allowed in Illinois before its sunset provision was allowed to expire last December).
This now requires horse bettors to leave their homes to either go to a racetrack, OTB facility or to another state, in order to place a bet on a horse race. This inconveniences bettors, many of whom are elderly, reduces handle at all tracks in the nation, and hurts Illinois employees involved with the racing industry. It also costs the State in the form of lost revenue that would increase from greater handle.
Allowing the sunset provision to expire during the lame duck session appears to be pure neglect by a GA that was warned by the Racing Board but was preoccupied doing…..what?
Comment by Rudy Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:29 pm
- one’s faith bans same sex marriage, not our government. -
No, our government certainly does, it’s called DOMA. If it was just your faith no one would care.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:29 pm
Not allowing online gambling. IL should follow NJ’s lead and allow online gambling within the state, and tax the heck out of it. Considering the financial situation the state is in, I can’t believe they’re not looking at legitimate revenue sources like this. It’s preposterous that I can play the lottery online, but I can’t play a game of poker online.
Comment by Mike McD Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:30 pm
I think that any law for legislators that isn’t the same for regular citizens is wrong. In fact, I think it is part of our problem in this country in that legislators have this idea that they are a privileged group. They are only privileged in that they have the honor of serving the public; not serving themselves.
Hey, we always went to the back of the bus when I grew up in the deep South in the 50s. Never met a bad person there! But then again the only prejudice I had was apple pie over pumpkin.
Comment by Sunshine Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:31 pm
“I guess there should be criteria for an intrusive law, and I’d propose that they are laws that restrict my behavior without conferring a benefit on society as a whole that at least offsets that restriction.”
Methinks you don’t want to implement the above as the guiding principle of regulation.
There’s a whole lot of burdensome rules and regs currently on the books that would immediately be in a world of hurt if subject to review under the above.
The problem I have with rules like the above is that they start out as well intentioned, but where they can end up is too often being used to justify actions far afield from the areas being initially considered.
Comment by Judgment Day Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:35 pm
I support marijuana legalization. If an adult can walk into a store to buy alcohol, which can cause so much harm if abused, I see absolutely no reason why an adult can’t buy marijuana, which causes much less harm.
I don’t like that marijuana smokers have to be “in the closet,” hiding from the law and not having legitimacy, skulking around the legal fringes of society. This is intrusive, when laws force responsible adults to behave in this way. I am encouraged by some states that have taken the first courageous steps to legalize marijuana. Other states are now proposing legislation to legalize marijuana.
I hope that one day, responsible marijuana users will also sit at the table of equality.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:38 pm
The FOID law really makes no sense to me. I am not native to the state. I moved here from another state a while back. When my grandfather passed away he left me a couple of old shotguns. It just seems real goofy to me that I need a state issued card to possess the firearms that I have used since I was a child. (Not trying to start a gun debate….these happen to be the only firearms I possess.)
Comment by Eastside Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:39 pm
The most invasive law is the one that allows for red-light and speed cameras. I think they do help and they probably make our roads and communities safer, but clearly it is an invasion to have your public behavior video recorded, photographed and then get a ticket in the mail for it later.
Again, overall I’m not saying they are bad or that the bad outweighs the good, but clearly it is somewhat invasive.
Comment by siriusly Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:48 pm
There are so many. I am going to he different and unique and say that the dumbest law we have on the books is the law that makes adultery a class A misdemeanor. As far as I can tell no one has been charged with violating it since the late 70’s or early 80’s, and yet it is still on the books.
Comment by Guzzlepot Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:49 pm
=stop banning people from smoking a certain naturally growing weed.= Republicans generally oppose legalizing smoking weed. Democrats generally oppose freedom to smoke. How about legalizing weed, but banning all smoking?
Comment by Downstater Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:49 pm
Hash brownie party at Downstater’s place!
Comment by TooManyJens Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:52 pm
Downstater:
Nice!
Am reminded of the old 3 resolution trick:
1) Resolved, we need to build a new courthouse.
2) Resolved, to save funds, we will use materials salvaged from the old courthouse to build the new courthouse.
3) Resolved, we will not begin demolition of the old courthouse until the new courthouse is completely finished.
Comment by Judgment Day Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:55 pm
I highly resent that I am not allowed to wear my bowling shoes outside and back into the bowling alley. Although I do not personally know of anyone who has been ticeketed for this offense, its a very common practice, so its only a matter of time.
Comment by lincolnlover Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:59 pm
Some laws are passed as a way of helping influence behavior. As much as I hate the seat belt law, everyone wears them and it save many lives.
The fact that adultery and fornication are still on the books in illinois are the most intrusive laws in theory. At least they are not enforced.
Comment by robert lincoln Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 4:01 pm
Guess I am in the minority here but using Rich’s question…
What one state law do you consider to be the most personally intrusive?
I would have to say none, there are laws I don’t agree with but as a straight, non illegal drug using, non smoking middle aged dude there isn’t really a ton of state law that intrudes on me much.
I wear my seat belt as a result of being married to a nurse and being the son of a car mechanic and even the booze laws I find dumb (concerning distribution) don’t prevent me from getting what I am looking for in that department.
I guess that is a reflection of the fact that most folks who make laws in this state sort of look like me…
Comment by OneMan Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 4:01 pm
I can’t believe no one has mentioned the prevailing wage law. That’s just a sop to Chicago’s trade unions. Who is to say scabs from Indiana can’t do as good a job on a construction project as local organized labor?
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 4:11 pm
@downstate commissioner - cheer up, ObamaCare will be kicked in soon. You don’t have to kill yourself, one of the Death Panels will do it for you.
Comment by titan Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 4:17 pm
Isn’t it already illegal to have dogs and cats in your lap while you’re driving? So Rep. Kay, I guess the answer to your question would be, “No.”
Comment by Dirty Red Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 4:27 pm
Allowing trucks to use all lanes in the Chicago Metropolitan area for expressways and tollways. Watching those same trucks trying to merge right and chasing vehicles occupying that lane into another lane. What happened to trucks must use the two right lanes?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 4:29 pm
I don’t think the state really has much to do with the limitations but . . . nothing gets my usually dormant libertarian hackles up like cop wannabe lifeguards yelling at me for wading more than thigh deep out into L. Michigan.
Comment by Ivory-billed Woodpecker Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 4:32 pm
My 8 year old son would say the requirement that makes him wear his seatbelt. He laments about it every time we get in the car. Though he’s anti-rules of any kind.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 4:37 pm
The constitutional prohibition on progressive or graduated income tax. Dependance on flat tax rate, sales tax and property tax is antediluvian. The entire tax structure should be recreated from the ground up.
Comment by D P Gumby Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 4:39 pm
That ethics test was right up there when I worked for a State agency, particularly since the “hypotheticals” were modeled after problems from pre-Blago days. I wonder if there are any scenarios on there now about selling a Senate seat or shaking down a kids’ hospital.
Being rid of that now, the one that bugs me the most is the FOID card. Means squat, my picture on the thing is hideous, and it’s useless as a form of identification.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 4:54 pm
The most intrusive are all the loopholes the Catholics have planted throughout the books..their bars, restaurant health care operations are tax free but they always demand more loopholes and special deals..and then they operate their underground railroad for their misguided ones
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 4:55 pm
===cop wannabe lifeguards yelling at me for wading more than thigh deep out into L. Michigan.===
Man, I truly loathed that when I lived in Chicago. We used to drive to Indiana just to escape those Barney Fifes.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 5:08 pm
@robert lincoln - “The fact that adultery and fornication are still on the books in illinois are the most intrusive laws in theory.”
Those crimes are not on the books in Illinois. Haven’t been for quite some time.
Comment by DAK Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 5:17 pm
I have always found it to be amazing that I can’t put certain seeds in the ground on my own property to grow certain plants. I’m of course talking about marijuana and as a gardener and a naturalist I find it amazing that I’m not allowed to plant certain seeds because they will grow into a certain plant.
Comment by WAK Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 5:23 pm
===one’s faith bans same sex marriage, not our government===
Last I checked the government has banned gay marriage.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 5:32 pm
@DAK
Adultery and fornication are still against the law in Illinois. I don’t have the exact cite to the statute, but I am sure they are still misdemeanors. No State’s Attorney in their right mind would charge either of them, and the case law makes them difficult to prove, but they are still on the books.
Comment by Guzzlepot Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 5:39 pm
@DAK
The adultery cite is 720 ILCS 5/11-35, Fornication is 720 ILCS 5/11-40.
Comment by Guzzlepot Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 5:45 pm
Wow, lots of support for ending cannabis prohibition in the comments today. Feel free to make a donation to the cause folks!
Most intrusive state law(s): Drug laws because they cost both the consumer and the non-consuming public greatly. Look at the lessons we learned through alcohol prohibition but haven’t yet figured out with drug prohibition. But to answer the question more specifically i’ll cite part of one of our drug laws for how overreaching they are with their intention.
Any substance that is used to achieve a state of “giddiness” is banned as stated in our Use of Intoxicating Compounds Act.
(720 ILCS 690/1) (from Ch. 38, par. 81-1)
Sec. 1. Use prohibited. No person shall ingest, breathe, inhale or drink any compound, liquid, or chemical containing toluol, hexane, trichloroethylene, acetone, toluene, ethyl acetate, methyl ethyl ketone, trichloroethane, isopropanol, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl cellosolve acetate, cyclohexanone, the alkaloids atropine, hyoscyamine, or scopolamine, or any other substance for the purpose of inducing a condition of intoxication, stupefaction, depression, giddiness, paralysis or irrational behavior, or in any manner changing, distorting or disturbing the auditory, visual or mental processes. For the purposes of this Act, any such condition so induced shall be deemed to be an intoxicated condition.
(Source: P.A. 89-235, eff. 8-4-95; 89-640, eff. 1-1-97.)
Comment by danlinn Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 6:08 pm
Sorry Wild West, you may want to check out the “law in Illinois, under the “Prohibited Marriages” section:
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 7:01 pm
Sorry Wild West, you may want to check out the law in Illinois, under the “Prohibited Marriages” section:
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 7:02 pm
How about the provision of the constitution which limits citizen initiated amendments to only those which deal with the structure of the legislature?
Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 7:25 pm
I hate the ballot access laws that allow candidates from different portions of the state to collect petition signatures differently to obtain ballot positions.
I also hate laws that allow Cook County to charge more for the same governmental services available elsewhere for lesser fees.
Comment by Esquire Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 7:34 pm
As DP Gumby said, we need a major revamp of our tax laws.
Somewhat off topic, I don’t see why someone’s faith makes it impossible for some people who wish to marry to do so. My faith doesn’t–why would your faith trump mine?
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 9:41 pm
I’m totally amazed at the number of people who don’t like seat belt laws.
Sure, the inner libertarian in me finds some of these folks arguments compelling, but what about your inner taxpayer?
A quick Google search takes you to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention website where you’ll find this quote:
“In one year alone, crash deaths and injuries to drivers and passengers cost $70 billion in medical and lost work costs.”
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html
That’s just a Google search, so not being uber analytical here - I’m going to just assume a healthy portion of that number is Medicaid, Medicare, and maybe some other health care safety net coverage (all taxpayer funded?) covering the uninsured, non-seat belt wearing folks who have been in accidents.
We all pay for that.
I vote for marijuana laws. Legalize and tax it.
Comment by cal city crew Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 9:41 pm
Doesn’t quite answer your question, but I hate it when the government forces me to pay something with a credit card and still charges me a convenience fee. If paying by check or cash is not allowed, then paying by credit card isn’t a convenience.
Comment by Just Me Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 11:00 pm
I think Carl had it right. The inability to record the police in the performance of their duties. it is a crime to record a cop when he is in the public or even on your property. It is a load of crap. For instance i was pulled over by a ISP Finest one day and not knowing what the problem was (he couldn’t see my seat belt gave me a ticket though i was wearing it) merely asked “how can i help you officer.” Boy oh boy i heard curse words i hadn’t used since the Service and was called everything but a decent human being. Now i understand he may have had a rough day and was venting on me but to be honest dude needed some anger management. When i called to complain i was asked if there were any witnesses there wasn’t and told there was nothing they could do. Boy recording that on my phone would have been handy.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 7:55 am