What are some illegal things that should be legal?
1y 6mon ago by midwest.social/u/Lanky_Pomegranate530 in asklemmy
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.
Well, I mean, someone's evil ex shouldn't park in front of their house. And people should not park for a nap in a handicap spot. And not in the driving portion of a road, not in the breakdown lane of a major highway, not on anyone's lawn.
But yeah, basically 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
parks perpendicular to the flow of traffic across the California 101 freeway
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.
A car being used as a place to live becomes a need for the owner of said car.
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.
Sleeping anywhere. It should be illegal to wake somebody up, unless there’s reason to believe they require medical intervention.
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.
I mean, in the examples you gave it would be hard to tell the difference between them sleeping and having a medical emergency. If I saw some junkie looking dude unconscious on his lawn I would probably check on him. If you fall asleep in a public place it shouldn't be expected of other people to not wake you.
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.
Instead of being robbed and harassed by the law? Agreed.
That's what I'm going for, yes.
The shady part is that most people who get bothered for sleeping in their cars is because they're doing it somewhere on private property.
Other than that, fully agree.
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.
Weed (not legal in all states)
Most hallucinogens (at least for medical or supervised use)
Being trans (lotta states trying to ban me)
Being gay (they're probably next)
Abortion (many states ban this now)
Free healthcare (not technically illegal, per se)
Being homeless
Polyamory (not technically illegal afaik, but there are a lot of legal benefits that married couples get which aren't extended to polyamorous relationships due marriage being restricted to couples only)
The list goes on because while there are many basic things that aren't technically illegal, the system is set up in a way to fuck you because of the required profit motive behind offering basic necessities in a capitalist society.
The first five you listed are all one thing: bodily autonomy. We each have the right to do to ourselves whatever the fuck we want.
Not in the US we don't lmao.
We really need a constitutional amendment in the United States to explicitly protect bodily autonomy
Why?
Let's break the matter in two parts:
if the adults involved in such a relationship are all informed and consenting, no harm is done to anyone. No one has the right to interfere or comment on those people way of life.
If, eventually, there is the decision to have children, the chance of them growing in a dysfunctional home is as high as any other.
The family may be unconventional but it does not imply nor it is a given it is unable to properly care for children and pass down values of good individual and social behaviour.
-
I do not agree that people in such kind of relationship are any worse for each other than in normal case. At least if they entered it knowing that it's something that works for them. So i won't dispute this.
-
About children tho...isn't it actually proven that children need designated father and mother figure? I know of few people who didn't have father figure and they are all kinda damaged. Though probably such family could simply designate two main guardians and treat rest as close aunts and uncles...so dunno, maybe a moot point.
Are all orphans or children of single parents unbalanced? I can't put much credit to that claim. The same with children of same sex couples.
Uncommon life and family arrangements have existed since humans are humans. That is why all societies have edicts on what "normal" relations are and why deviations from the norm have been so persecuted throughout history.
Yet...
China has an ethnic group where one woman has several husbands. The children stay with the mother, while the men have the role of providing for the household. Suffice to say it is hard to know which man conceived which child, so they are colectively considered fathers to all children.
In Africa and the Arabian peninsula it is common fare for one man to have several wives and where there is that tradition all women are addressed as mother by all children.
Again in Africa, there is a tribe where children are raised, from very young age, by their uncles and aunts, away from the parents.
The first time I read about it, what came to mind was two brothers or sisters exchanging children, like a sort of perverse hostage situation: "you raise mine, I raise yours, nobody kills the other!"
Yes, I have a strange mind.
Divorced couples. Remade families. Same sex couples. Adoptive parents and foster families. Non standard families, whatever that may mean. And then we have the "really" out there arrangements, like poliamory. How about nudists? Or hippies?
So what?
Growing up, there was this family in my street that was composed of two couples, where each woman had given birth to a child of each man. The four lived as a small community, where all children address both men as father and all women as mother.
None of them grew up "fucked up". Or did, only just as much as anyone else.
I admit I lack the ground to stand on here, so I'll back off. Most of my experience is more of me and people I know - I know I had sbortcomings and mental problems due to parents divorce, again know few people who were raised withoit father. That's mostly what influences my view.
However examples you raised are hella interesting, but I also cannot help but wonder how these children grow up compared to 2+1/2+2 family. There are for sure differences - after all even higher amount of children bears high influence - but I wonder what these are. Will look for it later. Thanks for dropping these.
You're welcome. Always glad to help someone broaden their horizons and ideas. Keep reading and keep thinking and exchanging ideas with others. It's the best way to evolve as an individual.
No.
polygamy and polyamoury are not the same thing. You're welcome. I often do that with actors, thinking two different people are the same person.
So what's your thoughts about gay couples with children?
This opinion is based on your extensive personal experience with polyamorous relationships I take it?
I think there is a lot of historical evidence that dismisses your claims. Polyamory, and/or communal parenting, has existed in many forms amongst many different indigenous peoples, and it is still practiced today. There was a time in our past where children being raised by many different parents was the 'norm', and an argument could be made that it is a more natural form of child rearing than our 'norm' of monogamous parent couples.
There is no evidence of people that practice communal or group parenting having issues with violence or jealousy, that is just your assumption. There is evidence that these kind of situations could be advantageous. The child has more people to pay attention to them and can feel a better sense of community. They are also being socialized better and are being shown a wider variety of perspectives, etc.
I would definitely suggest you look into it for yourself, if you are curious why your assumption is wrong.
You shouldn't talk about things you clearly don't understand.
or even know the right words for
Like a 3 way relationship is gonna end up with 2 of the 3 being more closer than the other, that just causes jealousy and that tends to end violently.
What are you basing this on?
I disagree that it always is or will inherently become that way. Even two individuals in a relationship often do not function well when a third (a child) is introduced. leading to jealousy, abuse, neglect, etc. When forced to remain in said relationship.
As someone with experience in poly relationships, (gently) you know not of what you speak. I'm merely a data point, but there is proof behind it vs 'seems' and assumptions.
Dumpster diving. Doesn’t matter if it’s food or merchandise. It should be illegal to lock a dumpster or willfully destroy usable goods.
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.
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.
Some stuff is in the garbage because a corporation doesn’t want to devalue the item they’re selling by giving away the same thing for free. Waste is waste. There’s not much difference between cotton garments, and a box of pop tarts, from a resources standpoint.
Dumpster diving laws are more about trespassing and removing liability anyway.
Pirating of otherwise unavailable media.
Abortion. No specific circumstances needed. If a woman wants an abortion, it should be allowed. There is no one getting late term abortions that didn't want the child and something tragic happened and now they need one.
As a caveat to the last sentence, it's definitely possible for women to not know they're pregnant until very late in the process. There have even been women who only found out they were pregnant when they went into labor.
I know a family that had 6 hours of pregnancy, and they, like most in the same situation, did not seek a late term abortion. By the time labor sets in, the fetus is developed enough to survive outside the womb, so anyone seeking to end the pregnancy without taking possession of a child, should be allowed to simply demand that the fetus be removed. It should be up to the medical staff to decide how.
At what point is it no longer an abortion, though?
That's not a gotcha, it's very simple. Doctors decide whether a fetus is viable outside the womb, and if it is, then it's a birth. The line for this keeps shifting earlier as neonatal medicine improves. Doctors aren't going to destroy a child that can live, they took a hypocratic oath. Once it's outside on its own, "my body my choice" no longer applies.
In fact, the opposite is frequently a problem, where enormous intervention is given to keep an extremely premature child alive when all you are doing is guaranteeing them a lot of suffering. There are plenty of parents who wish in retrospect that the option to simply not intervene had been offered, because they see how much pain their child goes through. It is already perfectly fine, legally and ethically, to decide that a child is simply too weak to have a good quality of life. You can offer them milk (if they feed on their own that is a sign of good health and probably won't ever happen with a case like this), but after that hold them and say goodbye.
People talking about late term abortions and killing babies after ripping them out of the womb at 40 weeks are completely divorced from reality. That's Alex Jones level bullshit.
I think you have the right to do this. No one's gonna charge your if you're dead..
Being illegal means you can't have humane and stressless suicide devices available to market. Instead one has to rely on tools which are uncertain, or cause you too much stress at the end of your life. And at the same time you have to dodge the state, so you can't just announce it and spend your last hours with your loved ones.
Ye like that
I remember a story, of which I don't know if it is true or not. But basically a man in Japan was sentenced to death for suicide, after a failed attempt.
Task failed successfully
That would be China.
We have to kill him, or else he'll die!
Many places make it illegal to allow police to intercede. In most places, the police can intervene if they believe a crime is about to be committed.
There is a huge line between someone who is terminally ill, and wants to die on their own terms, and someone having a mental health crisis. The first should be legal, but still needs support and checking, the 2nd need immediate help.
And what happens when your mental health crisis has lasted for several years, decades even? It is possible to not be terminally ill or old and still rationally decide you want to die due to chronic illness or other issues, even if your issue is purely mental illness. You should be able to die with dignity, peacefully - not after forking over a pretty sum over sketchy websites hoping to get the right peaceful pill that every government has banned or a poison + medication combo so that you'll die puking your guts out but hopefully you won't puke the poison out and successfully die.
There is no help for so many people wanting to die, they've exhausted their options. Some are so desperate they buy what they think is a peaceful pill but is instead rat poison. Mental hospitals do not help these type of people, if these places help at all.
I know, first hand, how strong the illusion is, that depression causes. It's like having a mountain poised to avalanche down on you. You just want to escape, even if it's via extreme means.
The key is that it is still an illusion. It's a paper tiger, once you get a handle to fight it, it dissolves like mist. Most people who attempt suicide, due to mental health, are not dealing with a steady chronic condition. They are at a crisis point. If they receive appropriate help, clawing their way back is perfectly possible for most.
There are exceptions, but they are quite rare. I would bundle them with terminal illness, though proving that is a lot harder. It's also a balancing act between being OK with dying, and being of sound mind to make that decision.
There is no help for so many people wanting to die, they've exhausted their options
They feel like there is no help, no options, no possibilities. They feel like they've exhausted their options.
To state absolutely there is no help to be had in any possible situation is just plain wrong. It does feel like that, yes, and that's the horrible bit. Because the brain absolutely can't not come up with anything and every option you have agency over you feel like you've exhausted. But also, it is a slight exaggeration to say with absolute certainty there is no help.
And I am speaking from experience.
But no, it's not discounted that assisted suicide for mental illness should be completely off the table. However because of the nature of mental illness, there should definitely be checks and balances for it, otherwise half the population would kill themselves over their first heartbreak.
I've read their stories and have my own, there is no help. Therapy, medication, mental ward visits, physical therapy, etc. don't help. Some issues are definitely caused by society, but it is not realistically possible to change society radically enough and soon enough to help. They feel there is no help because there is indeed no help, I also hold this view for myself.
I am not talking about someone going through a breakup reacting on impulse, I mean people who have been mentally ill for years. People with chronic conditions. People who are in pain.
I am not talking about someone going through a breakup reacting on impulse, I mean people who have been mentally ill for years. People with chronic conditions. People who are in pain.
And very politely assumed I'm not one of those people, not presumptuous at all.
I've been tossed out of an ER after I told the psychiatrist I was afraid I might hurt myself or others. Literally, verbatim (albeit in Finnish.) He said, "don't try to make that my responsibility". Like, fuck, that's literally in his job description. He got a guard to escort me out. I rang a crisis holine. They hang up on me, saying I didn't have a crisis. All this after I had waited in an empty room without food for 7 hours, waiting for that pick of a psychiatrist on call to laze back to work. And they didn't even tell me "he won't be in for hours", when they knew perfectly well.
Then another time I was denied my prescription medication while in police custody. I was kept in a cell for three days without them telling me what's going on, how long, why, and even fucking cutting off my water at one point. A literal crime against humanity. Ate my finger open and wrote >300 words in my own blood on the walls. I got a picture of the cell somewhere. They accused me of vandalising the cell. I tried getting the video material from my time in the cell to prove their gross negligence. They "lost it".
My family doesn't even contact me. Haven't worked in several years. Had to move from school to school as a kid because of my mom, never had time to form long term relationships even though I make friends rather easily.
A few years ago, I would've definitely agreed with you. I'm a stubborn person, and it FELT like I had exhausted all my options and no-one was willing to help. That's an exaggeration of course, as is your absolute. And true, the doctors didn't help shit, family and friends nonexistent, the one friend who I had who could've helped lost a daughter, so can't really blame him for not being able to help others.
I was genuinely considering suicide everyday, and had there been an easy way to do it, I probably would've. If not for nothing else, then to make every single fuck of those "not my problem" fucks feel at least a little guilty for not doing more. Like my mom. I would've loved to see her face when she heard I killed myself. Might sound uncaring, because you don't understand how uncaring my mother is, and that lack of care is what I've been talking to her about and she just represses and outright ignores it. So having screamed about suicidal ideation to her probably would've made her feel at least a little bit guilty for not simply calling me to prevent me from killing myself.
But I don't feel like that now. Because I'm a stubborn as fuck person and didn't kill myself out of spite, because I wouldn't get to see what happens. So after years of being convinced my illness has a physical basis, I found one. A rather small thing, non-celiac gluten sensitivity.
But it's not well understood, and has weird connections to behaviour.
All I know is while I used to laugh at all the "gluten free is a fad" jokes, I now don't find them funny after understanding just how much influence a simple fucking protein in my diet can have on the functioning of my nervous system. That being the system that houses this consciousness that's writing to you and not wishing that badly to kill themselves amymore.
Like did I get help from the systems and people who were supposed to care and help? No. Did they actively act against my best interests by ignoring my pleas for help? Yes they did. Did that make me want to kill myself even more? Yes, it did.
But did it mean there was no help to be had, anywhere, as an absolute? Seeing how I now feel less like killing myself, seems it doesn't follow that no help was available. I just had to find it myself, on accident, after literally several decades of complaining about that issue.
I also chose a therapist who's not Finnish on purpose, so they understand how the entire culture is affecting me, and I feel validated by them. So while it hasn't been a huge help, it's definitely a help going there weekly.
But perhaps I still don't belong to those "people in pain" who you speak about who FEEL like there is no help.
I haven't actually worked through anything. My life is equally as shit as it was when I was wanting to kill myself. But I don't feel like killing myself. I still have the issues, they just... don't affect me as negatively. I'm not as sensitive to them as I was. My nervous system is clearly stronger, fortified. So I have to deduce there was something wrong with it, as I always suspected (and had evidence of as well.)
Now I won't get too into anything and understand opinions differ, so please keep that in mind as I might assert some of my opinions and I do realise they're opinions, but I want to share mine. Not asserting any facts or suggesting any behaviours (even when I suggest things), as it will just be my opinion, and I offer it because I understand that even if I suggest something, you'll still reflect on it yourself before doing it. I'm just saying this for a disclaimer because I usually come off as a dick (it's not just your interpretation, it's a problem I have, being sort of too neutral which often comes of as straight up aggressive or offensive.)
So, first off, I'm not a healthcare professional, let's acknowledge that. These are opinions I hold, even when some are arguably on facts, these are still my opinions from those facts. I am however trained as a supply core non-commissioned officer by the Finnish army. This essentially means we're trained to uphold the fighters capability to fight, outside of medical problems. Ie water, food, supplies. Well, nutrition is a big big part of this. Basically, I am expected to know how a person who doesn't have any medical problems should be able to keep up their physical capability for a fight that lasts two weeks, with a final escalation of a big fight that lasts 72 hours (during which rest is extremely limited.). Anyway, I don't think people realise how big of a deal nutrition is. Have you been to a nutrition therapist? Like an actual, proper one, not someone just calling themselves a therapist for Facebook. When you tried gluten-free, did you keep it up for at least 2-3 months? And if you did, I would then suggest doing either GFCF or low FODMAPS if the former doesn't work. It takes patience, and money, but it can help. Not everyone, obviously, I'm not saying you don't have something like lupus, what do I know, but at least from what you write, your body is running on reserves, ie on a deficiency, which is why you're losing weight. Now unless you're an expert in nutrition (which I'm not either, but I do have some idea) it's highly unlikely you're getting all the required vitamins you need from your restricted diet. And even if you are, running on reserves makes the body go into a "powersaving" mode, which also limits pleasure, because the brain is highly energy intensive. Your brain isn't getting enough energy to feel good, so... you won't. I really wouldn't worry about being overweight as much as being extremely depressed. It's not like even if you had an objectively perfect body you'd do anything with it with major depression, right? So might as well have a little less perfect body, which actually is preferred by most people, by the way, unlike the culture would have you understand. Average-looking people honestly fuck more than very good looking people, who get into their heads, or who average looking people don't hit on, because "they're probably out of my class anyway."
Anyway, everything I'm saying is on the assumption that you don't have some underlying disease none of this would help with. But I would point out that lupus is an autoimmune disease. And relating to autoimmune symptoms was something I had as well. What I did was to pretty much exclude everything, just in case. So I ate rice and gluten free fish sticks, had a vegan gluten free protein drink and some gluten free candy. The candy because the brain needs energy to function. I always had this weird desperate need for candy when I woke up. I tried describing it several times to doctors, but they never listened or took me seriously. Since I was a kid. Now since I did the exclusion diet, I've not really had it, unless I've exposed myself to gluten, after a few days of which it feels like my body just can not absorb nutrients properly. I understand we are very different and I'm not trying to say you have the same thing or would be aided by the same thing. But I'm saying I was so desperate as well that I just went full exclusion diet, because I felt it was an autoimmune issue, and I felt strongly it was related to diet, or at least my sugar metabolism, (with the hankering in the mornings and other such things), so I excluded tomatoes, anything with allium (onion, garlic, leek, etc), gluten, dairy, and even beef and other meat proteins at one point, even when a beef protein allergy is very unlikely.
After weeks of that shitty simple diet, but definitely giving my body more than enough as calories and making sure I also get a good variety of vitamins with either supplements or drinks like the protein (which have added vitamins), getting all the vital macros and micros, but making sure to avoid pretty much anything that could be an allergen, I started feeling better. I never knew you're actually supposed to want to eat three times a day. I didn't know you're not supposed to be able to burp three hours after eating a meal to still taste the meal.
Anyway, your problem does sound different, but if it's something to do with autoimmune or nutrition, it might help to try that. When our dog had allergies, the vets just went "rice, potatoes, chicken and fish, that's all you'll give him, he should be fine". The point being it's so hard to chase after an allergen that it's easier to give a simple exclusion diet. For dogs it's obviously easier as they don't spice their food or whatnot, but can you say you've ever went even a few days of avoiding the allergens I just listed? It's essentially the low FODMAPS diet for IBS. Here's some quickly googled John Hopkins article on it.
From my very objective and masculine solution focused emotion ignoring Finnish moronical mechanical point of view, I would say that you do that diet for a few weeks and have a caloric surplus (yes you might gain weight, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make) but I don't excpect that you to make you necessarily feel better at all. I expect it to prime your body to be able to feel better. If you do that, and then the next thing, and you don't feel good, I would be surprised. I'm not saying I don't think it could happen, but I would put money against it. So what is the next thing? During that few weeks, or a few weeks following the first one, whatever you feel like, if you can, light exercise. If you can't, it's fine.
But then, a serotonergic substance, but with set&setting in mind. It's a complex issue, because doing ecstasy at home doesn't necessarily feel good, and you're not probably ready to go to a rave or anything. So maybe... LSD and movies? That would be my suggestion. If you want even more introspection, mushrooms. But if you've never done any serotonergic substances, I would go with LSD, as I feel like it's much... "easier"... than mushrooms. Mushrooms feels like conversing with a deity older and larger than the galaxy, whereas taking LSD is sort of like being visited by a mischievous demigod.
Anyway, that's because despite fixing your body to be able to feel good, you also need to prompt it to feel good, and that's just something a depressed person might literally be incapable of doing. You know how memory is contextual? Like how a certain smell can just... unlock a memory you know you knew you had, but you just didn't sort of have... access to? Well, memory is contextual not just in regards to external stimuli, but also internal stimuli. In a certain mood, we more easily recall other times when we were in that mood, and it's harder to remember things which you experienced in a wildly different mood. This can get so bad that you're essentially depressed for so long that the default setting gets so far from happy that you literally can not access happy memories anymore, so you don't experience happiness, and because you don't, you can't, ad infinitum.
That's why the importance of the serotonergic substances. SSRI's work with the same assumption; "increasing serotonin levels should help". But serotonin isn't happiness. Happiness is very much just the other side of the coin from anxiety. So SSRI's just don't work, because the idea behind them is flawed. They never get you to unlock those happy memories. Which is why ecstasy, LSD, shrooms, anything serotonergic (ie working on the serotonin system) taken at a sufficient dose will crank up your brain to a very anxious/happy (sometimes it's hard to differentiate which, which is where the "bad trip" 'myth' comes from. not exactly a myth, but it's not a "bad trip" as much as it's "too big of a dose for that specific person in that setting causing too intense an experience they don't have the experience to handle"), which then unlocks all the memories of times when you experienced happy (and possibly also anxious) states of mind.
Once that intense experience of a night or a night and day is over, then you'll have the capability to remember those things, which is assumed to be the reason why shroom therapy can yield benefits of warding off depression in the terminally ill for up to months.
https://broadview.org/magic-mushrooms-are-helping-terminally-ill-patients-go-out-on-a-high/
And the benefits are that if you do actually still want to kill yourself, you'll basically have peace of mind over it, and if you really did come out of a trip explaining how you've just seen it all and don't need to exist anymore, I'd be way more likely to believe you than now when I know you have a caloric deficienc
caloric deficiency.
Guess I found the limit of a lemmy comment, huh? ~10k chars. Kk.
Anyway, to sum it up, it's just my opinion based on what I know and believe, but I do believe you should try and exclusion diet for a few weeks with some light exercise if you're capable, then do LSD, ecstasy or shrooms and then look at this again. You've clearly tried the more traditional cares, which are usually pretty ineffective. If you try those as well and still want to kill yourself, well, then I can't help you further. But I still refuse to straight out assert that no help is possible. Because it's hard to assert something is NOT possible. Things might be extraordinarily unlikely, but not... impossible.
That's what kept me alive at least.
As a kid I got help from a few times at a raves or a few times slightly tripping at home with friends or solo. A few times a year, at the most. Found it quite helpful at times. But it didn't take away my body's feeling of sort of being "overclocked". That went away with my exclusion diet mostly. I don't assume it will work for you, but it definitely wouldn't harm you.
I mean, what have you to lose by trying? I mean I know I had to lose was just being annoyed at doing something I didn't find that pleasurable. But that's why I got the candy. And chicken. And anything remotely pleasurable, while still remaining within the limits of the low fodmaps. It took a few weeks, but I started feeling better. Now I do still get symptoms if I expose myself to gluten or whatnot, but not like bad, not instantly. A few hours in I might notice some tiny symptoms, but nothing clinically significant. But several days in and then I start noticing the same things again.
One major thing I always notice is this weird feeling of like mouth feeling different. It's weird never really knew how to explain it. Different ph in the mouth? Idk. It's just like... slightly off.
I'm still depressed and in a shit life situation, but I had developed pretty significant coping strategies throughout my years, and now all of those are just... so much more effective.
But also you did mention being around "the age where schizophrenia is the worst" and I think you're talking about 27 and yeah I had my worst years then as well. I'm still reeling and it's been almost a decade.
Anyway, you do what you think is right, but that's my 20000000000000000000000000000 cents.
They will make your life hell if you fail though.
Dark. And I like.
Have you considered therapy? Anyway, dying out of spite is not as cool as it might sound. Way too permanent for a one-time punishment.
Prostitution. Keeping it illegal makes it so much worse for everyone involved except human traffickers.
It would be such a large boost in tax revenue at the very least.
I love the idea of someone being brought up for tax evasion charges because they were only claiming a blowjob rate when they were doing anal.
This could be the most interesting audit in the history of the IRS.
In my country, to crack down on tax evasion by small businesses people can give their tax payer number when they buy something (say food at a restaurant) and a copy of the receipt automatically gets passed on to the taxman (there's a lottery on those and people can get some money from it, which is how the State incentivises people to do this, plus you can get some tax discounts on some kinds of expenses such as medicine).
All this to say that the idea of the taxman getting a copy of an itemized receipt for sex work services is just delicious.
PS: Around here sex work is unregulated, meaning not illegal (though profiting of other people's sex work is illegal) but not explicitly legal and regulated.
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
Jaywalking
Giving water to voters standing in line
Punching nazis in the fucking face
Punching nazis in the fucking face
There's no way this can backfire, right?
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.
If you feel personally attacked by the idea of punching nazis, you're probably a nazi.
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.
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
-
Prostitution
-
Abortions
Taking food when you have no food
Poverty, being unhoused.
Felons should have the right to vote.
Seeking gender affirming care.
Are we talking about incarcerated felons, or felons that served their time?
Why not both?
Hmmm. Hmmm? I didn't really think about incarcerated before. But I suppose if you were imprisoned for a law you don't agree with, the way to change it is voting.
By keeping prisoners from voting, you prevent law from changing.
The proper way is to respect the law and vote for it's change, not to break the law and cry after a fact.
I've been dating my boyfriend since before it was legal. Thank you for your input, but no. Just no.
Yes both.
Why would it matter if felons voted while imprisoned or free? We should not be incarcerating so many people that their vote has anything beyond a trivial, marginal affect. That is to say the real question is why do we convict so many people of crimes?
Wait a minute, felons can run for president but can't vote who to be president?
Drugs.
Freedom of speech in China.
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.
You're right. Looking at the list again, there are a lot of countries missing. Like Finland, which vaionko mentioned and several others from all kinds of continents. But I think what you said also applies to a lot of other democratic and free countries in the list. For example if I look at the list of Germany, where I'm from... That mainly lists books that include holocaust denial (which is a crime here, due to history) or other misinformation concerning that. And instructional books on how to build bombs or poison someone. So it's not like our courts are banning books without a proper reason, either. And I think it mainly concerns distributing and selling those books. Owning them is fine, with more or less the one exception of child pornography.
And it's not the government's job to ban books here, either. These are some individual(?) court rulings.
But with that said, my country isn't at the top of freedom of speech. I think we're cutting down on libel and defamation more than some other countries. And sometimes an author or publisher gets sued for publishing a book containing doxxing or lots of personal information abot celebrities/polititians without their consent. And then that's effectively banned from being distributed.
With limits
Fentanyl, for example, should require doctors guidance at least, and forced medical help to get off of it when you're displaying addiction behavior.
Euthanasia should also be legal, but with strict rules. You want to avoid someone off themselves just because they're having a bad day
People already choose to buy and use fentanyl without a doctors prescription, why should they be treated as criminals? If a junkie commits crimes because they are high, that should be criminal, and if a junkie commits crimes to get more drugs, that should be criminal, but I do not see a purpose in criminalizing fentanyl for consenting adults.
You prohibit Fentanyl because it's so friggin addictive and lethal. Most drugs are rather harmless (as alcohol is "harmless") so sure. Just keep an eye on people and where someone falls off the wagon, have them undergoing forced treatment to get them back okay again.
Fentanyl is like meth, it's too much, there is no such thing as a little bit or any good outcome
I remain unconvinced. fentanyl is already illegal, yet people die from it, so making it illegal is already ineffective. Instead of spending money on police, lets spend it on treatment.
Actual marriage equality.
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....
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?
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.
Yeah, the train station thing must be some weird exception, I never heard of it. There also 24h beer delivery services.
This varies significantly by state in the US
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.
Can't speak for Ontario, but I know a few people who've worked in convenience stores and gas stations here, and occasionally they have someone come in and test the clerks. A teenager trying to buy cigarettes or alcohol, for example, or someone trying to buy alcohol after 11pm. Most convenience stores close at 11pm, and those that don't will usually lock the wine racks and beer fridges.
That's really not always true in the US.
Everything's legal when you're at sea!
That explains a lot. Why is it inaccessible?
Because of the implication?
Both, international law or country law doesn't apply outside of the territorial waters of a country.
Bypassing DRM for personal use
How is that illegal?
Ask the record/movie/book/game companies that want you to buy the same content every time they come out with a new medium for you to consume it
Rescuing animals who would be harmed by their owners without intervention.
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.
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.
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.
The fact that you jump straight to "addict" and don't even consider causal users tells me that you know very little about drug use.
Lol sure, what a rhetoric.
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?
For some people, existing.
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.
Give children the right to buy alcohol too.
More give doctors the right to treat their patients
Being homeless in nyc
Youre right I’m not thinking big picture
drugs
Some, but... Certain super-addictive drugs should be limited.
limited but not illegal. punishing people for using drugs is so backwards...
Euthanasia. Access to free and humane end of life services should be a fundamental human right for all adults everywhere.
Escorts
For adults, literally everything that doesn't directly hurt other living things.
Kids 16 and under accessing social media. Responsibility should be on their parents and household, not the government.
Gonna have to disagree with you for two reasons:
- it's not actually illegal (except in Australia soon I guess)
- when everyone's a user, the social aspect makes it practically impossible for single households to impose limits without making their child a pariah
Fair, not yet but the bill has passed and it's now being written into law in Australia, where I live. I agree that it'll be difficult for the child to be the odd one out if most people in society are doing something that they're banned from doing at home but when has that stopped society from progressing? Why teach to cave into societal pressure when you can apply critical thinking as to why it's being limited in the first place?
Self-defense against state violence. Death threats against corporate execs and politicians who condemn thousands to death daily.
All drugs except opioids.
I have to clarify that that doesn't include using hard drugs in public or operating heavy machinery under the influence ofcourse.
Why should opioids be illegal?
Because they are an absolute poison. And just like other poisons they should be illegal.
They serve a legitimate purpose, but can be abused like many other things. Making them illegal just makes addiction a crime.
They are still illegal outside of medical use. And this thread is about legalizing stuff.
I never said ban them.
Yeah! Not enough lynching going on nowadays.
/s (almost forgot it)
You're somewhat impressive, in your own unique way.
Congrats for being the first to join my (short) list of blocked accounts at your very first attempt. That's a first.
And if the vigilante thinks they are absolutely justified to shoot someone for walking across their lawn?