Hey, nice list. The world would seriously be a better place without those things.

I agree with all 4. But I will admit to having done 3 before :) but only for a few seconds.

holy crap, i do 3 out of 4 (guess which one i don't do).

sounds like you're pretty socially conservative ;)

1. It's a natural human thing, and is beneficial to the child. Do you oppose abortion?

2. This is a natural human thing too, I do it when I have to. Doctors tell you that if you have phlegm, cough it up, it's your body's way of expelling it. When there's nowhere to do it why not in the street? People do worse things in the street.

3. + 4. These are already prohibited (in California). "List of things that should be prohibited, but aren't." isn't a good place to put things that are already prohibited! ;)

(I'm not picking on you, I'm just playing by the rules.)

1. Yea, nature should only happen in private...right.

2. What would be more gross to you? 1. Having that phlem in your mouth/eating it, or just spitting it out? Do you swallow? If so, thats pretty gross.

3. This annoys me too, but my free speech should not be restricted in any way, even in volume. So this one gets opposed too.

4. Agreed. This is proven to be dangerous. No argument here.

THANK YOU

I am a bagger at Tom Thumb(a grocery store) I get crap like that all the time. People wanting double bagged items in paper, or they give me a bunch of "save the earth" canvas bags to stuff their crap in. And the managers treat them like kings as if the whole company would crash if we lost one customer.

I once got yelled at for putting grapes on top of the bananas, because the lady thought the bananas where smashed, they were not, I had to take those perfectly good bananas to damaged and bring her new ones.

It sounds like you have worked at a grocery store before.

We need to have more of you at my store. I'm a cashier, the only one. I get to see it all.

The babies in a movie thing is de facto already. No one should do it and when they do and the baby starts making noise they usually take it out. It really wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have to day ~$25 to get in, and an extra fucking $10 for popcorn and water.

I'm with you Bry...it's a terrible waste of money, time and effort. They should have something similar to the do not call laws for junk mail.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you less.

I feel that if we allow the government to ban tobacco then we are turning into a Communist nation. The more power we give to the government the less and less they have to listen to us, the people who put them in power in the first place. The government is not there to protect our health, contrary to popular opinion I know, but rather it is in place to protect our rights as individuals and our rights as a nation.

"One of the main responsibilities of any government is to ensure the safety of its population..."

I don't think so. The government, here anyway, is supposed to protect our rights to do as we please. One part of that is protecting other people from what we please. This mean, if I want to shoot my gun on my property, that's fine, but only so long as I don't shoot towards the street. This is because American's have the right to own and use weapons, but because it may hurt someone (accidentally or otherwise), we have restrictions on how we may use them.

We already have laws regarding the use of tobacco (again, in California). People cannot smoke inside because it damages the building and the second hand smoke lingers and can harm other people depending on how long they're exposed to it (for employees, it could be extremely harmful).

Socialism works, look at insurance. It's a law enforced mix between capitalism/socialism. You have to get insurance if you're going to drive, no matter how good at driving you are, or where you'll be driving, or how many cars you'll be driving at any given time... all of the cars that you have must be insured... not for you either, for the other person. Everyone pays for it, but only some people use the money, when they get in accidents. That's socialism. The capitalistic part is where these law requiring institutions have control over their prices and the way that they operate. Different companies offer different benefits, costs, maximum payouts, etc.

I get your point, and I agree overweight people should stop eating food just making them worse. But that's really not the reason they're overweight. I'd blame overweight people from having a lack of personal self-worth and lack of knowledge of how food works in their body. Eating fast food becomes as much an addiction as drinking coffee (in a sense). And like giving up coffee, you can't do it unless you really convince yourself you want and you go for it. So really, there are better alternatives for overweight people than locking them out of fast food (there's still the drive thru...haha).

If they weren't allowed to leave the house they would keep growing. The most exercise these people get is probably in getting more food... Maybe they should measure people and give them a customized food menu instead... and make HEALTHIER FOOD CHEAPER so that there's an upside to eating healthy other than not getting 2000+ calories per meal.

This is selfish. Just because you get depressed seeing people loving each other and being happy doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to do it. If that were a proper motive to criminalize something, then there would be a lot of fat, lazy, ignorant americans locked up that depress me when I see them.

Prohibition is the only form of law that exists to keep people from doing something in the first place. Once you stop prohibiting, you get crimes that cannot be punished. The law prohibits acts like murder. If you're caught trying to hurt someone, you get charged with attempted assault... why? Because you were trying to do something that is already prohibited.

Take away prohibition and you also lose reactionary services like your typical law enforcement. There would be no law to enforce. Nothing to apprehend people for doing, nothing to hold people in prisons for doing.

A "peaceful solution" would be to take the murders and rapists, and child abusers, etc. and tell them that you love them and that you hope they change... even though telling them that you hope they change is in a sense a disagreement. Even if you look at someone like "I'm mad at you for raping my child" you're causing conflict.

What you want is a hippies paradise, and those don't exist because peace is something that we cannot share.