Browsing Tags Breaking the Law

Breaking the Law Episode One Promo

Posted on May 16, 2013 by Justin Rubner

Breaking the Law investigates intrusive laws, the lawmakers who make them and the lawbreakers who break them.

It’s intended to answer the question, “What were they thinking?” and to demonstrate that in today’s USA, it’s nearly impossible to go a single week without breaking the law.

Breaking the Law’s pilot show is almost here! In it, we take an inside look at one rather silly ban that has actually been enforced. We hope to produce many more of these episodes in the near future.

In the meantime, please take a gander at this 30-second promo.

- Justin

The song, “Message from the Law,” is performed by the Sic Alps under Creative Commons.

Be sure to like Breaking the Law on Facebook!

The NTSB: Had One Beer? You Should be Charged with DUI!

Posted on May 15, 2013 by Justin Rubner

Ten years ago, I got pulled over by a cop in Gwinnett County Georgia.

He followed me out of a pub, where I had just eaten a delicious blackened burger with blue cheese, fries, a salad and two beers.

I know what you’re thinking. But it really was two beers. A Molson and a Guinness to be exact. I literally ate my dinner and left. I wasn’t there to “drink.”

I blew a .05, below the .08 blood alcohol limit.

If the National Transportation Safety Board had its way back then, I’d have a drunk driving conviction. I’d also be $10,000 poorer.

That’s because the NTSB just published a report recommending that states adopt a .05 limit. For the average woman, ONE drink would make her a criminal. For me, at 225 pounds, I’m a criminal at two … with dinner in my belly no less.

“This is critical because impaired driving remains one of the biggest killers in the United States,” said Deborah Hersman, the NTSB chairman. “To make a bold difference will require bold action. But it can be done.”

Groups such as the American Beverage Institute oppose the recommendation. You can imagine why, as it turns a normal dinner on the town into a police paranoia fest — when one glass of wine can cost you a DUI.

“This recommendation is ludicrous,” said Sarah Longwell, the institute’s managing director. “Further restricting the moderate consumption of alcohol by responsible adults prior to driving does nothing to stop hard-core drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel.”

Don’t think I’ve ever known anyone, drinkers at least, who hasn’t driven after one drink at least once in their life. If a big person like me can blow a .05 after two — and a large dinner — the DUI money machine will be in full swing if these rules are ever adopted.

Now, of course, groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving applaud the recommendation, although they prefer technological solutions. Let there be no doubt many groups envision an America where it would be a criminal offense to drive even after one sip.

To people who want even tougher restrictions, the thought process is easy:

Should you drive drunk? No.
Does drunk driving kill a lot of people? Yes, of course.
Then you shouldn’t drive after any drink!

Let me be clear: Drivers who are impaired should be prosecuted; they can too easily destroy lives.

But as governments increasingly give in to the safety zealots, we the people continue to have more of our lives regulated down to the smallest of decisions. They’re increasingly turning everyday actions into everyday acts of crime. Where do we draw the line?

Is your eight-year-old in a booster seat? No? Yer breaking the law in multiple states.
Smoking in your apartment? Yer breaking the law in Santa Monica.
Youth football? One state regulator wants to ban this in New York.
Aluminum baseball bats? BAKE SALES? Too dangerous in NYC for your kid.
Like Buckyballs magnets? The feds have banned ‘em. Could choke on ‘em.
Swimming without a life vest in Seattle? Yer breaking the law there.
Dog not in a seatbelt? You could soon be breaking the law in New Jersey if one pol has her way.

All of these regulations ooze into the minutia of your day. Many of them also suck the money out of your wallet. And it will only get worse with more reports like this, and with weak politicians who increasingly give in to them.

Meet the Cast of Breaking the Law

Posted on May 9, 2013 by Justin Rubner

What happens when you mix a journalist / co-host with a guy who signed up for the free beer?

The cast of Breaking the Law of course.

Reneé Rayles

The daughter of the principal of her high school, Reneé learned all about discipline and following rules … or at least not getting caught. As an adult, her upbringing helped her become an accomplished actress, author, host and entrepreneur.

She’s hosted a variety of TV shows including: Atlanta Mom and ESPN’s Southern Football. In addition, her book, “The Super, Sexy, Single Mom on a Budget”, was a finalist in the 2009 Indie Book awards. She was also named by Jezebel Magazine in 2008 as “One of the 10 Most Beautiful Atlantans”.

As for why she chose to serve as co-host on Breaking the Law, Reneé said she was always interested in the intersection of public policy and personal freedom and wanted to highlight both sides of controversial laws.

Dalton Lilley

What can we say about Dalton?

He was raised — literally — on a farm. We frankly don’t know how he’s survived this long. Regardless, we were hooked the moment we saw his near-award-winning sidewalk performance as a man dressed in a giant brain suit.

It turns out he had some show-business experience, including various commercials and roles in film and even TV. So we decided to give him a shot at hosting his own TV show and see what happens.

As for why he chose the role, don’t let him tell you anything other than the fact that he A) Has taken the giant brain character as far as it can go, B) Loves to see himself on camera and C) Relishes the opportunity to break a few ridiculous laws himself.

Stay tuned for Reneé and Dalton in Breaking the Law’s initial episode, which should be online any day…

Elmo Regulation Possible in NYC

Posted on May 4, 2013 by Justin Rubner

While the people of Boston willingly give up their most basic 4th Amendment rights so thousands of SWATted-up cops could find one bomber, April wasn’t the busiest of months for stupid, intrusive laws. But it did provide some doozies.

Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., for example, introduced legislation that would ban or introduce tight regulations on costumed characters in New York City.

“Clearly, the situation can’t continue to exist the way it does, and the laws we already have don’t deal with the situation.”

Vallone is concerned about costumed characters running amok in Times Square. His concern is based on a few creeps in recent months saying, or doing, creepy things — such as uttering anti-Semitism, as is the case with “Evil Elmo” Adam — “no relation to the actor” — Sandler.

Times Square Alliance president Tim Tompkins is also concerned about other evil Elmos popping up.

“We’ve reached a critical point where this needs to be addressed. Times Square is Times Square. A little bit of quirky is OK. A lot of creepy is not OK.”

Quirky OK. Creepy not OK.

The councilman and Tompkins are upset that the 1st Amendment gets in the way. They say the only way to currently arrest evil Elmos is if they A) Disrupt foot traffic or B) Sell something.

Really — you can’t arrest them if they hurt someone? And wasn’t Evil Elmo already arrested? So why do you need MORE intrusive laws?

The answer is that control freaks in this council want to regulate every aspect of New Yorkers’ lives…right down to the costumes they wear and (potentially vile) things they say.

Should these be banned in Times Square too?

So, if the legislation passes, cops will just have to remember Tompkins’ golden rule about wearing costumes: Don’t be creepy.

Yoko Ono (Upper West Side resident), and wearers of Yoko Ono’s emasculating fashions, are you listening?

Here is some more legislative ridiculousness from April:

Bloomie back at it. Speaking of NYC, what intrusive laws list would be complete without Mayor Bloomberg? Now he wants to ban the sale of cigs to adults under 21. (He’s also trying to ban the DISPLAY of cigs to ANYONE.)

Drunk walking banned? In Bethel Alaska, it could be against the law to walk drunk. (Alaska DUI laws already apply to rafting while drunk!)

Background checks for dogs. One North Carolina pol wants residents to get background checks before getting a Pit Bull, Mastiff, Chow or other allegedly “dangerous” dog breed. Canine profiling anyone?

Cheesy regulators. The FDA is frankly out of control. You will see this outfit in the coming months attempt to expand its already gargantuan reach. They’re currently gunning for caffeinated products. Now they’re worried about French cheese.

Where’s yer gun? As New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo jockeys for the national spotlight by banning things such as magazines with more than seven rounds, councilmen in Nelson Georgia have gone off the deep end — on the other side. The town in April actually passed a law MANDATING gun ownership!

“It bumps up against the national issues on guns,” the mayor said.

Ya think?

The Filming of Episode One is Done!

Posted on April 13, 2013 by Justin Rubner

Followers of Breaking the Law know this is more than just a regular ole blog.

It’s a regular ole blog with a stellar idea for a TV show.

So, after acquiring a talented cast and crew, we just finished shooting our first episode. We plan on having a first “cut” within a week and a finished, polished product within a few weeks.

If you live in Atlanta, shoot me a note, and, as long as there are seats left, I’ll invite you to a second cut viewing party. If you’re a network executive within driving range of Atlanta, I’ll personally drive you to the party.

Even though the content of this episode is a poorly kept secret around these parts, it’s still a bit of a secret. Here’s what I can say:

Most of it takes place in Alabama.
It focuses on an intrusive law.
It involves alcohol.
It involves breaking an intrusive law with alcohol in the state of Alabama.

So please stay tuned for this episode, and others in the future, until some super smart network sees their future hit show in the waiting.

-Justin

Stupid Laws

Posted on April 2, 2013 by Justin Rubner

Peyton Manning + rosary beads = gang symbols

In a recent post, Breaking the Law outlined how schools are taking basic freedoms away from kids. Here are two more incidences over the past two weeks:

Everybody knows rosary beads are the universal symbol of gangdom, right? Apparently. Cause one CO kid’s rosary beads were seized by school officials who believed his religious necklace was gang-related.

Another CO kid–a third grader–was forced to go home for wearing a Peyton Manning jersey. Apparently, Manning’s number is also a symbol of gangdom.

What Bloomberg Should Do When He’s No Longer Mayor

Posted on March 13, 2013 by Justin Rubner

Where were you on B-day?

That’s when a New York state Supreme Court judge March 11 dealt Mayor Bloomberg’s anti pop crusade a proverbial backslap, essentially banning his ban on large sugary drinks. Judge Milton Tingling said the policy was:

“fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences” that would be difficult to enforce with consistency “even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole.”

Bloomie, as expected, isn’t going to let some lowly Supreme Court judge get in his way, however. He vowed to fight back in his quest to prevent portly New Yorkers from getting their hands on sugary sodas:

“We have a responsibility as human beings to do something, to save each other.”

(…from soda?)

I’m beginning to worry about the psyche of this man. Because I don’t believe he will win this battle. And that may really hurt his feelings.

And after an unprecedented third term as mayor, what’s he going to rule–whose he going to save–when he’s replaced in 300 days? After all, the Bloomberg LP newswire service that bears his name only makes up one-third of the $16 billion global financial data market.

Meh.

I have the solution.

Bloomberg can become Supreme Commander of Bloomburgh, a virtual online city.

His thirst for saving the world from the evils he declares can be quenched in this magical land. His avatar can give daily addresses to his virtual huddled masses. His rule can be omnipotent. His presence, omnipresent. And all his benevolent pet issues can be addressed:

Guns.
Breast milk.
Cigarettes.
Painkillers.
Vending machines.
Fatty foods.
Loud music.
Exercise.
Feeding the homeless.
Soda.
Anything he wants.

In Bloomburgh, no inhabitant will have the right to carry guns (except his personal army of bodyguards). Bloomburghians will not enjoy the benefits of these armed guards against the virtual thugs of Bloomburgh. But they can rest soundly knowing their leader is safe from harm.

Baby formula will be banned, as Bloomie wants kiddies to drink the real thing, baby. Moms unable to give breast milk will be given free milk from Bloomberg’s virtual breast milk factory, where happy lactating moms, financed by Bloombucks, deliver their “blilk” on command in factory-like precision.

Goes without saying, but Bloomburghians who smoke will be personally dealt with by Bloomie himself, who will levy hefty fines–paid for in Bloombucks. He’ll also deliver stern finger-waggings.

In real life, Bloomie only told hospitals how much painkillers they could give to patients. In The ‘Burgh, the Supreme Commander will be the one doling out scripts. Only instead of masking pain, his patented “Blicodin” will cause more pain in other parts of the body–causing patients to forget their original problems. Because “we all need to suffer a little bit.”

Vending machines will be dealt with, Office Space style, by Bloomberg’s handpicked vending machine posse. They will have bats. (Wooden of course). And they will strike down–with extreme prejudice–any dispenser of obesity-causing candy bars.

As fatty foods make people fat, Bloomburghians won’t be allowed to eat them…except on days Bloomberg has allowed, such as National Donut Appreciation Day…AND as long as inhabitants have BMIs to his liking. But pizzas? They’ll be replaced with cauliflower-crust “blizzas” with soy cheese and kimchi. And hoagies? Fuggedaboutit. You don’t want to know what’s in a bloagie.

All music devices in Bloomburgh will have mandatory volume limits. Every inhabitant, after all, should have 100 percent of their hearing intact to hear Bloomberg’s daily broadcasts.

Bloomberg recently said government “probably” shouldn’t mandate exercise. But in Bloomburgh, collective exercise sessions will be required twice daily. (You should check out his Shake Weight routine. It’s a hoot.)

Bloomberg himself will be the only person allowed to feed homeless people. He will eat foods low in fat and high in Omega 3s and lovingly regurgitate the subsistence into the mouths of every homeless inhabitant three times a day.

And sodas–evil vile poison pops–will be limited to 1 oz shot glasses. But it won’t be sodas. Rather, blodas will be anti-oxidant-rich wheat grass juice. Bottom’s up!

In Bloomburgh, 80 percent of graduates from Bloomberg Academy will need remedial schooling in basic reading, violent crime will be up 300 percent due to his ban on private ownership of guns, and the minutia of Bloomburghians’ lives will be controlled every second of the day.

But at least they’ll be skinny.

Smoke Em if You Got Em…Unless You’re in a Restaurant, Park, Apartment, Yard or Car

Posted on March 3, 2013 by Justin Rubner

Warrantless surveillance is still A-diddly-OK, thanks to a February ruling by SCOTUS. The folks in Watertown NY don’t like roommates. One Georgia pol has it in for lewd photoshopping. Another in North Carolina has a thing against nipplage.

All this and more in Breaking the Law‘s stupidest laws of February 2013…

Legislating good parenting

The newest craze with the Health Police is drivers who smoke with children onboard. In February, CT Rep. Henry Genga and others began their push to criminalize the act.

The first time someone is caught, they will get a warning. The second time will involve a penalty.

Before you say “it’s for the children” read on…

Should you smoke? No!
Should you smoke in front of kids? No!
Should you drink more than two drinks daily? Uh…
Or how about drink in front of your kids? Shouldn’t you give them more vegetables? Or less soda? When should they wear helmets? How many cookies should they be allowed to have?

When do we, as a society, draw the line between collective decision-making and letting humans live as humans?

When do we, as individuals, say, “Enough! Mind your own damn business!“?

Likely not soon. Because something happens to our brains when the words “It’s for the children” are uttered. Or “for public safety.” Or “for the environment.” Or “for the sterile orphan obese albino squirrels.”

Expect this to spread to other states–in the name of “protecting the children.” And expect other forms of smoking bans to take effect. In yards. In boats. Anywhere the “public” could be affected. More than likely, complete bans in some places.

“Good,” you may say. But what precedent does this set?

When local and state governments began banning private businesses from allowing smoking 10 years ago, the Nanny Staters ridiculed people (like me) who said private residences and cars were next.

Now, many cities, including New York City and Atlanta, have banned smoking in so-called outdoor “public” areas. And Santa Monica has already banned smoking in apartments. Another California town, Rocklin, is trying to ban smoking in your own yard. Some politician in Oregon even wants smokers to get prescriptions.

These intrusions are, of course, levied on us in the name of “public” safety.

“When you put a child in, you have a responsibility,” Rep. Genga said. “The right thing to do is to take care of that child.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong. According to Rep. Genga’s own actions, it’s society’s responsibility–not the parents’– hence another thing for police to ticket us over-regulated, over-ticketed motorists for to pad their own coffers and control the minutia of our lives.

Watertown NY bans roomies

The powers that be in Watertown, a military town, decided they don’t like residents to have roommates. So they banned it.

The ban comes after a petition from a woman who complained that her next-door neighbor lived with his fiancé and two other roommates. She said she “didn’t want to see it become a regular thing.” So she collected 80 signatures.

“All I’m trying to do is live a normal life, a quiet life,” said the neighbor in her crosshairs.

Hey, live a quiet life elsewhere with all your roomies. Your neighbor got 80 signatures. How many signatures you got?

Ready for some more nonsense?

One NY pol wants to ban youth football (it’s for the children).
Will Nevada ban pedestrian texting? (Did you know text walking is already illegal in Fort Lee NJ?)
Montana bill proposes legalizing dining on roadkill…why wasn’t this legal in the first place?
A curfew is in full effect for kids in Miami.
Anti anonymity bill for online sites proposed in Illinois.
After some prankster photoshopped the head of Ga. State Rep. Earnest Smith into some…compromising…positions, he moved to ban the aforementioned practice. “No one has a right to make fun of anyone,” this Constitutional scholar said.
Up next: Sugar regulation?
Mayor Bloomberg, who wants to ban everything, reassured New Yorkers in February he hasn’t banned everything. Yet.
…But he does want the entire state of New York to enact his soda ban.
…And now, he wants to ban Styrofoam.
Introducing the “opossum right to work act.”
Nipple ban in North Carolina?
Florida introduces bill banning drones for “crowd control,” which is good; police aren’t a fan, which is bad…and predictable.
Justice Dept: Drone strikes on Americans are A-OK.
…SCOTUS: So is warrantless surveillance.
Ridiculous Chicago regulations are hurting food trucks.
USDA increased its regulatory control over local schools; candy, soda and potato chips would be banned under the proposal.

A Dog Sent Me to Prison

Posted on February 20, 2013 by Justin Rubner

Used to be, dogs just ate your homework.

Now, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, they can also send you to the hoosegow.

In an unanimous decision Feb. 19, SCOTUS overruled a 2011 lower-court decision that deemed police must do more than assert that a dog has been properly trained.

“The question…is whether all the facts surrounding a dog’s alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote. “A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test.“

It stems from a case from not-so-aptly-named Liberty County FL, where a police dog named Aldo “alerted”—which means he detected contraband—during a routine traffic stop, according to The Wall Street Journal. Aldo’s search yielded zero drugs. However, Aldo did find ingredients needed to make meth.

And, hence, the driver was arrested. Because of Aldo.

Reason magazine offers some myths Kagan and Co. fell for in making their decision. The points seem pretty valid.

Myths aside, this appears to be a blow to our 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. What’s to stop a cop from pulling anyone over on a sidewalk due to his dog “alerting?”

The justices “have given law enforcement a green light to do away with the Fourth Amendment merely by uttering the magic words, ‘My dog alerted,’” said Florida defense attorney Jeff Weiner.

Potentially worse, given the fact that dogs can’t speak English–or any human language–it’s more difficult to defend oneself in court, as there is no cross-examination possible.

…Or is there?

Defense attorney: Isn’t it true you had no reasonable cause to stop my client on the sidewalk?

Dog: Woof.

Defense attorney: What does woof mean?

Dog: Woof.

Defense attorney: Weren’t you initially alerted by my client’s bag of Snausages® brand dog treats, which he bought for his own dog?

Prosecutor: I move to strike that last comment down. He’s badgering the witness, your honor.

Judge: Sustained.

…

Dog: Woof.

Host and Co-host Needed for Breaking the Law!

Posted on February 12, 2013 by Justin Rubner

The open casting call last weekend for Breaking the Law really did happen. I still can’t believe it. What a day! It was beyond cool to see all the talent the Atlanta entertainment scene has to offer.

Now, we’re getting additional interest from actors looking to submit their video auditions.

So, the crew of Breaking the Law and Atlanta Filmmakers Alliance are extending the call for auditions till Sunday Feb. 17.

The skinny:

Breaking the Law is looking for two actors to film video shorts near Atlanta for the purpose of a TV demo.

Project type: TV documentary series.

Audition information: Please submit experience and headshots via this link. If chosen, you’ll receive a scene breakdown with a short script. Following that, please provide a video audition of the role(s) you’re interested in no later than Sunday, Feb. 17. Alternatively, we can have a live Google Hangouts video audition if that is desired.

Synopsis: Breaking the Law chronicles stupid laws, the politicians who pass them, the bureaucrats who enforce them, and the everyday American lawbreaker who breaks them. It’s intended to answer the question, “What were they thinking?” and to demonstrate that in today’s USA, it’s nearly impossible to go a single week without breaking the law.

Breaking the Law is non-partisan (and non-preachy). In fact, we never even say the D or R words!

Host: Must be super outgoing. Someone who can show authority while at the same time expressing irreverence. Should be able to talk comfortably with people, yet still show an appealing crazier side. This role calls for breaking stupid, victimless laws or at least interviewing people who are doing so, so you should be comfortable with that. Finally, you should be able to think quickly on your feet and provide some comedy at the same time.

Co-host: This is a journalist role. Must be well-spoken, well-read and comfortable conducting interviews. You will be interviewing government officials and should remain somewhat unbiased. However, we still want to see an outgoing, appealing personality! The co-host should be prepared to ask follow-up questions, as most of this role is improvised.

Payment: Credit/copy/meals.

If this is your first time to this site, take a gander around to familiarize yourself with our point of view. Take a look here, here, here, here and here. If you find yourself looking at these laws and thinking a lot of them are, in fact, stupid, you’re probably a fit. If you want politicians to tell you how much soda you can drink, you’re probably not.

Also, please visit Breaking the Law’s Facebook page for some more insight.

Thanks for coming by. I hope to see you audition.

-Justin

Breaking the Law TV Casting Call

Posted on February 8, 2013 by Justin Rubner

Guess what?

Breaking the Law, in association with Atlanta Filmmakers Alliance, is holding a casting call for a TV series demo.

The audition will be held Feb. 9. Details on the casting call can be found here.

Breaking the Law chronicles stupid laws, the politicians who pass them, the bureaucrats who enforce them, and the everyday American lawbreaker who breaks them. In the process, the show breaks as many stupid laws as possible.

It’s intended to answer the question, “What were they thinking?” and to demonstrate that in today’s USA, it’s nearly impossible to go a single week without breaking the law.

Breaking the Law is non-partisan. And non-preachy.

I plan on producing several of these documentary shorts. All demos will highlight laws that unnecessarily take away freedom and will approach these issues with authority and (hopefully) humor.

Cheers,

Justin

You, Freedom Lover, are Now in the Majority

Posted on February 4, 2013 by Justin Rubner

I can’t tell you how many people I’ve talked with who are shy about letting their views about freedom known.

“I don’t want to ruffle feathers,” they say. “I’ve always been told never to speak about politics. And what if my employer sees something I write on Facebook?”

That’s why I was delighted to see a recent Pew Research Center poll that had 53 percent of people saying the federal government was a legitimate threat to their freedom. That’s up 6 percentage points from 2010. And 21 points from 2002!

Why is this good news for my shy friends?

The freedom movement is no longer fringe; it is mainstream.

We, the individualists, the freedom lovers, are now in the majority.

We should not be timid speaking against policies that take our personal rights away–whether it’s a ban on large sodas in New York City, Louisiana requiring florists to get licenses (!), politicians at all levels telling us how we can’t protect our homes, local governments fining us for front yard gardens, or the federal government tapping our emails without warrants.

We 53 Percenters believe we should be able to run our lives the way we see fit without permission from government, not have our lives intruded into, do what we want with our properties, put what we want in our bodies, and do what we want with our bodies as long as we don’t harm other people.

As the size and scope of government at all levels ramps up exponentially, it’s obvious people are increasingly feeling a sense of creeping uneasiness.

As Ayn Rand said,

“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

If you love freedom, you support the minority. But take heart in knowing you are now 53 percent strong.

Freedom is a good thing. There is no ethical argument against it. Why be timid about that?

The collectivists and statists–those who seek power over individuals to serve the group–are finally in the minority. They are the ones who should be timid.

-Justin

Prescriptions for Cigars, Permission for Toilet Paper

Posted on February 2, 2013 by Justin Rubner

A federal bill that would require employers to share employees’ salaries. A proposal for mandatory pot education. A bill in Iowa that would ban all semiautomatic guns.

Here’s a rundown on these and other stupid laws proposed or passed in January 2013:

Rx for Cigs

A legislator in Oregon wants smokers to get prescriptions for Marlboros and Macanudos.

Rep. Mitch Greenlick is sponsoring a bill that makes nicotine a “Schedule III controlled substance,” making it illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes–and cigars–without a doctor’s prescription.

A Schedule III drug, such as anabolic steroids and several LSD precursors, are considered to have more of an abuse potential than, say, Phenobarbital (Class IV) but less of an abuse potential than heroin or mescaline (Class I).

The bill was referred to Oregon’s Judiciary Committee Jan. 22.

Says Greenlick:

“To have a substance that addictive for sale over the counter just seems wrong. If it doesn’t pass, I hope that it will enhance the probability of an increase in the cigarette tax passing.”

Under Greenlick’s plan, anyone caught selling or possessing a nicotine product without a prescription would receive a fine up to $6,250 and a year in prison.

Sign Out that TP

Students in one Pennsylvania high school have to ask permission to use toilet paper.

In Mahanoy Area High School, boys must now request toilet paper and sign it out. The principal, Thomas Smith, says he introduced the policy to prevent vandalism such as intentionally-clogged toilets.

Parents are allegedly complaining that some boys are too embarrassed to sign out their TP–opting, instead, to go home sick.

Here are some other shitty laws from January:

Mind Your Own Business

The ‘Paycheck Fairness Act‘ would require employers to share workers’ salaries–even at private companies! Sen. Barbara Mikulski (MD) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT) said their legislation would close the pay gap between men and women and “address loopholes” in the 1963 Equal Pay Act.

If this passes, the clear answer for employers is to not to hire women. (Kidddinnnggg). Seriously, here’s a rule of thumb: Anytime a bill has the title “fairness” it will A) take away freedom, B) reduce privacy and C) create more regulatory bureaucracy.

Murder Magnet Zones

Colorado Rep. Claire Levy wants to make all campuses in that state “gun-free.”

Fact bomb of truth: Every mass shooting since the 1950s, except for one–Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting–occurred in a gun-free zone.

“I was going to shoot innocent people, but this ‘gun-free-zone’ sign stopped me.” -Said no homicidal maniac in the history, or future, of Planet Earth.

Here’s some more fun for you:

An Iowa lawmaker wants to ban semiautomatic guns–which account for 75 percent of firearms in circulation–AND make it retroactive.
Glendale CA wants to ban gun shows.
Schools nationwide are increasingly banning Flamin’ Hot Cheetos. Not Chile Cheese Fritos. Or Cool Ranch Doritos. Or even regular ole’ Cheetos. Just Flamin’ Hot Cheetos.
The FDA will mandate Ambien dosage reductions.
Bloomberg will heavily regulate prescription painkillers in hospitals.
A Kansas City high school is mandating hair drug tests for all students.
Smoking ban begins on Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall.
Anti-weed group proposing mandatory pot education.
California legislator’s first bill: Let’s ban plastic bags.
Chicago Alderman Ed Burke wants to ban energy drinks…for adults!
Seattle bureaucrats tell mission it can’t feed homeless people.
One New Jersey town wants to ban rolling advertisements, signs and even flags.
NYC soccer club bans high-fives because of flu.
Chicago will ban all electronics from courtrooms.
EPA to outlaw many wood-burning stoves.
A new law in Pennsylvania outlaws sexting for minors and has already netted one victim, thanks to her own mom.
An Arizona bill could outlaw Twitter parody accounts.
Sell a water bottle, break the law in Concord MA.
Santa Monica wants to tax and potentially fine fitness instructors who use “public” areas such as beaches.
A town in Florida wants to ban food trucks.

Could This Guy Bring Down the Feds’ Policing for Profit Program?

Posted on January 28, 2013 by Justin Rubner

Since the escalation of the War on Drugs in the 80s, a boring-sounding legal process known as “civil asset forfeiture” has been a honeypot for local, state and federal authorities.

Civil forfeiture–more interestingly dubbed “policing for profit”–netted the federal government $1.6 billion in 2011 from seized property, according to civil liberties law firm Institute for Justice. About $500 million was divvied up to local authorities.

That includes cash. And cars. And boats. And even houses! Cha-ching!

This three-decades-long human cash register party may have met an unwelcome party crasher in the likes of Russell Caswell, an elderly owner of a motel in Tewksbury MA.

In 2009, Caswell’s family-owned motel was seized by federal authorities, because 15 drug-related incidences occurred on the property within 14 years. He sued, with the help of the Institute for Justice. He lost everything he had in that seizure. He proclaimed he had no idea what guests were doing on his property.

He wasn’t even accused of wrongdoing.

“We hoped at this stage we’d be able to retire and do what normal retired people do, but instead we’re left fighting the federal government that’s trying to steal our property for things we haven’t done,” Caswell said. “It’s taken a huge financial toll on our family.”

If this doesn’t sit right with you, you’re not alone.

A federal judge has ordered the U.S. Justice Department to return Caswell’s property after seizing it without due process. The Wall Street Journal says the ruling could “reign in the federal government’s power to seize private property” from people like Caswell.

In the ruling, which for now halts the seizure but gives the feds a chance to appeal, U.S. Magistrate Judge Judith Dein said the federal government:

“had not met its burden of proving a substantial connection between the Motel Caswell and the forfeitable crimes, and, therefore, has not met its burden of proving that the Property is forfeitable.”

Under civil forfeiture, cops or prosecutors can seize your property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets. Unlike criminal forfeiture, you don’t have to be found guilty of a crime; authorities only have to suspect you’re involved in one. It’s your job to prove yourself–or your property–innocent…for something you were likely never charged for in the first place.

In eight out of 10 civil forfeiture cases, the Institute for Justice maintains, the condemned are never found guilty.

The local police department provided U.S. authorities with evidence for the Caswell case. As a reward, they could get up to 80 percent of his property. This is known as “equitable sharing.”

As inequitable as this is for Caswell, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said his case “was strictly a law-enforcement effort to crack down on what was seen as a pattern of using the motel to further the commission of drug crimes for nearly three decades.”

Caswell isn’t alone. Most states have robust civil forfeiture programs, including Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia, which are deemed by the Institute for Justice as the worst of the worst.

Many local cops use large amounts of cash as “proof” you’re up to no good. All they have to say is they think you’re going to use it to break the law, and abracadabra: Your money is theirs.

It’s like a magic trick! Only you have to sue the magician–and win–to get your money back.

Almost all of these cases use drug laws as an excuse. Here’s a sample:

In 2001, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office attempted to seize the home of an elderly woman, after some drug dealers ran into it while being chased by cops. The University of Pennsylvania took her case pro bono and successfully fought the DA’s attempts.
In 2003, troopers in Nebraska seized $124,700 in cash from a man charged with nothing more than speeding.
In 2005 in Jim Wells County TX, a man was pulled over and had $10,000 seized by local cops he was planning on using to bury his aunt. Cops pulled him over because he didn’t have a license plate on the FRONT of his car.
In 2007, a man who was charged with speeding had $8,500 in cash seized by cops in Tenaha TX.
In 2007, a man was charged with speeding in Camden County GA and had $43,700 seized by local cops. He had to spend $12,000 to get it back.
In 2012, a family in Houston had $37,000 seized by Homeland Security at the airport because it’s apparently illegal to carry more than $10,000 in cash overseas.
In 2012, an insurance adjuster driving in Tennessee, George Reby, was pulled over for speeding and had $22,000 seized.

“If somebody told me this happened to them, I absolutely would not believe this could happen in America,” Reby told News Channel 5 in Nashville. “You live in the United States, you think you have rights–and apparently you don’t.”

5-Hour Energy could be banned in Chicago

What’s Ed Burke Got Against 5-Hour Energy?

Posted on January 21, 2013 by Justin Rubner

Walk into any Starbucks and you’ll see scores of happy, soon-to-be wired people ordering venti coffees and pumpkin spice lattes.

These venti coffees, packing 415 mg of caffeine, and pumpkin lattes, packing 440 calories–which are as popular with kids as they are with adults–aren’t in the crosshairs of Chicago Alderman Ed Burke. (Yet).

But energy drinks are.

Shortly after his fellow aldermen proposed banning the sale of energy drinks to kids in Chicago, Burke proposed a ban on high-caffeine energy drink sales to adults.

These drinks include any “canned or bottled beverage which contains an amount of caffeine exceeding or equal to 180 milligrams-per-container and containing Taurine or Guarana.”

Under that definition, the Chicago Sun-Times reports, many drinks would be banned. A regular 5-Hour Energy, which has 138 mg of caffeine, would apparently still be legal. But its slightly more potent big brother, Extra Strength 5-Hour Energy, with 207 mg, would not.

That’s exactly half the caffeine of our venti coffee friend.

And the calories? 5-Hour Energy has 99 percent fewer calories than the tasty pumpkin latte.

Speaking of calories, while Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is targeting obesity by attacking vending machines that sell candy bars, Burke’s focused on:

The “alarming rate” of teen consumption of energy drinks.
The fact that these products can “avoid (some) federal regulation” because they’re branded as dietary supplements.

Politicians such as Burke might try to scare people–through all-to-willing reporters–into believing energy drinks are dangerous. Countless reporters were gleeful last year to proclaim that the 2-oz 5-Hour Energy shot was mentioned “in association” with about 30 serious conditions such as heart attacks since 2009, and “may have led” to some 13 deaths since 2009.

Stop the presses!

What isn’t told are the adverse side effects of coffee. Anxiety disorders! Cardiac disorders! Uterine bleeding! Suicidal and self-injurious behavior! Wow!

In addition, the FDA said the following:

The filing of an incident report with the F.D.A. does not mean that a product was responsible for a death or an injury or contributed in any way to it. Such reports can be fragmentary in nature and difficult to investigate.

What ever happened to common sense? You gulp five 5-Hour Energies…or Monsters…or Full Throttles…and you might very well experience serious problems, just as you would gulping five coffees. And Starbucks doesn’t have warning labels like energy drinks do.

Take all energy drinks in moderation. I take one 5-Hour Energy in the morning instead of coffee. No jitters (like I feel with coffee). I also feel the rush of B vitamins. Most everything in these shots are substances you’d find in multivitamins. And this Taurine that Burke is so afraid of, a substance popularized by Red Bull years ago, is naturally found in seafood and meat.

We could continue jibber-jabbering about why it’s pointless to ban energy drinks. We could continue comparing the dangers of these products to the dangers of just about anything.

But that’s not the point. The point is, why do so many politicians think it’s their duty to intervene in personal life choices as mundane as how we get our caffeine fix?

The problem, I think, part of it at least, is the length to which they’re in power. Mayor Bloomberg unleashed a tidal wave of Nanny State destruction since being elected to his third term.

Burke, meanwhile, has been on the Chicago City Council since 1969! When this lifelong politician was first elected, the disposable lighter hadn’t been invented.

You gotta think one gets more emboldened, more mired in the weeds, and more sheltered from reality when on that high of a stage for so long.

There are many Burkes in power today. For whatever reason, they have it in their heads that energy drinks are some massive societal problem and that they should correct citizens’ behaviors by taking away freedom of choice:

The Suffolk County Legislature in New York is considering banning the sale of energy drinks to anyone under age 19.
As of Jan. 1, 2012, if you make or sell caffeinated beer in California, you’re breaking the law.
In 2011, Kentucky Rep. Danny Ford proposed to outlaw sales to anyone under 18.

Burke said Chicago will become the first city to ban energy drinks. He dismissed criticisms that the ordinance is overreaching.

“I heard it 20 years ago when I introduced the first ordinance to ban smoking in Chicago,” Burke told CBS Chicago. “I heard the argument (then) that you shouldn’t regulate peoples’ conduct.”

And, judging by readers’ comments on these stories, he’s still hearing them.

The only way to get politicians like Burke to listen is to vote them out.

← Older

Subscribe...It Ain't Jive!

Know instantly when Breaking the Law posts new content. Make sure to "confirm follow" in the confirmation email.
From the Interwebs
@br8kingthelaw
Follow Breaking the Law on Twitter
Archives of Wisdom
Blogroll