Texas:
Wisconsin:
Florida:
These are just a few of the ones I found. At www.dumblaws.com you can find a bunch from every state. It also has dumb laws from countries other than the United States.
Thanks in particular www.dumblaws.com for the research material
"It is illegal to be intoxicated in a licensed premises ie. A pub or a bar."
social_inadequate doesn't provide a source for the rest of the laws, so we can't really check their veracity. I can confirm, however, that the above is an actual, and indeed current law, both in England, and here in Ireland (where most of our laws are derived from British common law).
This is not some leftover Medieval law that the police don't know exists: you can be arrested for being intoxicated in a pub. What's more, the licensee (the publican) has the responsibility, as a condition of his/her license, to prevent you from becoming intoxicated.
In practice, of course, the police don't raid pubs looking to bang up tired and emotional people in order to meet their arrest quotas. However, the law can be brought into force to remove somebody from a premises if the landlord thinks he/she has "had enough".
However, it's not true that you're not allowed to chew gum. You can chew it, but you cannot sell it. And you can bring them in if you have purchased them abroad and they are for personal consumption.
It's also not true that you cannot smoke. Cigarettes, I mean. You cannot smoke inside office or government buildings, no different than in US or many other countries. However, you cannot throw a cigarette butt on the floor. The fine for littering is something like a thousand bucks, plus you have to do some community service - sweep the streets!.
However, the law here that really takes the cake is: it is illegal not to flush after using a public toilet! Don't know if they have a toilet police though.
More sinister are the drug laws. Drug trafficking is punishable by death. Even possession of marijuana, in sufficient quantities, makes you liable for drug trafficking, whether you are actually selling it. Drug consumption is illegal, as in many countries, but get this: it extends to Singapore citizens even when they are out of the country! This law came about after it was found that Singaporeans go to Indonesia or Thailand for weekend fixes. So now they conduct random blood tests at the immigration. Although, actually, I've never witnessed anyone being tested, but I wouldn't want to risk it!
A good point: someone needs to hunt through the statute books for these. In many cases (I'll guess) you will find that the situation is something like the following.
This is a summary of http://web.raex.com/~agincort/arch-laws.htm, which credits one Nigel FitzMaurice* for tracking it all down.
The laws making archery practice compulsory were instituted because people spent too much time gaming and drinking (it's hard to imagine what it must have been like in those days, isn't it?), so the same laws also regulated betting, ale-houses, and so on. In the third year of Henry VIII (1511) ownership and use of bows was made compulsory for most men under the age of forty. This law was made perpetual in 6 Henry VIII (1514) and confirmed or rephrased in a law of 33 Henry VIII (1541).
In the 1541 law all men and man-children between seven to sixty are required to have a bow and arrows. The law also forbids foreigners from taking bows overseas, regulates where bowyers and fletchers may dwell and what they may do, and so on. Other sections of the same chapter regulate bowling, dice, etc, etc.
The 1511 law was repealed in the 1863 Statute Law Revision Act, whose purpose was to clean out an enormous amount of the dead wood of mediaeval law. And the applicable chapter of the 1541 act was repealed in 1960 under the Betting and Gaming Act.
* Hey! Nigel FitzMaurice is at least a real person, and an old friend of our own kmcardle. Small world.
27(4)(c) Furthermore the marriage of draughtsman John Smith, of 27 Uffington Place, is hereby annulled and declared void, and possessions of the two spouses shall be sundered between the two, in proportion to their yearly earnings, and no further responsibility shall rest with either party.
The bill was passed and signed into law before the section was noticed - so the guy got his divorce. Also, since it's illegal under Common Law for the parlaiment to force two people to marry, there was nothing anyone could do about it, even if they repealed the act.
printable version chaos
Everything2 Help
