Are you aware of the Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa?

[wukunlin]

laws of physics are definitely the most ridiculous ones I've encountered

 

[wukunlin]

What's the latest drug craze that I heard about... snorting bath salt crystals.

So much for bubble baths!

the latest one I heard about is quite disturbing so I use spoiler tags for those who would rather not read about this type of stuff

Spoiler

apparently some people are soaking up tampons with vodka and then shove them up their anuses to let intestinal walls absorb the spirits

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The town where I went to high school had a park donated to the city by someone who stipulated that if the town ever allowed alcohol to be sold there, the park would revert to his heirs. Naturally enough, there is a ring of liquor stores surrounding the town.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The town where I went to high school had a park donated to the city by someone who stipulated that if the town ever allowed alcohol to be sold there, the park would revert to his heirs. Naturally enough, there is a ring of liquor stores surrounding the town.

That's so cool.

 

[Galteeth]

the latest one I heard about is quite disturbing so I use spoiler tags for those who would rather not read about this type of stuff

Spoiler

apparently some people are soaking up tampons with vodka and then shove them up their anuses to let intestinal walls absorb the spirits

This is a good way to insure a day spent on the toilet. By the way, "bath salts" does not refer to literal bath salts. It's slang for this-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone

 

[zoobyshoe]

By the way, "bath salts" does not refer to literal bath salts. It's slang for this-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone[/QUOTE]

NOW you tell me!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

NOW you tell me!

You can always go back to huffing spray paint.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You can always go back to huffing spray paint.

Only if they'll let me return $300.00 worth of bath salts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Only if they'll let me return $300.00 worth of bath salts.

For crying out loud! Just go down to the local AARP, find some old hippies and sell the stuff.

 

[zoobyshoe]

For crying out loud! Just go down to the local AARP, find some old hippies and sell the stuff.

That's ridiculous. Old hippies don't retire.

 

[BobG]

I take these websites with a grain of salt unless they cite where they're getting it from. For example, it might be illegal to bring any animal into an establishment which serves food - in particular, it's illegal to bring a lion to the movies! Hyuck hyuck hyuck cue internet complaining about the inefficiencies of government

This would be credible if you could find a community where it was illegal to bring an animal into an establishment that serves food. With so many towns, you would think there has to be at least one, but I think it would still take a formidable effort to find one - and then they would have to ensure the law was written so as not to violate the civil rights of a blind person using a seeing eye dog.

There's probably health laws prohibiting animals in food preparation areas, but laws banning customers from bringing their pets into any commercial establishment are extremely rare (or at least hard to find).

Pet laws are probably even more rare than communities that have laws about wearing shoes in restaraunts/grocery stores, etc. And communities that have laws about wearing shoes are probably even more rare than elevators in which the closed door button works.

Sometimes people think there's laws against something when there's really not.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's ridiculous. Old hippies don't retire.

Of course they do. Head Shops have a retirement age too.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Old hippies don't die, they just smell that way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They truth be told, most old hippies that I knew of completely betrayed their principles and are now old Yuppies who still fancy themselves as principled.

Here in Oregon we like to create a license for everything. One of the latest examples of this silliness is that lawn sprinkler technicians now have to put in five years as an apprentice.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is one that is really amazing to me. What is even more amazing is that this is common throughout the country. When I asked my lawyer about it, he just shrugged and agreed that it's a crazy law.

Two years ago we had a major reroofing job done on our house. I was informed that even though we were hiring a construction company to do the job, if they don't pay their bills for the job, we are liable. Even though the local suppliers are the ones who issue credit to the construction company for the materials used, without my approval, and even though I hired the construction company to do the job and pay for the labor and materials, I am still liable for the credit the suppliers extend.

My best take is that this is a scam that allows the suppliers to extend quick and easy credit to shady companies, for a quick profit, while deferring the risk to the innocent homeowners. Note that roofing companies tend to be shady and transient, as opposed to suppliers who tend to be stable and active in local politics.

 

[Galteeth]

They truth be told, most old hippies that I knew of completely betrayed their principles and are now old Yuppies who still fancy themselves as principled.

Here in Oregon we like to create a license for everything. One of the latest examples of this silliness is that lawn sprinkler technicians now have to put in five years as an apprentice.

When I ran a music venue, after a fire inspection, we were told we had to remove our sound proofing. The reason? Not because it wasn't fire proof, we had documentation that it was. Under a new law, companies that made sound proofing had to be certified fire proof by the state. The company that had made our sound proofing went out of business, hence they never got the new certification. So we had to remain closed until we removed all the old sound proofing and replace it with new sound proofing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was once tempted to challenge a speeding ticket on the basis that I was still operating at a safe speed. In Oregon [and other States], we have posted speeds, and posted speed limits, which are not necessarily the same thing.

Presumed Speed Limits

In "presumed speed limit" states, a driver is presumed to be breaking the law by going above the posted speed limit, and it's the driver's burden to prove that he or she was going at a safe speed for road and traffic conditions. The following are examples of basic speed laws used in presumed speed limit states:

http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/Absolute-vs-Presumed-Speed-Limits.html

In several other states, there is a state absolute maximum speed and only limits below that are prima facie limits. State maximum speeds are 85 in Arizona, 75 in Colorado, 65 in New Hampshire and on freeways in California (unless posted 70) and Ohio, and 55 in Connecticut (unless posted 65), on two lane roads in California (unless posted higher), and on non-freeways in Ohio. Ohio freeway speed limits are absolute even if below 55. Oregon speed limits are absolute on Interstates and in cities and prima facie elsewhere. In Minnesota only municipal limits are absolute. In Michigan municipal limits are prima facie and state highway limits are absolute. Massachusetts limits are prima facie except on roads that belong to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority or the Metropolitan District Commission. These states are marked " * ".

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/laws.html#types

Here is the silly part, it seems to me. Since there is no definitive test for "safe", by default one would have to show the speed wasn't dangerous? How exactly does one manage that? Perhaps something like "Heck Judge, I've driven over 100 mph on that road before. 75 is no problem. "

 

[nitsuj]

Here in the city of Ottawa, a permit is required if you wish to remove a tree from your property if that property is more then one acre.

It's called the "Urban Tree Conservation By-law" and described as "A by-law of the City of Ottawa to protect trees on private property in the urban area."

Triggered by an incident where a property owner "clear-cut" his/her land, which I assume had an impact on the appearence of the landscape.

Now if someone wants to remove just one tree from their property of >.99acre, they need a permit. $500.00 is the minimum penalty, 100k maximum. Suppose there are a broad range of offence scenarios for that kinda penalty spread.