Are there states where something is uniquely illegal?

In my West Texas town, we had a roundabout that was called a “traffic circle.” Just the one. It was universally ridiculed, but I found it efficient.

I’m using the terms traffic engineers use. Your local idiom may use other terms. For example, they, both the new and old, are often called rotaries in New England. The distinction is important to traffic engineers and to how the traffic moves in them, but lots of people do not understand the difference. That’s OK, they don’t really have to understand that to use them.

NJ also has jughandles which i haven’t seen elsewhere.

I’ve seen them elsewhere, but they’re really uncommon.

They are so common in NJ that one of our best breweries is

If you want to know what exit?, they are just off of Exit 102. :slight_smile:

And gerbils are illegal in CA. Supposedly because they’ll be bad for agriculture, ferrets are illegal just because.

A breeding population of ferrets in the wild -outside of their range-would cause damage to the ecosystem.

Well, ferrets don’t have a range as they’re an “artificial” animal created from European polecats. But why is that a unique problem in California?

California is just more careful with these things.

Lots of introduced animal have gotten out of control:

7 Invasive Species That Have Wreaked Havoc in the US - HISTORY


The safe bet is to not allow it. Many “pets” have escaped and done untold damage to the ecology.

Gerbils and ferrets are also illegal in Hawaii, so almost unique.

Didn’t know that, but Hawaii and Alaska are sometimes the hard ones to provide 2-3 exceptions.

PA is liberalizing. You can now buy beer (up to 192 ounces, = 12 16-ounce bottles/cans) and wine (up to 3 liters, = 4 750 ml bottles) at many grocery stores and convenience stores.

Interesting side point - when I use my Amex at the PA “Fine Wine and Spirits” emporium it gets categorized in the statement as Government Services.

Where is the state interest in preventing someone from doing something stupid that harms only themselves? I mean, it’s not like they’ll wind up in ER or put someone else in jeopardy of loss or injury. If the NAR is concerned, why not draft a rule within the organization that Realtors not submit love letters?

Who said anything about people doing things that harm only themselves?

Suppose that a seller has two prospective buyers. One buyer writes a letter that says “We’re good white folks, who will keep this neighborhood from being overrun by the wrong kinds of people”, and the other buyer says nothing. The one writing the letter isn’t the one getting harmed, here.

None of the ones I have received came from a realtor. They all came from the potential buyer. It was probably at the suggestion of the realtor but try to prove that. How can you have a rule preventing people from sending mail?

Is knowing ‘what exit’ your super power?

Agreed. I don’t know how it is even constitutional. If I write a letter to a home owner that says, “Please allow me to buy your house even if my offer is slightly less than other offers. I am 21 years old, newly married, my wife is pregnant, and this house would be just perfect for us!!!” then how can a government make such a letter illegal???

IIRC, it is illegal for even a private individual to discriminate based on race when selling a home. A letter like that would be illegal under federal law as it solicits the seller to commit a crime.

You say that you can’t see how such a letter could possibly be illegal, then you say that one specific such letter is illegal.

Speech is not illegal (and cannot be illegal) except in limited circumstances, such as soliciting to commit a crime. Telling someone that you are a young married couple is not illegal, and does not fall into any constitutional exception to free speech to where a government could plausibly prohibit it, let alone outlaw any and all letters to a particular person.

This is the new law in Oregon. It doesn’t make the letters illegal, it just (implicitly) makes it illegal for the seller’s agent to pass them on to the seller. (IMO “other than customary documents” is too vague. The problem with the letters is that they had become customary.)