Articles Posted in Weird Laws

Squeezed on:

beach sand

There are a lot of silly laws on the books. Take this one, for example from the Municipal Code of the City of Manhattan Beach, California:

12.08.300 – Throwing missiles.

No person shall throw, or otherwise propel, any missile, or mud or sand anywhere on the beach.

First of all, what kind of missiles are contemplated here? Second, mud is a missile? Third, sand is a missile? And finally, you’re seriously criminalizing throwing sand on the beach? Bet lots of citations have been written for that one. Here’s the source.  (You’ll have to scroll down to 12.08.300.)


Squeezed on:

frog jump jumping

Plenty of people eat frogs legs. Be forewarned, though, if you live in California, there are some frogs legs you can’t legally eat? Huh?, you must be wondering. Well, as set forth in The California Fish and Game Code:

6883.  Any person may possess any number of live frogs to use in
frog-jumping contests, but if such a frog dies or is killed, it must
be destroyed as soon as possible, and may not be eaten or otherwise
used for any purpose.

Truth. Here’s a link to this code section.

Squeezed on:

law books

Really, who says lawmakers don’t accomplish anything?  Check out this Indiana law:

Chapter 13. State Rifle

IC 1-2-13-1 – “Grouseland Rifle”

Sec. 1. The “Grouseland Rifle” made by Colonel John Small of
Vincennes, Indiana, between 1803 and 1812 is designated the official
rifle of the state of Indiana.

It probably even had bipartisan support!

Squeezed on:

disc golf

There’s a certain part of Helena, Montana where – let’s just say if you’re going there, LEAVE YOUR DISC AT HOME, lest you be accused of folfing.  You really don’t know what “folf” means? Well, as defined by the Helena Montana Code, folf is “A game formally called disc golf. It is played with golf discs and simulates the game of golf in accordance with the rules of golf on a course usually containing nine (9) to eighteen (18) “holes” or “tones”. The holes or tones are predesignated stationary targets. The purpose of the game is to hit each of the targets with the golf disc with a minimum number of throws.”

But you can’t just folf anywhere. No sir.


No person shall play or engage in the game of folf or throw a golf disc at nighttime in any area within the business improvement district that has not been sanctioned as a designated folf course by the city. (Ord. 2797, 6-23-1997)

Son, you have been warned. And if you don’t heed, well here’s what.

5-13-3: PENALTY:

Any person violating the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and may, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisoned in jail for a term not to exceed six (6) months, or both.

Can you imagine someone actually getting 6 months in jail for playing disc golf? Here’s a link to the Helena, Montana Code.

Squeezed on:

cigarette smoking ashes burning lit

You probably just assumed The Juice was talking about somewhere in the United States, didn’t you? It’s always about us! Well, this time it’s about Taiwan, as reported in The China Post:

Motor vehicle drivers caught smoking while driving on busy roads will soon be fined NT$600, according to a package of amendments coming into force next year aimed at raising the penalties for various offenses affecting traffic safety.

Amendments to the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act (道路交通管理處罰條例部分條文修正案) passed in the Legislative Yuan after their third reading yesterday.

The sequence of actions involved in smoking while driving, such as lighting a cigarette, exhaling smoke and holding the cigarette, are all punishable acts under the new rules. The critical point is whether others are affected by the acts, according to the text of the amendment, which is most applicable to busy roads.

Each of the above is a punishable act? And what is “busy” anyway? You’ll find the source here.


Squeezed on:

junk junkyard yard

Like it’s not hard enough to make a living as a junk dealer.  In Wyoming, apparently you have to breathalyze the person before you can buy the junk!  And why just junk dealers?  Here’s the law:

33-18-105. Purchase from intoxicated persons.

No person, firm or corporation engaged in the buying or selling of junk metals, rubber, rags or paper, shall purchase any articles from any person appearing to be intoxicated, nor from any person known to have been convicted of larceny or theft, and when any person is found to be the owner of stolen property, which had been so sold, the property shall be returned to the owner thereof without the payment of any money on the part of the owner.

Truth. Click here for the source, although you’ll have to scroll through a lot of other junk to get to this.

Squeezed on:

steam whistle

Please keep in mind that this is the same town, Kure Beach, North Carolina, that outlawed thong bathing suits. Anyway, way back when (way pre-thong), folks must have been going crazy with their steam whistles.  Why would the Juice hazard this guess? This is from the Kure Beach nuisance laws:

Sec. 11-31. Certain noises prohibited.

(a) The creation and continuation of any loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises in the town is hereby prohibited…

(b) The following acts, among others, are declared to be loud, disturbing, annoying and unnecessary noises in violation of this section …

(5)  Blowing whistles. The blowing of any steam whistle attached to any stationary boiler, except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work or as a warning of danger.

Yeah, that must happen all the time.  Good thing there’s a law protecting the citizenry. Here’s the source. (Click on Chapter 11, then Article III.)

Squeezed on:


If you are prone to occasionally jostling, you’ll want to stay out of Topeka, Kansas. Why? The long (non-jostling) arm of the law, that’s why. From the Topeka Municipal Code:

9.45.060 Jostling, crowding.

It shall be unlawful to be found jostling or roughly crowding or pushing any person in any public place.

Lest you think The Juice is making this up, click here and search “jostling”. (The “search” box is in the upper right corner.)

Squeezed on:

all you can eat buffet

What, you think The Juice is joking? No my friend, this subject is way too serious to joke about. Per the International Business Times:

A Saudi cleric named Saleh al-Fawzan has issued fatwa against all-you-can-eat buffets in Saudi Arabia. He made the statement on a Saudi Quranic TV station.

Fawzan said the value and quantity of the food sold should be predetermined before hand.

“Whoever enters the buffet and eats for 10 or 50 riyals without deciding the quantity they will eat is violating Sharia (Islamic) law,” Fawzan was quoted on al-Atheer channel.

The fatwa attempts to add plate piling eateries to the long list of things outlawed by religious edicts. It has been the subject of condemnation and debate on social media channels.

Noooooo! Click here for the source.

Squeezed on:

child kid drinking beer alcohol

The Juice does not have a problem with parents letting an older teenager have a drink in their own home. But this New Zealand law goes way, way beyond that, and extends outside of the home. In fact, it’s not clear what the outer limits are. As reported by The Otago Daily Times (New Zealand):

A Dunedin man was shocked when a health adviser confirmed young children could be supplied alcohol by a ”responsible” guardian. Steve Hayward contacted the Health Promotion Agency information line after finding their pamphlet on ”under-18” drinking in a Dunedin bar. ”I couldn’t believe what I was reading.”

The pamphlet in question detailed law changes concerning supplying alcohol for under-18s, which came into effect on December 18.  The brochure noted as long as the person supplying the alcohol was the parent or guardian, alcohol could be supplied in a responsible manner.  The brochure also noted that if consent was needed from a parent or guardian, then an email or text was sufficient.


Mr Hayward, the principal of Green Island School, was stunned when contacting the information line to ask a hypothetical question on how young a child could be supplied alcohol by a ”responsible” adult.  ”I asked if it could be a 12-year-old, a 14-year-old, or even a 5-year-old. And she said that is accurate. In theory, that is possible.”

Really? A 5-year-old? And …

Mr Hayward said while he could understand the intent of the Act, ”who is to say who is responsible and who is not”.

Right? So what did the authorities have to say about this?

[Justice Minister Judith Collins] confirmed ”there was no specific consideration given to the actual age of the child or for a differential penalty for provision of alcohol to a younger child”. ”This sends a clear message that supply to any person under the purchase age must only be by a parent, or with parental consent, and must be managed responsibly.”

What’s next, selling beer in baby bottles?  You’ll find the source here.