Putting aside whether it's moral for government to take the rights they do when you are incarcerated, you don't become so without due process.

You mean, another person who sick because they didn't get the vaccine?

The DOJ should have filed a "cease and desist" order. Of course, we have a rank incompetent in charge of the department who only knows how to oppress the people, not protect them, so I'm not surprised the best they could do was to send a document full of lawyerese that was summarily ignored by the Baltimore police.

How will you do that? Even if you were allowed to carry a gun in Baltimore, they would just arrest you later for threatening a cop. Enjoy being tased.

Your use of derogatory terms like "spawn" tell me that you do not have the requisite wisdom or maturity to speak on this topic.

You're one of those people who think an entire school of 1,000 students should ban peanut butter because two kids are allergic, aren't you?

Who's responsible if your child has a bad reaction to the vaccine and dies or is permanently disabled?

I should have said "de facto". In Massachusetts and Maryland, for example, the state has to approve both the instructor and the curriculum, and can disapprove either for basically any reason.

That might be a reasonable compromise if every parent had a real choice where they send their kids to school. Governments take thousands in school taxes, then tell you that if you don't want to send your kids to their public school that you'll have to send thousands more to a private one. Often, home schooling is even prohibited.

Government forcing medical procedures on anyone is really not something we want, especially since government won't take responsibility for the (admittedly unlikely) consequences of a bad result. We need better education to counteract the Jenny McCarthys. Slashdotters seem to be quick to berate the "thinkofthechildren" types, until it comes to medicine. I am sorry if this sounds callous to you, but maintaining our personal freedoms from government tyranny is more important than making sure a few children don't get sick.

That's funny; I've always pronounced NAS "nazz". But then, I'm one of those SQL="sequel" guys.

Not to mention the absurdity of believing that tenants won't have to move whether the buildings are upgraded or not. It's likely that at least SOME of them will undergo major structural changes. Entire sections might lose their utilities or even have to be completely gutted.

Your insight is lost on the average Slashdotter, who thinks that anyone who owns a building is a rich fat cat. I'm certain that many buildings in LA are owned by smaller investors whose net worth is largely contained within the properties they own.

I don't see anything in this article implying that these building were not up to code when they were built. This is an ex post facto law, based on the current city government's opinions on building standards.

Also for big-time property investors. All the little guys who own a building a two are going to have to sell out-- because you can't just take a building with you when a city imposes onerous regulations. Can't wait to see how the LA government is criticizing the landlords for having such high rent a few years from now. What a surprise!