Why does our society keep and add unenforceable bans?

[DGUtley]

The more things that are illegal, more jobs for government. All these laws only help police officers, prosecutors, lawyers, and judges

Naturally.

[DGUtley]

But see -- that's justification of control-ism. If a person owns his own bar, he should be able to decide if he wants to include smoking. Sure, it's unhealthy, but is it really society's place to decide what vices a person should have? If they choose -- of their own free will to smoke -- and the bar owner chooses to offer them a place for doing that, lawmakers should stay out of it. I would not go to that bar and everyone else has the same choice. But, instead, they choose to force the man out of business. Whether it comes to keeping gays from marrying, banning abortion or banning smoking -- it's all about controlling. In a gentle society, we obviously are going to institute some controls, such as driving laws and the like, and we're going to implement punishments for crimes committed, but how far should we really go?

No. What people do has an impact on others. When someone is a druggie, they abandon/don't support their kids, become wards of the state, leaches on society etc. Their conduct is not in a vacuum. The state has an interest b/c that conduct impacts all of us. If you read your history, those "controlisms" generally arose b/c of results like these -- not b/c of some great desire to control behavior.

Isn't it interesting that the push for all this "freedom" from "control" is accompanied by a simultaneous push for a universal income and free housing and health care?

[donttread]

If you're suggesting that the conservative impulse is not to outlaw things they disapprove of...well, first I should ask, is that what you're suggesting? I don't want to be accused of creating a Straw Man here.

No. You said something to the effect that both "sides" were micro managers and that anyone who did not believe that was "kidding themselves". I agree but think for many it's gone way beyond merely kidding themselves.
But yes the "right" tends to control by telling us what we can;'t do while the "left" tends to control by telling us what we must do or think.

[donttread]

The woman may not want to sell you sex at all. The woman may have a pimp who takes her money when she sells sex and beats her when she refuses. Or the woman may want to sell you sex and syphilis. She has freedom. Why shouldn't she spread disease and not tell you. That would mean taking responsibility and we can't have that. She needs the money.

Drugs are illegal because your mom and dad don't want to go to your funeral when you overdose. Quite often an error in judgment leads to an unintended death. Stupid is as stupid does. I'm all for letting them die and reduce the drug addict population. People were actually sad when Prince overdosed! Silly silly let him go.

Cuban cigars were illegal because we also didn't buy sauerkraut from the Third Reich Sauerkraut factory.

You can't have exotic pets becsuse you would absolutely not take care of that lion and the snake would end up crawling out of the neighbor's toilet up his ass.

We have irresponsible people who think license and freedom are the same thing.

I had parents that believed in freedom. Total freedom. The kind of freedom that says you don't punch a clock to make a living. You don't have to pay rent when someone demands money of you. I can't say they left me with a good feeling about freedom.

OK. Stop right there. Your example is trafficking. My example is prostitution. Traffickers are the lowest of the low.

Secondly would you impose a law that forced people to disclose any STD during casual sex?

Drug prohibition makes things, including overdoses worse. Period. It might be different if the laws actually decreased access, but they don't. So you create situations where the drugs are just as plentiful , but so risky and expensive as to cause crime, addicts forced to live in the margins and deadly turf wars. For example there are pretty much zero MJ OD's but many die in turf wars over illegal sales territories. Portugal and other countries have proven that there are better , much better ways to deal with drug issues.


Sorry about your parents but not paying rent is not what I'm talking about here. If the main point was to protect us , they'd of never repealed prohibition and would have outlawed tobacco. No this is about control

[donttread]

No. What people do has an impact on others. When someone is a druggie, they abandon/don't support their kids, become wards of the state, leaches on society etc. Their conduct is not in a vacuum. The state has an interest b/c that conduct impacts all of us. If you read your history, those "controlisms" generally arose b/c of results like these -- not b/c of some great desire to control behavior.

Isn't it interesting that the push for all this "freedom" from "control" is accompanied by a simultaneous push for a universal income and free housing and health care?

You could say the same for anything. If I misuse my gun someone gets hurt so I shouldn't have a gun. Or a 4 wheeler. Or to be able to carry hot coffee around in public. Besides using your line of thinking alcohol and tobacco have to be banned immediately as they do more damage than all other drugs combined. If you can responsibly use alcohol, too bad, many can't therefore we must ban it.

[donttread]

The more things that are illegal, more jobs for government. All these laws only help police officers, prosecutors, lawyers, and judges

Ah yes, the prison industrial complex that so many cons support actually grows government. Which might mean you have a social con, fiscal lib , big government type in reality.

[donttread]

Over time, the people do change the reach and influence of our governmental institutions with regard to what they control and what they prevent citizens from owning or using. Think of everything - books, films, etc. - that used to be banned - largely as the result of "conservative" efforts - that now are not. Whether or not you personally approve of same-sex marriages, they are another example of something that was, for no good reason, forbidden by the powers that be and are now legal. For every overreaching, unnecessary action or policy by government, there are a hundred or a thousand that are of incomparable value to you and to me. Do you really want to wipe out a system of government that has withstood more than two centuries of stress and conflict, both external and internal, and start from zero because some of the things it's doing annoy you?

Do they or do they simply change what's banned and controlled? Our system of government has been corrupted and is NOT now the system that has stood the test of time. So I say we the people make them fix it or replace them. The thing is if the dems and repubs knew they'd have to do a better job to keep their market share , they would because they are politicians. They;ll take all the power they can get, but they will also settle for the power you are willing to give them. We are no longer a "union of states" for example but just another centrally dominated nation state.

[DGUtley]

You could say the same for anything. If I misuse my gun someone gets hurt so I shouldn't have a gun. Or a 4 wheeler. Or to be able to carry hot coffee around in public. Besides using your line of thinking alcohol and tobacco have to be banned immediately as they do more damage than all other drugs combined. If you can responsibly use alcohol, too bad, many can't therefore we must ban it.

1. Maybe the illegal druglords should get lobbyists like the Alcohol and Tobacco lobbies did -- and also pay over a $206 billion dollars in compensation for the devastation wrought by their products.
2. We regulate guns, and 4-wheelers so that other people don't get hurt or the consequences doesn't hit society. Remember, there's consequences to others when this happens (I just settled a nasty ATV rollover case)
3. Look at the dangers to others that the things you complain about do.
4. We learned in prohibition that you can't legislate or regulate out certain innate behaviors or traits.

I don't understand why you think this is some grand vast conspiracy to control you. I loathe governmental regulation to a large extent but read your history -- this is not some big-government bug-a-boo. In fact, it really demonstrates the evils of good intentions gone awry.

[Captdon]

Drugs\
Gambling
Prostitution
Cuban Cigars ( at one time)
Exotic Pets
Abortion

Anything that is banned continues to happen. However, many laws do indeed limit the number of crimes AND actually involve one individual somehow harming another. Drugs, prostitution, gambling and Cuban Cigars are/were victimless AND unenforceable. It can be argued that exotic pets can harm the ecosystem for everyone and that abortion is a harm to the unborn being by those who define life as starting at conception. However, they too are largely unenforceable over time. I realize that each of these issues has it's own conversation as to why it should or should not be legal.

But how do each of them become the business of the government?

When do you realize that you are doubling down on a lost cause and try a better approach?

How do such bans fit in with the spirit of freedom?

What is the common denominator behind these bans?

Abortion is murder. You tossing it in with the others is intellectually dishonest.

[Captdon]

Over time, the people do change the reach and influence of our governmental institutions with regard to what they control and what they prevent citizens from owning or using. Think of everything - books, films, etc. - that used to be banned - largely as the result of "conservative" efforts - that now are not. Whether or not you personally approve of same-sex marriages, they are another example of something that was, for no good reason, forbidden by the powers that be and are now legal. For every overreaching, unnecessary action or policy by government, there are a hundred or a thousand that are of incomparable value to you and to me. Do you really want to wipe out a system of government that has withstood more than two centuries of stress and conflict, both external and internal, and start from zero because some of the things it's doing annoy you?

Liberal regulation is always right.