Does prohibition work?

[Threegoofs]

Really? A woman being attacked and using a gun to save herself...that need only arose because there are guns?

A man protects his family during a home robbery with a firearm...that need, that crime, only arose because there are guns?

Wow, you didnt think that thru at all did you?

In every other developed nation in the world, people don’t have guns. In the majority of households in the US, people don’t have guns.

And to the original point... prohibition of automatic weapons is working quite well here in the US.

 

[Lursa]

Yep, and it is highly unlikely to ever happen.

And yet...the laws were passed....

People have really signed onto that idea.

 

[Lursa]

In every other developed nation in the world, people don’t have guns. In the majority of households in the US, people don’t have guns.

And to the original point... prohibition of automatic weapons is working quite well here in the US.

And those people in those countries fall victim to attacks and violence and have one less means of recourse and self-defense.

So, what was your point?

And what does the number of homes in America with guns have to do with it? It's a choice. And I'm not sure your claim is accurate either. If it is, probably not by a large margin.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And yet...the laws were passed....

People have really signed onto that idea.

Some have indeed done so - it is hard to square having fetal homicide laws and having legal abortion.

Foeticide - Wikipedia

 

[lurchadams]

I dont think he's saying they are. I think he's trying to see why you hold the opinion that prohibition doesnt work, but then why we should still institute it against things like child pornography? It's not about the morality of the issue.

I'm curious about the distinction as well. Just interested in the discussion.

I was very clear in my original post about the specific items for which I feel prohibition, historically has not worked. The criminal exploitation of children was not one of them. I don't think I could have been any more clear when making my point.

Mr. Leo then dishonestly pretended to misunderstand my point, cherry picking the phrase, "prohibition doesn't work" and applied it to an abomination of a crime.

Personally, the only item I think should be prohibited is possession of firearms - but only for women! :2razz:

 

[Lursa]

Some have indeed done so - it is hard to square having fetal homicide laws and having legal abortion.

Foeticide - Wikipedia

Not really when you understand that the great majority of those laws charge on behalf of the mother/state...not the unborn as an individual, as they are not recognized as such legally and that the laws treat the unborn similar to property. The laws act in the interests of the mother and/or state.

There are charges brought for property and damages awarded. Including pets and livestock.

 

[Lursa]

I was very clear in my original post about the specific items for which I feel prohibition, historically has not worked. The criminal exploitation of children was not one of them. I don't think I could have been any more clear when making my point.

Mr. Leo then dishonestly pretended to misunderstand my point, cherry picking the phrase, "prohibition doesn't work" and applied it to an abomination of a crime.

Personally, the only item I think should be prohibited is possession of firearms - but only for women! :2razz:

If you had been clear in that or following posts I wouldnt have asked for clarification.

But you seem to believe you have...so nevermind then.

 

[Threegoofs]

And those people in those countries fall victim to attacks and violence and have one less means of recourse and self-defense.

So, what was your point?

And what does the number of homes in America with guns have to do with it? It's a choice. And I'm not sure your claim is accurate either. If it is, probably not by a large margin.

My point...which you are avoiding.... is that prohibition has been spectacularly effective in limiting automatic weapon availability.

 

[weaver2]

It depends on who is making money, how much and their political clout whether prohibitions work or not.

Organized crime was making a lot money from Prohibition, but didn't have political power. Those with political clout wanted organized crime out of the business so they could profit. Prohibition didn't work.

Marijuana was making money but not as much as opium and cocaine. It was mostly small time (compared to the hard drug trade) growers dealers and middlemen without much political power and the biggest % of the profit was going to out-of-the-country growers. Many used it and it was more trouble and money than it was worth to prohibit it. Prohibition didn't work.

Poppies and coco leaves make astronomical amounts of money for very powerful, very organized, very connected people and governments. Prohibition is mostly against the end users and the local dealers. Keeping drugs illegal works very well for the people at the top.

Pornography is mostly created by small time operations with no political power and it doesn't make money on the scale of alcohol and drugs. It's prohibited, police and the public go after them and the punishment is severe. Prohibition could be said to be working.

Prostitution is a very small time operation, sometimes only a single person operation. The money is not of significant national interest. A lot of people are involved but most of them are fairly responsible citizens even the purveyors of the service. Very few in the business have any political power. Nobody is making big money and law enforcement is sporadic. Prohibition isn't working.

Prohibition of abortion and women's birth control didn't work in the past. It won't work in the future.

 

[Waddy]

The difference is public support. Without widespread public support prohibition of anything will not work very well. We strongly support prohibition of sex trafficking and child porn. We generally moderately support drug prohibition. Hardly anyone supports a prohibition on marijuana anymore. Almost everyone supports prohibitions on murder and rape. If we strongly support prohibition on some issues, and see that it is still a big problem, we also support throwing more money into enforcement.

 

[Lursa]

My point...which you are avoiding.... is that prohibition has been spectacularly effective in limiting automatic weapon availability.

Not sure there was ever any great interest in them. People can apply for permits for them now and can get them in most states if they want.

I guess that just shows that responsible gun owners are more practical in their choices. Full-auto firearms dont really bring much additional to the table.

 

[AmNat]

Want to bet?

It's not illegal to possess or distribute snuff films in America. If you want to place signature bets on that statement, I'm game.

 

[Jay59]

It's not illegal to possess or distribute snuff films in America. If you want to place signature bets on that statement, I'm game.

What will trip you is the porn laws. It comes down to the exact definitions of pornography. If it reads something like, "Recording an illegal act for purposes of sale or distribution... yatta, yatta."

 

[AmNat]

What will trip you is the porn laws. It comes down to the exact definitions of pornography. If it reads something like, "Recording an illegal act for purposes of sale or distribution... yatta, yatta."

I was going with the Wikipedia definition "a movie in a purported genre of movies in which a person is actually murdered or commits suicide". Of course, pornographic snuff films might be illegal, depending on whether a judge decided it met the (impossibly vague) standard of having "no serious literary, artistic, scientific, or political value". In any case, America's obscenity laws are almost never enforced, so the existence of porn doesn't contradict what I said earlier.

 

[Jay59]

I was going with the Wikipedia definition "a movie in a purported genre of movies in which a person is actually murdered or commits suicide". Of course, pornographic snuff films might be illegal, depending on whether a judge decided it met the (impossibly vague) standard of having "no serious literary, artistic, scientific, or political value". In any case, America's obscenity laws are almost never enforced, so the existence of porn doesn't contradict what I said earlier.

You might be surprised. Porn laws have changed dramatically in the last 20 years, primarily to make child porn prosecutable. If the definition can be stretched to a genuine snuff film, it would be.

 

[AmNat]

You might be surprised. Porn laws have changed dramatically in the last 20 years, primarily to make child porn prosecutable. If the definition can be stretched to a genuine snuff film, it would be.

Child porn is covered by separate laws from general obscenity. Neither child porn laws nor obscenity laws include illegality of the original action in their definition.

I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Jay59]

Child porn is covered by separate laws from general obscenity. Neither child porn laws nor obscenity laws include illegality of the original action in their definition. I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't know what you're talking about.

The feeling is mutual.

 

[Vadinho]

And how that is a bad thing? As I asked lurchadams, we currently have a prohibition on the production and possession child pornography and child prostitution/sex trafficking. These industries fueled by the suffering of children are relegated to a criminal black market. Would life for these children caught in this horrible web (and children in general) be better and safer if child sexual exploitation were to become a legalized and "regulated" industry in some way?

Your argument is similar to one that leads to no laws being passed at all for anything at all because there will always be lawbreakers. I think you can see how this is not a reasoned approach to this type of problem. Prohibition in this case is about victimless crimes. If there is a victim that is harmed in any way, a law should protect them. If there is no victim, there should not be a prohibition.

 

[1776]

Prohibition has never been 100% effective in any scenario as far as I'm concerned, if I am incorrect about this I would love to be enlightened. However, one would think it would limit the amount of people who do something like purchase or sell illegal drugs due to the heavy consequences.

Would you rather have drugs be illegal and an underground market exist or have stores selling all the currently illegal drugs open and legally? There's nothing more important than the mind and drugs alter it in a way so it does not think properly and aids in the degeneracy of men, but should we use taxpayer money to fund a government's slightly effective attempts to halt the sale and usage of drugs in our country? It's a noble fight, but as with the earlier prohibition of alcohol, I question its effectiveness.

 

[HK.227]

Your argument is similar to one that leads to no laws being passed at all for anything at all because there will always be lawbreakers. I think you can see how this is not a reasoned approach to this type of problem. Prohibition in this case is about victimless crimes. If there is a victim that is harmed in any way, a law should protect them. If there is no victim, there should not be a prohibition.

Does "society in general" count as a victim?
There are those who want to ban the sale of alcohol for recreational use, and the argument is usually how many lives it damages, besides that of the alcoholic. Childhood trauma, divorce, unemployment, psychological problems; in short, creating social, cultural, and financial losers.
Not saying one way or the other, but the principles behind them should be applied equally for different types of prohibition.

 

[jamesrage]

I've heard the argument that the government prohibiting something generally doesn't work. This usually centers discussion around a certain topic. On other topics, the same people may act like it does work.


So, does it work?

yes

View attachment 67267167


or no

View attachment 67267168

Please explain your reasoning down in the comments.

I would yes but only on certain issues and even then it depends on the punishments that go with violating that prohibition. For example a prohibition against booze didn't work because a huge chunk of the population liked to drink alcohol. While a prohibition against murder generally works because of the severe punishments and without those punishments the murder rate would even be higher.

 

[LouC]

I've heard the argument that the government prohibiting something generally doesn't work. This usually centers discussion around a certain topic. On other topics, the same people may act like it does work.


So, does it work?

yes

View attachment 67267167


or no

View attachment 67267168

Please explain your reasoning down in the comments.

I voted NO.

I based my vote on the notion that "work" in regards "prohibition" means a prohibition on an act or a thing is 100% effective in keeping folks from performing that act or obtaining that thing.

 

[Psychoclown]

We need to define terms. What do we mean by work? If the goal 100% elimination of a certain behavior or activity, then no prohibition does not work. It can, however, dramatically curb certain things if properly applied. Sufficiently harsh penalties coupled with vigorous enforcement will make many people reconsider most behaviors.

With the drug war, neither is in place for the casual user. Getting caught with small amounts of illegal drugs is not a serious offense in most places. And if you take reasonable precautions, you are very unlikely to be caught. Hence we see that a drug's legal status has very little to no impact on its user rates, at least in the long term. The same is true for prostitution, illegal gambling, and other such "vices". So we have a broken system that does sweep some people up into the criminal system, often for arbitrary reasons, and does achieve the "big picture" aim of modifying society's behavior.

 

[devildavid]

When you say "work" what do you mean? Do you mean reduce the incidence rate of the prohibited act in question? Or total elimination of all incidences of it?

We currently have laws prohibiting and punishing rape. Rape still occurs. We have laws prohibiting and punishing the creation, distribution, and possession of child pornography. People still consume child pornography. I would argue that nothing will truly eliminate human vice. But I think these instances of predation would occur at an even greater rate if we did not have laws prohibiting them.

The rate a which vices occur depends on how much society truly deplores them, not by merely having a law. When society is strongly against something, law enforcement has more likelihood of focusing on it. Laws by themselves, in a relatively free society, do little to reduce the rate of any crime that society in general really does not care about controlling. Those laws are often used by rival groups within society to hurt each other by using against each other. Only those laws dealing with acts that society nearly universally condemns will be enforced most stringently and equally across all competing groups within society.

 

[Rumpel]

Prohibition works to fuel a criminal black market.

Sadly so!