Which of the following bans would be successful?

[Josie]

Some of these (e.g. heroin) should be illegal to sell, but not to buy. Some of them (e.g. prostitution) should be illegal to buy, but not to sell.

Why?

 

[Gatsby]

Why?

In both cases the emphasis should be on protecting the vulnerable person at risk of being taken advantage of. In the case of heroin, that's the buyer. In the case of prostitution, that's the seller.

 

[Josie]

In both cases the emphasis should be on protecting the vulnerable person at risk of being taken advantage of. In the case of heroin, that's the buyer. In the case of prostitution, that's the seller.

How does that protect them from being taken advantage of?

 

[Cardinal]

Bans dont work. Period.

Which begs the question of why some people want to ban abortions.

 

[Gatsby]

How does that protect them from being taken advantage of?

If prostitutes and drug addicts aren't at risk of being thrown in jail, they are more likely to seek help from police, health care, and social services.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I'm sorry, but that's just delusional. First of all, the penalties for drunk driving are incredibly high. Speeding as well, when you factor in the real threat it poses to the population.

But ultimately increasing fines and penalties do very little to prevent crime because the people who commit these crimes aren't planning on getting caught in the first place.

That's just silly. Speeding and drunk driving kill 20,000 people every year, and that's WITH the current regulations and penalties. Practically everyone on the highway is speeding almost all the time. And all we've done about it in the last 20-30 years is continually RAISE the speed limits (at the cost of thousands more lives). In contrast, nobody ever died because it's legal to put a pistol grip or an adjustable shoulder stock on a semiautomatic rifle, but Democrats want the penalty for that to be 3-5 years in prison and loss of the right to own a firearm for life.

And people absolutely do expect that they have a chance to get caught for speeding and drunk driving. They just roll the dice because the benefits of doing so are worth the risk to them. If you could get 3-5 years in prison on the first offense for speeding or drunk driving, and lose your right to drive forever after that, do you honestly think that 80+% of drivers would be regularly speeding or drunk driving like they are now?

The penalty for murder is Death, or at the very least life in prison. You can't really go any higher than that, and yet people still murder.

You're making my point for me. Someone who is willing to face the penalty for murder, with a high likelihood of getting caught, is hardly going to care about the add-on for 3D printing a handful of 30 round magazines for his CA-compliant AR-15. There's no corollary for drunk driving or speeding, because the people doing that don't intend the bad outcomes they so often cause.

We do still have laws against cruel, excessive, and unusual punishments. Destroying someone's life because they had one too many beers is ludicrous when the person themself didn't actually cause any harm.

Destroying someone's life for having a standard 15-round pistol magazine, or replacing the goofy fin-grip on his CA-compliant rifle with a real pistol grip is also ludicrous.

 

[OrphanSlug]

None of the above, so long as there is demand for what is being banned.

 

[Josie]

If prostitutes and drug addicts aren't at risk of being thrown in jail, they are more likely to seek help from police, health care, and social services.

They also are more likely to seek help from police, healthcare, and social services if nothing about it is illegal. Right?

 

[Gatsby]

I guess I don’t understand how making the buying of drugs or prostitutes illegal helps that.

No, making the SELLING of drugs and buying of prostitutes illegal. Punish the people exploiting and harming vulnerable people, rather than the vulnerable people themselves.

As to how it helps: the same way that punishing any other form of exploitation helps. By deterring would-be offenders, and incarcerating offenders so they can't offend.

They also are more likely to seek help from police, healthcare, and social services if the buying of their service is legal.

By this logic, should buying child prostitutes be legal?

 

[Josie]

No, making the SELLING of drugs and buying of prostitutes illegal. Punish the people exploiting and harming vulnerable people, rather than the vulnerable people themselves.

Why do you need to punish any adult for choosing what they want to do with their body?

As to how it helps: the same way that punishing any other form of exploitation helps. By deterring would-be offenders, and incarcerating offenders so they can't offend.

What two consenting adults want to do with their bodies isn’t exploitation is it?

By this logic, should buying child prostitutes be legal?

Of course not. We’re talking about consenting adults.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Which begs the question of why some people want to ban abortions.

It's a silly premise. If murder were not banned, there certainly would be a lot more murder.

 

[Gatsby]

Why do you need to punish any adult for choosing what they want to do with their body?

I don't. They can do what they want with their own bodies, which is why I am opposed to criminalizing buying/possessing/using drugs and is why I am opposed to criminalizing prostitutes. What is not OK is exploiting someone else's body, which is what pimps and johns are doing.

What two consenting adults want to do with their bodies isn’t exploitation is it?

Of course not. We’re talking about consenting adults.

Then clearly we have a very different idea of what consent entails, when it comes to dangling a dollar bill in front of a person desperate for cash in exchange for sex. That person is not consenting in any moral sense. They are being taken advantage of.

 

[Josie]

I don't. They can do what they want with their own bodies, which is why I am opposed to criminalizing buying/possessing/using drugs and is why I am opposed to criminalizing prostitutes.

What is not OK is exploiting someone else's body, which is what pimps and johns are doing.

When you consent to selling your body, you consent to people buying your body. Just like with any job, your employer cannot make you work for slave wages.

Then clearly we have a very different idea of what consent entails, when it comes to dangling a dollar bill in front of a person desperate for cash in exchange for sex.

That person is not consenting in any moral sense. They are being taken advantage of.

If that’s your opinion, then shouldn’t you want it to be illegal across the board?

 

[jpevans]

You seriously think employers will jump at the chance to hire drug addicts, if they are just regularly supplied with cheap drugs?

Addiction is a medical condition & under the plan I outlined, addicts can function. Portugal decimalized addiction, but still jails dealers. Deaths from OD's have dropped to 5 times lower than the European average & HIV infections have dropped by 75%. While the Government has yet to allow Doctors to prescribe drugs, they supply methadone & clean needles.
I myself am a tobacco addict & have relapsed many times.

 

[RF667799]

Addiction is a medical condition & under the plan I outlined, addicts can function. Portugal decimalized addiction, but still jails dealers. Deaths from OD's have dropped to 5 times lower than the European average & HIV infections have dropped by 75%. While the Government has yet to allow Doctors to prescribe drugs, they supply methadone & clean needles.
I myself am a tobacco addict & have relapsed many times.

Sorry. For one thing, I don't see insurers being too keen on the idea of covering heroin, meth and cocaine addicts against workplace hazards, without some exorbitant rates.

Most of the places I worked, a failed drug test would result in you being escorted off company property.

 

[Cardinal]

It's a silly premise. If murder were not banned, there certainly would be a lot more murder.

Honestly, I don't know the numbers on that. I think it's probably a bit more nuanced than that, and suspect there are far more murders stopped by personal choice than the law, but that's not a hill I'm prepared to be murdered on.

It is interesting (if predictable) that the "bans don't work" position hits a brick wall at 100mph when the subject turns to a thing somebody wants banned. Then the "bans don't work" position magically transforms into "If it saves just ONE life then it's a success!"

 

[jpevans]

In both cases the emphasis should be on protecting the vulnerable person at risk of being taken advantage of. In the case of heroin, that's the buyer. In the case of prostitution, that's the seller.

Prostitution is a furtive, back alley business, puting vulnerable woman in jeopardy, solely because it is illegal. Hundreds of street hookers get beaten up or go missing every year. Legal cathouses on the other hand protect the sex workers, etc. See Nevada for example. Not every woman is cut out to be a typist or assembly line drone. It's a well paying job, with benefits, medical care etc. security. I paraphrase Mark Twain, ***** don't wear out.
Plus as I said, it would help a lot of incels & maybe prevent some mass shootings.

 

[Rumpel]

assault weapons

 

[Rumpel]

Banning alcohol again would be stupid.
Banning wine would be inhuman.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Indeed. A wise investment. Nothing has spawned and enriched organized crime as much as banning something the public wants.

The cannabis business in Canada was semi-organized at best, when biker gangs got involved. For the most part the entire industry was developed by average Joe 'pot-heads' who like their weed and learned to grow some for themselves.
The discovery of the process of how & when THC begins to be processed in the plant was a revelutionary revelation.
Add grafting, cloning (by scion) and hydroponics hit the scene and pot went from an average 12% THC to 20 & 25%.
That's when the "Rodeo Drive" strains began, soon after the "4-20" movement (even cops still don't get that code)
Today's pot retails at about $150 to $300 per ounce for bud on the legal market here. And there is some really slick stuff
The grey market sells buds (it costs the same to grow low grade THC as it does high grade so there's no sliding scale) adjusted for inflation what was a $20 lid (street ounce) is now $41, delivered or $140 total.
So even with making it 'legal' the larger market here is free range and forever will be.

 

[LouC]

Really because you don't see very many vehicles on the road without an airbag, seat belts, or a catalytic converter.
We've reduced the usage of Chlorofluorocarbon by 99.7%. To the point where the Ozone layer is projected to completely heal within a decade.

Kiss that one goodbye if Trumpians down ballot in the states keep getting elected.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Whether or not a ban on something is "successful" or not depends on how much effort you're planning to use to enforce that ban. You could, for example, have a completely successful ban on common intoxicants such as weed and booze but to make such a ban successful you would need vast resources to enforce it. You would have to have a huge contingent of government enforcement officers tasked with entering people's homes, places of business and lands, searching those places, confiscating not only any manufactured product but also the equipment and material used to produce the intoxicants, AND a justice system befed up enough to handle all the prosecutions and punishments. Furthermore, everyone in that enforcement organization would need to be monitored and investigated for corruption.

Nobody is going to look at those requirements and think, "It's worth it as long as we get rid of weed and booze". On the other hand, we have half a damned nation that is salivating at the chance to do exactly those things to get rid of guns.

Did you ever hear about the "Roaring Tweneties", "Prohibition", Elliott Ness or any of those famous people?

So tell me, with a special federal police of some 3,000 men created for the sole purpose of ending the trade in alcohol never so much as made a ****ing dent!

I suggest that a force that size, unshackled from the constitution would represent "great effort" and the flow of booze continued to grow and grow until your kind of all in, Nazi wrecking crew tactics would meet a standard of force...

And failed!

 

[Lutherf]

Did you ever hear about the "Roaring Tweneties", "Prohibition", Elliott Ness or any of those famous people?

So tell me, with a special federal police of some 3,000 men created for the sole purpose of ending the trade in alcohol never so much as made a ****ing dent!

I suggest that a force that size, unshackled from the constitution would represent "great effort" and the flow of booze continued to grow and grow until your kind of all in, Nazi wrecking crew tactics would meet a standard of force...

And failed!

The actions enforcing prohibition simply weren't strong enough. If the anti-alcohol force had been 30 million instead of just 3k we might have made a dent.

 

[VanceMack]

Really because you don't see very many vehicles on the road without an airbag, seat belts, or a catalytic converter.
We've reduced the usage of Chlorofluorocarbon by 99.7%. To the point where the Ozone layer is projected to completely heal within a decade.

Actually there are a lot of vehicles that dont have those safety devices...they are grandfathered...and lots more where the safety devices are disabled or not used. As for CFCs, 1-they replaced the with other chemicals that work and 2, as of today there are still countries in the world using them.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

The OP forgot to add the option for banning Canadians, just sayin'