• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which of the following bans would be successful?

Which of these things could the U.S. ban with any level of success.


  • Total voters
    36
Marijuana
nope and should be legal

more severe drugs like Cocain or Heroin
nope is and should stay illegal

Alcohol
nope is and should be legal

Guns in general
nope are and should be legal

Assault Weapons specifically
nope, have we even defined what this means yet

Abortion
nope and should stay legal

Illegal immigration
nope and already is illegal and should stay that way

Cars without airbags
yep and depending on definition of "successful" this would be one as far as there wont be people bootlegging cars with no airbags lol

Chlorofluorocarbons
yep see above

Prostitution
nope and should be legal nation wide, its beyond stupid its not and ive never heard a logical reason for to be. regulate it and tax it and move one
 
-snip-
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.
What about the opposite? Destroying everyone else's life who is poorest and least influential because someone who "had one too many beers" had to
be protected and elevated, no matter what?


https://www.cbsnews.com › news › brett-kavanaugh-attack-on-democrats-poses-risk-to-supreme-court

Brett Kavanaugh's attack on Democrats could pose risk to ... - CBS News

September 29, 2018 / 8:38 AM / CBS/AP Brett Kavanaugh's angry denunciation of Senate Democrats at his confirmation hearing could reinforce views of the Supreme Court as a political institution at a...
 
Which of the following things could the United States ban with successful results? Which would fail, and or potentially cause even bigger problems if we try to ban them.
If you believe there are some, but not others, you must explain why some work, while others do not.

I'll start...
Bans would work on... Severe Drugs, Assault Weapons, Cars without Airbags, Chlorofluorocarbons.
Bans would fail on... MJ, Alcohol, Guns in General, Abortion, Illegal Immigration, Prostitution.

Why...? Supply, Demand, and Enforcement.

Demand for Marijuana is high. There is a very large chunk of the population that will always seek out a high. A supply will always follow, and so no matter what you try and do you will never prevent people from getting high. A black market supply will always exist, and you will never stop it. the same is true of Alcohol.
Demand for coke and heroin is much lower. It exists, but much of the black market for these drugs comes from dealers who got their start selling weed. Legalize weed, and you radically reduce the demand for illegal drugs in general. The result is that the supply for the remainder of illegal drugs would plummet.
The same principles apply to guns in general vs Assault Weapons.

Bans on Chlorofluorocarbons and cars without airbags have been incredibly successful. The reason is that there is absolutely no demand for them. Nobody actually wants CFCs. They want bottles that spray things...bug spray, sunblock, cleaners... ban them, and companies simply come up with alternative methods to produce the spray canisters people really want. The Ozone layer is saved.
Nobody wants an unsafe car. Car companies don't want to produce unsafe cars. There's no demand for that. Customers might choose one car over another because it's slightly cheaper, but if all cars are required to have airbags, seatbelts, catalytic converters... there is no competitive advantage and therefore all car companies comply. The bans are also incredibly easy to enforce with basic inspections.

Those who want an abortion and illegal immigration want it so desperately that they will obtain it at almost any cost. Furthermore, the people who want it can generally obtain them on their own without any need for a supply. Thus making enforcement virtually impossible.
Any ban reduces the usage of what is being banned. Prohibition greatly reduced the consumption of alcohol, the problem was it also had high societal costs due to all the crime that resulted from it.

If you ban guns you will have less guns, if you ban drugs, you will have less drugs, the question is always whether the benefits of the ban are outweighed by the consequences of it which is usually higher crime depending on what is being banned.
 
Since all these bans is the prevention of crime. Why don't you just ban crime?
We do ban crime, that is what criminal laws are. For example, it is against the law to murder someone. Thus we have a ban on murder. That doesn't mean there are no murders, but it does mean that there are far fewer murders than there would be if it wasn't criminalized/banned.

Countries that have laws against owning certain types of guns, which means they ban those types of guns, still have some of those types of guns, just far fewer than they otherwise would. Enforced bans always work to some degree, the question is always are the unintended consequences of the ban worse than just lifting the ban and dealing with that. For example, prohibition worked in that it greatly reduced the consumption of alcohol. However, it resulted in a huge spike in crime due to the fact that what alcohol was still being consumed, had to come from the black market. All that crime resulted in society saying we may as well have more people drinking than to deal with all this crime that resulted from prohibition. Many states have came to the same conclusion regarding marijuana. Laws against marijuana usage and distribution reduce marijuana usage, but they also result in a lot of crime to supply what marijuana is being used, and since its a low risk drug, a lot of states have figured its better to just legalize it and reduce the crime associated with its illegal distribution.
 
4th offense in 10 years? That's sad. In the US, they want to put people in prison for 3 years and take away their rights to ever own a gun for the rest of their lives, for putting an adjustable shoulder stock on a semiautomatic rifle.

Imagine if that were the penalty for drunk driving, on the first offense.
Wow,

I would have no issue w/ that being the penalty for drunk driving, first offence. I detest driving while intoxicated.

BTW, I meant to post this link but forgot.

 
I think my last post was pretty polite. Since you chose to open with this sentence, this post will be less polite.

No it's not. And the people who pretend to believe this know perfectly well that it's not. If your child, spouse, friend, or relative got this particular job, would you congratulate them on pursuing their dreams? If a person on unemployment refused to take a job as a prostitute for which they were qualified, would you regard them as a lazy bum? If a little girl wanted to grow up to be a prostitute just like mommy, would you see this as a heartwarming story of family loyalty?

Waiters and mechanics aren't being trafficked in record numbers. We don't have an entire class of laws dedicating to waitering offenses like we do for sex offenses. We don't have an age of consent for waitering aside from general child labor laws. We don't have major scandals where public figures are secretly hiring waiters. We don't consider it a tragedy if teenagers get jobs as waiters; if anything it shows ambition.

Getting a job that requires a driver's license implies that you have a certain set of skills. Your argument is that the only reason child prostitution is bad is that children lack the required technical skills in pleasuring perverts? And that if they were better at the job, it would be OK?

The evil shit is perpetrated by the assholes who exploit prostitutes. If it were up to me, the criminal penalties would be much harsher than a slap on the wrist. You'd do some serious prison time for sexual assault if you violated someone who only "consented" because you dangled a dollar bill in front of their face.
Sex worker, Porn Star, Hooker, Whore, Escort whatever you want to call them, they would be under certain regulation if it were legal. The Porn industry is already under age restriction, because it is legal to have sex & act like it is enjoyable. Child porn is illegal & it's producers are hunted down & prosecuted. Your hangup seems to be with sex, or is it paying for sex. A legal & well regulated sex industry will not end illegal exploitation of children. But illegal exploitation of children should not be the reason sex between consenting adults is a crime if money changes hands.
I have sold my body to the construction industry in various positions for almost 50 years & my back is a mess & I have a twisted lumpy finger.
 
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.
The reason Prohibition didn't work is the people didn't want it. Prohibition proved to be the cure being worse than the disease. Not only did people die & go blind from amature liquiur production, using ingredients such as wood alcohol, sterno, but there was also gang wars over distributing both smuggled & moonshined booze.
What you are dreaming about is an American Taliban who has a religious dedication to ending alcohol consumption, on punishment of death.
I once stayed summers in a small town in Maine, where you could buy beer in the market, but the Bar was illegal & would get busted every year & pay a major fine in lieu of a licence fee.
Americans are all about booze, drugs & guns...
 
The Porn industry is already under age restriction, because it is legal to have sex & act like it is enjoyable.
It is not legal to have nonconsensual sex, which is what's happening when someone only does it for money.
Child porn is illegal & it's producers are hunted down & prosecuted.
Right. But I think it's instructive that no one in favor of buying prostitutes seems to be able to explain WHY this should be the case, or why it's morally different from adult prostitution.
Your hangup seems to be with sex, or is it paying for sex.
The latter. For the same reason I have a "hangup" about sex with people who are intoxicated, asleep, under duress, underage, verbally saying no, or saying no with their body language. As long as people find someone who consents (and is capable of consenting), then we have no problem.
A legal & well regulated sex industry will not end illegal exploitation of children. But illegal exploitation of children should not be the reason sex between consenting adults is a crime if money changes hands.
The reason I brought up children is because no one seems to be able to explain why that is a horrifying crime, but exploiting adults in exactly the same way becomes A-OK. It's still sexual exploitation even if the victim is an adult.
I have sold my body to the construction industry in various positions for almost 50 years & my back is a mess & I have a twisted lumpy finger.
And if you were given the opportunity to have instead spent the past 50 years as a prostitute in one of those "cathouses," would you trade your job as a construction worker for that?
 
Last edited:
I am disputing your premise that they are consenting in the first place.

It's not about the wage.

I do think buying sex should be illegal across the board.
Selling sex shouldn't be illegal for the same reason that we don't charge rape victims with being accessories to rape. The whole purpose of the law is (or should be) to protect the victim, not to punish them.
Your whole objection is based on the illegal trade in sex & also that consenting adults are fine with sex as long as no money changes hands. Like there isn't sexual abuse & degradation among the married. That tickets to see Elton John & a fine dinner aren't seen as payment for sex by both partners.
Legalizing the trade in cat would come with some restrictions, age being one, health certification (including drug testing), protection & eliminate getting into the cars of strangers. Judging from the way pot sales are regulated here in Mass, they would be quite rigorous. Street Hookers are one of the biggest at risk group for shallow graves in America.
 
It is not legal to have nonconsensual sex, which is what's happening when someone only does it for money.

Right. But I think it's instructive that no one in favor of buying prostitutes seems to be able to explain WHY this should be the case, or why it's morally different from adult prostitution.

The latter. For the same reason I have a "hangup" about sex with people who are intoxicated, asleep, under duress, underage, verbally saying no, or saying no with their body language. As long as people find someone who consents (and is capable of consenting), then we have no problem.

The reason I brought up children is because no one seems to be able to explain why that is a horrifying crime, but exploiting adults in exactly the same way becomes A-OK. It's still sexual exploitation even if the victim is an adult.

And if you were given the opportunity to have instead spent the past 50 years as a prostitute in one of those "cathouses," would you trade your job as a construction worker for that?
What about the Elton John tickets, does that make one person nonconsenting? Dumb primis.
I know you think you are defending the fairer sex, but in reality you are defending illegal prostitution, because it's called the oldest profession for a reason, & will stay in the shadows endangering woman & children as long as it's disparaged & prosecuted & woman & girls will continue to disappear.
When I was at my most studly, prostitution was illegal. Although I don't know how many male prostitutes are at the service of woman.
 
Your whole objection is based on the illegal trade in sex & also that consenting adults are fine with sex as long as no money changes hands.
My objection is based on what I said my objection was based on. That prostitutes aren't consenting if money changes hands.
Like there isn't sexual abuse & degradation among the married.
Irrelevant to the subject at hand.
That tickets to see Elton John & a fine dinner aren't seen as payment for sex by both partners.
If that's the way that you view your relationship with your wife, that's your business, but if I approached relationships that way I think I'd personally seek some counseling.
Legalizing the trade in cat would come with some restrictions, age being one, health certification (including drug testing), protection & eliminate getting into the cars of strangers.
None of which would address my objection.
I know you think you are defending the fairer sex,
I think it should be illegal to exploit men in the sex trade too.
but in reality you are defending illegal prostitution, because it's called the oldest profession for a reason, & will stay in the shadows endangering woman & children as long as it's disparaged & prosecuted & woman & girls will continue to disappear.
I am opposed to banning selling sex.
Buying sex *should* stay in the shadows. Like all unethical behaviors, banning it won't get rid of it entirely. But it will reduce it via deterrence and remove dangerous sex offenders from the general population.
 
Last edited:
My objection is based on what I said my objection was based on. That prostitutes aren't consenting if money changes hands.

Irrelevant to the subject at hand.

If that's the way that you view your relationship with your wife, that's your business, but if I approached relationships that way I think I'd personally seek some counseling.

None of which would address my objection.

I think it should be illegal to exploit men in the sex trade too.

I am opposed to banning selling sex.
Buying sex *should* stay in the shadows. Like all unethical behaviors, banning it won't get rid of it entirely. But it will reduce it via deterrence and remove dangerous sex offenders from the general population.
So you are for BJ's in alleys & the backs of cars, disappearing sex workers, the status quo. No regulations on a business that ain't going nowhere. Saying your against reform is being for it as it exists now.
I've said all I can. to explain how it could be safer for worker & customers .
We disagree.
 
Last edited:
So you are for BJ's in alleys & the backs of cars, disappearing sex workers, the status quo. No regulations on a business that ain't going nowhere. Saying your against reform is being for it as it exists now.
I've said all I can. to explain how it could be safer for worker & customers .
We disagree.
Another way to see this is: reform still isn't, and maybe cannot, address(ing) the root issue of exploitation. Prostitution is an exploitative relation, and its transactional structure enhances the exploitive aspects.

Theoretically, an erotic labor union, controlled and run by sex workers, could mitigate some of the harm of exploitation, but it would not (especially initially or in the medium term) address who (or how they) become(s) exploitable sex labor.
 
Last edited:
Any ban reduces the usage of what is being banned. Prohibition greatly reduced the consumption of alcohol, the problem was it also had high societal costs due to all the crime that resulted from it.
Bans didn’t reduce alcohol consumption at all.
If you ban guns you will have less guns, if you ban drugs, you will have less drugs, the question is always whether the benefits of the ban are outweighed by the consequences of it which is usually higher crime depending on what is being banned.
You have less of neither. It’s actually easier to get drugs (banned) than it is to get guns (not banned).
 
With the experience of the roaring twenties and the centuries-long 'ban' on cannabis I'd say there is ample proof that bans don't do anything but guarantee high pricesl.

The United States created a few hundred millionaires, perhaps billionaires here in British Columbia because of "the WAR ON DRUGS!"

I know growers who have retired at 50-60 and now live in places like Belize; the DEA, FBI, ATF and local police assured there would always be high prices below the 49th...the longest undefended border in the world where our countries are divided by no more than a white line painted on the road.

Did anyone ever go to jail?

Nope. Not one.

The highest fines occurred in the 80's, $5,000 to $7,000 less than the cost of a business license.

Let me know what you're going to ban next, I'll invest,
Why do you people always trot out the prohibition on alcohol as "evidence" that outlawing something won't work?

Learn some of the history of "prohibition"

While TECHNICALLY we had prohibition of alcohol, in reality we never did. Even with prohibition there were so many exceptions and carve outs that EFFECTIVELY alcohol was still largely legal. For medical reasons (which is how Walgreens became a huge chain, to aboard ships (Booze cruises) and various other exceptions.
 
So you are for BJ's in alleys & the backs of cars, disappearing sex workers,
Nope, I am for arresting and incarcerating the people who victimize prostitutes instead of giving them a slap on the wrist and/or ignoring it entirely.
the status quo.
Nope, the status quo (at least in the United States) is that selling sex is illegal in 49 states, so it's usually the prostitutes themselves who are arrested.
No regulations on a business that ain't going nowhere.
Who said no regulations? If someone hires a prostitute, I think they should do serious prison time for sexual assault. That's a pretty substantial regulation.
Saying your against reform is being for it as it exists now.
Good thing that isn't what I said.
I've said all I can. to explain how it could be safer for worker & customers .
We disagree.
The way for it to be safer for the workers is to stop arresting them and instead arrest the men who exploit them.

And I don't care about it being safer for the customers/abusers. Frankly if a few more of them got their heads split open, that would be a net positive for the world.
 
Last edited:
Bans didn’t reduce alcohol consumption at all.

You have less of neither. It’s actually easier to get drugs (banned) than it is to get guns (not banned).
You are wrong. Alcohol consumption was reduced to 30% of its pre-prohibition level at first, and by the end of prohibition was 60% of its previous level. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdf

Of course it is easier to get drugs, they are easier to make. The easier something is to make, the less effective a ban is. It's is why prohibition reduced, but did not eliminate the consumption of alcohol.
 
You are wrong.
I’m not.
Alcohol consumption was reduced to 30% of its pre-prohibition level at first, and by the end of prohibition was 60% of its previous level. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdf
No it wasn’t.
Of course it is easier to get drugs, they are easier to make. The easier something is to make, the less effective a ban is.
They aren’t easier to make.
It's is why prohibition reduced, but did not eliminate the consumption of alcohol.
It had no effect non the consumption of alcohol. It’s why bootlegging existed, and why it was eventually repealed. It was a complete failure.
 
I’m not.

No it wasn’t.

They aren’t easier to make.

It had no effect non the consumption of alcohol. It’s why bootlegging existed, and why it was eventually repealed. It was a complete failure.
There is no point in arguing with someone that ignores evidence. I provided you evidence that it indeed reduced the consumption of alcohol. The problem with prohibition is not that it didn't reduce the consumption of alcohol, it did, and significantly. The problem was it wasn't worth the organized crime that went along with it.

Here is the thing, I am a gun owner. Been a gun owner my entire life. I probably own more guns than most members of this forum. I believe we have a constitutional right to own firearms. However, I don't like bad arguments. I don't like bad arguments from the anti-2A side, and I don't like bad arguments from the pro-2A side and by ignoring evidence presented to you, you making a bad argument.
 
Why do you people always trot out the prohibition on alcohol as "evidence" that outlawing something won't work?

Learn some of the history of "prohibition"

While TECHNICALLY we had prohibition of alcohol, in reality we never did. Even with prohibition there were so many exceptions and carve outs that EFFECTIVELY alcohol was still largely legal. For medical reasons (which is how Walgreens became a huge chain, to aboard ships (Booze cruises) and various other exceptions.
If you read it all you will see there are other proofs (pardon the pun) such as "THE WAR ON DRUGS!"

How'd that work out for ya.......?

Hope it helped the US but what is did was make some pot growers extremely wealthy who retired to Belize a decade ago.

Try banning sex....

Oh right, you tried that with the war on porn....
 
If you read it all you will see there are other proofs (pardon the pun) such as "THE WAR ON DRUGS!"

How'd that work out for ya.......?

Hope it helped the US but what is did was make some pot growers extremely wealthy who retired to Belize a decade ago.

Try banning sex....

Oh right, you tried that with the war on porn....
What "war on porn"?
 
There is no point in arguing with someone that ignores evidence.
I agree
I provided you evidence that it indeed reduced the consumption of alcohol.
no, you didn't.
The problem with prohibition is not that it didn't reduce the consumption of alcohol, it did, and significantly.
It did not. That's why bootlegging was so profitable.
The problem was it wasn't worth the organized crime that went along with it.
It didn't go along with it, which is why bootlegging flourished.
Here is the thing, I am a gun owner. Been a gun owner my entire life. I probably own more guns than most members of this forum. I believe we have a constitutional right to own firearms. However, I don't like bad arguments.
Then don't make them.
I don't like bad arguments from the anti-2A side, and I don't like bad arguments from the pro-2A side and by ignoring evidence presented to you, you making a bad argument.
Except I'm not actually. We know prohibition did not reduce alcohol consumption. We know drug prohibition does not reduce drug consumption. We know a gun ban would not reduce gun availability.
 
Back
Top Bottom