[url=http://i.imgur.com/wYXyZKz.jpg]Oh wait, wrong image.[/url]
If I might construct a simple scenario/strawman.
Person A: I think that owning guns is wrong and causes too much evil in this world. Banning them will solve the problems we have.
Person B: No, banning them just means that criminals will be the only ones with guns.
Person C: I think abortions are wrong and that banning them will solve the problems we have.
Person D: No, banning them just means you force people to get them in back alleys using wire coat hangers again.
Person E: I think alcohol is wrong and that banning it will solve the problems we have.
Person F: No, banning it just means you create an underground liquor market.
Person G: I think drug use is wrong and that banning it will solve the problems we have.
Person H: No, banning it just means you create an underground drug market.
Can you spot the pattern?
The pattern being that banning something that people desire is ultimately futile since people can and will circumvent the law. "But Methew! You stupid Lib-tard!" I hear you scream "I think my cause is just because of X! And that by banning it, with stop most instances of it, which is better than just allowing it to continue!"
Yes, but at what cost?
Note that with all of these there are other, new problems introduced as well. A de-armed populace has much more trouble overthrowing a potentially tyrannical government. Even assuming best case scenario, which is improbable, where the child isn't aborted, that adult is almost guaranteed to be trapped in low class, consuming tax funded services. Attempting to ban illegal substances gives power and strength to the mobs/cartels/drug lords supplying it.
The War on Drugs has turned the United States into a prison state. We spend more on prisons than we do schools. We have the highest jailed population of any other nation. All to fight the War on Drugs. Which has objectively failed. Brazil (IIRC) decriminalized drug use and treated it like a health issue instead and reduced drug use drastically and quickly.
And I'm not even mentioning all potential problems either.
Want to fix the problem? Address the underlying causes driving people to such things.
-
Edited by Recon Number 54: 5/16/2014 4:40:20 PMBlaming the inanimate object or substance for the "evils it causes" is a very human, but not very logical (or effective) method of reducing "the problem". Attempting to write laws that curtail the availability, access or use of the inanimate object will only serve to "keep the honest people honest". It's like locking your front door. If someone is intent on getting into your house, no law and no lock is going to deter or stop them. The object/substance doesn't "by itself" cause the harm. It is the misuse, abuse, or criminal use of it that does. While some would say "we just need to make the consequences of misuse, abuse or criminal use more severe and that will solve the problem", I can see the point, but disagree that it is the "solution". People already know that in many locations, the penalty and potential outcome of the crime of murder could be the death penalty or life imprisonment. That may give SOME people pause and prevent them from acting on a murderous impulse, but we can see that the laws and the known consequences don't eliminate the crime, the loss, the harm that some people are willing to cause, even with those risks/consequences clearly known. The real issue and question is "How to we get more people to be "good people"?" And that is a question that has been asked for thousands of years. If anyone has a good a workable answer? I know an entire planet that would be eager to hear it. Late Edit: I have been on a Ken Burns kick lately on Netflix. His film on Prohibition was wonderful and I would wholeheartedly recommend that anyone who is interested in the subject of "legislating morality for the common good" watch it. http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70281600?strkid=1587548258_0_0&trkid=222336&movieid=70281600