Is it hypocritical to have a law that you can't fully enforce?

This seems like a debate about the fine-line between privacy and crime prevention.

 

I was shooting more towards the effectiveness of laws.

 

Most of the laws try to force the opinions of sum, onto others. If the people themselves don't want to follow a law, then it is impossible to enforce a law that no one cares enough to mind it.

What's laws without the police? Opinions.

 

Exactly. This shows how futile laws really are. It's against the law to smoke weed and drink underage, yet millions of people break this law every year. The vast majority of Americans can be deemed criminals by the government, but they just don't all get caught.

I think that the only ethics/morals that truly matter are the ones that the individual agrees with. So if you change the ethical beliefs of the individual, on a large scale, you can basically change the behavior of an entire population. The only and best way to do this is through education, if we have more ethics/philosophy classes in school and really get kids to think rationally, then people might actually think before doing something stupid or pissing someone off.

 

Sorry for quoting myself, but I would love to have an answer for this post:

 

He's only asking if the law states something is illegal, is it hypocritical of them not to follow through with it to the highest extent.

 

And I'm asking what the acceptable extent is, to validate a law.

 

I'd say the extent is merely the limit without jeopardizing the enforcement of other laws. To find that point you'd really have to talk to someone involved in he judicial system.

 

No, my logic is that f the law is impossible to enforce without obstructing other rights, then there's probably something wrong with the law itself, and there usually is.

I believe all drug laws are flawed laws. Why should people not have the freedom to put deterring substances into their bodies if they wish? This law would require an inhibition of privacy to fully enforce. But if the government is telling us what we are/aren't allowed to do with our privacy, then aren't they already inhibiting it? The point of government isn't to tell us what's good and what's bad to do with our own bodies, it's to make sure we aren't obstructing other people's rights to life, freedom, and security.

 

The drug trade is devastating to people's lives. Have you been to Mexico? As well, the government doesn't just want people to destroy themselves...

 

Do you notice that you said the "drug trade" and not just "drugs"? The drug laws themselves are what's causing the problem, not the actual drug itself. If drugs became legal, 1. Drug prices would go down with emerging supply, so drug lords wouldn't profit as much, and 2. Many competitors that innovate and create a cleaner product would arise, therefore driving the drug lords out of business. Illegal drugs would simply join Advil and Tylenol in the pharmacy store.