Do bans work?

[Lamb]

I'm not talking about bans from sites.

Do bans work on guns? Do bans work on alcohol (the US went through Prohibition from 1920-1933). How about the ban on drugs?

 

[psalms 91]

Evidence shows that they do not unless the will of the people is behind it. A ban usually only creates a black market for whatever the product is

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm not talking about bans from sites.

Do bans work on guns? Do bans work on alcohol (the US went through Prohibition from 1920-1933). How about the ban on drugs?

Bans do not work but taxes and other forms of access limitation do work.

 

[hedrick]

There's been a lot of research. A few years ago the National Research Council reviewed the research and concluded that there was no clear evidence that bans helped. More recently there has been work suggesting that while there's no single policy, careful combinations of policies may help.

Here's a summary of some of that evidence: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientific-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-saves-lives, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hughes-bryant-gun-violence-research-20180226-story.html#, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post.

It's not a surprise the evidence is hard to assess. It's not an area where you can do controlled studies. You have to look at the results of policy changes or differences, and there are usually things other than those policies that might affect the results.

 

[tango]

Evidence shows that they do not unless the will of the people is behind it. A ban usually only creates a black market for whatever the product is

Unless "the people" means almost all of the people you'll still just get the black market.

These days "the people have spoken" usually means that 51% of the people agree with something so the 49% don't matter because they got outvoted, only for opinions to shift ever so slightly come the next electoral cycle. It's a pretty good argument for smaller government, if you ask me.

As you say if there's the demand then legislation does nothing to make the demand go away. It does make for nice profits for the people meeting the demand.

 

[tango]

Bans do not work but taxes and other forms of access limitation do work.

Taxes only work if you can apply them uniformly across all supply, otherwise they just make it harder for lawful suppliers to compete.

In the UK there are two competing lines of thought where smoking is concerned, and two main pressure groups. There's ASH (action on smoking and health) and FOREST (freedom of rights to enjoy smoking tobacco). From their names you won't be surprised to know that ASH seeks more restrictions on smoking and more taxes on tobacco and FOREST seeks the reverse. The trouble is that it's pretty easy to get on a ferry to France and load up on cheap cigarettes. Many refer to "duty free" but within the EU there's a different concept called "duty paid", which essentially means that if you paid the duties in the country you bought them there are no further duties to pay if you move them across national borders.

It's illegal to bring duty-paid tobacco into the UK for resale but since the profits are very nice people do it. And every time the government increases the tax on a pack of cigarettes it puts more money into the pocket of the French government and more money into the pockets of the bootleggers who ferry the cigarettes around. The great thing about bootlegging is that the product you are carrying is perfectly legal - if you get caught with 10,000 cigarettes you can say you smoke 40 a day and you just bought a year's worth on your annual trip to France - it's not like being caught with even a couple of grams of cocaine.

In the UK research suggests that the essentially law-abiding smoker will buy from a bootlegger if they save 30% or more compared to a mainstream retailer. What the government should arguably do is cut the taxes such that the bootleggers can't make more than about a 25% profit, thereby driving the average smoker back to the regulated retailers and directing the taxes into the UK coffers rather than the French coffers. As far as I can see FOREST gets this, ASH does not.

I have little skin in the game either way since I'm not a smoker, but I think the logic is pretty compelling.

 

[Krissy Cakes]

I don't think they work as you can get them (guns) anywhere.

 

[Albion]

No, bans do not work if there is a strong will to have the commodity, whatever it is.

And taxes only force the purchases into the black market--which may reduce demand somewhat, but at the cost of a rise in lawbreaking and violence.

 

[NewCreation435]

I'm not talking about bans from sites.

Do bans work on guns? Do bans work on alcohol (the US went through Prohibition from 1920-1933). How about the ban on drugs?

In most cases, it doesn't appear to work.
I saw something on television where one country (I think it was the Swiss) that have guns all over the place, but they also have a gun class you have to go to and training and they don't have anywhere near the kind of shootings that America has

 

[tango]

In most cases, it doesn't appear to work.
I saw something on television where one country (I think it was the Swiss) that have guns all over the place, but they also have a gun class you have to go to and training and they don't have anywhere near the kind of shootings that America has

The thing with guns and violence is that the link isn't as clear as people on both sides would have us think.

If it was as simple as "more guns = more violence" then Switzerland would be a bloodbath. If it was as simple as "more guns = less violence" then South Africa would be a paradise.

With regard to bans it's certainly possible, if you have at least some useful control over borders, to introduce a ban on something. The more determined will get it anyway and others will simply use an alternative. In the UK you can't just go into a sporting goods store and buy a gun the way you can in the US - if you want a handgun you're going to have to deal with the criminal underworld. It doesn't solve the problem of violence - London has issues with knife crime because there's no way you can do much to control people using kitchen knives and the like.

 

[SilkenBast]

I'm not talking about bans from sites.

Do bans work on guns? Do bans work on alcohol (the US went through Prohibition from 1920-1933). How about the ban on drugs?

Do you mean

1) Are bans effective in the sense of total erradication of a product
or substance?

or

2) Are bans effective in limiting a product or substance?


If you mean (1), then no. As long as demand exists so will prohibited
substances and products

If you mean (2), then it depends. Some substances are easier to
obtain as it is as easy as growing them (for instance tobacco and Cannabis
and other plants that are limited or outright banned by governments).
Some substances are harder because they require special skills and
equiptment to produce (like LSD or certain pharmaceutical substances).
Some products are even harder as they likewise require special equiptment
to manufacture (such as firearms and bullets), however the availability
is proportionate to the amounts already available in the marketplace, and
how long they have been.

Among what you listed, alcohol is by far the easiest to obtain. It can
be made out many different plants, not just fruit and sweet plants. A little
more knowledge is required for producing it out of non sweet plant material,
but it is not beyond the ordinary man's reach to do so. This is why I laugh
at certain Muslim clerics and their fantasy ideas of implementing an alcohol
free society by "limiting fruit for a while". Don't they know that a substancial
amount of alcohol made during the US's alcohol prohibition was
from grains and potatoes?

 

[Lamb]

Hedrick, thank you for the links. I noticed that they gave some evidence that having stricter laws might have saved some people but I admit I didn't read every article thoroughly to see if they addressed the gang related gun purchases? I used to live near Chicago and there's no way a gang member is going to abide by any law. If he wants a gun, he'll get a gun (or she). If he wants to kill, he'll kill (or she).

When I asked if banning works I was thinking more in line that we place bans on things because we think we're protecting people from harm. Do bans end up protecting people in the end?

 

[tango]

Hedrick, thank you for the links. I noticed that they gave some evidence that having stricter laws might have saved some people but I admit I didn't read every article thoroughly to see if they addressed the gang related gun purchases? I used to live near Chicago and there's no way a gang member is going to abide by any law. If he wants a gun, he'll get a gun (or she). If he wants to kill, he'll kill (or she).

When I asked if banning works I was thinking more in line that we place bans on things because we think we're protecting people from harm. Do bans end up protecting people in the end?

The issue of whether bans on guns (or other weapons) saves lives needs to look at both sides of the equation.

If weapons are outlawed then hopefully there would be fewer incidents like school shootings and less violence on the streets. The flip side is that the law-abiding then become sitting targets for criminals who don't care about breaking laws. The crucial question has to be how many attacks are prevented or shortened because of weapons, compared to how many attacks are facilitated or exacerbated by weapons.

 

[Andrew]

You have to cut out the root not just the limb... in other words sinners need God, bullies need God, killers need God, thieves need God etc.
God banished two people and woe to all humanity save his children.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Bans of Marriage have been around for a long time. (Also called Banns of Marriage)

Do they work?

==============================================================================================

 

[Josiah]

Do bans work on guns? Do bans work on alcohol (the US went through Prohibition from 1920-1933). How about the ban on drugs?

Do laws work?

To a degree.... otherwise, God would not have bothered with the Ten Commandments and no nation would have laws (and CH would have no rules)...

But ONLY to a degree. When all "buy" into it (and see the SELF interest in it), it works well. Witness how drivers stay on the correct side of the road. When popular morality affirms the laws, there is wide spread conformity. I think, too, laws can work as a "curb" (if only out of fear of punishment)... Why don't I drive my Miata at 120 MPH (God knows I want to!)? In part, because I could get caught and the punishment would be severe! And laws reveal social morality, and I think MOST consider that - society (and/or God) thinks this is wrong (and that influences MOST). But we need law enforcement, courts, jails, etc. because laws only work to a degree.

Where laws have little impact (as in Prohibition) is where they seem arbitrary and out of synch with popular public morality; there simply is no police state powerful enough to enforce laws many/most morally reject. The great majority NEED to "buy into" the law (at least partly) for it to be enforceable - otherwise, the law is pretty meaningless. This is why IMO an outright ban on all abortions probably wouldn't work... BUT attitudes about abortion is changing, abortion rates are falling, we can address this incrementally, and the day will come (perhaps soon) when all life can be legally protected - as an enforceable law. Laws can be a BIT "ahead" of public morals (to tug at them) but not completely out of synch (I'd give the California war on tobacco smoking as a prime example)




- Josiah

 

[hedrick]

Prohibition actually did have a major effect. It also created criminal empires that are still with us. I don’t think it was repealed because it had no effect, but because people decided they didn’t like the effects. Mostly, the people who wanted to drink won over Prohibitionists.

 

[tango]

It's impossible to ban something that is more or less entirely natural.

Yeast turns sugar into alcohol. It's a biological process that's verifiable and repeatable. You may pass a law saying you're not allowed to do it but how can you possibly enforce it? It's legal to own sugar, it's legal to own yeast, both are used for utterly unrelated purposes, so trying to ban alcohol is a waste of time and resources at best.

Likewise marijuana is a plant. Put seeds in the ground and it will grow, just like any other plant. Again you can pass a law saying you're not allowed to grow it but does anyone really think such a law will have any effect?

 

[Josiah]

Likewise marijuana is a plant. Put seeds in the ground and it will grow, just like any other plant. Again you can pass a law saying you're not allowed to grow it but does anyone really think such a law will have any effect?

I think so....

My Miata will go 120 MPH. Why haven't I driven it at that speed? Well, IN PART, because there's a law. I'd like to, but...

I would like to park my Miata in my driveway (rather than at my parent's house). Why don't I? My HOA doesn't allow it. I'd like to, but...

Lots of people would like to smoke anywhere they like in California. Why don't they? It's illegal in many public places. They'd like to, but....

Laws DO impact behavior - at least to a degree. Even when the law is disliked.



Now, I DO think laws have limitations, and I spoke of that in my post above.



- Josiah

 

[tango]

I think so....

My Miata will go 120 MPH. Why haven't I driven it at that speed? Well, IN PART, because there's a law. I'd like to, but...

I would like to park my Miata in my driveway (rather than at my parent's house). Why don't I? My HOA doesn't allow it. I'd like to, but...

Lots of people would like to smoke anywhere they like in California. Why don't they? It's illegal in many public places. They'd like to, but....

Laws DO impact behavior - at least to a degree. Even when the law is disliked.



Now, I DO think laws have limitations, and I spoke of that in my post above.



- Josiah

All of the scenarios you use have a common factor - the public element.

In my younger days I had a car that would go to 140mph. The highest speed limit on any road in the UK is 70mph. One night I still took the car to 135 - I would have tested 140 but ran out of fast road and needed to slow down. Why didn't the law stop me? Because there was nothing else on the road, and specifically no police patrol cars around.

Parking on your driveway would be a clearly visible violation of rules. Smoking weed in public would be a clearly visible violation of the rules. How many people who might like to smoke weed in public but don't because of the rules, still do so in private despite the same rules?

Edit: I saw "smoke" and "illegal" and put the weed bit in, forgetting that smoking tobacco is legal in some places and illegal in others. The underlying point remains that the issue of public activity is very different to the issue of private activity. A ban on smoking in public makes at least some sense and is likely to be at least broadly obeyed. A ban on smoking in your own home (whether tobacco or something more exotic) makes no sense as it's all but impossible to enforce it.

Yes, laws impact behavior, but often only to the extent of following "Thou shalt not get caught".

Edit: Since you replied to my comment about marijuana being a plant I think it's relevant to the discussion to note that I don't use weed. If it were made legal overnight and I could buy it over the counter anywhere I still wouldn't use it. The reason I don't use it is a lack of desire rather than fear of the law. If I were minded to use it the law would be unlikely to stop me from growing a couple of plants in the attic for personal use, given the vanishingly small probability of anybody ever finding it.