[Goose]

I've never quite bought the argument that just because some people might break the law means you should legalize it.

Neither have I. Heroin and Fentanyl are illegal and undoubtedly will continue to be. However, when a "significant" slice of society, not just "some people" believes that some particular action should be perfectly legal and flouts the law, the law ceases to be useful. We simply can't put that many people in jail. They know it and the legal system knows it. In fact, the law becomes a positive hindrance to the rule of law. If some laws can't be enforced and are flouted, why not all laws?

I suggested 15%-20% of the population believing the law was "wrong" is enough to require its abolition. One can argue about the numbers. There are cases when well less than that is enough. It really doesn't much matter what the harm of allowing people to do what was previously forbidden will be. They are going to do it anyway if the law can't be effectively enforced. In short, the law must reflect the "morality" of the society it regulates. It doesn't necessarily reflect an "optimum" behavior (assuming we could all agree what that is), but it hopefully reflects the "best" behavior possible given the state of society.

At one point the overwhelming majority of society thought casino gambling was basically "immoral". Being a bit older and coming from Nevada I encountered that value system first hand when traveling to neighboring states, particularly Utah. 49 states had laws against it. Indian gambling was the only loophole. Society was fine with that. Obviously not the case now.

[Goose]

I've never quite bought the argument that just because some people might break the law means you should legalize it.

Neither have I. Heroin and Fentanyl are illegal and undoubtedly will continue to be. However, when a "significant" slice of society, not just "some people" believes that some particular action should be perfectly legal and flouts the law, the law ceases to be useful. We simply can't put that many people in jail. They know it and the legal system knows it. In fact, the law becomes a positive hindrance to the rule of law. If some laws can't be enforced and are flouted, why not all laws?

I suggested 15%-20% of the population believing the law was "wrong" is enough to require its abolition. One can argue about the numbers. There are cases when well less than that is enough. It really doesn't much matter what the harm of allowing people to do what was previously forbidden will be. They are going to do it anyway if the law can't be effectively enforced. In short, the law must reflect the "morality" of the society it regulates. It doesn't necessarily reflect an "optimum" behavior (assuming we could all agree what that is), but it hopefully reflects the "best" behavior possible given the state of society.

At one point the overwhelming majority of society thought casino gambling was basically "immoral". Being a bit older and coming from Nevada I encountered that value system first hand when traveling to neighboring states, particularly Utah. 49 states had laws against it. Indian gambling was the only loophole. Society was fine with that. Obviously not the case now.