3 ms·

If you have a law that does absolutely no good, why should it exist? The politicians should have to excuse their impositions upon us, we should not have to excu

If you have a law that does absolutely no good, why should it exist? The politicians should have to excuse their impositions upon us, we should not have to excuse our private behavior.

naz 16y ago
What if having a law against murder didn't decrease the murder rate? Texting while driving is obviously a bad thing and it should be illegal.
- TallGuyShort 16y ago
  Murder isn't a very good analogy in this case. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think texting should be legal, but they make a fair point: if texting is illegal, people still do it, but in a way that takes their eyes even further off the road. The same can't be said of murder - a law against murder doesn't increase the risk of someone getting murdered. Drugs might be a better analogy - making a drug illegal doesn't eradicate the use of the drug. Even if it decreases use, it will just push a lot of people underground, which might make the situation even less controllable. It sounds ridiculous to say drugs should be legal, but the consequences of specific laws against them do need to be carefully considered if the end goal really is to improve society as a whole. Ultimately, I think the only real solution is their last point: as a whole, we really need people to start realizing how dangerous it is to text while driving, and how severe the consequences are.
- chc 16y ago
  That is illogical. The purpose of laws is not to fit your ideas of propriety — their purpose is to either prevent bad things from happening or mitigate the damage when bad things do happen. A law that does not do this is a failed law — at best an embarrassment to our legal system, at worst a cause of unintended harm. And yes, I'll go that far: If outlawing murder were ineffective at curbing murder, it would be incumbent on us to come up with a better solution. Standing on principle while people die is neither moral nor practical.
hdctambien 16y ago
see: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3379012&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3379012&page=1 I'm all for you doing whatever you want in private, but when you're controlling something that could kill you, your passengers, and anyone else that just happens to be around you then you are behaving in public behavior. I appreciate this law, although I imagine it won't take hold until the next generation or so of drivers take the road. Like seatbelt laws, I automatically put my seatbelt on everytime I get in a car. My parents still forget sometimes... difference is, I grew up with that law. They grew up not even having seatbelts in cars.

If you have a law that does absolutely no good, why should it exist? The politicians should have to excuse their impositions upon us, we should not have to excuse our private behavior.

naz 16y ago

What if having a law against murder didn't decrease the murder rate? Texting while driving is obviously a bad thing and it should be illegal.

TallGuyShort 16y ago
Murder isn't a very good analogy in this case. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think texting should be legal, but they make a fair point: if texting is illegal, people still do it, but in a way that takes their eyes even further off the road. The same can't be said of murder - a law against murder doesn't increase the risk of someone getting murdered. Drugs might be a better analogy - making a drug illegal doesn't eradicate the use of the drug. Even if it decreases use, it will just push a lot of people underground, which might make the situation even less controllable. It sounds ridiculous to say drugs should be legal, but the consequences of specific laws against them do need to be carefully considered if the end goal really is to improve society as a whole. Ultimately, I think the only real solution is their last point: as a whole, we really need people to start realizing how dangerous it is to text while driving, and how severe the consequences are.
chc 16y ago
That is illogical. The purpose of laws is not to fit your ideas of propriety — their purpose is to either prevent bad things from happening or mitigate the damage when bad things do happen. A law that does not do this is a failed law — at best an embarrassment to our legal system, at worst a cause of unintended harm. And yes, I'll go that far: If outlawing murder were ineffective at curbing murder, it would be incumbent on us to come up with a better solution. Standing on principle while people die is neither moral nor practical.

hdctambien 16y ago

see: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3379012&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3379012&page=1 I'm all for you doing whatever you want in private, but when you're controlling something that could kill you, your passengers, and anyone else that just happens to be around you then you are behaving in public behavior. I appreciate this law, although I imagine it won't take hold until the next generation or so of drivers take the road. Like seatbelt laws, I automatically put my seatbelt on everytime I get in a car. My parents still forget sometimes... difference is, I grew up with that law. They grew up not even having seatbelts in cars.