You're making a (fallacious) slippery slope argument by refusing to admit a middle ground. Further, every law exists for (some portion of) society's benefit.

You're making a (fallacious) slippery slope argument by refusing to admit a middle ground. Further, every law exists for (some portion of) society's benefit. What else are laws for? That's why I keep asking, if the application of a law doesn't have any benefit to anybody, why do we need it? Because then we might scrap other laws, or other applications of the same law? Again, slippery slope.