Laws were meant for following not eliminating.

Every country, city, place around the world has its fair share of stupid, controversial, irrelevant and unfair laws. Everyone's agenda sides differently and people have different opinions on what should stay and what should go. But if you had it your way, and one law could be kicked out of the rulebooks, which would you choose?


Oh my, what a loaded question.

Personally, I find a lot of the laws implemented by the country are done so justifiably. Laws don't just come out of the blue sky and suddenly get passed. There's substantial debate, research, opinions, consultation and general evaluation before anything makes it into the official rulebooks of how we go about our lives. For the most part we have chosen the people in charge and have sought to employ people who we think are simply looking out for our better interest. And for those old and often seemingly stupid laws, they're certainly not being a detriment to your current lifestyle and I hardly think that officials are going around implementing them. Would you really want to waste your taxpaying dollars to reverse stupid laws that have no effect on you whatsoever? I didn't think so.

That said, I think there's a lot more laws our world should be implementing. Certainly not all at once and without the guidance of a democratic majority but definitely things to look into. Every person I asked this question to, could only think of more laws they'd want implemented, not any taken away.

I think if there's anything I'd reverse, it would be the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy found in armed forces. I think its pretty safe to say that people in the gay community hold positions in all sorts of fields and to claim ignorance for the armed forces seems highly dated. It only propagates further stigmatization amongst those in the gay community, traumatizing individuals who have to continue to keep who they are a secret. Seems like something that needs more evaluation.

Another law that needs to be thrown out is the newly implemented law regarding drivers under the age of 21 to have a 0% blood alcohol level. I think its original idea was well intended but puts young driver on the attack. I think the focus should shift more towards an inexperienced driver. Why does someone who's 22 and possibly a new driver at that, suddenly get off from such a law? I'm 20 and almost never drink. Why should I suddenly be subjected to the scrutiny and stereotype that all young people/drivers are alcoholic and irresponsible? And if drinking and driving is such a major issues, then why not enforce this rule onto every driver. Is a 40 year old experienced driver with alcohol in his system really any safer than that of a 20 year old? If the message is drinking and driving is bad, then this law has clearly missed the mark as this law just attacks young drivers as bad. That's my two cents.

P.S. just for fun, I read one answer as being 'the law of gravity' and that that to be quite the in genius idea. It would be the secret to permanent weight loss that we often battle. If only….

Powered by Plinky


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s