Question for suncat: Legalizing pot: Good or bad idea?

[bigsky]

Since I was the ONE Montana Mayor to face the issue of Medical pot head on make it work for the city, patients, non smokers, I can tell you that the testimony and people who called me made a significant difference in my decision making. You are heartless and unknowing not to allow MMJ. And by "you" I mean the current president and his Feds whose attacks on Montana citizens are egregious.

Mayor Krauss' ordinance built on our local govt zoning and police powers to limit the # of providers, prohibit public use, keep providers in industrial zones only, not in retail, residential or entry ways, at least 1000 ft from schools, and we already prohibit off premises advertising so there was no proliferation of billboards.

Here is an excellent film about the issue in my state.

http://www.codeofthewestfilm.com/trailer

I was on a panel following the showing of the film in BZN.

Other Cities and towns ignored or banned.

[CitizenBBN]

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/new...est=latestnews

The death toll and damage done abroad by our drug policies more than overwhelms the death toll from direct drug overdose and use in the US. It's pure carnage in Mexico now. Demand for heroin has funded the Taliban and thus Al Queda. Columbia, Peru, it's a long list. All from the consumption of illegal drugs.

Even if direct use went up, and it's doubtful it will given the empirical data, the death toll in the US would drop precipitously.

Nice piece from a narcotics officer on the damage the war itself does in lost officers and innocent people killed: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/rich...r-facts-090109

We have to count those deaths too, the families destroyed b/c dad didn't come home from battling the drug lords.

So he started brooding on the drug war's body count. "Baltimore is a city of just a hair over 600,000 people. Our annual homicide rate was fluctuating between 240 and 300 every year for decades. Think about that: 240 to 300 homicides annually, and 75 percent to 80 percent are drug related. It's either gangs that are using drugs to support operations, or territorial disputes among drug dealers, or people just getting caught in the line of fire. And Baltimore is a small city compared to others," Franklin notes. "So we're not talking a handful of homicides; we're talking about the majority of the homicides in any city in the U.S. So if you add those cities up — just lowball it, take just 50 percent — I guarantee you, you'll find the numbers are quite similar to what they have in Mexico."

I took his advice. In 2007, the last year for which hard numbers are available, 16,425 people were murdered. Since our most recent Census said that 79 percent of the country is urban, I cut out the rural Americans — although there's plenty of drug use there, too — and came up with 12,975 urban homicides. Low-balling that number at 50 percent, I arrived at a rough estimate of 6,487 drug deaths. Using 75 percent, the toll rises to 9,731.

"And now we've got the cartel gangs coming up from Mexico," Franklin reminds me. "They're in over 130 cities in the U.S. already, and it's not going to get better."


That's just outright deaths. Wounded is a multiple of that as the data from Chicago shows, and that doesn't include rural drug related deaths at all. Total casualties in the tens of thousands every year, easily. Not counting just the lost lives of those pulled into gangs, or the misery of living in communities ravaged by them.

That doesn't count the $50 billion/year this article comes up with, which is conservative b/c it's just a few cost items and not any revenue from taxation (net of expenditures to fight drug use). You can help a lot of people, fund a lot of rehab, with $50 billion.

Stop building prisons and start building rehab facilities. All expenses paid, no questions asked. Allow legal production and sale, like with liquor and tobacco licensing, which will cut overdoses and give us the ability to send people to get help. Start with pot, but yes we need to do the same with the hard drugs if we're to really end this nightmare.

We'd save the lives of far more drug users, save many tens of thousands of lives of people pulled into gangs and cartels or killed by them, free entire communities of the drug trade that helps keep out jobs and economic development, destroy the economic base of some of our enemies abroad and save lives and nations all over the world. Just drive through the drug riddled areas of our inner cities. No business is going to move there.

Remember the watch repairman story? That's what the war on drugs is doing to this country. His neighborhood was taken over by gangs, which is all about drugs. He was shot multiple times, killed 5 people, his community taken over by despair and violence.

The story of violence in this country doesn't begin with guns or video games. It begins with the war on drugs that has created the black market that drives the bulk of criminal activity in this country.

[cattails]

Lets see if I ave this straight after reading your stories. All of you want to make it legal for even more young and old adults to use mind altering drugs where you you truly have no idea what you are doing while endangering people's lives whie you operate a vehicle on a hwy, put more cancer causing drugs into more people, make it legal for young adults to get hooked on a drug tat can and does lead to more drugs to get even higher....don't tell me I can't because I have seen too many kids in my community who have ruined their lives, committed suicide (ask Darryl), my own cousin has spent time in jail for years...all wo started on pot and the only reason all of you have stated is to get more tax dollars. And of course the limp excuse of the lost war on drugs while not addressing the fact the war could easily be won IF the higher up chain in politics were not being bought off. And somehow you seem to think that by being legall It might shut down drug lords and gangs w/o ever thinking those same people are not going to lse that stream of income and will just sell it cheaper on the streets w/o collecting any tax and the same people will still continue to steal so tey can sell the stuff to buy that drug trying to find that initial high of the first time.

Either most of you are still using or think everything you did was funny and want your children to enjoy that same "fun"

Again I say ask Darryl how funny he thinks it is

Skip pull up on those horses, pot should not be used outside the home, a person should not be behind the wheel of a car. Alcohol is a much worse selection than pot. Pot puts you in contact with people who have other control substances for sale, legal sales could stop or slow this down. The tax on pot could help each state a great deal as well as the fed. Let's see.....................the strongest thing I drink is wine, don't drink beer or anything else. Why???????????????? because it effects my heart. Would I smoke pot if it were legal? Nope, not at all. Would I put some hash or pot oil in food to help me sleep, sure I would, that's about the only reason I drink wine, I have a very hard time sleeping. If I get 4 to 6 hours sleep that is a good night. My point is, we allow a substance that does more harm than a substance that is not legal and will be used regardless. Trust me I have a great deal of experience with both pot and alcohol (in my younger days almost 40 years past). Legal or not has little effect on me, but I see the advantages of legal controlled pot sales.

[jazyd]

Sorry but I see no reason whatsoever in introducing more young children to something that does nothing other than harming them physically.

[Catmandrew]

Given enough empirical evidence, I can be swayed to either side of any issue. Not so for our friend Jazy I guess. Once his mind is made up, nothing can change it. I've concluded you MUST be kin to my wife

[jazyd]

So far no one has given me any evidence as to why it would be good to legalize a drug to young adults that can and will lead to stronger drugs, can and has lead to suicides in young adults, can and has lead many to steal to be able to buy their habit, has and can alter their minds. Instead of trying to rid our country of drugs many want to legalize it for pot which eventually will create a class that will want to legalize other more potent drugs all in the same arguments given here. Same arguments given for illegal aliens, pass easy laws for what's already here with passive arguments and 15 years from now do it again for a larger group.

What is funny is how you and the rest do not accept anything I have sai, so in reality you are like your wife and based on how many here have admitted being a user their arguments hold no water as they only want it to be easier to get. And I still do notconsider being stoned to where you have no. Idea what you are doing as to be funny and it proves that pot does alter the mind.

God help anyone who I trounces either of my grandchildren to any of these drugs, I am old enough that I wouldn't spend many years in jail for that murder

Given enough empirical evidence, I can be swayed to either side of any issue. Not so for our friend Jazy I guess. Once his mind is made up, nothing can change it. I've concluded you MUST be kin to my wife

[cattails]

Sorry but I see no reason whatsoever in introducing more young children to something that does nothing other than harming them physically.

I think you need to be 21 before you buy/use marijane, I think alcohol does more harm to young people and older as well. In reality I don't have a dog in the fight, so it matters little to me.

[cattails]

Let's break this down: I don't think marijuana is addictive, I have yet to see anyone get angry and want to fight, it has relaxing effect, makes you hungry and does make almost anything funny. Does not cause hallucinations unless laced with another drug. I don't like the idea of smoking marijuana as that would be unhealthy much like tobacco. Using oil extracts put in food seems the safe way to go and get the desired effect. Number 1 reason to make it legal is to get it out of the hands of dealers, breaks the chain where you come in contact with dealers that have other products which should not be legal IMO. The government could tax, creating revenue and even at that rate it is doubtful dealers could sell for profit any where close to what they get now. Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC is the active ingredient in marijuana and different plants will have higher content, this would be a grading system as sales are concerned. I see less harm here than with alcohol and tobacco.

Alcohol: in excess destroys the liver, DUI (same with marijuana), causes some people to get angry, want to fight and can cause hallucinations or even death in excess, but it is legal and taxed to the limit, takes very little cost to make. On it's own I have seen more destruction of life, family and loss of money. Of the 2 I think alcohol is much worse with end results. Either in moderation can be a good experience.

Tobacco: A very addictive product in any form, has it's own chemical high and is the source of death for many people. Could be the worst of the 3 products, 2 of which are legal and one becoming legal in some states.

Like I said I have no dog in this fight, I don't smoke tobacco or indulge in any form, don't take part in any marijuana use and only drink a little wine in the evening or when my heart goes out of rhythm. Been many years since I have had a real buzz on any substance, but I did have my day in my mid 20's. Jazy aka Skip has his right to see all this in a different light, that is the American way and I support his right to express his feelings no matter if I agree or not. This is a simple debate on the subject matter.

[CitizenBBN]

What is funny is how you and the rest do not accept anything I have said,

I accept everything you've said. I agree pot is dangerous for people, I would rather no one smoke it, that for some it leads to worse drugs.

The question is how we address those things. Do we keep it illegal and arrest everyone who gets near it or do we legalize it and try to combat it that way? Given that 50% of high school seniors have tried pot, and that number has been consistent since 1975, and given your personal experiences, I'd say the current approach isn't working, wouldn't you?

Why not try the same approach we have with tobacco, which has proven quite successful? Smoking is declining across the board despite being far more legal than anyone is suggesting for pot (i.e. smoking in public places). Or treating it like we do alcohol, which also has numerous social ills? Even for all its ills the net damage done to the nation from alcohol is far lower now than under Prohibition.

Supporting legalization has nothing to do with supporting use of pot. It does for some no doubt, but a very large and growing number of people are supporting legalization b/c they don't support use of pot and most certainly don't support the collateral damage of the war on drugs, which has grown to be as bad or worse than the drug problem itself.

[kritikalcat]

I think it's pretty cool that we can have this debate and nobody - even Jazyd, who is obviously strongly opposed to legalization - has trotted out the canard that anyone who supports legalization must be a dopehead.

[TheBluesZZZ]

Let me add my two cents worth. Prohibitionists howl about cannabis legalization while whiskey and beer distilleries run wide open,tobacco kills millions, (more than ALL illegal drugs together). Then church goers line up on Monday morning to load up on antidepressants and millions of other mood enhancer prescriptions. Its as if hypocrisy has no limits. Then look at cannabis. Safer than aspirin but 22 million have been arrested with extortion to pay attorneys and jail and other fines amounting into the billions. Let me end with this. There have been three groups of people persecuted in this country and the first were the Indians, then the Blacks and in our generation , the cannabis users. Lets vote out ALL politicians who continue to insist (with great hypocrisy) that cannabis should stay illegal...........The BlueZZZ

[jazyd]

Legal age does not stop those under the legal age for alcohol and tobacco from buying it nor will it stop them from getting drugs

I think you need to be 21 before you buy/use marijane, I think alcohol does more harm to young people and older as well. In reality I don't have a dog in the fight, so it matters little to me.

[bigsky]

Legal age does not stop those under the legal age for alcohol and tobacco from buying it nor will it stop them from getting drugs

So you favor an absolute ban on tobacco and alcohol too?

Prescription drugs are arguably the biggest menace in terms of illegal use of drugs. Should we ban OxyContin and all other painkillers outright?

Locking up marijuana users is lunatic crazy I the same way locking up tobacco users would be.

[Catmandrew]

"God help anyone who introduces either of my grandchildren to any of these drugs, I am old enough that I wouldn't spend many years in jail for that murder"-JazyD

Question: You gonna kill their 14 year old boyfriend/girlfriend if they were responsible? or what If they somehow discovered it and used it, (i hope they don't, btw, but it happens) and influenced somebody else? would you be ok with someone saying that about them? Pump the brakes my friend.

[Catmandrew]

Let me add my two cents worth. Prohibitionists howl about cannabis legalization while whiskey and beer distilleries run wide open,tobacco kills millions, (more than ALL illegal drugs together). Then church goers line up on Monday morning to load up on antidepressants and millions of other mood enhancer prescriptions. Its as if hypocrisy has no limits. Then look at cannabis. Safer than aspirin but 22 million have been arrested with extortion to pay attorneys and jail and other fines amounting into the billions. Let me end with this. There have been three groups of people persecuted in this country and the first were the Indians, then the Blacks and in our generation , the cannabis users. Lets vote out ALL politicians who continue to insist (with great hypocrisy) that cannabis should stay illegal...........The BlueZZZ

I agree with most of this, but I wouldn't put cannabis users in the same BOOK, much less sentence, as Native Americans or African-Americans as to their struggles. Homosexuals are the ones of our generation who are fighting for equality, but that's an argument for another thread and another time...

[TheBluesZZZ]

You're probably right Cat, it was a poor comparison. However at no time in Black or the Indian history were there 22 million jailed Indians or Blacks. 22 million is a huge number and while not as horrible as the Trail of Tears or Slavery, it is a persecution of a large number of Americans. So its time to vote prohibitionist lawmakers out. Right now.........The BlueZZZ

[cattails]

Since I was the ONE Montana Mayor to face the issue of Medical pot head on make it work for the city, patients, non smokers, I can tell you that the testimony and people who called me made a significant difference in my decision making. You are heartless and unknowing not to allow MMJ. And by "you" I mean the current president and his Feds whose attacks on Montana citizens are egregious.

Mayor Krauss' ordinance built on our local govt zoning and police powers to limit the # of providers, prohibit public use, keep providers in industrial zones only, not in retail, residential or entry ways, at least 1000 ft from schools, and we already prohibit off premises advertising so there was no proliferation of billboards.

Here is an excellent film about the issue in my state.

http://www.codeofthewestfilm.com/trailer

I was on a panel following the showing of the film in BZN.

Other Cities and towns ignored or banned.

My word what has our fed cov come to, that poor man gets min 80 years!!!!

[cattails]

Party at my house tonight, bring your own buds.

[bigsky]

My word what has our fed cov come to, that poor man gets min 80 years!!!!

The Obama administration did that.

[CitizenBBN]

The Obama administration did that.

Yet they called the 76,000 denied NICS background checks last year, which is often a felon trying to obtain a gun and failing, "paper violations" they chose to not prosecute. interesting priorities.

[UKHistory]

The hallucinations you mentioned gets to me. It is scary to watch a loved one not be themsevles. When I say scary I mean SCARY.

Worst I ever saw was my grandmother and I have no idea what type of pills she was on in the hospital--it was not pot. I say that to emphasize illegal and prescription drugs are not play things.

I don't drink and I doubt very, very seriously I would smoke pot. I think it should be legalized because the prohibion does not work. Not because I think it is harmless or whatever.

I would hope that people would avoid the stuff. Alcohol is legal but you don't have to drink it. Doctors once prescribed cocaine for headaches.

There is a great distinction in being good or healthy and being legal.

I have not nor will I ever se any drugs legal or otherwise unless it is prescribed by my doctor and will not use the mari for sickness with cancer should I ever have that. My wife had cancer and was prescribed that pill to help with sickness, it only took one pill and watching her hallucinations while sitting on the bathroom floor unable to stand to et me know how I felt about it.My cousin went to jail for selling the wee and cannot work this day because of his habit
My neighbors son started on weed in jr hi school, stole at the mall and sold the things to get money to buy more. He graduate to more drugs and ended up committing suicide. He also scored 34 on his act test
Another friend from church had his oldest son commit suicide last fall while in college. According to the letter he left he started on weed and went from there
Two boys that graduated with my daughter, one suicide at age 27 from drugs, the other s a music groupie that stays stoned at age z31.
Darryl's great looking son, suicide, drugs
So all the trouble is claimed because it is illegal and there will be no trouble I guess if it is legal is what s being said.

The stories written here are all made it look like it was just a ball of fun to be stoned. I guess I don't find it to be funny

[Padukacat]

Well, ive tried em all, and the thing that scares me is how messed up you can get in just a few minutes smoking pot. You legalize it and increase acceptance then your gonna have a ton of teens out there driving high. Medical use, why not. Legalizing a drug of any kind takes it from outlandish to acceptable to the masses. As for the war on drugs, that has its own issues.

[Crazy4Blue]

I grew up in a neighborhood filled with this garbage. My next door neighbors brains were fried and many others around me were constantly out of their minds because of this. In my experience pot is FAR worse than alcohol and cigarettes. Like alcohol, some may use it and show no signs of deterioration, but a large fraction of homes will be destroyed by it.

[bigsky]

I wonder if the Cleveland police had been a little less concerned about someone smoking a joint, could they have responded better to those years of calls about naked women on leashes?

[Doc]

Typical trip to McDonalds's:

You're in the drive-thru lane and the guys tell you what they want.

No way you can remember all that so you tell everybody to order for themselves.

You get to the order window: Welcome to McDonald's! Would you like to try blah blah, blah, blah, blah?

Everybody laughs.

Guys leaning all over each other to get to the window so the girl can hear. More laughing.

Girl reads back lengthy order. More, harder laughing.

Drive around to pay, get change back.

Drive forward. Forgot food.

Back up and get food.

Put foot on gas pedal. Oops! Still in reverse.

Everyone, including the girl at the window, laughing really hard.

Man, this is the best food ever!!!

IMO not much different than Drunk Driving. Not something I'd personally find funny. If pot was ever legalized, the penalty for DWS (driving while stoned) should be every bit as harsh as DWI (driving while intoxicated, aka DUI=driving under the influence)

As for the legalization, I'm fine with legalizing it. I'm fine with legalizing pretty much anything so long as its done responsibly and usage does not inhibit others freedoms.

[Doc]

Can we get by the "it being illegal hasn't stopped it" excuse. The exact same thing could be stated nearly any crime. As an example I'll use alcohol to minors. We have laws the prohibit the sale of alcohol to minors yet I don't know any teenager that hasn't had alcohol so do we say lets forget about even trying? I think not. The get rid of laws because they don't work is a bogus argument in nearly every case its used. The law is there in part to punish violators as well as discourage use.

Personally, I'm with Jazy though. I find nothing funny about driving impaired. Some might even find it offensive. However as I stated above, what folks do to themselves is their business. Smoking, drinking, gay marriage etc, with the extreme being abortion... all fall in the same category for me. It's the individuals choice to do it or not, so long as others are not affected. I don't look at legalizing anything as a revenue generator, that's for sure but I do look at it from a personal choice end.

[CitizenBBN]

Can we get by the "it being illegal hasn't stopped it" excuse. The exact same thing could be stated nearly any crime. As an example I'll use alcohol to minors. We have laws the prohibit the sale of alcohol to minors yet I don't know any teenager that hasn't had alcohol so do we say lets forget about even trying? I think not. The get rid of laws because they don't work is a bogus argument in nearly every case its used. The law is there in part to punish violators as well as discourage use.

No, we can't, b/c it's a perfectly valid approach to policy making, as opposed to wishful thinking or using the power of the state to declare our beliefs and ignore a basic prima facia part of policy making, whether it will actually help solve the problem in a meaningful way.

Laws that are useless should be re-evaluated, challenged, and at times even scrubbed if they are a) doing none of the things for which they were intended, and b) causing ill in other ways. Laws don't exist simply as statements of our belief system. You can keep that approach in churches and such places where it belongs. In the world of Caesar it's about results, and if a law isn't working it's time to try something else.

A law doesn't have to be perfect, or have perfect enforcement, that's an absurd standard, but it does have to have a net benefit to society and ideally have the largest net benefit of the possible Constitutional alternatives. If it is not the optimal solution or in the end does more harm than good b/c we just want the world to be different then it needs to be modified, replaced, or scrapped altogether.

The law against minors buying alcohol does prevent some underage consumption, just as the ban on pot could prevent some underage pot consumption. But what are the negatives of the age limit on alcohol sales? Are millions of teens placed in the criminal justice system for underage drinking? Are we diverting lots of resources to sting everyone with liquor licenses? Of course not, b/c the current alcohol laws were made in response to the realization that a complete ban was doing almost nothing to reduce consumption but was causing massive ills in other ways. So instead of a complete ban we have laws prohibiting sales to minors, and while we know they are imperfect they can help somewhat WITHOUT causing a lot of other harm.

The cost/benefit of the law you cite makes sense. The cost/benefit of a complete ban on alcohol, or pot, does not, and it's ironic you chose a law created directly from the realization that the cost/benefit of a law is important and even more important in most cases than our moral or ethical beliefs. Laws about underage drinking are a direct result of the repeal of Prohibition, the national realization that a complete ban in such a free society was doing more harm than good.

So "it's not doing any good" or "being illegal hasn't stopped it" is in fact a very important point. Instead of going along fooling ourselves or making a point of principle while people are having lives ruined and being killed in droves it hopefully makes us question our current approaches and ask if there isn't something better. Like legalizing pot, regulating it much like alcohol or tobacco, taxing it and using the revenue to try to get people to stop using it or at least consume it responsibly.

[BigBluePappy]

IMO not much different than Drunk Driving. Not something I'd personally find funny. If pot was ever legalized, the penalty for DWS (driving while stoned) should be every bit as harsh as DWI (driving while intoxicated, aka DUI=driving under the influence)

As for the legalization, I'm fine with legalizing it. I'm fine with legalizing pretty much anything so long as its done responsibly and usage does not inhibit others freedoms.

This.

[CitizenBBN]

The good news, and I agree driving under the influence of anything that distorts reality is very dangerous, is that many "DUI" laws already cover illegal drug impairment in some fashion and many have been expanded to cover even legally prescribed drugs one should not take and drive or take to excess and get behind the wheel.

The tobacco and alcohol laws provide a great example of how you regulate consumption in public places, access by minors, pretty much every implementation issue. Fortunately or unfortunately we already have two very popular vices that have already been extensively addressed, we need only follow those lessons. Getting behind the wheel stoned or drunk or otherwise impaired is all equally bad to me, and is under many of our current laws.

For example Kentucky has a separate BAC level for those under 21 since they aren't supposed to be drinking at all in theory. It's 0.02%, near zero tolerance, and that is in addition to any possession charges. We'd have to come up with some measurement of "how stoned" I suppose, b/c even if the number is "0" we have to have a way to measure someone is over it. I'm sure that's doable.

[Doc]

No, we can't, b/c it's a perfectly valid approach to policy making, as opposed to wishful thinking or using the power of the state to declare our beliefs and ignore a basic prima facia part of policy making, whether it will actually help solve the problem in a meaningful way.

Laws that are useless should be re-evaluated, challenged, and at times even scrubbed if they are a) doing none of the things for which they were intended, and b) causing ill in other ways. Laws don't exist simply as statements of our belief system. You can keep that approach in churches and such places where it belongs. In the world of Caesar it's about results, and if a law isn't working it's time to try something else.

A law doesn't have to be perfect, or have perfect enforcement, that's an absurd standard, but it does have to have a net benefit to society and ideally have the largest net benefit of the possible Constitutional alternatives. If it is not the optimal solution or in the end does more harm than good b/c we just want the world to be different then it needs to be modified, replaced, or scrapped altogether.

The law against minors buying alcohol does prevent some underage consumption, just as the ban on pot could prevent some underage pot consumption. But what are the negatives of the age limit on alcohol sales? Are millions of teens placed in the criminal justice system for underage drinking? Are we diverting lots of resources to sting everyone with liquor licenses? Of course not, b/c the current alcohol laws were made in response to the realization that a complete ban was doing almost nothing to reduce consumption but was causing massive ills in other ways. So instead of a complete ban we have laws prohibiting sales to minors, and while we know they are imperfect they can help somewhat WITHOUT causing a lot of other harm.

The cost/benefit of the law you cite makes sense. The cost/benefit of a complete ban on alcohol, or pot, does not, and it's ironic you chose a law created directly from the realization that the cost/benefit of a law is important and even more important in most cases than our moral or ethical beliefs. Laws about underage drinking are a direct result of the repeal of Prohibition, the national realization that a complete ban in such a free society was doing more harm than good.

So "it's not doing any good" or "being illegal hasn't stopped it" is in fact a very important point. Instead of going along fooling ourselves or making a point of principle while people are having lives ruined and being killed in droves it hopefully makes us question our current approaches and ask if there isn't something better. Like legalizing pot, regulating it much like alcohol or tobacco, taxing it and using the revenue to try to get people to stop using it or at least consume it responsibly.

Good job. Thanks for making my case in a classic "wall of text". The idea that a law doesn't work 100% of the time doesn't mean the law should be removed, as is frequently suggested. I'm sure there are some folks who don't smoke pot simply because it is illegal. Other folks ignore the law and do it anyway. That does not make the law useless or mean a law should be "scrubbed".

If the argument is its not fiscally responsible then fine. Make that argument. If the argument its not beneficial to society, great. Make that argument. If the argument is the punishment of the law is excessive then fine. Make that argument. If the argument is the law isn't enforceable then fine. Make that argument. But to simply suggest that because a law doesn't work it should be removed, as was suggested above, lacks a reason.