also look at prostitution on Backpage for another example;  they removed the escort specific category, so all the whores moved their ads to the *Personals* section  LOL

***unintended consequences??? no such thing when we genius social engineers make decisions for the rest of humanity!***

> I do believe we focus too much energy, money, bureaucracy, and punishment on things that don't work

it works as far as providing kickback and patronage to politicians and special interest groups ;>

I say we ban and make it illegal to have freedom,peace,voting,and to critical think!
;-)
Misdemeanor to smile,felony to laugh!

Banning things is one of the favourite tactics of the people you don't believe in! Works like a charm. The stated aim is NEVER the real aim...

![](https://steemitimages.com/DQmVjVtggGMXqKHPnwUwuFDLUsVNUftvfobt1qUyJ89iGCg/image.png)

See I am a firm believer in just removing all the warning labels.

That is not a hypothesis.. that is what common sense demands which sadly is not around here anymore in the world.. but you sir have plenty of it.

Instead of banning, we should try to educate people. The more bans you will impose, the more frustrated people will grow...

Well, you pretty much wrote my response for me lol... unless the unstated goal is creating black markets, ie. the war on drugs funded the CIA for decades. You're absolutely correct in all of your stated assumptions. The lure of the taboo seems to be one of the more potent of human instincts (perhaps that's the attraction of horror movies, vampires etc.). You pretty much nailed it all with this one buddy!

@dwinblood. That´s a very interesting subject. It's a post to think and reflectioning.Thanks for sharing. Upvoted and follow.

The “black” circuit let the economy run. Whatever wil be banned, will find his way through people who See money in it.
So I believe; it has no sense to forbit something

Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Relevance:Examination of Contrabad Laws

https://steemitimages.com/1360x360/https://steemitimages.com/DQmVQZLicavpMgoGLci1kQ1fPVtuxgpGbq93mnULUc4KaFi/INFORMATIONWAR%20LOGO%20final.png

_HYPOTHESIS: That banning anything never actually achieves the publicly stated goal._
back in the day..being _banned in boston_ pretty much insured profitability..

Well it depends on what you are trying to ban and what your intended goal is for the ban, but I agree banning something will not eliminate whatever you are trying to ban completely (if that is the goal) humans will always find a way to get what they want...

Since you were talking about banning guns, I would assume the goal of the ban would be to reduce gun related deaths.  All you would have to do to see if that would work, is look at the per capita gun related deaths of countries around the world.  If you compare USA and Australia for example, per capita gun related deaths in Australia are much lower than USA.  You want less gun related deaths in the USA pass similar laws to what Australia has.

Similar with the war on drugs, look at the statistics of other countries.  Portugal for example decriminalised all drugs in 2001 and it has worked for them.  Instead of spending tax dollars on the DEA/prisons/law enforcement they instead used those tax dollars on healthcare/rehab/therapy to help people.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html

It is not about banning or not banning something, it is about eliminating/creating laws/policies that benefit the most people.

> It very well may achieve an unstated goal such as creating black markets and lucrative opportunities to tap into the black market.

Well, it's in fact very very simple. And you got this **totally** right my steemed @dwinblood.

**Every.** ANY restriction, limitation, prohibition, banning, proscription, etc. Only might lead to P-R-I-V-I-L-E-G-E-S of some sort. Whatevah it may be, like exercised within a couple, a family, a clan, a tribe, a community, an entire society and well, put you the greater sample. :)

In such encounters, meetings and/or gatherings, no matter how tiny, small, big or humongous these may be. As long as they are composed with such amount of jealous, possessive, envious, resentful, pretentious, egoistic, egocentric, inconsiderate, disaffected, greedy, insatiable, rapacious and.. and.. and.. *(erm.. ¡Holy Cow! Please, ¡Stop me now! mate)* ;) ..of these singular specimens & beasts we call **human beings....** 

I'm afraid, any chance they can envision a route to take advantage of a situation in which **any** of this **class** of handicapped creatures mentioned before. Flying upon the wings of *prohibition* perceive that through these dusty roads they can climb positions **above others** to attract and hoard exclusive gains, prebends, preeminence, superiority and a minimal of auto **illusory grandiosity** over any collective **public** banning. They will take the baton to milk the abrupt lucrative opportunities without thinking twice.

Humanly, while we are still living in a world where the exchange of goods and services is mainly carried out through money, fiat money, coins, bills and tokens only in possession of the present system... As @livelifefullest already succinctly said: **"The “black” circuit is what let the economy run"**

I think it greatly depends on what your "goal" is. If the goal is to get completely rid of something by banning it, then no - this can not be reached.
If your goal is to limit or diminish something that is considered a danger for society, then prohibition might work - at least to some extent.

2 examples:
- I am from Austria. We Austrians and Germans prohibited the political use of Nazi symbols as well as the denial of the holocaust after WW2. Of course that is an interference with the freedom of speech. But it has made life for neo-nazis difficult and helped to keep a very dangerous ideology marginalized for the last 70 years.
- gun control: in most european countries, gun rights are very limited, and a lot of stuff that is legal in the US is prohibited. Does that mean there are no guns or accidents with guns in the EU? Ofc not. But a lot less, and also a lot less mass shootings, gun-connected criminality etc. So it works in aiding to protect society.

Upvoted and Followed!

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with you...

Also there is the idea that what a person devotes their attention to becomes stronger.

E.g. It is better to love peace, than it is to hate war.

Why? Because in "Loving Peace" attention, strength and energy is given to the very concept of Loving Peace.

... and "Hating War"? Well you can obviously see, and or perhaps feel the difference...

Ultimately I feel it's about control and it's always interesting to discover who has the most to gain financially if something is banned...

<i>Thanks for your post! :-)</i>

how can i challenge it you're right, following you now

In addition to the purposes stated, I think banning anything is used, not as a stated goal, to increase dependence by the people, on the government, with a result of power transferred to the state, from the people.

I have not, so far, come up with any ban that has produced positive results.

It is possible that some of the religious and cultural taboos and prohibitions on such things as having children with family members, and eating certain kinds of foods before refrigeration and germ theory, may fit the definition of a ban, and may have been some of the drivers of increased lifespan, and leisure time, in which to think and refine methods of production for still more increase in productivity and survival.

If we can call these 'bans' then yes, it is possible, but giving people good advice doesn't seem to be a ban necessarily.