[Gabz]

And it is totally the opposite of what I am talking about.

I am not saying I am going to break any law - I just have no intentions of doing the government's job for it.

If the government can not enforce a law - it shouldn't enact it to begin with.

I realize no one can be everywhere at the same time and the public is needed to inform government of violations of laws - but when the government abdicates all responsibilty of enforcement to begin with - why should the public cooperate?

[Conspiracy Guy]

I thought it was rough over here, looks like the same old tired non-argument. "Smokers are evil, businessmen have no property rights, I don't smoke so you can't smoke either", pile of spew bile we get everytime. They miss the point. The state says we aren't going enforce the law but we'll fine the businessman if a violation is reported by any clown who rats him out. Is that how we enforce other laws. Only in what used to be America! Let's leave this silly thread and go somewhere else Gabz, I'll hold the door.

[HarryDunne]

why should the public cooperate?

Again, because it is a law, period. If we don't like the laws, we must pressure our lawmakers to change them.

[Democratic_Machiavelli]

First, if the government were truly abdicating all enforcement, you would be required under the law to arrest the owner of the establishment. But they aren't asking that.

If you saw a person dressed in black throwing a stone into a Starbucks window, would you be taking over the government's job by sending the police after him or her? If you didn't, you are allowing the crime of vandalism to occur. By allowing the crime to occur, you are advocating the disobedience of the law.

Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode about this?