I am beginning to think many people simply don't know the difference between the words "regulation" and "prohibition" because I see them used with such improper interchangability.
Regulate:
1 a: to govern or direct according to rule b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2): to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>
Prohibit:
1: forbid: command against;
2: To forbid by authority
3: To prevent; preclude
A government has many rights of regulation, but some governments, such as the United States, have a Constitutional PROHIBITION of infringing on certain individual rights of its citizens.
For instance, the right to free speech.
Quote:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
|
People have a right to speak freely with responsibility, meaning, to speak freely to the point before it would cause unjust, or undue harm to others.
I have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is a fire.
I have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire, but the government has regulated that if that act causes harm to others for the false alarm, I can be held responsible for the damages, both economic and property damage.
I have that right, but with that right comes responsibility for that action, if it causes direct and objectively provable harm or damage to others or their property.
The U.S. learned the hard way that there is a limit to prohibition, and it learned that lesson with alchohol. Unfortunately, they also didn't learn enough to prevent them from making the same foolish error with the prohibition of drugs, and that battle is about to come to a head either legally, or socially through yet another expansion of the black market illegalization created.
The government has a right to punish irresponsible action that causes direct harm to others. It does not have the right to prohibit actions, other than actions that cause direct harm to others, but it can attempt and should attempt to regulate them to a point of resonable respect for individual rights when regulation would prevent abuse of the courts.
My point is:
These two words are not interchangeable.
Having the power to regulate does not imply or authorize the power to prohibit.