(ANTIMEDIA) Drug laws are often highlighted as examples of the failure of prohibition. From the United States’ notorious – and ineffective — ban on alcohol in the 1920s to the current restrictions on cannabis, it’s easy to see how such laws fail to produce the intended results.
But New Yorkers have recently provided another, cuter example of this dynamic: they’re bucking a ban on animals in the subway.
Late last year, New York City’s MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) instituted a ban on animals in “any conveyance or facility” unless they are “enclosed in a container and carried in a manner which would not annoy other passengers.”
The presumption appears to have been that this would prevent passengers from bringing large pets on the subway. In general, when we think of pets that can fit in a “container,” we think of small canines with miniature heads poking out the top of a purse.
But the regulation has had no effect, except to inspire hilarious pictures and more carrying containers on subways. In the months since the MTA’s passage of the restriction, New Yorkers have gotten crafty, using everything from backpacks to IKEA bags to hold their large animals.
the New York City Subway banned dogs unless they fit in a bag and the people of New York did not disappoint. pic.twitter.com/vluNcZHBmW
— C (@meanboysclub) June 6, 2017
they get an E for Effort. pic.twitter.com/N3Eu08gqNm
— C (@meanboysclub) June 7, 2017
Not just a dog-in-a-bag. It's a pibble-in-a-bag. Not an easy feat. #nycsubway pic.twitter.com/zKbu1t7pfg
— Martha Dedrick (@NYCmixology) June 7, 2017
"Any dog brought onto the subway must fit into a bag" pic.twitter.com/40AcGou5K9
— Maggie Morgan (@MaggieMorgan8) March 10, 2017
the New York City Subway banned dogs unless they fit in a bag and the people of New York did not disappoint. pic.twitter.com/vluNcZHBmW
— C (@meanboysclub) June 6, 2017
Though the story has been picked up by entertainment sites like People, BoredPanda, and Refinery29, it is actually a prime example of the inherently inefficient mechanism of “the law.” For one, vague legal language often produces confusion and loopholes, which is evident, for example, in the ways companies find loopholes in tax regulations. Further, even when laws are explicit and clear, individuals still ignore them. Alcohol production and consumption continued during prohibition, and the drug trade has thrived despite four decades of the government’s still-raging war on drugs — not to mention the fact that both “legal” attempts to eradicate undesirable behavior only
For one, vague legal language often produces confusion and loopholes, which is evident, for example, in the ways companies find loopholes in tax regulations. Further, even when laws are explicit and clear, individuals still ignore them. Alcohol production and consumption continued during prohibition, and the drug trade has thrived despite four decades of the government’s still-raging war on drugs — not to mention the fact that both “legal” attempts to eradicate undesirable behavior only bred more toxic drugs and more crime.
In another example, despite traffic laws mandating people use bluetooth headsets or refrain from texting while driving, these behaviors still largely persist.
And it’s likely that even if the MTA modifies its rules to impose size restrictions on animals allowed in the subway, New Yorkers will still find ways to bring their pets with them.
Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo