Okay but then isn't that the real problem? Of not regularly weeding out laws against things that people don't really feel need to be banned? It's kind of clumsy to take the approach of, "We're going to keep dubious laws on the books, and also have ultra-random, haphazard enforcement of all laws regardless of how merited."
Non-enforcement of bollocks laws is a feature.
Most people will not ever interact with law enforcement over bollocks laws.
There will always be bollocks laws.
Your wider point stands though, we should do some pruning, but that takes time, whereas non-enforcement is instantaneous.
Do both.
That is actually a very bad thing, and once the people in power abuse
If few people encounter "bollocks" laws then there is no outrage over their enforcement, therefore if you piss off the wrong person in government suddenly they go over your life with a fine tooth comb and you have 100 "bollocks" charges and your life is ruined but since you are just one person there is no so speak out for you.
>There will always be bollocks laws.
That is a bollocks position and one that can be solved (in part) with mandatory sunset of all laws. Every Law, Regulation, and policy should have to be affirmed by the legislature at minimum every 20 years if not more often. If not is ceases to exists