Should laws be passed without intent to enforce them?

[Intell]

I've noticed a trend of some posters to support banning something but openly stating the law shouldn't be enforced. This position is usually taken with:

1) Banning spanking/smacking as a means to discipline kids
2) Banning circumcision

The position is usually argued for as a way to change social norms without the issues associated with say, taking away children due to violating the law.

Personally I oppose this position as it tends towards nanny-statism. That is, passing a law without enforcement tacitly recognizes that there is a difference between the unpunished crime and similar punished crime. This in turn leads to people/the state regulating preferences, as it is easier to pass unenforced laws compared to enforced ones.

Thoughts?

Yes (Laws should provide moral standpoint, whether enforced or not, adultery should be against the law, enforcement is a different.)

[Intell]

Anyway, as for the question, no. If a law is in the books then it should be enforced. If it shouldn't be enforced, then it should be repealed.

Now, on the other hand, I have no issue enacting laws that are morally sound but whose efficacy would be limited.

An example of non-enforceable law to an extent, may be marijuana, the drug, at least in my opinion should be illegal, and criminalised, but there should be no punishment for those who consume it, apart from confiscation, and maybe a fine, if caught, for the drug dealer and the drug user, they should be helped with rehabilitation.

I still stand by my statement, that adultery should be against the law, probably enforced, in a divorce scenario maybe in the court of law, and I used not enforce, which is sort of true but not also ture.