It is sobering to realise that many regulations are, by and large, unenforcable either because they are so vague as to be meaningless or because they set standards that are unattainable. A cynic might say that rules are often just lip service to appease powerful interests - politicians can be seen to be 'doing something about the problem' without posing any real threat to the activities of those affected by the controls. Unenforcable and symbolic regulations may offer a short term solution but they can cause more harm than good by creating conflicting community expectations that deepen existing social divisions. Individuals are more likely to comply with laws they think are reasonable. Unjust or unreasonable regulations have been shown to breed resentment and resistance, even with the threat of enforcement.
Education is now the routine answer to regulatory failure.
However no amount of education will achieve universal compliance with laws that are basically unreasonable or unjust. Overregulation produces underregulation Extremely stringent standards are a powerful incentive for inaction by regulatory authorities. First, inaction may reflect enforcement officers' quite plausible belief that the regulation requires them to control an activity to an absurd point. Second, inaction may be mindful of the political backlash that could result from enforcing very stringent standards. The net result may actually be less control over an activity than would result from a more flexible approach to the problem.