>I was saying that in order to enforce a banning of that kind of behavior someone would have to patrol the area (I'm assuming this is a public beach since the lawmakers banned kids from it) which means, cops, park rangers, deputies someone like that. If tax dollers start going toward patroling the nude beach someone's going to complain since they don't want their tax dollers "supporting that kind of thing (nudism)" It's the same reason that nearly all offical nudist facilities in the US are privatly owned, weather it's beaches, resorts or parks; the nudists can appeal to people's idea of "what people do in their own time on their own land is their own business". If the government starts setting aside government land and using tax dollers to pay from lifeguards, park rangers and others to patrole the area people who are aginst nudism will raise a stink. I remember reading about a nudist group that rented a public pool in some town once a month for family nudist activities, they went about renting it the same way any other group would rent it for the evening (i.e. a swim team or something like that) but some local people raised such a fuss about a pool facility that was paid for with part local tox dollers being used by "those kind of people" that they had to send the nudists packing.<
There is some logic to that. It's like the arguments that come up when some local governmental body is asked to approve the distribution of needles to drug addicts. If the government does this, it seems almost like the government (a city or county) approves of illegal drug use. By similar reasoning, people who are against public nudity will not want to patrol nude beaches because that might be seen as the government approving of such conduct. It would then seem that banning the activity altogether would be preferable and it would save local government money because there would be no need to hire additional enforcement people.