And what? The message is grammatically correct, short, easy to read. There was a point and a conclusion. Aegon, you're smart, read it....quit trying to read into it.
Legalize prostitution?
- Thread starter Aegon_Targaryen
- Start date
And what? The message is grammatically correct, short, easy to read. There was a point and a conclusion. Aegon, you're smart, read it....quit trying to read into it.
Walmark would set up love hotels for $19.99 for 5 minutes. Thats all you guys need anyway, you can't even be bothered to snog the makeup off her face.
Legal or not won't we have prostitutes, we always have. And as I said, legalize it, regulate it, paint the building and put up a sign......you'll still have illegal street prostitution.
No they won't. Because by the time this is all regulated Walmart customers won't be able to afford it.
Some feminists take this view. It has merit.
But others take the view that they should be free to make their own choices about what to do with their bodies, including employment choices. That view has merit, too.
The more I think about it, the more I don't like it. This just gives the 1%ers means to take all the good ones for themselves. I think it should stay illegal so everybody has a fair shot to work out their own deals on the street.
Real Capitalism!!!
Real Capitalism!!!
[1] Flowers, chocolates, dinner, movie.... Plenty of example in the animal kingdom, too. There we call them "courtship rituals" but really could be viewed as the pre-screwing price.
[2] They'll blame it on government, of course, and will immediately call themselves libertarians (if they don't already). I know, I know, legalized prostitution is a libertarian (as well as libertine) position; but when has that stopped anyone from claiming whatever they want?
A good argument against legalizing group marriages.
But the 1% aren't much bothered by little things like laws. So it probably doesn't matter. Already happening with mistresses and call girls. Those who want them and can afford them get them.
Will a Dr. be able to prescribe prostitution for medical purposes so I can use my insurance on it? It might be an effective natural treatment alternative for ED.
A couple hundred bucks an hour?
Me to...I have no problem with prostitution being legal. But I'm sure it will end up like guns and everything else, with as I called it, "off the truck" cheaper options.
I'm curious exactly how far you take this. You seem to be saying that any offense that doesn't = jail should not be an offense at all?
Not very often I see people go much farther than even I will.
As far as I'm concerned, any "substance" you can ingest should NOT be illegal. All you do when you make it illegal is create a huge criminal market for it. The higher the profit margin on the black market/illegal end, the more incarceration, deaths and pervasiveness of the substance itself, will grow and grow. You'd think the prohibition of alcohol and it's utter failure would be enough blueprint for every substance. But... no.
Ok, fair enough. What do you do with people making meth? Allow it? Stop the creation of, but not punish the ingestion of? Ok, then what do you do with the "aftermath"? The hospital bills, welfare, the other crimes committed, etc.
There are laws in place for all of the "other crimes committed." If you would have allowed them to get high on pot, or even morphine, heroin (the old stand-bys) they probably wouldn't have wound-up resorting to putting sudafed and clorox in their bathtubs! Most heroin addicts, if they have heroin, are basically harmless! They're not much good to anyone, or themselves, but when they're high... they're just high!
I thought welfare was just for moms who are unfortunate? What hospital bills? Doesn't ACA cover those who have an unfortunate addiction? Who says those who are addicted to meth don't have insurance by the way?
Tax the meth makers, you like taxing people don't you?
Yes, those laws deal with outcomes of the other crimes, not the leading up, which is what I'm asking about. (often "too late").
Sure, there is the legalize, regulate, and tax sector, but that involves a necessity of a process to regulate. I don't see a process of regulating many drugs, such as meth. Are you thinking that unfettered access to heroin, as you use, will eliminate use of meth?
There are plenty of drugs that are simply "unsafe", what do you do with them? Along with this is the premise that you seem to be getting rid of the FDA completely. Do you not think that is a necessary agency?
Which drugs are "simply unsafe?" I will bet you dollars to donuts they are used "safely" in certain aspects. In which case, you're just talking about a a measure of relative use and therefore danger. If some guy is buzzed from 5-hour energy drink and drives his car over a cyclist, no one charges him with driving while intoxicated. The "leading up to" is so subjective and merely creates the bogged-down unnecessary legal chapter of "Were they high? High on what? how much? Let's incarcerate for all of it!" Making the substances illegal will never, ever work.
It doesn't really matter because there is WAY, WAY too much money and profit from them being illegal now to ever change it.
You think Al Capone was happy to hear about the repeal of Prohibition? I doubt it.
You think Al Capone was happy to hear about the repeal of Prohibition? I doubt it.
Meth, PCP, Bath Salts, Crack, Scopolamine. It is not "so subjective". Look, we have a serious drug/criminalization problem, but the illegality of Meth isn't part of the problem. The substance, itself, not just what it may cause a person to do, is disastrous, as are the other drugs I list, among others.
So, as I asked, unless you believe legal other drugs, such as morphine, will eliminate these being used, the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
Also, are you ridding us of the FDA?
Are you also getting rid of prescriptions entirely?
IMO, we need to drastically alter and rethink our criminal justice strategy.
"Victimless" and "Personal-Choice" crimes need to be drastically reduced and/or removed from the penal code.
Possession of "recreational" substances should be handled similarly across the board. Alcohol and MJ (some others) should not be illegal, and should be available for recreational use. Public-nuisance/danger type of offenses resulting from this should be amended to county-type assistance; these would include Public Intoxication and the like. Publicly intoxicated persons should not be charged with a crime, spend a day in jail (or more), and then owe $500+, of which may result in taking their license or wind them back up in jail. The night in jail works, it sobers them up. I'd prefer it not to be jail, but I don't have specific problems with a drunk tank. But once they are sober, release them, charge them for the service. The continued incarceration and resulting fine + surcharges + court costs + attorney fees is ridiculous. And 80% of the time the issue isn't really the intoxication, but some underlying problem (mental health) that needs to be resolved.
All lowest misdemeanors should become non-jailable offenses. Many/most of them already are in reality, but, according to law the maximum is 30 days, which is absurd. Most of these are victimless, or minor impact crimes, such as trespass, minor theft, possession, etc.
Sex-related things I put in "Personal Choice". What two people choose to do in sexual relations should be outside of the State's controlling power. What the State can control is safety, personal hygiene, general welfare. So to the OP, yes, legal and regulated.
Lastly, make the crimes that we want to be crimes as higher, and more punished crimes. Domestic Assault is a good example right now. It is a hot-button issue. A first offense domestic in Iowa carries 2 days minimum (30 days max), but 99% are simply pleaded as lower offenses, such as non-domestic, or as the two day minimum. If we want this to be a serious crime, give it some teeth. If we don't, because we recognize that many of these "disputes" are minor, then don't. But stop trying to apply a general rule across the board, because it doesn't work. People who shouldn't serve two days end up serving it, and people who need a lot more jail time end up with the minimum, or less.
Whatever, I digress.
"Victimless" and "Personal-Choice" crimes need to be drastically reduced and/or removed from the penal code.
Possession of "recreational" substances should be handled similarly across the board. Alcohol and MJ (some others) should not be illegal, and should be available for recreational use. Public-nuisance/danger type of offenses resulting from this should be amended to county-type assistance; these would include Public Intoxication and the like. Publicly intoxicated persons should not be charged with a crime, spend a day in jail (or more), and then owe $500+, of which may result in taking their license or wind them back up in jail. The night in jail works, it sobers them up. I'd prefer it not to be jail, but I don't have specific problems with a drunk tank. But once they are sober, release them, charge them for the service. The continued incarceration and resulting fine + surcharges + court costs + attorney fees is ridiculous. And 80% of the time the issue isn't really the intoxication, but some underlying problem (mental health) that needs to be resolved.
All lowest misdemeanors should become non-jailable offenses. Many/most of them already are in reality, but, according to law the maximum is 30 days, which is absurd. Most of these are victimless, or minor impact crimes, such as trespass, minor theft, possession, etc.
Sex-related things I put in "Personal Choice". What two people choose to do in sexual relations should be outside of the State's controlling power. What the State can control is safety, personal hygiene, general welfare. So to the OP, yes, legal and regulated.
Lastly, make the crimes that we want to be crimes as higher, and more punished crimes. Domestic Assault is a good example right now. It is a hot-button issue. A first offense domestic in Iowa carries 2 days minimum (30 days max), but 99% are simply pleaded as lower offenses, such as non-domestic, or as the two day minimum. If we want this to be a serious crime, give it some teeth. If we don't, because we recognize that many of these "disputes" are minor, then don't. But stop trying to apply a general rule across the board, because it doesn't work. People who shouldn't serve two days end up serving it, and people who need a lot more jail time end up with the minimum, or less.
Whatever, I digress.
Crack is just coke ingested another way. Both cocaine and methamphetamine are prescribed by doctors currently. You might want to educate yourself on things before posting inaccurate information as if it is fact.
Crack is not just "coke ingested another way" any more than mixing turpentine with mouthwash is just mouthwash ingested another way.
You know exactly what I'm talking about, and if not, you need to educate yourself. One pot meth, crystal, ice, shake-n-bake, call it what you want, it is cooked, sold, and ingested. It is dangerous, it is harmful. As is crack, cocaine cooked with baking soda.
According to strumm, at least the only way I think it can be read, he would do away with all prescriptions, therefore not only would Crystal and Crack be legal, but so would cocaine and methamphetamine.
Yes, in general. Everything concerns the "coercive power of money", hell some marriages hinge on that basis. That doesn't mean we should needlessly legislate it. Prostitution crimes, imo, largely came from people thinking "oh that poor woman," and then inserting their values, their beliefs, and their morals on to that person. The ol' "I wouldn't do it, so nobody else should have to." But why shouldn't Demi Moore be able to accept $1M from Robert Redford for a night of sex? That $1M is absolutely coercing it to take place, but that doesn't necessitate the coercion be "bad."
The larger concerns are always wilfulness and trafficking. Trafficking is rampant now, even with laws, would it get worse? Would it improve if the participants could freely speak with law enforcement? As to wilfulness, that is always hard to legislate and enforce. But it would certainly be easier, imo, to enforce if the person you are trying to PROTECT isn't at risk of being jailed.
Think of it this way, nobody is allowed to abduct girls/boys now, but they still do; all over the world, including the US. If you legalize prostitution, there will be a wave of entitlement by the johns and pimps to take further advantage of the situation, all for a few $$$.
Think of all the poors and their fractured families. Meth-head Mom gets the idea to pimp out little Suzie when she starts having her period or little Johnnie when he starts stealing her stash.
This is all a moot point. No member of congress or a state legislator is dumb enough to propose such legislation. It would be a career-ender.
Legalizing prostitution makes for an interesting thread, but few consider all of the ramifications.
crack is cocaine ingested another way. It is not freebase, which is chemically altered and much more powerful than powder cocaine. It's just coke that is smoked.
Regardless, all drugs should be legal. Even the ones you think are bad. The prohibition on them makes the problems 1000 times worse and brings entirely new manufactured problems that exist only because of the prohibition.
Kiting is doing better than I am trying to school you here.
People will ALWAYS try to catch a buzz. They always have, they always will. When they find out one thing is illegal, they'll still do it, take the risk, or look for other ways with other substances. Trying to stop that is like trying to kick waves back into the ocean.
The funny part is that his examples of crack cocaine and street methamphetamine only exist as they do because of drug prohibition. If it wasn't for the war on drugs neither would be around, much less an issue.
Both of you are wrong actually. Crack is cocaine in it's purest form as it has the salt removed from it, which does include it in the freebase category. You though are correct, that in the end its just another form of ingestion.
Exactly. I tried alluding to that before. Prohibition of substances never works.
Very true, and yet another boost for the economy. Probably not a good thing for divorce rates though.
