How many of you management types would fire an employee convicted of seeing a prostitute, assuming they were of age and the act was consensual.
Legalize prostitution?
- Thread starter Aegon_Targaryen
- Start date
I couldn't come up with "recognizance" last night. Apologies. I didn't want to say "recogged" because I'm not qualified to use slang like that.
Not a criminal offense. I'd be fine with civil citations. And once you're paid up, the record is expunged. None of it would be made public until it went to collections after a long civil court process? I don't know.
I'm for legalization and I think that's the only way this stuff really works in the end, but the bottom line is this country needs to stop cannibalizing itself through the criminal justice system.
Millions of people fornicate everyday. What flipping business is it to government that someone pays for it? Even married couples pay for it one way or another. Why would Americans sanction the use of their tax dollars for the po po to go under cover and entrap people engaging in peaceful, consensual commerce? Perverts.
I disagree with this. In my experience they have access to the very drugs you claim they do not, they choose the route they do for various reasons.
Edit to add: People have been, and continue to, make moonshine even with alcohol readily available and cheap. People will always seek out that high, highs that are often reached better/quicker/stronger in dangerous forms.
This necessarily means you are against the entire idea of prescriptions.
Which also means that you are on board with chemical companies creating anything they want, including "Uncle Mike's Magical Elixir" and peddling it to, well, anyone.
To CowTipper.........If you have a small company of 500
or less, then a guy convicted of a prostitution charge would
be let go. Remember this conviction would be listed in the
local newspaper and it becomes public information. It is
not good public relations to have someone with a conviction
working for your company.
or less, then a guy convicted of a prostitution charge would
be let go. Remember this conviction would be listed in the
local newspaper and it becomes public information. It is
not good public relations to have someone with a conviction
working for your company.
And, if you're dumb enough to buy it... well, good for Uncle Mike. They make baldness cures, schlong enlarging pills, and super beta prostate... none of it works!
Ok, I've asked a few times now, would you abolish the FDA? Keep them around as sort of a drug consumer reports? Don't think the government has any business in protecting the public from dangerous, fake, or fraudulent drugs? Ok with cancer grandma taking a drug that makes her hair fall out, but her bowels turn to mush as well?
If drugs were legal then users would have to buy crap made in mobile homes. It's not like moonshine, which is made in the same fashion as other clear alcohols.
Well, I listed a half-dozen "fake, fraudulent drugs" and you were okay with them. And, in case you haven't heard, hair loss and lack of appetite is what the chemo does now with the FDA n charge.
Would I abolish the FDA? Probably. It's kinda like the FCC to me. I'd abolish that for sure. Most Federal operations are FUBAR, SNAFU most of the time anyway. Do they do some good? Sure, they do. Is it the government's "job" to do that? Not in my opinion, no.
And what about the dishwasher? What about the guy that mows lawns for a living? What about the hundreds of thousands of menial jobs being performed in our economy daily? Hooking can certainly be no less demeaning.
I say decriminalize it, regulate it and tax it. Take the criminal element out of the activity and the criminals will find somewhere else to disrupt.
My mother would scold me for saying this but dammit, we have bars and saloons, we have casinos and we have cat houses right now.
Why do you believe you listed fake, fraudulent drugs?
And I'm ok with them because they are properly vetted and controlled via prescriptions and licensed healthcare professionals, you know, doctors.
If you believe that people should ingest whatever they want, then you get rid of any requirement related to prescription. Morphine has its purposes, and doctors are trained to determine those purposes.
But sure, you want to go all, "do what you wish", you accept that ignorant, uneducated people are making decisions about extremely complicated, technical chemical processes that they have very little chance of understanding.
Following that line we should abolish the NHTSA, all automotive safety requirements, the EPA, OSHA, NLRB, and everything else. Just let people contract as they will. Want to drink straight turpentine to cure your "ills"? Sure, why not. Not only will the effects be your own fault, but we won't seek negligence from the person selling to you either. Want to drive in a vehicle that explodes upon rear impact? Sure, your choice, you should have known better. Want to work in a mine where you will ingest dangerous toxins/dust that has a 95% chance of killing you prematurely? Sure, your choice.
It is a strange path you seek, certainly one inopposite to our entire way of governance and history.
If it isn't the "Government's" job to do it, whose is it? The peddlers? So we settle this in Court, a government institution?
Last edited:
I'm completely aware of how this government runs virtually every aspect of human life. The conditioned dependence is staggering.
This whole getting rid of prescriptions thing is a straw man. Just because drugs are legalized doesn't meant doctors will stop prescribing and pharmacies will stop filling prescriptions. Also no one is going to force pharmacies or drug manufacturers to sell drugs to people who don't need them if they don't want to. A pharmacy can s require a prescription if the want, just like a dive shop may require a scuba certification to fill a tank.
On the other hand, you could probably get basic antibiotics after just talking to the pharmacists rather than a costly and time consuming trip to the doctor like every other first world country allows.
I don't get why people can't face a simple change without thinking all hell is going to break loose even when there is precedent to show that's not the case.
On the other hand, you could probably get basic antibiotics after just talking to the pharmacists rather than a costly and time consuming trip to the doctor like every other first world country allows.
I don't get why people can't face a simple change without thinking all hell is going to break loose even when there is precedent to show that's not the case.
I answered this earlier in the thread, but here goes again:
In general, the fruits of the menial laborer's labor is an increase in the physical plant (say, a new building, or a prettier lawn, or a new street,or safe dishes to eat off of).
There is no increase in the physical plant from prostitution. It merely meets a common human (usually male) need in a crude and non-sustaining way, a need that can be met other ways in a more positive manner (with a mate), or at least not requiring a second person.
Ah, now we are getting some place! See, that $1M is not in fact coercing to Ms. Moore, a multi, multi-millionaire. So I would have no problem with this transaction.
The coercive value of money comes from the neediness of the person considering taking it. There are 1 million desperate women for every fictional Moore case.
But how are we going to certify the very, very rare case of a women who does not need to hook, but wants to?
I'm pretty sure that any of the legal prostitutes at the Bunny ranch in Nevada could be waitresses or grocery store cashiers if they wanted to be. Or they could be just regular strippers rather than hookers. They are there by choice.
Sure, there is a dark side to prostitution, but just like drugs, it would be less of a problem given a viable legal alternative.
I fail to see how this is a straw man. Your lack of laws, by necessity, renders prescriptions rather meaningless. Sure, people would still go to doctors, but these scrips would just be recommendations. By your law, everything is now just over the counter. Instead of the commercial telling a person to "consult their physician," it would just be "available at your local gas station today!"
It isn't a "simple change," it would be a massive overhaul of the system, a system put in place to protect people. Often to protect people from themselves, but also multiBillion dollar chemical manufacturing companies seeking to cut research costs wherever possible.
Do you really think Aunt Nan is going to get her pain pills through her doctor when she could just pick up a bottle of "extra strength morphing" from Casey's?
If you say that it wouldn't be sold at Caseys, why not? You are removing the legality of manufacturing, selling, purchasing and consuming...why would it still be sold only at a pharmacy?
Except it isn't "just like drugs". Bad drugs, dangerous drugs, drugs not meant for specific people is inherently dangerous. Having sex is not.
A proper comparison would be legalizing brutal S&M practices for sale, or sex with people with STDs. They want to do it, F*** it, let em!
We can discuss legitimizing drugs and prostitution without throwing out the bathwater baby.
Just like alcohol and tobacco, there can still be some regulation and oversight. The main thing is to get it out of the shadows and back alleys.
No, I got it. But I did not see the movie. Was her character financially desperate? (Since the poster referred to Moore and Redford and not their characters, I stuck with Moore (and not her character) in my response.)
I'm interested in how it could be regulated in your view, here is your chance to convince me.
If creation and ingestion are not illegal, in any form, I'm curious how you would regulate.
Alcohol has numerous laws on creation, purchase and ingestion. Would it be similar to that?
I was replying to another poster's objection.
FWI, I have actually tried crack, meth, and Heroin. Each once and I didn't die, go crazy, or become addicted. I've not touched any of them after trying them once. It doesn't work like the hyperbole antidrug campaigns claim.
yes, it would be similar to alcohol. You could make your own if you were so inclined, but if you are going to distribute it, you are regulated, just like the alcohol and tobacco industries are.
So then you back off your earlier wishes, that a person can ingest whatever they wish, in fact you would control it.
If you and Strumm had started with that, I wouldn't be arguing with you.
And I doubt you'd be ok with people making their own drugs, like meth, when the lab creation itself is a danger to many people, not just the user.
I fail to see what you're saying. The gal buys clothes...she buys "things" with her money just as the dishwasher does.....Hell, if she's good she/ he might even buy a house and contribute to charity. I think yours is a weak argument. How's the income a prostitute generates any different than the revenue generated by a bar owner....a casino or as a matter of fact, a banker?
Ofcourse, bankers may not like the competition for the dollar, either. Insurance companies aren't far behind bankers, either.
Are you the sheriff of Kossuth county? There's no other explanation for your posts.
I'm not sure that's real good for business for an automaker. Not sure people are going to want to buy those types of cars, but maybe some people get their kicks out of being involved in explosions/fires. The lawyers will love them though.
Should we abolish them? The first thing we should ask is are they a necessity? Is there another avenue or better avenue to pursue? I have a real problem with Obama (or any Executive) using these government agencies to act against the will of the people/Congress. There's no way Obama gets Congress to pass a bill cutting CO2 so he uses the power of an agency like the EPA. So, if we can't reign in the power of the Executive/President, then I'd support severely limiting the power of these agencies, if not outright abolishing them (and maybe replace them with something else).
I was presuming under their theory that there wouldn't be lawsuits. If we are taking the position that people should be able to do as they please with themselves, what they ingest, what they buy/use/drive/whatever, then we should also be getting rid of liability. They chose to use it, too bad for them. You can make it as long as you can convince someone to buy it.
No, I'm not backing off other than there could be an age limit for buying like there is for alcohol (drugs and alcohol should be 18, BTW and younger with parental supervision). Everything would still be legal and those who make and distribute it would be regulated for safety purposes, just like people who make and distribute food are. They could still make anything they want and could still sell what they want. All drugs would be legal. You could grow or make anything you want for yourself. I seriously doubt people will be making home meth labs when they can buy a quality product cheaper than making a crappy one. I imagine many would grow their own weed though, just like people homebrew.
Well if you are regulating the creation and distribution, than no, people couldn't make "anything they want." Not all drugs would be "legal". People that homebrew don't sell their stuff, at least as far as I'm aware. Also, I'm not aware that homebrewing leads to blowing up your garage and creating a dangerous hazmat-necessary biozone. Meth is cheap to make, I think you are seriously mistaken that people will stop making it because they can potentially buy it somewhere else....especially when what they can buy will not be "street meth."
But maybe you are right. As I quoted above, Portugal appears to have done great things, and it appears that a large reason for that is they are spending a large amount of money on drug treatment, mental health, and welfare. Three things the general tax-hating public here doesn't want to do.
