U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-18-2008, 01:58 PM
 
5,273 posts, read 11,904,652 times
Reputation: 5745

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Prostitution is the world's oldest profession...
No it's not.

However, motherhood is the second oldest profession.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2008, 02:29 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,938,535 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Where is your proof? My proof is in the Netherlands where the violent crime rate is 1/4th of ours.
A correlation is not necessarily a cause. You fail to provide proof that the illegality of drugs in the US entirely explains the the difference in the violent crime rates. Are you sure this has nothing to do with the Netherlands being a much smaller country? And one where there is much tighter gun control? And what do you say about the fact that most drugs are illegal even in the Netherlands?

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
As for the deregulation of Rx drugs, I believe in the deregulation so people wouldn't need to spend $45 on their copay to see a doctor, another $45 to see the specialist and then a $45 copay to get the Rx when it would be a lot easier to just go directly to the drug store and buy it over the counter. Cigarettes are sold this way, anyone over 18 can buy, so why not everything else? The savings on pointless enforcement would more than cover the costs of rehabilitation.
Really? Are you sure? And it's okay with you that cancer sufferers will prescribe their own chemotherapy? It's okay with you that many drugs currently regulated can actually be used as murder weapons? And is $135 a patient saves going to cover the cost of caring for him when he becomes comatose from taking a prescription drug in the wrong dosage or of the wrong kind?

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Any new economic activity is good economic activity. People would import Cuban products like rum and tobacco and sell them, creating more economic activity.
That is simplistic drivel even by the standards of this forum. Importing Cuban products would take away at least some of the market share of American products. Sure, that will create economic activity -- but to the benefit of the Cuban economy and to the detriment of the American economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Your kids should know what's right and wrong because of you, and other countries laugh at us for our stupid laws as they relax theirs. Look at all of Europe: Prostitution is regulated and legalized in most European countries, marijuana is decriminalized in many parts and they provide rehabilitation instead of incarceration for hard drug users.
(They also limit free speech a lot more than we do, and are restricting it every further. Should we maybe laugh at them?) Again, with the bootstrapping -- if "Europe" has decriminalized pot, how does that prove that heroin should be available?

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
And what kind of idiot would actually think that an illegal cartel from Colombia or Mexico would be able to somehow win the market over legal companies? Ever hear of Al Capone? How about Budweiser? Which one is still in business? The proof is in history, criminalization of vice only leads to one thing: GANGS and CRIME.
You should stop calling people idiots, Dan. You lack the credibility to do so. Plus -- again -- it's against the rules in this section of the forum. I really don't want to report anyone, but if you don't start controlling yourself and debate in a civil matter, I'll refer you to a moderator. Illegal companies can win the market over legal companies by providing a cheaper product. They also win the market over legal companies by servicing those members of society who are prohibited from buying it legally. If you limit legal drug consumption to people who aren't addicted -- addicts will seek to buy drugs illegally, and there will be people to supply them. Illegally. And you can't compare a cartel and a company in terms of staying in business the way you do. Cartels don't have corporate headquarters and they aren't registered on the stock exchange. They don't care that much about brand recognition, and so don't mind "reincorporating" under a different name, etc. So to answer your question (rhetorical though it is) -- illegal cartels will flourish as long as there is a market for illegal drugs. Every single regulatory scheme proposed with respect to drugs either (1) leaves most of today's drug market in the hands of illegal cartels, on its face; or (2) generates costs so tremendous they wipe out any "savings" from legalizing drugs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Prostitution is the world's oldest profession...and it exists everywhere, even Utah. Why not make tax money on it?
First of all, it's not legal everywhere in Utah. It's illegal in Las Vegas, for example, and yet, there are prostitutes in Las Vegas breaking the law for the sake of johns who don't feel like driving out in the middle of nowhere -- to answer your question of how illegal enterprise can flourish in the presence of a legal equivalent. Moreover, the way Utah makes prostitution legal, also makes legal prostitution really expensive. Only well-heeled men can afford to hire prostitutes legally -- so what about all those johns who want to get laid but can't cough up a week's paycheck? They go to street walkers -- i.e., the ones that are illegal. And don't blame the state of Utah. After all, how exactly would you tax a street walker?

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Only sell to adults and if they kill themselves, it's their fault.
But it's the taxpayers who will have to shoulder the burden of losing tax revenue and caring for that adult's orphaned children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
If they kill someone else, it's still murder and still a horrific crime.
How is that a consolation to the victim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
But it's not like meth-fueled crime doesn't exist now...so why not make it so people feel more comfortable getting help and keep the money away from criminals and put it in the hands of corporations.
A non-sequitur: Meth-fueled crime exists now, so let's legalize meth so that meth addicts will feel more comfortable to "get help". What makes you think they will seek help? Removing the stigma from meth use would encourage people to use meth, not to try to stop using it. Common sense tells us that making meth more available will result in more people using meth and more meth-fueled crime being committed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Legalization and taxation would be far more beneficial to our society than black market controlled illegal drug traffic.
Well, duh, of course. But -- that's not what you are arguing. You are arguing that legalization and taxation would eliminate the black market -- and yet you don't present any proof this would happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2008, 03:42 PM
 
Location: San Diego
2,518 posts, read 1,844,514 times
Reputation: 1298
The bolded parts are my responses...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
A correlation is not necessarily a cause. You fail to provide proof that the illegality of drugs in the US entirely explains the the difference in the violent crime rates. Are you sure this has nothing to do with the Netherlands being a much smaller country? And one where there is much tighter gun control? And what do you say about the fact that most drugs are illegal even in the Netherlands?

Per-capita rates have nothing to do with population size. You are 4 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime here than in The Netherlands. The murder capital of the US for three years in the 1990s was a place called East Palo Alto, and it was 100% related to the drug wars between rival gangs. The profits of illegal drugs were so high, that the rival gangs warred over territory and supply lines. The murders would not have happened without the black market for drugs. The gun control point is a valid one, but you don't need a gun to assault someone, and most people who use guns illegally, GET them illegally.

Really? Are you sure? And it's okay with you that cancer sufferers will prescribe their own chemotherapy? It's okay with you that many drugs currently regulated can actually be used as murder weapons? And is $135 a patient saves going to cover the cost of caring for him when he becomes comatose from taking a prescription drug in the wrong dosage or of the wrong kind?

When did I say that doctors should be abolished? I said that it's awful that I have to go to two doctors and a pharmicist to get medicine when I could just go to the drug store. I can buy many fatal things OTC at the drug store, so why can't I buy Vicodin, Adderall or The Birth Contol Pill over the counter? The fact is, I know my body a lot more than the doctor in my HMO that I've never seen, so I would know better than him/her what works and what doesn't. All you keep talking about is protecting stupid people from themselves. You know that all this added paperwork, mostly thanks to over-regulation, has caused a large number of Primary Care physicians to want to quit? A study came out today that said the majority of Doctors are overworked and overloaded with unnecessary paperwork and other busy work. Allowing people like me, responsible adults who know their own body, to go to the drug store to get pain killers would help to lighten the workload on doctors. After all, if I hurt myself in my baseball game on Saturday afternoon, I have to wait until Monday to get medicine unless I go to an emergency room? Why can't I just stop off at Rite-Aid on the way home for a pack of Vicodins?

That is simplistic drivel even by the standards of this forum. Importing Cuban products would take away at least some of the market share of American products. Sure, that will create economic activity -- but to the benefit of the Cuban economy and to the detriment of the American economy.

No, increased external economic activity would create jobs, which would increase internal economic activity, which would create more jobs. A Cuban man living in Miami who works as a day laborer is suddenly allowed to import Cuban rum and starts a business, he hires an employee and he makes 5x what he did as a laborer...where does that hurt our economy? Most rum sold in the US is foreign anyways...don't you know your rum?

(They also limit free speech a lot more than we do, and are restricting it every further. Should we maybe laugh at them?) Again, with the bootstrapping -- if "Europe" has decriminalized pot, how does that prove that heroin should be available?

As long as there is a black market for something, there will always be the related crime. They don't treat addicts as criminals in Western Europe, they treat them as sick people, and that's how it should be. There ARE responsible heroin users out there, you just don't hear about them because of all the horror stories. I know a lot of recreational cocaine users who only use when they go out late on a Saturday night and they don't ever get violent. I know people who take Ecstasy when they go to parties on the weekend and then work as teachers, nurses or computer programmers during the week. Europeans have more freedoms than we do in most aspects, and they have free speech...they just have a few things in place to prevent another Nazi uprising.

You should stop calling people idiots, Dan. You lack the credibility to do so. Plus -- again -- it's against the rules in this section of the forum. I really don't want to report anyone, but if you don't start controlling yourself and debate in a civil matter, I'll refer you to a moderator.

I apologize and will be more civil...even though you were the one who threw the first stone...I would not have said what I did if you had not insulted the topic.

Illegal companies can win the market over legal companies by providing a cheaper product. They also win the market over legal companies by servicing those members of society who are prohibited from buying it legally. If you limit legal drug consumption to people who aren't addicted -- addicts will seek to buy drugs illegally, and there will be people to supply them. Illegally. And you can't compare a cartel and a company in terms of staying in business the way you do. Cartels don't have corporate headquarters and they aren't registered on the stock exchange. They don't care that much about brand recognition, and so don't mind "reincorporating" under a different name, etc. So to answer your question (rhetorical though it is) -- illegal cartels will flourish as long as there is a market for illegal drugs. Every single regulatory scheme proposed with respect to drugs either (1) leaves most of today's drug market in the hands of illegal cartels, on its face; or (2) generates costs so tremendous they wipe out any "savings" from legalizing drugs.

Give one example in history where an illegal company was more powerful than one providing the same product legally. Alcohol is the best example, and it's clear what happened there. Prostitution in countries where it's legalized is far safer and more law-abiding. Abortions are another example...when illegal, they're performed in alleys with clothes hangers, when legal, by doctors in clinics. Gambling in Vegas, once legalized and legitimized left Mafia control, as did local gambling with the influx of Indian casinos. Addicts will be sent to rehab, where all that money spent incarcerating cokeheads will be put to good use in getting those people OFF the drugs they are addicted to. Instead, we lock them up in a place where drugs are freely distributed and then set them loose without anything keeping them from going right back to their old life.


First of all, it's not legal everywhere in Utah. It's illegal in Las Vegas, for example, and yet, there are prostitutes in Las Vegas breaking the law for the sake of johns who don't feel like driving out in the middle of nowhere -- to answer your question of how illegal enterprise can flourish in the presence of a legal equivalent. Moreover, the way Utah makes prostitution legal, also makes legal prostitution really expensive. Only well-heeled men can afford to hire prostitutes legally -- so what about all those johns who want to get laid but can't cough up a week's paycheck? They go to street walkers -- i.e., the ones that are illegal. And don't blame the state of Utah. After all, how exactly would you tax a street walker?

I said it happens everywhere, not that it's legal everywhere. You just proved my point, thank you. Where something is illegal, there is always a market for it, and that market is far more dangerous. In Hamburg, Germany, the prostitutes line up next to the police station and have to report every john for their own safety. They are tested for STDs regularly and are far safer than some "escort" in the US. Plus, they are cheaper because it's legal and it's all about supply and demand. Who would buy a streetwalker when there was a legal alternative at the McDonald's equivalent of whorehouses?


But it's the taxpayers who will have to shoulder the burden of losing tax revenue and caring for that adult's orphaned children.
How is that a consolation to the victim?

Huh? Who would want a meth-addict having kids anyway? Again, treating addicts is a heck of a lot better than sending them to prison. Those kids will still be orphaned with illegal or legal drugs if their parents are addicts, so I fail to see your point.
Every one of these points is easily combatted with just a little logic. It's thinking like this that keeps our country behind all others in the civilized world in this century. This was supposed to be a forum to come up with outside the box ideas on how to increase economic activity in the US. All I got from you was the illogical GOP talking points connected to the issues I presented. The fact of the matter is, no matter how you look at it, these things all exist and they all profit the wrong people...Cuban cigars are sold all over the place, but by tax-dodgers. Prostitutes exist everywhere, but have pimps because the police wont protect them. You can go to any kitchen in any San Diego restaurant with a $100 bill and leave with Cocaine, Weed or ecstasy from one of the people working there, where the money goes up the ladder to the Tijuana Cartel. See? Instead, you could buy your small packet of cocaine from Rite-Aid, pay a 25% tax on it to pay for rehab and education, have that money benefit American farmers and laborers and decrease the influence of druglords.

Where does most of the Al-Qaeda and other terrorist money come from?
POPPIES!
Heroin produced from those poppies is sold to traffickers, who then sell to the cartels in Mexico, who then smuggle it over the border into the US. Billions of dollars leave our hands and go directly to the poppy growers in Afghanistan and elsewhere every year, and the only way to stop this is to grow within our own borders.
So when you look at it, drug prohibition enabled the attacks on 9/11 and every attack on our American soldiers in the Middle East. Good job keeping America safe!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2008, 04:35 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,938,535 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Per-capita rates have nothing to do with population size. You are 4 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime here than in The Netherlands. The murder capital of the US for three years in the 1990s was a place called East Palo Alto, and it was 100% related to the drug wars between rival gangs. The profits of illegal drugs were so high, that the rival gangs warred over territory and supply lines. The murders would not have happened without the black market for drugs. The gun control point is a valid one, but you don't need a gun to assault someone, and most people who use guns illegally, GET them illegally.
You don't need a gun to assault someone -- but it sure as hell easier to kill someone with a gun than with a butter knife. You still have not provided proof that we would have the exact same murder rate as the Netherlands if only we legalized drugs. Incidentally, since you say you don't need a gun to assault someone anyway (meaning, I presume, that someone who wants to murder someone will find a way to do it), why not deregulate guns as well? I mean, we can trust gun-owners to be responsible, right? And if someone uses a gun to kill someone -- well, it's still a horrible crime, so there. Your words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
When did I say that doctors should be abolished? I said that it's awful that I have to go to two doctors and a pharmicist to get medicine when I could just go to the drug store. I can buy many fatal things OTC at the drug store, so why can't I buy Vicodin, Adderall or The Birth Contol Pill over the counter? The fact is, I know my body a lot more than the doctor in my HMO that I've never seen, so I would know better than him/her what works and what doesn't. All you keep talking about is protecting stupid people from themselves. You know that all this added paperwork, mostly thanks to over-regulation, has caused a large number of Primary Care physicians to want to quit? A study came out today that said the majority of Doctors are overworked and overloaded with unnecessary paperwork and other busy work. Allowing people like me, responsible adults who know their own body, to go to the drug store to get pain killers would help to lighten the workload on doctors. After all, if I hurt myself in my baseball game on Saturday afternoon, I have to wait until Monday to get medicine unless I go to an emergency room? Why can't I just stop off at Rite-Aid on the way home for a pack of Vicodins?
You didn't say doctors should be abolished -- but you are still making the argument that prescription drugs should be deregulated in order to make doctors unnecessary. You may "know your body" -- but you don't know medicine. And the rush of self-treating people who mess themselves up on powerful drugs they should not have taken would hardly, as you say, lighten the doctors' work loads. And, it's not true, that you can buy "many fatal things OTC". Well, technically, yeah, if you take enough aspirin you will die -- but it's certainly easier to murder someone with Vicodine. Prescription drugs are stronger, deadlier, and more addictive. Many of them are also regulated because of a myriad of serious side effects -- which you won't know until you take them, however well you may be familiar with your body. Who will bear the cost of all the mess-ups?

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
No, increased external economic activity would create jobs, which would increase internal economic activity, which would create more jobs. A Cuban man living in Miami who works as a day laborer is suddenly allowed to import Cuban rum and starts a business, he hires an employee and he makes 5x what he did as a laborer...where does that hurt our economy? Most rum sold in the US is foreign anyways...don't you know your rum?
Opening trade with Cuba won't increase economic activity -- it will just alter the market share. Saying that a day laborer in Miami won't start a business unless it's with Cuba is just silly. He can import rum from any of the other countries that we are already importing from. At best, it's a toss -- but like I said, Vegas and South Florida will actually lose money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
As long as there is a black market for something, there will always be the related crime. They don't treat addicts as criminals in Western Europe, they treat them as sick people, and that's how it should be. There ARE responsible heroin users out there, you just don't hear about them because of all the horror stories. I know a lot of recreational cocaine users who only use when they go out late on a Saturday night and they don't ever get violent. I know people who take Ecstasy when they go to parties on the weekend and then work as teachers, nurses or computer programmers during the week. Europeans have more freedoms than we do in most aspects, and they have free speech...they just have a few things in place to prevent another Nazi uprising.
Most drugs are illegal in Western Europe. Since judging by your condescending tone, you are pretty much assuming I've lived all my life under a rock in Redneckville, I would have you know that I grew up in Europe (though Eastern) and lived in France. Europe has many more behavioral freedoms than the US (though not Italy, I have to say), but a lot fewer political freedoms. But putting that aside, let's clarify the picture. On the one hand, you'll have an honest, hard-working American company that will plaster huge ads all over city buses trying to get people addicted to its heroin -- and on the other hand, once that hard-working American company is through with its customers, we'll use taxpayers' money to treat them. When they come out, the heroin-producing company will come after them again. How does that make the least bit of sense? It will put tremendous pressure on the public fisc and health insurance companies -- the only winners will be heroin producers, who likely will employ most of its workers abroad, anyway. In other words, it will be just like it is now -- except the heroin dealers will be able to market more openly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
I apologize and will be more civil...even though you were the one who threw the first stone...I would not have said what I did if you had not insulted the topic.
I did not insult you personally. Topics, however, are fair game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Huh? Who would want a meth-addict having kids anyway? Again, treating addicts is a heck of a lot better than sending them to prison. Those kids will still be orphaned with illegal or legal drugs if their parents are addicts, so I fail to see your point.
Well, I doubt you are going to prevent meth users from having children, or sell meth only to the childfree, are you? Your statement that when a user OD's it's only that user's problem is simply false, regardless of whether whatever he OD'd on is legal or not. And when you make policy decisions, you have to take that into account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Addicts will be sent to rehab, where all that money spent incarcerating cokeheads will be put to good use in getting those people OFF the drugs they are addicted to.
And then all the money they earn once they are OFF drugs can be put to good use getting them ON drugs again -- and then they will be sent back to rehab where the taxpayers' money will be used to get them OFF drugs. And so forth, and so on, ad infinitum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
In Hamburg, Germany, the prostitutes line up next to the police station and have to report every john for their own safety. They are tested for STDs regularly and are far safer than some "escort" in the US. Plus, they are cheaper because it's legal and it's all about supply and demand. Who would buy a streetwalker when there was a legal alternative at the McDonald's equivalent of whorehouses?
Again, you have a limited, elementary school book-type conception of how things like this work. Okay, suppose a prostitute is regularly tested for STD's. The fact that she tests for them does not mean she is safe from them. Suppose she tests positive for HIV. What is she going to do? Immediately become a dental hygienist instead? Maybe -- but more likely, she'll still hook, but illegally -- and to compete with legal ones, she'll charge less, do more kink, etc. Similarly, the fact that they have to report every john, does not mean that they do. Extra money can and does buy anonymity. As for the tax issue, remember, this is a cash business. Just please, don't lecture me on how johns will use credit cards when it's legal. Many johns are married or have girlfriends, and whether prostitution is legal or not, cash is safer. Cash businesses are notoriously difficult and expensive to tax -- and prostitution is no exception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Every one of these points is easily combatted with just a little logic. It's thinking like this that keeps our country behind all others in the civilized world in this century.
You just give yourself all kinds of praise today, Dan. I get it -- you have a high opinion of yourself. You can stop now. Or would you like an engraving?

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
All I got from you was the illogical GOP talking points connected to the issues I presented.
All I got from you was a bunch of bar-room drivel and purple prose without any connection to reality whatsoever. By the way -- I am a registered Democrat and have never voted Republican in my life. Ever. So save the mud-slinging for the junior college rally, okay?

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
You can go to any kitchen in any San Diego restaurant with a $100 bill and leave with Cocaine, Weed or ecstasy from one of the people working there, where the money goes up the ladder to the Tijuana Cartel. See? Instead, you could buy your small packet of cocaine from Rite-Aid, pay a 25% tax on it to pay for rehab and education, have that money benefit American farmers and laborers and decrease the influence of druglords.
Or ... you can go into any San Diego restaurant and buy a packet of cocaine tax-free. The only ones who will go to Rite-Aid are newbies. Addicts will get drugs where they are cheapest. It will be just like it is now, except legal cocaine manufacturers will be manufacturing clients for the cartels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
Where does most of the Al-Qaeda and other terrorist money come from?
POPPIES!
Heroin produced from those poppies is sold to traffickers, who then sell to the cartels in Mexico, who then smuggle it over the border into the US. Billions of dollars leave our hands and go directly to the poppy growers in Afghanistan and elsewhere every year, and the only way to stop this is to grow within our own borders.
Again, you do not show how the poppies grown within our own borders will be cheaper than the poppies grown in Afghanistan. You just assume that everyone will pay a premium for the legal product. It does credit to you, this faith in the inherent goodness of man, but it's really naive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftydan6 View Post
So when you look at it, drug prohibition enabled the attacks on 9/11 and every attack on our American soldiers in the Middle East. Good job keeping America safe!
Agh, that's just Schadenfreude. Go try it on someone else. You'll just pin 9/11 on anything to try to prove a point -- ignoring the fact that terrorists have many sources of funding and that terrorist acts are jaw-droppingly cheap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2008, 04:40 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,938,535 times
Reputation: 3848
Here is what I suggest, Dan: If you want to continue this discussion, stick to the substance. If you feel like making any sweeping comments of a personal nature -- about my intelligence, my political affiliation, your intelligence, your worldliness, or generally how you are da ****, kindly put all that in a private message. I'll read 'em -- promise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2008, 08:00 PM
 
Location: Boise
2,008 posts, read 2,908,048 times
Reputation: 729
I think there are a few things that need considered here. Especially on marijuana legalization. It isn't even about the "harm"caused by using it it's such a vast pit of corruption and payoffs that we can't even shake a stick at it. In essence a large portion of the prohibition of it comes from a firehose of cash from the tobacco, booze and pill industries. a large problem is that even though the taxpayers would save money, or at least channel the cash to a more rational cause, few could actually make PILES of cash from it as many would grow it themselves.

Marijuana prohibition pretty much boils down to a few people that are making money from the present situation, and they aim to keep it that way. These people are probably what George Carlin would have called the "owners of this country".

As far as prostitution goes, Nevada has had a very sucessful model of legalization in terms of health, safety and money. The amount of STD's spread is by far lower than that of black market hookers. not to mention these places of business are very secure and safe, the women get regular check ups and there are no underage prostitutes. Not to mention that states with illegal porstitution have higher rates that Nevada. If I remember right Alabama has the highest STD rate in the nation.

It all boils down to a few things, people are going to do their thing, be it drugs, sex, rock and roll or whatever despite laws. Also, the alcohol prohibition model shows us that prohibition increases crime despite a slight lowering in rates of use. In the end we have to ask what tears at our moral fiber more, buying sex, booze, or pot from a business, or from a gang or otherwise unsavory group or individual? Because when people buy these things, that's what they fund. you keep prostitution illegal and pimps get money, not the state of the community. When people buy dope, some gang or drug dealer gets the cash. So whichis worse, a well funded gang, or a few more potheads?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2008, 08:15 PM
 
5,273 posts, read 11,904,652 times
Reputation: 5745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Here is what I suggest, Dan: If you want to continue this discussion, stick to the substance. If you feel like making any sweeping comments of a personal nature -- about my intelligence, my political affiliation, your intelligence, your worldliness, or generally how you are da ****, kindly put all that in a private message. I'll read 'em -- promise.

Just ignore him. It's easy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 03:32 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,938,535 times
Reputation: 3848
The back-and-forth has gotten really voluminous, so I just want to make a redux:

Preliminarily, the OP makes the mistake of assuming that people will just obey laws because laws exist. He unwaveringly believes (or so it seems to me) that prostitutes in Hamburg report all their johns and turn down offers to make more money by ensuring anonymity; that hookers where prostitution is illegal duly test for STD's and leave the profession the minute they test positive for something; and that, between legal and illegal products or services, people will always choose the former. Why would anyone buy "X" on the black market if it's sold legally?, asks he incredulously. The reason for this naivete is that, like most college-age uber-liberals, the OP cavalierly ignores the costs of what he is proposing -- nay, he denies that costs even exist. His own ramblings, however, prove otherwise.

He mentions "responsible" heroin users, for instance, who are in control of their habits and are mentally competent. Now, even if you take the position that all drugs should be legalized and deregulated, you have to acknowledge the fact that as it happens now, drugs are illegal, and heroin possession is a crime. And, it's not like a crime where an addict is so badly affected that he loses mental competency, or where a starving man steals a loaf of bread. No, when a "responsible", non-addicted heroin user buys heroin, (s)he is committing a crime of convenience. This is an "upstanding citizen" inasmuch as he obeys the law unless he feels like breaking it. Now, the million-dollar question: If such people are breaking the law now to buy illegal drugs, what makes you think they won't break the law to buy drugs at a discount from illegal vendors once heroin is legalized? Legalization will, of course, drive the price of hard drugs down, thereby supplying the narcotics industry with more customers; but the cartels won't go out of business -- what they lose in prices, they'll make up for in volume.

Much has been made of legalizing and regulating prostitution. I, for one, believe that cops' time is better spent on something other than chasing johns around back alleys. However, while I support decriminalization, I don't think regulation is realistic or would achieve what the supporters say it would achieve. "Europe" is often touted as an example of an enlightened attitude towards prostitution -- and in theory, perhaps, this is correct. In practice, however, there is nothing enlightened about the human trafficking that's taking place from Eastern Europe to Western and to Turkey (where prostitution is also legal). Despite prostitution being legal, de facto or de jure, this trafficking is a lucrative and growing industry. I find it hard to believe that it's legal, however -- what, with the women being made to work round the clock, forced abortions, beatings, rapes, sequestration, withholding women's passports or charging them so much for bare necessities that they not only never see any money, but are perpetually in debt to their "sponsors". If these businesses are illegal (as I suspect), you have to acknowledge the fact that "European" enlightened laws on prostitution have not eliminated the demand for sex workers who toil for less, are more willing (or willed) to engage in dangerous, painful or humiliating sex acts, and lend themselves more readily to all sorts of abuse. And if, by contrast, these wide-spread practices are legal, then you really have to wonder what moral barrier there is to simply legalizing slavery, murder-for-hire and trafficking in organs. (That's in reference to the OP's righteous outrage at my "modest proposal".)

Finally, there is the problem of justifications. The OP wants to legalize all these things for moral and social reasons -- but, incredibly, attempts to provide an economic basis for doing so. Truth is, the economic justification simply does not work here. And it lends no credibility to one's argument to ignore the costs of an activity while extolling the supposed returns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Boise
2,008 posts, read 2,908,048 times
Reputation: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
He mentions "responsible" heroin users, for instance, who are in control of their habits and are mentally competent. Now, even if you take the position that all drugs should be legalized and deregulated, you have to acknowledge the fact that as it happens now, drugs are illegal, and heroin possession is a crime. And, it's not like a crime where an addict is so badly affected that he loses mental competency, or where a starving man steals a loaf of bread. No, when a "responsible", non-addicted heroin user buys heroin, (s)he is committing a crime of convenience. This is an "upstanding citizen" inasmuch as he obeys the law unless he feels like breaking it. Now, the million-dollar question: If such people are breaking the law now to buy illegal drugs, what makes you think they won't break the law to buy drugs at a discount from illegal vendors once heroin is legalized? Legalization will, of course, drive the price of hard drugs down, thereby supplying the narcotics industry with more customers; but the cartels won't go out of business -- what they lose in prices, they'll make up for in volume.

Much has been made of legalizing and regulating prostitution. I, for one, believe that cops' time is better spent on something other than chasing johns around back alleys. However, while I support decriminalization, I don't think regulation is realistic or would achieve what the supporters say it would achieve. "Europe" is often touted as an example of an enlightened attitude towards prostitution -- and in theory, perhaps, this is correct. In practice, however, there is nothing enlightened about the human trafficking that's taking place from Eastern Europe to Western and to Turkey (where prostitution is also legal). Despite prostitution being legal, de facto or de jure, this trafficking is a lucrative and growing industry.
It is true that legalization of some of these things would increase use of them. but making them illegal isn't working, and other more rational plans of attack have been working quite well. take smoking for example, the amount of smokers has been going down pretty steadily for the last few years and it has been done without imprisonment and fines.

And while regulation and treatment would cost the taxpayers, they are already spending massive amounts - the drug war is very very expensive. I don't have any figures (I would like to see some if anyone has them) of what regulation and treatment for addiction would cost, but it would have to be one helluva program to equal the asinine amount of cash we dump into the drug war.

Also, as I mentioned in my earlier post, we don't have to even look at European countries to compare prostitution. We have Nevada to look at. And while their system isn't perfect and doesn't solve all problems (then again, no system, plan or program does or ever will) it is nowhere near the demon that some make it out to be.

I think that one misconception is that masses and masses of people will flock to cat houses and shoot heroin and smoke pot if it were legalized, but we fail to see how many people don't partake in these things because they don't want to. I mean really, how many people on here have been to a prostitute or done heroin and how many would? (this gives me an idea). I honestly would like to know, as I may be wrong myself...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2008, 04:48 AM
 
Location: Pensacola, Fl
656 posts, read 951,378 times
Reputation: 373
Let's stop using Europe and Nevada as examples of why prostitution should be legal and look at another country that people often fail to count out. Besides not having a standing military and being geared toward more consumer type ventures, a part of Japan's wealth comes from brothel houses. Yes, that's legal prostitution and they've had this gig going on for years (and when I say years, I mean centuries). They even have it set up where the woman can live in the brothel house. I'm not saying that this is morally sound, but seriously, from an economic stand point this would bring a large amount of revenue into the U.S.

When people say sex sells, it really does sell. Look at the pornography industry. For years, we as a nation have condemned voyeurism, but pornography still remains one of the leading industries economically. Now tell me, what is the difference between pornography and prostitution? When you really think about it, it's not that many differences (besides the fact that prostitution runs rampant in our society, contributes to people with STD's, and is illegal). When you really get down to the nitty gritty of it all, both prostitutes and porn actors are having sex for money; it's just prostitution is illegal. If prostitution was made legal, could you imagine the profits made? Astronomical. Prostitutes wouldn't have to have a pimp anymore that sells them for the going rate of crack, but instead a legitimate employer who would: regularly test their employees for STD's, provide contraceptives, and actually provide healthcare benefits that many business employ. Of course if prostitution was legalized, we would still have our streetwalkers down the street selling it for ten cents on the dollar, but rationally and logically speaking, would you buy candy from a guy off the street that looks like the box as been opened, filled with something, then sealed for ten cents or go to the store and buy the same candy where it's insured that you won't get syphillis from eating candy if you pay fifty cents more? If I wanted the candy that bad, I'd just pay the fifty cents more.

I do believe in the decriminalization of some drugs, but not to the extent of some on this board. I won't say weed is harmless (because it contains three times the amount of carcinogens as a cigarette) but seriously, what's the worst horror story you've heard about weed (that has directly involved the death of another)? Some would use the example of driving, but can you tell me if that person didn't have alcohol in their system at that time? The worst I've heard is thee person falling asleep, waking up and eating somebody out of a house and home. I'm not saying that weed is a totally harmless drug, but we have legal prescription drugs like steroids that not only have an adverse affect on the body, but also causes some to go into "roid rage" where they might kill their five year old son, wife, and themselves. Locking up a pot head for 3 months to a year for smoking weed is not going to do anything but take up space and let a real criminal walk around free.

And if you really think about it, we could end this drug war right now; of course we'd be in so much debt that birds couldn't even escape, we would still be able to end it. Instead of going after the little street pedler on the corner, if we went after the top dogs, we could sever it from the head. But going after big crime families and mafias is just not a wise idea. Because even if you take the head, you'll still have the body running around like a decapitated chicken. But, we could do it, just expect your taxes to be raised to astronomical rates.

I'm not particulary for or against drug prohibition and the like, but either way we go, there will be a rippling effect. We just need to find the way with the least ripples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top