Legalize Marijuana and Prostitution

[whowhere]

She looked normal (not like a "druggie") and I wondered to myself "what ever happened in her life that drove her to stand out on this rainy street and sell herself". There must be an underlying issue, I am certain she was not doing it because she liked it. -- the forlorn look on her face told me this.

She's a crack or meth addict.

Really, societies anywhere should adopt a profit approach to petty crime. If someone does something they are not suppose to do, ie drugs and prostitution, fine them. If they can't pay the fine, community service work. Won't do the community service work, they are sent to labour camps to work off their debts. In this day and age of the debauched and the corrupt, there is no sense restraining or resticting someone from anything by fear of arrest because they are bent on doing it anyway. Some have criminal records as long as their arm. Another arrest to these people, means nothing. You want to deter someone from doing something, make them realize its going to cost them money and hard labour. The fact is, those who sell drugs or sex are out to make a buck. Take this money away from them through progressive fines they will be clued into pursueing a different line of work.

[DrGreenthumb]

She's a crack or meth addict.

Really, societies anywhere should adopt a profit approach to petty crime. If someone does something they are not suppose to do, ie drugs and prostitution, fine them. If they can't pay the fine, community service work. Won't do the community service work, they are sent to labour camps to work off their debts. In this day and age of the debauched and the corrupt, there is no sense restraining or resticting someone from anything by fear of arrest because they are bent on doing it anyway. Some have criminal records as long as their arm. Another arrest to these people, means nothing. You want to deter someone from doing something, make them realize its going to cost them money and hard labour. The fact is, those who sell drugs or sex are out to make a buck. Take this money away from them through progressive fines they will be clued into pursueing a different line of work.

So you are in favour of decriminalization? That's what a system that uses fines rather than criminal records and prisons is called. That is what the Liberal party was proposing. It does not go far enough in my opinion but it is better than criminal records and jail. It still uses the law to force your opinion of right /wrong lifestyle choices on others however.

[Drea]

She's a crack or meth addict.

When I said she looked "normal" I meant that she didn't have the pockmarked face of a meth addict, nor was she pencil thin. But perhaps you are correct as I didn't ask her.

The fact is, those who sell drugs or sex are out to make a buck. Take this money away from them through progressive fines they will be clued into pursueing a different line of work.

Those who sell anything are out to make a buck. That Starbucks you bought the other day went towards someone's pocket. So what?

What about the purchasers? Should a person be able to purchase sex or drugs if they want to? I believe a regulated sex trade and that regulated, legalized drugs would decrease crime.

If a person wanted to buy sex, he/she would simply go to a brothel in which the workers are tested for disease. If a person wanted to buy drugs, he/she would simply go to a "drug store" and purchase it -- completely eliminating the criminal element. If you do not agree, please show the proof that thousands of people are incarcerated because of selling or buying illegal alcohol.

As an added bonus, we could collect taxes on the transactions!

Conservative policies do not work with regard to prostitution and drugs. The progressive approach would not only decrease the number of offenders in prisons - it would take away the profitabilty of drug crime (why buy from a street dealer, when you can purchase it at a lower cost in the drug store?). Criminals are not selling drugs because it is fun, but because it is profitable. Take away the profit and you take away the criminal.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Drea

[peter_puck]

None of this will EVER happen with a TORY government, at least not HARPER's. The conservatives want to make sinning as dangerous as possible. They will then cite those dangers that they created as reasons not to sin.

Probably not, but there are lots of conservatives who favor the legalization of drugs. There are many members of congress who have come out to favor it AFTER they left office. The National review (important conservative publication) has come out in favor as well.

http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

[BC_chick]

Should I have to seek contact with the "criminals" when attempting to buy pot or E ?

Trust me, you don't want the government to be your pot supplier. My friend's mom who has MS was recently prescribed medicinal marijuana. The pills cost $6 each and if you take the daily dosage prescribed, it'll cost you a flipping $1800/month. If you have benefits and are looking for a way to get yourself booted from the plan, this is the way to go.

Absolutely ridiculous.

So you wanna talk "criminal" who is the real "criminal" here... the peddler on the street who provides a victimless product... or the institution that turns exorbitant profits from the terminally-ill?

Edited September 28, 2008 by BC_chick

[eyeball]

Yes...and....

I think that is what I said'

Yes...and...

I think most Libertarians still end up voting for the party with the least regard for individual liberty and the greatest disconnect with reality.

[WIP]

Regarding point 1, yes you are if your kids are like that and you were or are a single mom. GOOD for you, you probably don't hear that enough, I do not envy your situation but it sounds like you have done well with what you were handed.

Point 2) I educate my kids well, my Mom is an RN and I let her talk to the kids about alchol, drugs and smoking. A family friend is a doctor, he has had the same input into thier lives. My wife and I talk to them regularly on all these things too. The kids know I HAD a drinking problem when I was in my late teens but also know now Daddy never has more than 1 drink in a 6 hour time frame, he regularly says no to even one. The know what moderation means and why getting drunk even once is a bad road to go down. My wife does not drink but supports me that I have recovered and have the self control to drink the little I do. (I maybe have 3 drinks a month, if even that sometimes.) I have not blindly hid my children behind a wall and sheltered them from this world. They have been educated in truth about the all those things and more. My wife and I are preparing them to be able to make the right decisions for them with all the information at hand, not just the information from their peers at school. "Put the right stuff into them and they will most likely grow into amazing positive people that contribute to society" that's my child parenting moto. Time will tell.

That last sentence: "time will tell," says it all! Personally, I would say it is more important to teach children how to think for themselves and make responsible decisions, rather than educating them "in truth about the all those things." Some people have little or no capacity for independent thought, but your kids may start questioning what you consider "truth" as they get older and learn opposing points of view.

I wonder about this little confession of being an alcoholic! Your own addiction problems may be the source of your extreme motivation to stamp out sin elsewhere. It is possible that addiction could manifest in one or more of your kids despite all of your teaching and best intentions. But, just the same, a child that does not feel the same physical pull of addiction may start tuning you out as being just an hysterical, alarmist crank, and be even more likely to try the things that you are afraid of.

And looking at the big picture, I am continually frustrated with social conservatives like you, because of the fact that you guys can't grasp the fact that making products, services, lifestyles or even ideas, illegal, does not mean that they just go away! If the demand is there, they go on the blackmarket and become the business of organized crime. And I wish you guys could get that through your thick skulls every time you call for more draconian drug laws and violations of civil rights that the previous infringements on personal liberties were supposed to fix. Every time drug use increases, the law-enforcement industry calls for more police with bigger budgets and more prisons to throw more drug offenders into.

And the same thing happens with criminalizing prostitution, abortion....and I don't see what the hell you would accomplish by banning gay pride parades. An easier solution is just to avoid downtown when they are having a parade. If it was every weekend, you might have an argument; but one weekend a year, that should be easy to avoid! It just fits the profile of conservatives thinking they can abolish immorality and force people to live in a way that is pleasing to them.

[Pliny]

I think most Libertarians still end up voting for the party with the least regard for individual liberty and the greatest disconnect with reality.

Would that be the NDP?

[Pliny]

Originally posted by WIP:

Personally, I would say it is more important to teach children how to think for themselves and make responsible decisions, rather than educating them "in truth about the all those things." Some people have little or no capacity for independent thought, but your kids may start questioning what you consider "truth" as they get older and learn opposing points of view.

Do you realize what you are saying, man? It is a real disconnect from your usual liberal socialist ideological stand.

If people could think for themselves and make responsible decisions they certainly wouldn't tolerate anything like socialized medicine or public education, at least not beyond the ability to read, write and do some arithmetic.

I suppose you believe that more than "some people" have little or no capacity for independent thought and need the leadership of their government to direct their lives. Would that be true?

[Pliny]

Moral is a tricky thing...

It is only tricky when you have difficulty knowing right from wrong.

Do you feel guilty of the deaths of 1.2 Million Iraqis when you fuel up your car?

Short answer - no, I do not feel guilty.

I do feel sad that this is how things are. They need not be that way. Unfortunately, they cannot learn the lesson that it is ok to attack western society and that their oppressors are really their own leaders and their beliefs. Their society is beyond advancing past the 12th century and they cannot attempt to exert an influence that would bring the standards of living achieved by the west down to the standards that have been set for them from ages past.

Do you feel guilty of exterminating the Aboriginal Americans living on their land?

The aboriginal Americans are not exterminated. And the suggestion they are is mere sloppy liberal rhetoric.

Aboriginals in the States were offered the choice of assimilation or living on reserves. A choice Canadian natives did not have. Some American natives went the route of assimilation and some live on "their land" called reservations.

If you are suggesting that the rich landowners of America did not wish to share with the poor immigrants that came here to find a new life then I have to ask what kind of a socialist you are? The European governments were just ensuring the natives were caring and sharing. You know, take from the rich and give to the poor.

Are you not on board with that philosophy?

About the destructive nature...

Birth causes death... driving causes accidents... alcohol causes alcoholism... sedentary lifestyle causes cardio-vascular diseases...

It is all very relative. If your choice doesn't doesn't harm other people then it shouldn't be restricted.

Ahhh...Relative morality. No one can really knows for sure what is right and wrong, can they? A man steals a loaf of bread because he suffers starvation and faces death. "Is it really wrong?"(Said in a soft caring-sharing wimpy voice) Well, yes it is wrong. I would rather be dead than be known as a thief. There should be no justification for criminality and the person who committed the crime may make justification but he knows he cannot trust himself and self respect is needed ifone is to live an honest life. The person may try and restore his self-respect by making excuses for, or supplying himself reasons for his behavior but he still wouldn't feel right because someone else did suffer because of his action. Why he has to pay a debt to society to restore himself to good standing is kind of odd to say the least. He should pay his debt to the person or persons he harmed. Government seems only interested in punishment and not the restoration of the persons self-respect so that he can hold his position in society and know he is above harming his fellow man.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Pliny

[Canadian Blue]

I'd support both the legalization of marijuana and prostitution. As long as we have strict regulations and laws in place to deal with those who abuse the new freedoms granted we should be alright.

[Smallc]

I'd support both the legalization of marijuana and prostitution. As long as we have strict regulations and laws in place to deal with those who abuse the new freedoms granted we should be alright.

I think I agree with that (though I'm still a bit hesitant when it comes to drugs as I really hate the ones that are already legal). If anything, it may make prostitution safer for all involved (lets face it, people are going to do it no matter what).

[PoliticalCitizen]

So go ahead and hang yourself. Sorry, I am in a bad mood.

Nah, you go first, dude.

I'm in a great mood

[PoliticalCitizen]

It's to bad he couldn't have been added to the 1.2 million iraqies to make it 1,200,001. At least in the face of high gas prices I would have reason to smile.

I love you too

[PoliticalCitizen]

I trust any government (even the Conservatives!) to sell "recreational drugs" in a safe, organized manner as much as I would trust a chimpanzee with a loaded machine gun in an elevator. It'll gonna kill many and hurt even more.

Would you please come up with some arguments as to how regulated sale will be worse than what we have today?

[PoliticalCitizen]

I recently quit smoking -- fall off the wagon now and then tho -- because it's just not socially acceptable to smoke anymore. I was educated and bullied into quitting by the government!

I had gone through the same thing about 4 years ago after smoking for 16 years non-stop.

I have to say that government's anti-smoking campaign was a very successful example of social engineering.

Same could be done with the drugs, but the first step would be legalizing, controlling production and distribution.

[PoliticalCitizen]

It is only tricky when you have difficulty knowing right from wrong.

Everyone has their own right and wrong. Some go by the bible, some by the koran and some by their feelings. That's why all talk about some "general" or "common" moral is absurd. It is especially devoid of value when we do not practice what we preach.

Short answer - no, I do not feel guilty.

I do feel sad that this is how things are. They need not be that way. Unfortunately, they cannot learn the lesson that it is ok to attack western society and that their oppressors are really their own leaders and their beliefs. Their society is beyond advancing past the 12th century and they cannot attempt to exert an influence that would bring the standards of living achieved by the west down to the standards that have been set for them from ages past.

I figured you wouldn't. That's OK. I'm sure most people don't. Because if we did we'd stop driving. We'd start thinking we fuel our cars with the blood of the innocent... Very sad indeed...

Islamic countries have made a choice to form a society where religion is before everything else. It is their choice. They have the right to make it.

The aboriginal Americans are not exterminated. And the suggestion they are is mere sloppy liberal rhetoric.

Aboriginals in the States were offered the choice of assimilation or living on reserves. A choice Canadian natives did not have. Some American natives went the route of assimilation and some live on "their land" called reservations.

I was not referring to the aboriginals that lived on USA territory but to all that lived in North and South Americas. I always found it both funny and vainglorious when USA citizens called themselves American as opposed to Canadian or Mexican or South American. They don't own America(s). We are not Australian.

Anyway - what happened to Aboriginals cannot be called anything other than GENOCIDE - and THE worst in the history of humanity. We (collectively) killed them and took their land. We live on it. They're dead (most of them, anyway).

If you are suggesting that the rich landowners of America did not wish to share with the poor immigrants that came here to find a new life then I have to ask what kind of a socialist you are? The European governments were just ensuring the natives were caring and sharing. You know, take from the rich and give to the poor.

Are you not on board with that philosophy?

The Good Old Socialist philosophy never employed extermination. That's why even today Russian Federation is one of the most mixed countries in the world. In Soviet Union the "Natives" were not forced into reservations. They were educated in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism

Ahhh...Relative morality. No one can really knows for sure what is right and wrong, can they? A man steals a loaf of bread because he suffers starvation and faces death. "Is it really wrong?"(Said in a soft caring-sharing wimpy voice) Well, yes it is wrong. I would rather be dead than be known as a thief. There should be no justification for criminality and the person who committed the crime may make justification but he knows he cannot trust himself and self respect is needed ifone is to live an honest life. The person may try and restore his self-respect by making excuses for, or supplying himself reasons for his behavior but he still wouldn't feel right because someone else did suffer because of his action. Why he has to pay a debt to society to restore himself to good standing is kind of odd to say the least. He should pay his debt to the person or persons he harmed. Government seems only interested in punishment and not the restoration of the persons self-respect so that he can hold his position in society and know he is above harming his fellow man.

Do you approve of killing people? Your government and your tax money sais you do as our army is killing Afghanis.

Do you approve of forced labor? Your government and your tax money sais you do as the lowest-income layer of the population is forced to slave for peanuts.

Nothing is black and white unless you're a fanatic who has given up his ability to think, judge reality and make own conclusions.

[WIP]

Originally posted by WIP:

Do you realize what you are saying, man? It is a real disconnect from your usual liberal socialist ideological stand.

If people could think for themselves and make responsible decisions they certainly wouldn't tolerate anything like socialized medicine or public education, at least not beyond the ability to read, write and do some arithmetic.

When I say "learn to think for themselves," I mean people can arrive at all sorts of conclusions about how to live and what public policies should be..........and that sure is a lesson that's lost on you! Thinking independently means allowing others to think for themselves too; and you are showing the fascist, conformist attitude of the extreme right by making such a ridiculous, dogmatic statement that everyone who wants public health insurance and a public school system can't think for themselves.

And if that's the yardstick for defining "socialist," then the vast majority of Canadians are socialists by your definition; possibly even a majority within the Conservative Party would also be socialists. Logic doesn't support your hysterical rantings.

I suppose you believe that more than "some people" have little or no capacity for independent thought and need the leadership of their government to direct their lives. Would that be true?

What you're talking about is not a matter of whether or not someone thinks independently; people who are conformists, willingly accept the opinions of their trusted authority figures without giving much thought to evaluating these ideas for themselves. Not much can be done about it -- some people have an ideology or a dogma that they feel the need to adhere to, and nothing will change their minds!

[Pliny]

I had gone through the same thing about 4 years ago after smoking for 16 years non-stop.

I have to say that government's anti-smoking campaign was a very successful example of social engineering.

Same could be done with the drugs, but the first step would be legalizing, controlling production and distribution.

What was so successful? It is still around. Because it has dropped off your radar screen doesn't make for success.

I suppose prohibiting it's use in public places has something to do with the drop in usage. I suppose cutting off underground markets has something to do with it's drop in usage. I suppose overtaxing it has something to do with it's drop in usage. I suppose that honest people being harrassed has something to do with the drop in usage, they tend to want to be sociable.

How would that work with drugs? Prohibiting their use in public places? Cutting off the underground markets? Overtaxing it? Harassing criminals not to use drugs.

Cigarettes always were legal. Drugs have not been. With cigarettes they took something legal and started to prohibit it. With drugs they are already illegal and prohibited. So how does that compare?

You are not working with the same clientel with cigarettes as you are with abusers of currently illegal drugs.

The hard core smokers are still there and will soon turn their habit into a criminal activity trying to get their fix by by-passing the prohibitive social and economic measures government has placed before them. Sounds familiar.

[Pliny]

When I say "learn to think for themselves," I mean people can arrive at all sorts of conclusions about how to live and what public policies should be..........and that sure is a lesson that's lost on you! Thinking independently means allowing others to think for themselves too; and you are showing the fascist, conformist attitude of the extreme right by making such a ridiculous, dogmatic statement that everyone who wants public health insurance and a public school system can't think for themselves.

And if that's the yardstick for defining "socialist," then the vast majority of Canadians are socialists by your definition; possibly even a majority within the Conservative Party would also be socialists. Logic doesn't support your hysterical rantings.

That is the yardstick for defining socialists, and yes, the vast majority of Canadians are socialist and the majority of the conservative party are socialists. Fascists are socialists too. Sorry I dont' believe in a central authority running people's lives, their healthcare or their education so count me out as a socialist fascist.

What you're talking about is not a matter of whether or not someone thinks independently; people who are conformists, willingly accept the opinions of their trusted authority figures without giving much thought to evaluating these ideas for themselves. Not much can be done about it -- some people have an ideology or a dogma that they feel the need to adhere to, and nothing will change their minds!

Yes you willingly accept the opinions of your trusted authority figures in health and education otherwise you would have to determine your own course of action in both. Not much can be done about it when you have an ideology you need to adhere to.

[eyeball]

Would that be the NDP?

Nope, that would be the Conservatives. Liberals OTOH are probably just as bad or worse given their propensity for dithering. This only serves to piss off conservatives and the Conservatives they elect are reciprocating by cracking down with a renewed vengence.

This feedback loop has only resulted in an increasingly cranky and self-righteous right-wing. The right-wing is not a place its a direction and we keep moving farther along in it with every swing of the pendulum. The Liberal Party, by far, is the party that's most responsible for this sad state of affairs.

Edited September 29, 2008 by eyeball

[Pliny]

Everyone has their own right and wrong. Some go by the bible, some by the koran and some by their feelings. That's why all talk about some "general" or "common" moral is absurd. It is especially devoid of value when we do not practice what we preach.

Yes everyone has their own right and wrong so how can anybody know what is right and what is wrong. See. It is impossible. Isn't it. That is moral relativity. Sorry how can you say I am wrong. You can't possibly know.

I figured you wouldn't. That's OK. I'm sure most people don't. Because if we did we'd stop driving. We'd start thinking we fuel our cars with the blood of the innocent... Very sad indeed...

Why do you feel guilty about Iraqi deaths? Have you discovered some "general" or "common" moral truth?

I thought you said that was absurd.

Islamic countries have made a choice to form a society where religion is before everything else. It is their choice. They have the right to make it.

Yes they do and they will persuade you to make that choice too. They are not like you where you believe in choice.

I was not referring to the aboriginals that lived on USA territory but to all that lived in North and South Americas. I always found it both funny and vainglorious when USA citizens called themselves American as opposed to Canadian or Mexican or South American. They don't own America(s). We are not Australian.

Anyway - what happened to Aboriginals cannot be called anything other than GENOCIDE - and THE worst in the history of humanity. We (collectively) killed them and took their land. We live on it. They're dead (most of them, anyway).

I never did such thing. And neither did you unless you happen to be over a hundred years old. So who do you mean by "we"? Listen, the mongols came and swept across the steppes taking our land and we fled in terror. I don't think there are any descendants of the mongols flagellating themselves over the annihilation of slavic westerners 1000 years ago and visiting guilt upon themselves. "WE", that is us, you and me, have never participated in such an activity. I hope never to do so and I think our species has become a little more civilized but I can't say we don't have room for improvement.

You must have really found some general or common moral here. Forgot all about that being absurd did you?

The Good Old Socialist philosophy never employed extermination. That's why even today Russian Federation is one of the most mixed countries in the world. In Soviet Union the "Natives" were not forced into reservations. They were educated in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism

Do you approve of killing people? Your government and your tax money sais you do as our army is killing Afghanis.

No extermination? Read about the Ukrainian famine of 1933 where all the land was confiscated. Are you a marxist? Shouldn't you feel guilty about the millions of Ukrainians who were "exterminated" at the hands of the Communists. Ignore socialism in government at your peril. Killing people is acceptable when they are out to kill you. Murdering people is not acceptable.

Do you approve of forced labor? Your government and your tax money sais you do as the lowest-income layer of the population is forced to slave for peanuts.

Everyone has to work and contribute to society. There is choice in how you contribute. You can also choose not to contribute but I don't suggest it. It would be preferable to slave for peanuts - once again though it is a choice.

Nothing is black and white unless you're a fanatic who has given up his ability to think, judge reality and make own conclusions.

That makes it pretty black and white.

[GostHacked]

Legalize all drugs.

Those who are responsible in their drug use, (and alcohol use) will still function fine in society. If some idiot wants to blow their brains out on coke, heroine or whatever it is, then so be it. Overdose, kill yourself, I don't care. More room for me and my friends. Legalize it all and let the chips fall where they may. Responsible drug users who are contributing to society should not be penalized because some idiot overdosed on any drug. People who have no self control will be the ones that get lost in the gutter.

Prositution, when legalized, can be a great thing. Look at Amsterdam for example. The girls all have a health care plan and get regular check ups, it is also considered a worth while profession. When you take that stigmata away from something (like prostitution) by making it legal, and providing the safeguards for the occupation. Not to mention you can tax them !!!!

I have had several pals hit Amsterdam, they told me there are no ulgy or out of shape prositutes. Hmm sounds good.

[eyeball]

When you take that stigmata away from something (like prostitution) by making it legal, and providing the safeguards for the occupation. Not to mention you can tax them !!!!

I think this is why they licenced bars, AKA, safe-ingestion sites.

[Pliny]

Nope, that would be the Conservatives. Liberals OTOH are probably just as bad or worse given their propensity for dithering. This only serves to piss off conservatives and the Conservatives they elect are reciprocating by cracking down with a renewed vengence.

This feedback loop has only resulted in an increasingly cranky and self-righteous right-wing. The right-wing is not a place its a direction and we keep moving farther along in it with every swing of the pendulum. The Liberal Party, by far, is the party that's most responsible for this sad state of affairs.

Odd? The Conservatives are more socialist than the NDP? So you are a socialist like most Canadians.

The Conservative strength today owes itself to political correctness and government intervention in just about every area of our lives except where government has been traditionally mandated to intervene - justice. I think Harper is answering a call to cut down on crime and not be so wishy-washy with criminality. You don't like it and think it a move to some sort of socialist fascism. Especially, since it treads a little bit on your territory. Attempting to bring some regulation in that may affect you. Well, that was coming anyway no matter who won the election. It has a global momentum and is not a Canadian phenomenon. I am speaking of course about the codex alimentarius. The NDP would wholeheartedly embrace this. It is to Harpers' credit he hasn't.

So find out the NDP position on the codex alimentarius. It will really frighten you.