Strippers, escorts should be added to job bank: Ottawa

[grainfedprairieboy]

By that same logic, then prohibiting all fast food will lead to significant decreases in obesity, heart disease, cancer, etc. etc etc.

Of course.

Does that mean it should be illegal? Good luck on that one!

I'm not advocating those items should be illegal. I am simply illustrating that if you increase availability of any product or service that was formally illegal or difficult to access for the general population then there will be a corresponding increase in consumption.

For whatever reason, there is some goofy idea going around in some quarters here that prohibition of anything actually leads to increased usage.

We do have an example of what happens when we take a being and eliminate all risk, all dangers, and confine it to a life of nothing but safety and security. You get an indoor cat. We make it stay inside so that it can't find trouble, we cut its balls off so that it can't act on its natural urges, We feed it dull food day after day, that while supposedly nutritious, is hardly stimulating. Try doing that to a human and see what problems you create. I think it will look something like the average federal prison.

I'm a free range Albertan who still doesn't wear his seatbelt and stores loaded rifles under the truck seat in case I spot something that needs shooting.

I'm not advocating bubble wrapped kids and the nanny state that seems to be the flavour for the baby boomer's offspring. I am just saying that if you legalise prostitution you will increase consumption.

Now whether that is good or bad is a separate argument.

[wyly]

For whatever reason, there is some goofy idea going around in some quarters here that prohibition of anything actually leads to increased usage.

marijuana use in the netherlands where it is openly available and decriminalized is much much lower than in Canada, Canadians being the third highest user in the world and Netherlands being among the lowest...Portugal which not long ago abolished all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine, saw a significant drop in drug use after the prohibition was dropped...a sure way to get a teenager to try something? tell them they can't...

I'm not advocating bubble wrapped kids and the nanny state that seems to be the flavour for the baby boomer's offspring. I am just saying that if you legalise prostitution you will increase consumption.

you don't know that it will either, prostitutes are a phone call away nearly everywhere in Canada...why would making it legal make it more plentiful? it only makes safer and simpler to aquire...prohibition against adults having consensual sex must be the dumbest idea ever....

Now whether that is good or bad is a separate argument.

it is...

I'm a free range Albertan who still doesn't wear his seatbelt and stores loaded rifles under the truck seat in case I spot something that needs shooting.

no seat belt? loaded guns loose under the seat, shooting at anything that moves...you're a thousand times more dangerous to society than any hooker...

[Michael Hardner]

I agree with the prairieboy - making something legal makes it more available, as there is no penalty for being caught - and making it illegal reduces use.

But it's a side argument. Prohibiting booze was a disaster, as is prohibition of most things...

[ToadBrother]

Prohibition is a great example.

Since we don't know how much alcohol the bad guys produced it is hard to compare consumption/production rates during this period. But some of the hard statistics we do know are that everywhere medical records were kept, such as NY and Chicago, both the rates of death by alcoholism and cirrhosis of the liver dropped by around 80-90% and suicide rates also declined during those years by an average of 50%.

Ref Drug Library

Possibly a coincidence? Sure I suppose. But most casual observers would draw the conclusion that consumption was dramatically reduced. I honestly don't see how people can debate that point. Now whether it was the right thing to do is a completely separate argument.

There is some evidence that, from a public health point of view, Prohibition was successful. It was viewed as a disaster not because of that, but because it basically took the Mafia and the Mob in general, who had prior to that been into gambling, extortion and prostitution, in other words relatively small regional potatoes, and basically delivered to them the business of the distribution of alcohol. And the more the Feds cracked down it, the more valuable the alcohol distribution business became (remain the key rule of economics, scarcity increases price and increases the tolerance to risk). It utterly transformed organized crime in North America.

And then, once Prohibition was repealed, the Feds turned around and started creating or strengthening anti-narcotics laws, simply moving the target, and thus in no small part creating the vast international drug smuggling business, which at the moment seems to be dangerously destabilizing Mexico.

I don't think any sensible person could say Prohibition wasn't without its benefits, but were they worth the rise of wide-scale organized crime?

[grainfedprairieboy]

I don't think any sensible person could say Prohibition wasn't without its benefits, but were they worth the rise of wide-scale organized crime?

I think it is difficult to take away something such as alcohol but when it comes to something that was never legal in the first place I don't see how lifting the prohibition does anything but increase consumption.

Experience suggests that problems associated with crime will not disappear as evidenced in Amsterdam when organised crime actually became more involved after prostitution was legalised, especially through the international trafficking of women, rather then the complete disappearance that was anticipated.

I suppose this could be argued as an isolated case as Amsterdam has become somewhat of a drug and sex tourist destination but I don't really see the criminal element ever getting out of the sex or drug trades no matter how cheap and available you make things. These guys won't just fold their chairs and go home, they'll come up with something new.

So legalise everything then right? Hey, I'm a true Libertarian. I believe everything should be your choice. However, under the current system I'm expected to pay for the care and rehabilitation of people so in order to minimise what I have to pay I will advocate that certain life styles choices be restricted.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I think it is difficult to take away something such as alcohol but when it comes to something that was never legal in the first place I don't see how lifting the prohibition does anything but increase consumption.

Prostitution was and is legal in many places and has never actually been illegal in Canada. It's the activities associated with it that are illegal. (solicitation became illegal in 1972)

Edited October 16, 2010 by TrueMetis

[grainfedprairieboy]

Prostitution was and is legal in many places and has never actually been illegal in Canada. It's the activities associated with it that are illegal. (solicitation became illegal in 1972)

You're right but I am essentially referring to those laws which prohibit brothels and owning or investing in them. Otherwise we are debating semantics.

[wyly]

and there is a thriving market for stolen goods even if those goods are legally sold, so do we shut down legitimate retailers because there is a black-market for stolen goods?..criminals and trafficking unwilling women has always been there and always will be, if it's in the open it would be easier to police and help those who are forced into the trade....

and expecting a rush of new hookers setting up shop has no basis they're already out there hiding in dark corners...

[Guest TrueMetis]

You're right but I am essentially referring to those laws which prohibit brothels and owning or investing in them. Otherwise we are debating semantics.

So essentially you are against any laws that might actually make it safer for prostitutes?

[grainfedprairieboy]

So essentially you are against any laws that might actually make it safer for prostitutes?

I`m against any laws that increase the demand for prostitutes.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I`m against any laws that increase the demand for prostitutes.

Then you are going to have to prove that that is what this ruling will do.

[grainfedprairieboy]

Then you are going to have to prove that that is what this ruling will do.

No I don`t.

There is no ruling. A piece of Toronto Star yellow journalism evolved into a hypothetical debate surrounding the merits of removing all current legal obstacles to prostitution.

Further, when it comes to changing laws it is generally the responsibility of the advocator to `prove` the assertions as the status quo is already self evident.

[Guest TrueMetis]

No I don`t.

There is no ruling. A piece of Toronto Star yellow journalism evolved into a hypothetical debate surrounding the merits of removing all current legal obstacles to prostitution.

Further, when it comes to changing laws it is generally the responsibility of the advocator to `prove` the assertions as the status quo is already self evident.

So there was no Ontario court ruling that deemed the laws making solicitation, bawdy houses, etc illegal as unconstitutional? And said ruling if upheld at the supreme court wouldn't then translate to all of Canada?

As for proving that the current set=up sucks well most people for or against prostitution agree that the laws need to change.

[scribblet]

No one actually believed the Toronto Star's assertion in the first place so the topic seems to have evolved to a philosophical debate on legalising prostitution.

I feel a separate thread is necessary for all the yellow journalism examples set by the Star.

Good idea !!

[Oleg Bach]

Others are moral degenerates who should be ashamed of themselves; Oleg, however, was a loveable scoundrel, a "bad boy, merely "attempting to enjoy [him]self"....

The primary duty and objective of the female, of course.

The mother of my children was tormenting me at the time....she was disloyal and a spend thrift....It was not just about "enjoying" - It was about intimate contact....I treated the escorts...with love and compassion- the sex was secondary...as for the role of woman...The world would be a better place if there was loyalty....but we have no class...and I am not ashamed of being a man. I don't believe that sex has anything to do with morality..the lack of sex and the division between male and female is the immoral act.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think that folks need to get their heads around a few semi-important facts. The first being the reality of the court ruling. The second is the history of the industry. The third is the cost to society of doing anything about the situation one way or another at all.

Let me now bring to mind the true state of democracy which would allow for the rule of the majority during the legislative process. It is time for the citizens of the bible belt to be seen as what they are, zealots seeking to control society by means of political effort.

Huge costs are the reality of this industry, society spends much to discourage it with little to no success to show for the effort over literally thousands of years, yet the "moral majority" demand that we continue this senseless approach. Society needs to wake up and understand that legislating morality is a fools mission.

[scribblet]

I suspect the reality of the court ruling is what prompted some low level clerk to issue the memo which the Star reported as being policy (without checking for facts with the gov't first).

Possibly, because companies bring in these workers from outside the country, the employers have to advertise in Canada first ?

[DrGreenthumb]

This is why your hot to trot wife or girlfriend, the gal who put out any where, any time gets married and now is so frigid a little light comes on when she does open her thighs. Until of course - you neglect her enough because you can't get anything anywho and she needs "daddy" again and up goes her profile on Ashley Madison.

Of course, deep down you know if you spent half the time with her that you do on the internet you wouldn't be a grandpa and your second or third wife wouldn't be a Nana or whatever it is you "blended" family types would call her.

Maybe your wife doesn't want to have sex with you because you are a misogynistic jerk? Maybe it became obvious to her that the only time you paid any attention to her was when you wanted her to service you sexually and didn't appreciate being treated like a whore? Or it could be that she just got tired of your tiny little penis?

[scribblet]

Guys, guys, holster those penis thingies and get back to debating the topic. -

[Rick]

I think that folks need to get their heads around a few semi-important facts. The first being the reality of the court ruling.

It is time for the citizens of the bible belt to be seen as what they are, zealots seeking to control society by means of political effort.

Society needs to wake up and understand that legislating morality is a fools mission.

Excellent points Jerry.

[grainfedprairieboy]

Maybe your wife doesn't want to have sex with you because you are a misogynistic jerk? Maybe it became obvious to her that the only time you paid any attention to her was when you wanted her to service you sexually and didn't appreciate being treated like a whore? Or it could be that she just got tired of your tiny little penis?

My wife and our girlfriends are fine with our sex life.

[dre]

No I don`t.

There is no ruling. A piece of Toronto Star yellow journalism evolved into a hypothetical debate surrounding the merits of removing all current legal obstacles to prostitution.

Further, when it comes to changing laws it is generally the responsibility of the advocator to `prove` the assertions as the status quo is already self evident.

Further, when it comes to changing laws it is generally the responsibility of the advocator to `prove` the assertions as the status quo is already self evident.

I disagree. Its the GOVERNMENT that has to provide ongoing justification for their policies to the public... who is asked each year to come up with the money.

In this case... if you were to ask them... "what is the benefit of spending on this policy" they would stammer, stutter, and could give you no answer. Just like when theyre asked why pot is legal and alcohol isnt... T hey will try to use the "Chewbacca Defense". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

In any case... its not up to us to "prove" the government is wasting our money with some of the misguided shit they do. Its up to them to prove they arent.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So this is what it comes to? A debate about a court ruling has turned into a government accountability thing?

[CANADIEN]

There is no ruling.

Don't tell any of us that. Tell it to the Federal Government. I would not want them wasting my tax money by asking the courts to overturn a .court ruling that never took place.

Edited October 16, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Jack Weber]

I think that folks need to get their heads around a few semi-important facts. The first being the reality of the court ruling. The second is the history of the industry. The third is the cost to society of doing anything about the situation one way or another at all.

Let me now bring to mind the true state of democracy which would allow for the rule of the majority during the legislative process. It is time for the citizens of the bible belt to be seen as what they are, zealots seeking to control society by means of political effort.

Huge costs are the reality of this industry, society spends much to discourage it with little to no success to show for the effort over literally thousands of years, yet the "moral majority" demand that we continue this senseless approach. Society needs to wake up and understand that legislating morality is a fools mission.

That is spot on,sir!!!!