Fixing What Harper Broke: A to-do list

poochy · February 11, 2016

Think of the children.

Perish the thought. I can only speak for me, but im happy i my kids didn't have to live in an area frequented by prostitutes and their customers. Im sure most of those people who don't have that option wished they did.

WestCoastRunner · February 11, 2016

Perish the thought. I can only speak for me, but im happy i my kids didn't have to live in an area frequented by prostitutes and their customers. Im sure most of those people who don't have that option wished they did.

That college student living down the street from you could be turning tricks right under your nose.

Smallc · February 11, 2016

That's cool. Regulate it and tax it and you won't have to worry about it.

eyeball · February 11, 2016

That's cool. Regulate it and tax it and you won't have to worry about it.

Just normal GST/HST and income taxes or is everyone hoping to pile on more for some reason? Edited February 11, 2016 by eyeball

Argus · February 11, 2016

That's cool. Regulate it and tax it and you won't have to worry about it.

Howsabout we regulate it so that you can set up your home to be a brothel only if you live next door to people like you who don't want any laws against that?

WestCoastRunner · February 11, 2016

It's only stereotyping because according to the stats 80% of prostitutes are drug addicts. But if you're okay with having drug addicted hookers living next door, and drunken johns seeking sex coming in and out late into the morning, hey, good on you. Other people have kids and have to get up early for work. They'd just as soon not have a party next door every night featuring lowlifes.

A drunk John wouldn't be able to get it up. I'm betting most johns are white, married with children and sober. If they showed up next door at that college students illegal suite, (or a single mom supporting her kids) he would look like some dude from the burbs. Edited February 12, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

WestCoastRunner · February 12, 2016

Double post

Edited February 12, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

GostHacked · February 12, 2016

So then we're back to saying all laws are unconstitutional until tested. Interesting way to look at things.

It's not a bad idea to treat all laws as unconstitutional until they are challenged in the SCoC. Think if it as checking the governments homework to make sure that 2+2=4.

It's how Harper was shot down several times trying to ram the same bill through (yet worded differently) several times. Anything the government tables should be treated with skepticism unless they have a proven track record. We saw what Harper's track record was. I don't think Trudeau will be any different.

Edited February 12, 2016 by GostHacked

CITIZEN_2015 · February 12, 2016

Howsabout we regulate it so that you can set up your home to be a brothel only if you live next door to people like you who don't want any laws against that?

That is another thing that seems you don't understand about C-36 (Pickton's laws).. In this bill opening bawdy houses or running it by sex worker herself is now legal even in residential areas. Also solicitation in a public place by sex workers is legal as long as it is not near school. The bill makes criminals out of buyers not sellers and then puts sellers in grave danger as they have to see criminals in their every day's work providing most intimate services, submit to all their demands (i.e. unsafe services) without having the ability to screen out diseased or or abusive violent Johns. Anytime that you push something underground by making it illegal you attract criminal elements to that business. This is a proven fact. Decriminalize it, Regulate it, let them form their unions and have a safe work place and have health and work insurance and also tax it.

Edited February 12, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

eyeball · February 12, 2016

Howsabout we regulate it so that you can set up your home to be a brothel only if you live next door to people like you who don't want any laws against that?

That's exactly how we should regulate the location of brothels, through zoning bylaws that take into account concerns of other residents, business', public land uses, parking etc.

Smallc · February 12, 2016

That's exactly how we should regulate the location of brothels, through zoning bylaws that take into account concerns of other residents, business', public land uses, parking etc.

No no, it's much better to fear monger about it. Of course, the situation he's describing is much closer to the status quo, than a regulated reality.

And yes, society should benefit from it. I'm not talking excessive taxes. Just the GST and income taxes alone would be a start.

eyeball · February 12, 2016

Probably a good finish too I would think.

Myself I won't be surprised to see legalization follow a path that is as similarly stupid as taxi regulation. There'll be licences and quotas and a Big Sex lobby lined up outside with Big Pot, Big Oil and all the rest.

WestCoastRunner · February 12, 2016

Probably a good finish too I would think.

Myself I won't be surprised to see legalization follow a path that is as similarly stupid as taxi regulation. There'll be licences and quotas and a Big Sex lobby lined up outside with Big Pot, Big Oil and all the rest.

Look what's happened to the taxi business. They can't even compete against über because of all these regulations that work against them.

Big Guy · February 12, 2016

Why the bejeebers exactly? I can see taxing the bejeebers out of stinking rich users but not because they're users.

Medical marijuana (THC) is already easily available for those who NEED it. I believe that it is a luxury item for other users and those who take advantage of prostitutes. Luxury WANTS should be taxed to the hilt for those who can afford them.

WestCoastRunner · February 12, 2016

Medical marijuana (THC) is already easily available for those who NEED it. I believe that it is a luxury item for other users and those who take advantage of prostitutes. Luxury WANTS should be taxed to the hilt for those who can afford them.

Take advantage of prostitutes? If a prostitute is charging a John upwards of 100 an hour who is taking advantage of whom?

A luxury for some could also be a plus membership to a high end fitness club. Should that be taxed to the hilt as well?

It doesn't even have to be a high end club. It could be the local ymca.

Edited February 12, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

Big Guy · February 12, 2016

Take advantage of prostitutes? If a prostitute is charging a John upwards of 100 an hour who is taking advantage of whom?

A luxury for some could also be a plus membership to a high end fitness club. Should that be taxed to the hilt as well?

If one goes to a store looking for watermelon and finds someone selling watermelon then they have taken advantage of the opportunity to buy a watermelon.

As to your second question - yes.

WestCoastRunner · February 12, 2016

If one goes to a store looking for watermelon and finds someone selling watermelon then they have taken advantage of the opportunity to buy a watermelon.

As to your second question - yes.

Even if it's a local ymca and the member feels the importance of privacy is crucial to their getting fit? You are unfairly imposing higher taxes on individuals.

Maybe change the wording from taking advantage to purchasing. It's a sensitive issue.

Edited February 12, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

square · February 12, 2016

It's only stereotyping because according to the stats 80% of prostitutes are drug addicts. But if you're okay with having drug addicted hookers living next door, and drunken johns seeking sex coming in and out late into the morning, hey, good on you. Other people have kids and have to get up early for work. They'd just as soon not have a party next door every night featuring lowlifes.

How do you know that 80% of sex trade workers are drug addicts?

WestCoastRunner · February 12, 2016

How do you know that 80% of sex trade workers are drug addicts?

He doesn't know.

Big Guy · February 12, 2016

Even if it's a local ymca and the member feels the importance of privacy is crucial to their getting fit? You are unfairly imposing higher taxes on individuals.

Maybe change the wording from taking advantage to purchasing. It's a sensitive issue.

I like to think that the strength of our society is that all Canadians are entitled to their needs. These are all the things that keep us alive and healthy. Those other things that we do that we like to do I consider to be wants.

Any Canadian is able to stay fit by running and following an exercise program without joining any kind of club. I consider joining such a club a "want "(luxury). I put alcohol, nicotine dispensers, recreational marijuana, prostitution, joining any kind of club etc luxuries that I would love to see taxed (to the bejeebers) so that poorer Canadians can get their NEEDS.

The question of imposing any tax or the amount of tax on anything being "fair" or not depends on the individual. This individual stated what he thinks is "fair".

Legalize marijuana and prostitution and tax the bejeebers out of both.

WestCoastRunner · February 12, 2016

I like to think that the strength of our society is that all Canadians are entitled to their needs. These are all the things that keep us alive and healthy. Those other things that we do that we like to do I consider to be wants.

Any Canadian is able to stay fit by running and following an exercise program without joining any kind of club. I consider joining such a club a "want "(luxury). I put alcohol, nicotine dispensers, recreational marijuana, prostitution, joining any kind of club etc luxuries that I would love to see taxed (to the bejeebers) so that poorer Canadians can get their NEEDS.

The question of imposing any tax or the amount of tax on anything being "fair" or not depends on the individual. This individual stated what he thinks is "fair".

Legalize marijuana and prostitution and tax the bejeebers out of both.

You are being the judge and jury by determining what is a luxury and what isn't. People who can afford therapy are lucky to have access to money for that but should they be heavily taxed? Seriously, the list goes on and on. Edited February 12, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

cybercoma · February 12, 2016

Do you want often drug addicted prostitutes living next door to you, and a parade of often drunken johns driving in and out of your neighborhood?

Oh, you're under the illusion that they're not there because it's illegal. Cute. You've also got some impression that sex workers are 1) all the same and 2) straight out of some Hollywood fiction.

Say, have you ever talked to anyone who sells or sold sex? Have you ever studied the issue? Read personal accounts from people? Or are your opinions just formed on the make believe world that you've dreamed up?

eyeball · February 12, 2016

Medical marijuana (THC) is already easily available for those who NEED it. I believe that it is a luxury item for other users and those who take advantage of prostitutes. Luxury WANTS should be taxed to the hilt for those who can afford them.

If that's the case I'm pretty sure there will be no end of people who need medical pot and sex therapy and lots of doctors to prescribe it.