eyeball Posted February 12, 2016 Report Posted February 12, 2016 I wonder how long it will be until pot and sex therapists can be billed to my health plan? My employee benefit plan pays for aromatherapy and chiropractors so... Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Big Guy Posted February 12, 2016 Report Posted February 12, 2016 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. I really do not want to belabour the point but I believe our differences are in our definitions of “wanrs” and “needs”. In economics, the idea of survival is real, meaning someone would die without their needs being met. This includes things like food, water, and shelter. A want, in economics, is one step up in the order from needs and is simply something that people desire to have, that they may, or may not, be able to obtain. I believe that what Canadians are entitled to are the bottom two levels (of five) of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html - the Physiological and safety needs. These should not be taxed because we require these things for survival. Since we choose other things that just give us pleasure then I believe we should tax the bejeebers out of these “luxury” items and use that money to pay for the needs of those Canadians who cannot afford to pay for them. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
PIK Posted February 12, 2016 Report Posted February 12, 2016 http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/liberals-misfire-on-gun-marking-promise/ar-BBpoKWz?ocid=mailsignout Another promise broke. This doesn't bother me ,but his supporters will be pissed. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
eyeball Posted February 12, 2016 Report Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) - the Physiological and safety needs. These should not be taxed because we require these things for survival. Since we choose other things that just give us pleasure then I believe we should tax the bejeebers out of these “luxury” items and use that money to pay for the needs of those Canadians who cannot afford to pay for them. I think the more important hierarchy Maslow identified is the social level. It contains the more relevant need in people's lives in modern economies; honest governance that is transparent and accountable to a fault. Without it the every other need he identified will always be subordinated to the wants of the wealthiest most powerful and influential players in the economy. We should treat power the same way as we treat wealth and and find a way to tax both as luxuries that go beyond the pale. The top two needs seem pretty subjective and the deficiencies that power and wealth imbalances cause make it more difficult for people to meet them. As natural resources and opportunities become more attenuated by this imbalance the lower level needs too will become more difficult to attain and become just as subjective, especially to the wealthy. The phrase "let them eat cake" comes to mind. Maslow's visualization of things is too simple and could just as easily be applied to a troop of monkeys or a family of elephants. Other scientist's observations about what happens when water-holes shrink and animals get meaner might have given him a better reason to broaden some of the elements of his conclusions as they apply to human societies. His model also just doesn't take into account how unsustainable things would get in an ecological sense and how divorced the human economy would remain from the natural environment. Virtually nobody was thinking about that at all back then and many avoid it like the plague to this day. Edited February 12, 2016 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Big Guy Posted February 12, 2016 Report Posted February 12, 2016 Thank you for a very thoughtful critique of Marlow's theories relative to the present. It gives me food for thought. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 How do you know that 80% of sex trade workers are drug addicts? It's not exactly a secret. The numbers move up and down, but I'm aware of no studies which show less than half of prostitutes are addicts. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=63886 Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 He doesn't know. You have a hard enough problem speaking for yourself. Suppose you don't add to your burdens by trying to speak for me. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
WestCoastRunner Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 It's not exactly a secret. The numbers move up and down, but I'm aware of no studies which show less than half of prostitutes are addicts. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=63886 Date published 1979. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
WestCoastRunner Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 You have a hard enough problem speaking for yourself. Suppose you don't add to your burdens by trying to speak for me. I'm not speaking for you. I'm holding you accountable. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Argus Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) Date published 1979. And things have changed since then? Prostitution is not a career path that most people aspire to. Most of the time, trading sexual favors for money is the primary way of financing addiction, with research showing between 40 and 85 percent of all prostitutes are drug users. http://www.rehabs.com/surge-in-heroin-addiction-linked-to-increased-prostitution/ Edited February 13, 2016 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
WestCoastRunner Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 And things have changed since then? Can you come up with more recent claims to support your argument than an article that is over 35 years old. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Argus Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 Can you come up with more recent claims to support your argument than an article that is over 35 years old. Already done Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
WestCoastRunner Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 Already done It's American!! Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Big Guy Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 Date published 1979. Recent stats show that about 50% of prostitutes use illegal drugs. Drug abuse is quite different from drug addiction. About 20% of people in food preparation use illegal drugs and the arts and sports industry ranks just behind them. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
On Guard for Thee Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 It's American!! Doesn't matter, it says what Argus wants it to say. Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 Recent stats show that about 50% of prostitutes use illegal drugs. Drug abuse is quite different from drug addiction. About 20% of people in food preparation use illegal drugs and the arts and sports industry ranks just behind them. Not sure what this proves? Do you have cites? So does this mean that 50% of prostitutes should be approved for prostitution because they don't do drugs ? Does it mean that 50% of prostitutes are addicted to painkillers so therefore they aren't capable of earning a living as a sex worker? I'm not even sure what drug addiction has to do with prostitution? Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
CITIZEN_2015 Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) This is ridiculous. Prostitution has changed since 1979. At that time it was almost all street prostitutes and even now a high percentage of street walkers are drug addicts. However, With the advent of internet things have changed completely. Less than 10% of sex workers are street prostitutes now. These days sex workers are mostly on-line and work as escorts and even masseuses and dancers (less among the latter). Many are college students financing their studies or single mothers who support their kids. The picture has completely changed. Whoever still regards sex workers today as same as prostitutes in the 70"s is doing so out of total ignorance or bigotry stemming from religious fanatism or ignorance and Harper and those who support his stupid ideology based laws fall clearly in those categories who knowingly endanger the lives of citizens so that they live up (or down or stoop low in this case) to their idiotic moral (immoral in this case) standards. Edited February 13, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 It's American!! Good point, but that never seems to matter 'round here ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 Good point, but that never seems to matter 'round here !Doesn't matter because it's not applicable. Quote
dialamah Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 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. . Since the majority of our economy is based on providing things in addition to basic survival needs, aka "luxuries", your policy of taxing the bejeebers out of luxuries could put a lot of people out of work. Quote
dialamah Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 That's all very well and good but do you want one living next door? With a parade of johns coming to the door at all hours? It already happens "next door", even if illegally. Why would you think laws against it would prevent that? Quote
dialamah Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 Being a hooker is a shitty job and always will be, and the only women who will do it are those already deeply damaged and desperate. Instead of trying to make it easier to be a hooker we should be making it easier to not be a hooker. Some women actually choose hooking and even enjoy it. But for those who actually are stereotypically damaged and desperate, they're the ones who would be "stealing" your hard earned money through "leftist" policies that would provide a decent standard of living/support/treatment to people who aren't working a legal job. That's not really something you are in favor of, is it? Quote
Big Guy Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 Not sure what this proves? Do you have cites? So does this mean that 50% of prostitutes should be approved for prostitution because they don't do drugs ? Does it mean that 50% of prostitutes are addicted to painkillers so therefore they aren't capable of earning a living as a sex worker? I'm not even sure what drug addiction has to do with prostitution? Statistics can "prove" anything you want them to. I stated what I located as fact. The message I would take from these stats is that drug use and drug addiction are two different things. There is a reason for drug abuse. Most explanations are stress of job, fear etc. That could be alleviated by legalizing prostitution. Because prostitution is still illegal it tends to draw criminal elements making access very easy and adds to the stats. I believe that earlier in the thread someone referred to legalization leading to drug addicted prostitutes and pimps living next door. I believe that to be faulty logic. Why are you jumping to the conclusion that my posts does not support your posted opinions? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
cybercoma Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 And things have changed since then? Prostitution is not a career path that most people aspire to. Most of the time, trading sexual favors for money is the primary way of financing addiction, with research showing between 40 and 85 percent of all prostitutes are drug users. http://www.rehabs.com/surge-in-heroin-addiction-linked-to-increased-prostitution/ 40 and 85%...good lord. Why not just say between 0-100%. I can't imagine why a rehab centre, dependent on donations and public funding would want to inflate those numbers. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 13, 2016 Report Posted February 13, 2016 Not sure what this proves? Do you have cites? So does this mean that 50% of prostitutes should be approved for prostitution because they don't do drugs ? Does it mean that 50% of prostitutes are addicted to painkillers so therefore they aren't capable of earning a living as a sex worker? I'm not even sure what drug addiction has to do with prostitution?Agus doesn't have a point since anywhere from 40-60% of the general population have used drugs, including weed in their lifetimes. Source: Health Canada http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/drugs-drogues/stat/_2011/tables-tableaux-eng.php#t3 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.