Legalising and Regulating Prostitution

[Riverwind]

Yeah, we've been over this. And what do we do in the interim? Allow them to die while we are debating how to get them off drugs?

People with drug addictions are choosing to commit suicide on the installment plan - it does not really make a difference whether they die from drug overdose, AIDS or at the hands of someone else - death is the risk they take every time they stick a needle in their arm. What we need to do as a society is make sure there is help available as soon as they are willing to listen. This means we need treatments centers and detox that are available within 24-48 hours.

More importantly, society must not enable their addictions by trying to make their addicted lifestyle more comfortable. We want life as a drug addicted street walker to be as miserable as possible to give them incentive they need to take the help that is available.

I realize that people who have never dealt personally with an addicted person will find my prescriptions heartless - however, many times approaches like mine are the only way to break through the wall of denial.

[BubberMiley]

I realize that people who have never dealt personally with an addicted person will find my prescriptions heartless - however, many times approaches like mine are the only way to break through the wall of denial.

I've had many, many personal experiences with addicted people, and they sound pretty heartless to me too.

[Riverwind]

I've had many, many personal experiences with addicted people, and they sound pretty heartless to me too.

How many actually cleaned up their lives?

[jefferiah]

Based on whose opinion are you doing such a good job while we do such a piss-poor job?

A perceived advantage of legalized prostitution is not the fulcrum of the entire debate. I don't think I need to explain it to you, so don't play ignorant.

What exactly is your gain???

My gain?

[Charles Anthony]

I am saying there is a near exclusive relationship between drug abuse and street walkers who are at risk for violance.

I am just having trouble accepting this premise on face value. There are too many degrees of separation between this legislation of morality and legislation of personal safety.

Do you have a link or reference to back it up?

[BubberMiley]

How many actually cleaned up their lives?

You mean lost their addiction? None. I don't even think that's possible.

[Riverwind]

Do you have a link or reference to back it up?

No. I am presuming that no woman would work the streets if they had an alternatives such as escort services where the pay is better and they control where they go to see a client.

I will concede that there could be some woman on the street who do not have a drug problem but I don't understand why they would do that given the options that are already available to them.

[Riverwind]

How many actually cleaned up their lives?

You mean lost their addiction? None. I don't even think that's possible.

Many addicts are able to recover and never touch drugs again, however, they will usually will claim that they are still an addict who does not use anymore. So how many addicts do you know that have stopped using drugs?

[BubberMiley]

So how many addicts do you know that have stopped using drugs?

Just the ones that died.

[Riverwind]

So how many addicts do you know that have stopped using drugs?

Just the ones that died.

That is the difference then. The addicts I know cleaned up their lives and don't use anymore. They were able to do that because they hit bottom and help was offered to them when they hit bottom. In many cases, their drug use went on a lot longer than they needed to because friends and family spent too much time shielding them from the consequences of their actions.

That is why harm reduction measures actually hurt addicts more than they help because they shield addicts from the consequences of the addiction and give them excuses to avoid making the changes that they should be making.

[gc1765]

Except you forget that creating quasi-legal brothals is not going to eliminate street level prosititution since many women would not qualify for employement in official brothals. I am not even convinced that street level prostitution would decrease significantly if the gov't provided brothels.

The brothels could be privately owned (or in addition to government owned), in which case it's simple economics. There is an inherant risk in the black market which would require prositutes to charge more for the same services to make up for that risk. Combine that with the fact that customers are going to prefer legal prostitutes to illegal ones, as it would be safer for them as well...no one in their right mind is going to pay more for a service that is more dangerous to them.

[Riverwind]

The brothels could be privately owned (or in addition to government owned), in which case it's simple economics.

It has nothing to do with who owns them. The problem is many of these women are simply unemployable within any legally sanctioned environment which means they will still be on the street trying to get money for drugs. Legality and risk of disease don't seem to deter Johns today so there is no reason to believe that anything would change if a few legal brothels were thrown into the mix.

[gc1765]

It has nothing to do with who owns them. The problem is many of these women are simply unemployable within any legally sanctioned environment which means they will still be on the street trying to get money for drugs. Legality and risk of disease don't seem to deter Johns today so there is no reason to believe that anything would change if a few legal brothels were thrown into the mix.

At least some of the women would be relatively safe.

I don't belive that given the choice between high risk of disease and low risk of disease that very many people will choose high risk.

Anyways, if you think nothing is going to change, the question is...why should it be illegal?

[Riverwind]

Anyways, if you think nothing is going to change, the question is...why should it be illegal?

It is not illegal - escorts are free to do whatever they do in private. What is illegal is the stuff that causes a public nuisance like people roaming the street looking to pick up women.

I am opposed to brothels because I feel they won't actually solve the public nuisance problem and it makes the gov't think they are doing something when they really aren't. I might be pursuaded to support legalization of brothels if and only if is was part of a much larger package that addressed the underlying drug problem. However, no one here is talking about that - most people see it as a quick fix that will sweep the problem under the carpet so we don't have to hear about it in the news all of the time.

[BC_chick]

The brothels offered a safe physical environment. If prostitution was legal and exempt from taxes, a "low end" prostitute may find that spending 30% for safety was worth it. Why deny them the choice?

Sorry, the idea of legalizing brothels _and_ exempting it from taxes even more rediculous (I know you would like to exempt everyone from taxes but that belongs in another thread). The real problem here is drug addiction and the worse thing you can do to an addict is prevent them from hitting bottom by providing a soft tax payer subsidized environment where they can continue with their addiction. I believe the prospect of ending up as pig feed will convince more women to clean up than any number of safe brothels.

I have no idea where you got the idea that I want there to be no taxes for prostitutes, yet alone for everybody. In fact, I was telling another poster that the only two certain things in life are death and taxes.

Nor do I deny addressing the drug-addiction which plagues the industry. I just think while we're working on getting them off drugs, we should provide a safe environment for prostitutes whether or not they're on drugs.

Okay, we now know my what, how, and why. We know your what and how but I don't know your why.

Why do you think that until we combat drug-addiction we should not legalise prostitution, provide a safe environment in the interim and tax the profession?

[Riverwind]

Why do you think that until we combat drug-addiction we should not legalise prostitution, provide a safe environment in the interim and tax the profession?

Because it would distract from the real issue. You can't just wave a magic wand and make it happen - it would take years of political arguments develop the consensus, change the laws and then approve the locations for the new brothels. By the time it is all over people will be so tired of talking about the issue that there would likely be little political will left to address the drug treatment problem. I see brothels as nothing more than a way to sweep the problem under the carpet.

[Charles Anthony]

Because it would distract from the real issue.

I think you are going about it in the wrong way. If drug addiction is a problem, deal with drug addiction. If walking around publicly and being a nuisance is a problem, deal with walking around publicly and being a nuisance.

Legislating morality to stop people from walking around publicly and being a nuisance to tackle the "real issue" -- drug addiction -- is pretty convoluted. I think you are riding the cart ahead of the horse.

I do not know why but this sort of strategy reminds me of the old woman who swallowed the horse to catch the cow to catch the goat to catch the dog to catch the cat to catch the bird to catch the spider to catch the fly.

[Who's Doing What?]

Would not regulating the sex trade provide the means to stem the drug and physical abuse problems involved with prostitution?

"You want to be a prostitute?" Get a permit.

"You want to keep your permit?" Test clean for drugs.

"You want to purchase the services of a prostitute?" Go to a designated building within a designated area. You will be filmed going in and filmed coming out, and if the prostitute you used is injured you will face charges.

Seems simple to me.

[Charles Anthony]

With all due respect, WhoDoneIt, I can not help but think that prostitutes and johns who did NOT want your regulation will likely just continue what they are doing now. Then what?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

I can not help but think that prostitutes and johns who did NOT want your regulation will likely just continue what they are doing now. Then what?

Then they risk running afoul of the most feared authority of them all...Revenue Canada.

I think a 'red light district' is an idea worth considering, for if indeed we cannot eleminitate problems, we should seek to control and localize them.

[Catchme]

Yeah, we've been over this. And what do we do in the interim? Allow them to die while we are debating how to get them off drugs?

People with drug addictions are choosing to commit suicide on the installment plan - it does not really make a difference whether they die from drug overdose, AIDS or at the hands of someone else - death is the risk they take every time they stick a needle in their arm. What we need to do as a society is make sure there is help available as soon as they are willing to listen. This means we need treatments centers and detox that are available within 24-48 hours.

More importantly, society must not enable their addictions by trying to make their addicted lifestyle more comfortable. We want life as a drug addicted street walker to be as miserable as possible to give them incentive they need to take the help that is available.

I realize that people who have never dealt personally with an addicted person will find my prescriptions heartless - however, many times approaches like mine are the only way to break through the wall of denial.

Oh that is such nonsense riverwind, their life is as miserable as it possibly can get and has it gave them incentive to get off the street? Have the murders gave them incentive to get off the street NO.

I agree we do need detox and rehab, but that is NOT going to solve the safety issues surrounding street prostitution problems.

People cannot be thrown into detox against their will. Many who are controlled by pimps would never be allowed to seek detox even And you are conflaggerating 2 separate issues. Drug addiction and sfaety concerns for prostitutes working the streets, while one is indicative of the other they are separate..

There has always been prostitutes and there always will be. BCChick is quite correct there were prostitutes working the streets prior to the endemic drug addiction.

John's give prostitutes their diseases BTW, the prostitutes do not give it to themselves. But many have no medicare or access to medical facilities this problem would be solved to some degree if it was legalized.

Also, it is very difficult for women to transmit Aids, unlike their male johns who spread it around freely..

Prostitution is legal BTW, bawdy houses and communication for the purposes of is NOT legal. Those laws need to be changed ASAP or more women will die.

.

[Charles Anthony]

Then they risk running afoul of the most feared authority of them all...Revenue Canada.

-- and what if they do not fear running from the most foul authority of them all.... your State?

I think a 'red light district' is an idea worth considering,

Most cities naturally develop such a district without state intervention.

for if indeed we cannot eleminitate problems, we should seek to control and localize them.

There is no need to mess with nature.

[Who's Doing What?]

With all due respect, WhoDoneIt, I can not help but think that prostitutes and johns who did NOT want your regulation will likely just continue what they are doing now. Then what?

Harsher penalties. Thats is all. Maybe mandatory jail and rehab. I say rehab because really, if you are a clean prostitute why would not want to work in a safe environment?

I doubt this is going to be 100% effective as nothing truly is. But if it is even 70-80% successful and 7-8 out of every 10 Prostitutes can be saved from pimps, the Pickton's of the world and getting hooked on drugs then it would be a great service to the community.

Really I don't think drug testing should go beyond things like Crystal Meth, Coccaine, Opiates, or other very dangerous and addictive drugs.

As for the johns if they know their identity will be kept confidential unless a prostitute is assaulted they should have no problem with going to a designated area. If they do have a problem with it, then they are possibly the type of people we want to protect these girls from anyway.

[Charles Anthony]

As for the johns if they know their identity will be kept confidential unless a prostitute is assaulted they should have no problem with going to a designated area.

That is not reasonable. How could anybody trust that "their identity will be kept confidential" by this institution? I would not.

[Catchme]

This is NOT about the Johns, this is about prostitutes who need protection.

And no moving towards legalization does not take away from substance addictions relating to prostitution.

There could even be a 2 or 3 pringed approach.

But interestingly, apparently street Johns stats are dropping in Vancouver, as are street prostitutes, do to the identify a John program. So those Johns and the street prostitutes are taking their activities elsewhere.

Licensing and legitimizing prostitution have way too many pluses to be ignored.