Legalising and Regulating Prostitution

margrace · January 27, 2007

The basic question here is what is wrong with legalizing prostitution? There are all kinds of theorys but no direct answers. Who is against it and why and lets leave out all the arguments of it not working here and there in the world. Why can we not set a precedent and save some of our most vulnerable people and who is against it. Mr Harper made no bones about his being against it he just didn't bother to tell us why.

BubberMiley · January 27, 2007

It's the same reason he's opposed to decriminalization of marijuana, and the reason is purely economic.

myata · January 27, 2007

I am not comfortable with a society that officially sanctions an activity where men use their financial power to take advantage of desperate women. The are many ways to reach out to women in these circumstances that could reduce harm without legalizing the activity that causes the harm.

Is it an either/or situation, where either it's criminalized or it's sanctioned? I don't think adultery is officially sanctioned by the government, nor is it criminalized. The same with cigarette smoking.

I don't even think we have such a notion as "officially sanctioned". All what isn't prohibited (i.e. considered illegal under criminal or administrative code) is allowed. Call it officially sanctioned if you like though it isn't the way I understand it.

jefferiah · January 27, 2007

What separate debate?
"I think all Canadians experience just unbelievable horror and outrage at the acts that have been committed," Harper said Friday. "And I don't think there's a person in this country (who) cannot react with extreme revulsion to the events that are on trial there."

[...]

Some opposition MPs and advocates for sex trade workers have said the brutal murders are part of a widespread pattern of violence against prostitutes. And some have suggested that prostitutes would be safer if their profession was legalized.

However, Harper swiftly ruled out that idea. "In terms of legalization of prostitution, I can just tell you that obviously that's something that this government doesn't favour. I think that's a separate debate."

Horrific acts and legalization of prostitution are a seperate debate.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 27, 2007

You people need to get a grip here! If you want to actually deal with sex crimes then you must legalize prostitution. Only then can you throw offenders in jail and then toss the key.

Legalization will help reduce disease as well as eliminate underage abuse as well. It would get rid of the pimps and the drugs and a lot of street crimes too.

Think about it people.

margrace · January 27, 2007

But you have to think that all the posters on here with their arguments for not legalizing it have a hidden agenda. They just won't admit it.

jefferiah · January 27, 2007

And what would that be pray tell Margrace?

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I will ask my grandmother what she thinks....and when she says she disagrees are you going to tell me she has a hidden agenda too.

jefferiah · January 27, 2007

Is it so unimaginable to you that people would be opposed to legalizing prostitution? Hello......

BC_chick · January 27, 2007

Horrific acts and legalization of prostitution are a seperate debate.

They are one and the same because prohibition of the latter allows for the former to take place.

You mean to say you think Pickton could have lured those women 1/2 hour out of the city to his farm - where he butchered them while they were hanging off a meat-hook - if they had been working in a red light district where he has to pay and use their services within the same controlled vicinity?

Riverwind · January 27, 2007

You mean to say you think Pickton could have lured those women 1/2 hour out of the city to his farm - where he butchered them while they were hanging off a meat-hook - if they had been working in a red light district where he has to pay and use their services within the same controlled vicinity?

Yes. Because any regulatory regime would to have standards and woud inevitably mean that some women would not be able to meet those standards because of addiction problems and disease. Those woman would still be easy targets for the picktons of the world.

There is a similar issue with homeless shelters. Most shelters prohibit drunks which means that many chronic drunks end up on the street even though there is space available because they refuse to follow the rules of the shelter. Do you honestly believe that a gov't regulated brothel would allow HIV-positive women to work? Do you believe that these women would simply give up their addictions because of gov't regulation? Not a chance - they would be on the street doing exactly what they do now and the only Johns they would attract would be the type that prey on desperate women.

BC_chick · January 27, 2007

You mean to say you think Pickton could have lured those women 1/2 hour out of the city to his farm - where he butchered them while they were hanging off a meat-hook - if they had been working in a red light district where he has to pay and use their services within the same controlled vicinity?
Yes. Because any regulatory regime would to have standards and woud inevitably mean that some women would not be able to meet those standards because of addiction problems and disease. Those woman would still be easy targets for the picktons of the world.
There is a similar issue with homeless shelters. Most shelters prohibit drunks which means that many chronic drunks end up on the street even though there is space available because they refuse to follow the rules of the shelter. Do you honestly believe that a gov't regulated brothel would allow HIV-positive women to work? Do you believe that these women would simply give up their addictions because of gov't regulation? Not a chance - they would be on the street doing exactly what they do now and the only Johns they would attract would be the type that prey on desperate women.

Good point.

However, I'm not saying it will solve the issue completely, the same way I would not say wearing hard-hats on construction jobs will ever prevent all deaths. But it's a good way of reducing deaths considerably.

Remember also, if prostitution were prohibited outside of confined establishments, then the women on the street would be arrested.

Riverwind · January 27, 2007

Remember also, if prostitution were prohibited outside of confined establishments, then the women on the street would be arrested.

Which would turn drug addicts into criminals - something that the current laws prevent by prosecuting the Johns instead of the prostitutes.

I believe that gov't regulation of brothels is a waste of time because it won't end up helping the people that it would be intended to help. Women who are capable of living up to the standards that any brothel would impose are likely the same women who work for escort services today. Most street level prostitutes would likely not be able to work in such places.

If we really want to deal the problems connected to street level prostitution then we need to address the real problem: drug addiction. Harm reduction schemes are simply sops to make the wider public feel better but they actually harm the addicts in the long run because they give the addicts excuses to continue with their addiction.

BC_chick · January 27, 2007

Remember also, if prostitution were prohibited outside of confined establishments, then the women on the street would be arrested.
Which would turn drug addicts into criminals - something that the current laws prevent by prosecuting the Johns instead of the prostitutes.
I believe that gov't regulation of brothels is a waste of time because it won't end up helping the people that it would be intended to help. Women who are capable of living up to the standards that any brothel would impose are likely the same women who work for escort services today. Most street level prostitutes would likely not be able to work in such places.

If we really want to deal the problems connected to street level prostitution then we need to address the real problem: drug addiction. Harm reduction schemes are simply sops to make the wider public feel better but they actually harm the addicts in the long run because they give the addicts excuses to continue with their addiction.

Earlier you said the system would weed out the HIV-positive, and that's where I agreed. Now you're discussing another issue which is drug-addiction. Drug-addiction alone is not sufficient in banning a woman because it's not by itself a health-issue. Therefore, only HIV positive ones, or ones with other STDs would be banned. And you could think of it otherwise too, if the women were in a controlled environment, less STDs would be spread also.

It's a very sticky situation to ban women who use drugs. Where do you draw the line with the occasional user or the soft-drug user or the alcoholic who is addicted to a legal substance? Face it, it's not going to be about drug-addiction, that's a personal choice. It'll be about disease.

Riverwind · January 27, 2007

It's a very sticky situation to ban women who use drugs. Where do you draw the line with the occasional user or the soft-drug user or the alcoholic who is addicted to a legal substance? Face it, it's not going to be about drug-addiction, that's a personal choice. It'll be about disease.

How many jobs allow people to work while drunk or high? Employers have an obligation to send a person off the job site if they are highor drunk even if there is no obvious safety risk. Can a high prostitute be trusted to follow safe sex guidelines? Could the brothel be sued if a patron was infected because a high prostitute was allowed to work?

A brothel that meets the workspace health and safety requirements that we take for granted everywhere else could only allow prostitutes to work who were capable of showing up to work clean and sober. Many street level prostitutes would not be capable of that.

This is not about passing judgement on someone that has an addiction problem - I am looking at what would be necessary to really have a gov't regulated industry. When you do that it becomes clear that many at risk women would not be able to benefit from such a move.

BubberMiley · January 27, 2007

they would be on the street doing exactly what they do now and the only Johns they would attract would be the type that prey on desperate women.

So your point is, because legalization wouldn't solve every social problem imaginable, it isn't worth trying?

BC_chick · January 27, 2007

It's a very sticky situation to ban women who use drugs. Where do you draw the line with the occasional user or the soft-drug user or the alcoholic who is addicted to a legal substance? Face it, it's not going to be about drug-addiction, that's a personal choice. It'll be about disease.
How many jobs allow people to work while drunk or high? Employers have an obligation to send a person off the job site if they are highor drunk even if there is no obvious safety risk. Can a high prostitute be trusted to follow safe sex guidelines? Could the brothel be sued if a patron was infected because a high prostitute was allowed to work?
A brothel that meets the workspace health and safety requirements that we take for granted everywhere else could only allow prostitutes to work who were capable of showing up to work clean and sober. Many street level prostitutes would not be capable of that.

This is not about passing judgement on someone that has an addiction problem - I am looking at what would be necessary to really have a gov't regulated industry. When you do that it becomes clear that many at risk women would not be able to benefit from such a move.

The same way you were earlier arguing that even if legalised, prostitution would never be regarded as a legitimate career choice, it's obviously not going to be held to the same scrutiny as other jobs where mental alertness is a prerequisite for the job. (edit: I'm speaking about being under the influence, not to be confused with being inebriated).

Therefore all we can do is ban women who pose a health-risk. And as we've established, drug-use, alone, is not a health-risk.

jefferiah · January 27, 2007

they would be on the street doing exactly what they do now and the only Johns they would attract would be the type that prey on desperate women.

So your point is, because legalization wouldn't solve every social problem imaginable, it isn't worth trying?

I dont think thats his point at all. I think his point is to point out your arguments for it are not good.

BubberMiley · January 27, 2007

I dont think thats his point at all. I think his point is to point out your arguments for it are not good.

Well, if that's the case, then he's doing almost as piss-poor a job of that as you. I could do a better job myself.

margrace · January 27, 2007

You mean to say you think Pickton could have lured those women 1/2 hour out of the city to his farm - where he butchered them while they were hanging off a meat-hook - if they had been working in a red light district where he has to pay and use their services within the same controlled vicinity?
Yes. Because any regulatory regime would to have standards and woud inevitably mean that some women would not be able to meet those standards because of addiction problems and disease. Those woman would still be easy targets for the picktons of the world.
There is a similar issue with homeless shelters. Most shelters prohibit drunks which means that many chronic drunks end up on the street even though there is space available because they refuse to follow the rules of the shelter. Do you honestly believe that a gov't regulated brothel would allow HIV-positive women to work? Do you believe that these women would simply give up their addictions because of gov't regulation? Not a chance - they would be on the street doing exactly what they do now and the only Johns they would attract would be the type that prey on desperate women.

No this is just an excuse for doing nothing or for covering up ones own actions

jefferiah · January 27, 2007

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.

margrace · January 27, 2007

And what would that be pray tell Margrace?
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I will ask my grandmother what she thinks....and when she says she disagrees are you going to tell me she has a hidden agenda too.

Is it really several big fundamentalist preachers in the states got caught, so it seems to me it remains more hidden for the perps if it is not legaized

BC_chick · January 27, 2007

I dont think thats his point at all. I think his point is to point out your arguments for it are not good.

Well, if that's the case, then he's doing almost as piss-poor a job of that as you. I could do a better job myself.

Many people seem to confuse debating with name-calling and unsubstantiated accusations.

I thought the latter is against the rules around here. <_<

margrace · January 27, 2007

Remember also, if prostitution were prohibited outside of confined establishments, then the women on the street would be arrested.
Which would turn drug addicts into criminals - something that the current laws prevent by prosecuting the Johns instead of the prostitutes.
I believe that gov't regulation of brothels is a waste of time because it won't end up helping the people that it would be intended to help. Women who are capable of living up to the standards that any brothel would impose are likely the same women who work for escort services today. Most street level prostitutes would likely not be able to work in such places.

If we really want to deal the problems connected to street level prostitution then we need to address the real problem: drug addiction. Harm reduction schemes are simply sops to make the wider public feel better but they actually harm the addicts in the long run because they give the addicts excuses to continue with their addiction.

Prosecute the johns, what a laugh, are all the ones drifting along the street like Pickton.

margrace · January 27, 2007

they would be on the street doing exactly what they do now and the only Johns they would attract would be the type that prey on desperate women.

So your point is, because legalization wouldn't solve every social problem imaginable, it isn't worth trying?

I dont think thats his point at all. I think his point is to point out your arguments for it are not good.

No jefferiah this is about human being it is not a debatable point. Either you value human life or you don;t

margrace · January 27, 2007

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???