Legalising and Regulating Prostitution

[Riverwind]

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.

So you are suggesting that unlike any other place of business these brothels would not need carry liability insurace? Do you think insurance companies are going to insure a brothal that allowed women high on drugs to work with clients?

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.

It is not enough to ban women who are known to carry a disease - any regulated industry would have to ban women who are exposed to a disease. For example, if a condom breaks a women would have to be banned from working for at least 3 months until the AIDS tests can be done. How many drug addicts would be able to live with those restrictions?

The more I think about the more I realize that people calling for legalization and regulation of prostitution have not really thought about that that means. What you are asking is that prostitution be given a quasi legal status that would allow pimps to work freely but would not provide many protections to the women that it is supposed to help.

[BC_chick]

The more I think about the more I realize that people calling for legalization and regulation of prostitution have not really thought about that that means. What you are asking is that prostitution be given a quasi legal status that would allow pimps to work freely but would not provide many protections to the women that it is supposed to help.

And the more I think about it, the more I realise that people opposed to legalisation and regulation of prostitution are just grasping at straws and trying to discredit something because of obscure details.

Okay, here's how it would work:

We assume that the women who work in brothels use drugs and that the only thing the establishment has to show is that the women are coherent while working and that they are tested for STDs on a regular basis. Given that this is BETTER than the current system where there is NO testing whatsoever, then it's already an IMPROVEMENT (read, nobody is saying it's perfect).

Thereafter, get the patrons to sign a waiver that states that they are aware that the brothel tests its workers on the basis of every (__________) days, and that they are aware this is not fool-proof, and that the onus of protecting themselves is still on them.

Again, nobody denies that there aren't cracks in any system. But please don't pretend that it wouldn't be a vast improvement from the CURRENT system of anarchy.

You're proposing that we do nothing unless we can make it perfect. Nothing in life works like that, all we try to do is make it as functional as possible.

[Riverwind]

You're proposing that we do nothing unless we can make it perfect. Nothing in life works like that, all we try to do is make it as functional as possible.

I proposing we do something about the real problem: drug addiction. We should be investing in treatment centers and safe houses far from the downtown eastside. Harm reduction simply gives the addicts excuses to avoid cleaning up.

We have a shortage of detoxes and treatment center beds today - a women who makes a decision to clean up her life may be forced to wait for weeks. We need a system that can respond to these calls for help within 24-48 hours. Once we have that system in place then we can talk about harm reduction. Until then, harm reduction is simply a distraction that saves the gov't a few bucks and allows it to pretend that it is actually doing something.

[BC_chick]

You're proposing that we do nothing unless we can make it perfect. Nothing in life works like that, all we try to do is make it as functional as possible.

I proposing we do something about the real problem: drug addiction. We should be investing in treatment centers and safe houses far from the downtown eastside. Harm reduction simply gives the addicts excuses to avoid cleaning up.

Just because Pickton had a thing for drug-addicted prostitutes, it doesn't mean that only drug-addicted prostitutes are killed by their Johns. Random killings occur all the time against street-walkers and the only difference is that they don't make the same media frenzy. What about their lives?

[ft.niagara]

The problem is that it is a money maker for the crime syndicates and we don;t know who on here fronts for them. Like the legaization of Marijuana it would hurt some people big time and I suspect if we knew the truth there are a lot of our goodie goodie politicians and others making money out of this.

Who exactly is against it. We need to do some followups don't we.

I'm pretty sure marajuana will be legalised in my lifetime, but prostitution I'm not sure about - and that's a shame because nobody is dying from the former.

Nobody is dieing from marajuana, but they are dieing from prostitution (aids, occasional murder). I agree that prostitution should be legalized, and taxed. Postitutes should be liscensed, and cloistered in red light districts. It is a win win for the government and the postitutes. The government can become their sympathetic pimp.

BTW, I heard Vancouver prostitutes are the most attractive in the world. It sounds like a pretty open city at present, even without legalization.

[Riverwind]

Just because Pickton had a thing for drug-addicted prostitutes, it doesn't mean that only drug-addicted prostitutes are killed by their Johns. Random killings occur all the time against street-walkers and the only difference is that they don't make the same media frenzy. What about their lives?

There is no such thing as a clean and sober street walking prostitute. Clean and sober women looking to make a quick buck selling their body can work with escort services and don't need to be walking the streets. If you really cared about the safety of these women you would be demanding more treatment centers - not brothels.

[ft.niagara]

The problem is that it is a money maker for the crime syndicates and we don;t know who on here fronts for them. Like the legaization of Marijuana it would hurt some people big time and I suspect if we knew the truth there are a lot of our goodie goodie politicians and others making money out of this.

Who exactly is against it. We need to do some followups don't we.

I'm pretty sure marajuana will be legalised in my lifetime, but prostitution I'm not sure about - and that's a shame because nobody is dying from the former.

Nobody is dieing from marajuana, but they are dieing from prostitution (aids, occasional murder). I agree that prostitution should be legalized, and taxed. Postitutes should be liscensed, and cloistered in red light districts. It is a win win for the government and the postitutes. The government can become their sympathetic pimp.

BTW, I heard Vancouver prostitutes are the most attractive in the world. It sounds like a pretty open city at present, even without legalization.

[BubberMiley]

I'd like to see more treatment centres, but they don't really work unless the person wants to be treated. Lots of people are perfectly happy with their addictions and just want to be free to make a buck to feed them.

[Riverwind]

I'd like to see more treatment centres, but they don't really work unless the person wants to be treated. Lots of people are perfectly happy with their addictions and just want to be free to make a buck to feed them.

So why should society encourage people to continue with their addictions by making the addiction centered lifestyle more comfortable?

[BubberMiley]

So why should society encourage people to continue with their addictions by making the addiction centered lifestyle more comfortable?

Because it makes life more comfortable for people who aren't addicted. I don't like seeing neighbourhoods destroyed or child prostitution flourish. Ask a resident of the West End of Winnipeg what having prostitutes on your street corner does to property values.

[Riverwind]

Because it makes life more comfortable for people who aren't addicted. I don't like seeing neighbourhoods destroyed or child prostitution flourish. Ask a resident of the West End of Winnipeg what having prostitutes on your street corner does to property values.

So what would happen to the property values next door to the gov't sanctioned red light district? No matter what the gov't does certain neighborhoods will have to deal with the scourge.

[BubberMiley]

At least there would be some control over it, rather than giving in to total anarchy. It could also be forced to be discrete, rather than the in-your-face organized crime approach. We have areas that are zoned for heavy industrial we could use. That beats having little kids exposed to on their way to school. That's why I think arguing for the status quo is morally reprehensible.

[Riverwind]

At least there would be some control over it, rather than giving in to total anarchy. It could also be forced to be discrete, rather than the in-your-face organized crime approach. We have areas that are zoned for heavy industrial we could use. That beats having little kids exposed to on their way to school. That's why I think arguing for the status quo is morally reprehensible.

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.

[BubberMiley]

You're creating imaginary qualifications as a straw man. Without them, your argument falls apart.

[Riverwind]

You're creating imaginary qualifications as a straw man. Without them, your argument falls apart.

Really? So you want the gov't to sanction brothels where disease carrying drug addicts are free to ply their trade? Such places would be cesspools that would be worse than what we have today.

The fact is some standards must be applied even if you disagree with some of the ones that I put forward. As soon as you impose standards and tell some women that they can't work in the brothels then they will be out on the street like they are today.

[BubberMiley]

You're creating imaginary qualifications as a straw man. Without them, your argument falls apart.

Really? So you want the gov't to sanction brothels where disease carrying drug addicts are free to ply their trade?

I like the idea of tests for communicable diseases. I don't care if they do drugs or not. If the only people left on the streets have communicable diseases, I think the street trade will dry up by itself. It's worth a try. What do we have to lose, other than a source of income for countless organized crime investors?

[Riverwind]

If the only people left on the streets have communicable diseases, I think the street trade will dry up by itself.

I suspect that the overwhelming majority on the streets today already have communicable diseases - that does not seem to limit the demand.

It's worth a try. What do we have to lose?

It is a useless distraction from the real problem - drug addiction.

[BubberMiley]

I suspect that the overwhelming majority on the streets today already have communicable diseases - that does not seem to limit the demand.

Nonetheless, having a safe haven that is free from police harassment and potential violence could certainly cut into street demand. If, as you say, it had no effect on street demand, then it's had no effect. So what. We've lost nothing. On the other hand, if it cut into organized crime profits and control of the industry, the benefits could be substantial.

It's worth a try. What do we have to lose?

It is a useless distraction from the real problem - drug addiction.

Again, but what do we have to lose? I agree, part of the problem stems from the criminalization of drug addiction. We should learn from both of these mistakes that criminalization only heightens the problem.

[Who's Doing What?]

Stopped in to see my landlord the other day. He was watching the Springer show, where they were freeing hookers from their pimps. The Pimp actually had his name tattooed on the one hookers butt, as an tag of ownership. Some nice tattoo artists in the audience offered free removal if she left her pimp. (They ended up covering the name with a black panther.)

Pimps beat and abuse these girls. Get them hooked on drugs, and then pimp them out to cover the cost of staying high. These women are hostages that walk the streets. The sad thing is that the pimps aren't the only ones the prostitutes have to worry about. The Pickton trial is evidence of that.

Not only could legalization eliminate these pimps, but it could also provide saftey standards and medical care for the women aswell as bring in extra tax dollars.

[Riverwind]

Not only could legalization eliminate these pimps, but it could also provide saftey standards and medical care for the women aswell as bring in extra tax dollars.

Or we could put the pimps in jail and provide safe houses and drug treatment for the women.

[BubberMiley]

Or we could put the pimps in jail and provide safe houses and drug treatment for the women.

We've tried that strategy for about 100 years, but the problem is only getting worse. Prosecuting pimps is very difficult and can really only be done with believable testimony from their prostitutes. And again, drug treatment only works if someone wants to get off drugs. So for the vast majority of cases, neither of your proposals will work. You'll still have kids growing up in neighborhoods rife with prostitutes and drugs. But I guess if it's not your neighbourhood, you're content with that.

You'll probably finally decide we need a new strategy as soon as a 13-year-old prostitute appears on your street corner.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The real problem here is one of public safety. The moral judgements have little impact on society and do nothing to prevent crime. Crime being defined as violating the law of the land, prostitution is not illegal. Living of the avails and public solicitation are the crimes. But these laws simply do take into consideration the reality of society. That is supply and demand. If there is a market for a product it will be sold regardless of the legal nature of the product. Guns, drugs, and sex are all regulated to a degree and even sanctioned in some cases. Yet all have grave implications to society. Tell me that a handgun has less potential threat to society than a hooker. Or that a guy smoking a joint in his garage is somehow more dangerous than a guy who got legally drunk then went for a drive down a free way.

The issue is one of public safety. Does that mean that all things that can be viewed as a public safety hazard should be made illegal, no. If that is the case then close down the cigarette factories and shutdown the distilleries and breweries. While you are at it you can close about 75 percent of the energy industy and 100 percent of the chemical industries. We need a reality check.

Laws pretaining to moral judgements need careful review. Given that we sanction the machinary of our modern society to create jobs through the production of goods and services deemed as necessary by the laws of supplyuy and demand, then we need to accept that literally all goods and services are subject to the same terms of existance and that our society is incapable of regulating these goods and services when they exist outside of the legal framework of our society. The means of dealing with the issue then becomes one of regulation and enforcement. The moral arguements go out the window. To leave the moral arguement in political power would demand that we stone adulterous citizens to death. Accept Islamic courts and begin to cut off the hands of thieves, accept Amish judgements and start shuning citizens. Accept the old Inuit practice of putting your parents on an iceflow instead of an old folks home. Accept the burning of witches and the simple truth of the flat earth.

Last time I checked this was a more modern age than the primitive concepts of listed above. Legalize the problems and regulate them...get a freaking grip on the situation. As it stands we are mired in a convoluted moralist and judgemental society which places governments above individuals. What is truely needed is a government subservient to the will of the people.

[jefferiah]

No one is cutting off people's hands Jerry J. So you might as well leave that out of it. It's just a way to make the other side as you see it look bad, when not one of them is suggesting we cut off a hookers hands or burn a witch.

The flat earth myth was a myth itself. Just FYI, cuz its interesting. It comes from the idea that Columbus was met with jeers for proposing that what could get to India by travelling west. He was met with jeers by the scholars at Universidad de Salamanca, but not because the earth was flat (it was accepted long long before this that the world was a sphere), but because they felt Columbus had underestimated the distance of the ocean. And they were right. Columbus did not get to India did he.

[jefferiah]

By the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st century, however, the Earth's spherical shape was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world. Around then Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude, longitude, and climes. His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages, although Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ca. 3rd to 7th centuries) saw occasional arguments in favor of a flat Earth.

The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Pretty interesting huh?

[Argus]

I'm pretty sure marajuana will be legalised in my lifetime, but prostitution I'm not sure about - and that's a shame because nobody is dying from the former.

Neither will happen because our economy would collapse without the black market, and a lot of powerful people would lose a major source of income.

Drivel. Prostitution is mainly a "mom and pop" operation, if you'll excuse the pun. It's true that groups like the Hells Angels control a lot of prostitutes, but most of them are 'self employed" except, perhaps, for a "boyfriend". Most pimps are small-time street thugs with only one or two girls working for them. And most of the money winds up being spent on drugs.