Should prostitution be illegal?
 

Yes, we have had a few laughs over Eliot Spitzer's ridiculous behavior, but that leads to a serious question: should prostitution be illegal? I have posted elsewhere that I don't think it should be, and I reiterate that here. The short reason is that each person is sovereign over his/her body and is entitled to do with it as s/he pleases.

A longer version is from Will Wilkinson, whom I find persuasive. An excerpt from his thoughts:What do you think?

It would remove a lot of the illegal girls that are forced in to the market, give us tax revenue, and help a bit with disease. I think the people who will cheat on their spouse will cheat anyways, and while I am opposed to it morally, I think we should legalize it.

Well right off I have to say that forced prostitution is slavery and is automatically wrong. That basically goes without saying. And anything involving prostitution and minors is right out as well.

So this then assumes that the subject in question is a man or woman who chooses prostitution as a career, knowing the possible consequences and being fully aware going in. This is a difficult question. On the one hand, I don't necessarily approve of it, but who am I to say? It's their decision and it's not actually hurting anyone. I don't really find myself in a position to force my own subjective beliefs on people, so I guess I'd have to say go for it. So long as the men and women are treated with respect and are allowed to perform their skill on their terms, there's no harm.

I don't think I'd ever be a prostitute or use one, but I can't make a case as to why it should be illegal.

I'm on the legal side, but its the women who will fight making it legal.

FINALLY some bra burning. I'm really pissed I missed that last time around.

Nope. In fact, if regulated correctly it should have the positive effects Xazy mentions above as well as freeing some law enforcement resources (although not all) for work in other areas.

While I am not the biggest fan of traditional prostitution, I recognize that we are all prostitutes in one form or another.

Very true which I find ironic since in a very real way this a logical extension of the pro-choice movement but I think it would likely be many of those same pro-choice feminists leading the fight to keep it illegal.

Will, I was specifically excluding force and minors. That's why I quoted Wilkinson's comparison to bricklayers and lettuce pickers.

I think it should be legal.

I don't think I even need to justify it, as it seems like the obvious, natural conclusion. Someone hoping to keep it illegal would instead to need to justify making it such.

So long as the following criteria are met, I am in favour of legalizing prostitution:

1. both parties must be 18+ and able to prove their age upon request
2. both parties are willing participants - most importantly the 'provider'
3. prostitution income must be declared and taxed as other forms of income
4. regular (3 months?) disease testing of 'provider'
5. full disclosure between both parties of past and present S.T.D.s mandatory
6. all fees/charges are agreed upon and become legally binding at the time of agreement

Aside from the above points, I see no reason to maintain prostitution as an illegal activity.

My gut really says to legalize it, just like most other vices we've seen fit to outlaw (illegal drugs, anyone?) but I really havnt given much thought to it.

Seems like we would still have to spend a good bit of resources policing legal prostitution, and then still policing the ones who dont follow whatever regulations are in place. Lets face it, a hooker is going to get a disease eventually, no matter what the precautions... are they just going to stop hooking? No, they'll just generally go black market.

On the personal liberties side of things, its a no brainer really.

Yes, I know, but I wanted to reiterate it so the thread didn't get off track.

I'm a woman, and I fully support the legalization of prostitution.

I think the United States is entirely too puritanical in regards to its views on sex, and this is reflected in our laws governing prostitution, amongst other things. I'd rather have a safe, regulated industry that brings in tax revenue than us wasting our money trying to catch hookers, pimps, and johns.

I feel much the same about the War on Drugs.

:lol:

It was as if a million wives and girl friends cried out in horror and were suddenly silenced.

I have spoken with several women (including my wife and my mother) about this recently. We all agree that it's stupid that prostitution is illegal.

It won't be women fighting the legalization of prostitution. It will be the so-called "moral majority," which is made up of both sexes.

My very off-the-cuff observation would be that the legalization of prostitution might actually result in a DECREASE in marital violence.

It's obvious that legalization would be a plus. I can't think of any argument against it. Employee, S Corp or self-employed? Taxes and licensing would be the only potential downside, but benefits, pension and the deductions would make it an easy win.

Why would women be against it if it would afford them greater protection in every sense of that word?

Who do you think got the brothels shut down in this country in the first place?

Men?

I'm with George Carlin: if selling is legal, and fucking is legal, then why isn't selling fucking legal? Like other crimes of morality, I see no logical justification to it. If you don't want to be a prostitute or hire a prostitute, then don't. Don't stop other people from doing what they want to do as long as no one is hurt.

The negatives that will/would arise out of the legalization of prostitution would be handled like the legalization of gambling and alcohol. Regulation, zoning, and taxation. These negative consequences say a lot about "human nature," and nothing about the act itself.

Prohibition and a strong Christian influence shut 'em down. We've evolved nearly 100 years since.

I think you underestimate the insecurity of the average married couple.

Single males tend to be young and therefore tend to not have a lot of money. Its not always true, you have older rich singles and young men with cash, but the real money for prostitutes are going to be married males.

Not going to happen in most places.

I can't but wonder what Americans (on both sides of this issue) think of countries like Canada where prostitution is legal. Our laws regarding prostitution are generally designed with specific intent, and none of them outlaw the deed itself.

1) It is illegal to profit from prostitution. This is generally interpreted to mean that it's illegal for individuals other than the prostitute to profit from prostitution, and is intended to comb at pimping and organized crime. Interestingly, this leads to contract services having to set things up in such a way that they act as 'facilitators' rather than employers, and set up introductions for a flat fee. The escorts themselves work as independent contractors and negotiate their own rates.

2) It is illegal to buy or sell any sexual services involving a minor. No brainer.

3) It is illegal to solicit publically for prostitution. Note that this doesn't apply to publications, which are deemed a private means of communication from a legal standpoint (since the reader has to make a conscious choice to buy and read said publication).

4) It is illegal to have sex in a public place. This one doesn't relate strictly to prostitution, but I've included it because both it and the above law when applied to prostitution are designed with the same intent; to combat the 'public nuisance' aspect of prostitution. These both tend to be complaint-driven laws, so if you solicit in an area where nobody cares and have sex in a reasonably secluded area, there's no problem.

5) 'Bawdy houses' are illegal. This has been a standing law since the mid 19th century and is the only one on the list that has no clear rationale behind it. A bawdy house is defined as an establishment set up and employing one or more individuals expressly for the purpose of prostitution. Interstingly, this law and the second law are causing controversy, since sex worker advocates claim that they make the trade more dangerous. In light of the case of Robert Pickton, who was recently convicted of killing six women, and stands accused of killing twenty (!) more, it would seem that reforms in sex law may be necessary to help ensure the safety of these women.

I'm just curious to know if we have anyone here who is in favour of making prostitution illegal and if so, what their take on a system like this is.

This may be true, but I think the US system adequately shows that there's going to be a black market for prostitution regardless. Wouldn't it be better, then, to provide a legitimate market for consumers, so that they can be protected? Also, the women in the black market (as well as those they often work for) will find it much more difficult to ply their trade when there's a legitmate market offering the same service with no repercussions and a set of standards in place. The Canadian sex industry does not, so far as I know, enforce any industry-wide standards, but even with workers going through escort services there's a more regulated industry (since the service providers themselves will in theory be required to enforce some standards in order to stay in business).

Further reading.

More further reading.

Further reading regarding the Robert William Pickton murder trials.

Canada's system seems reasonable to me. Protect the public and the prostitutes.

It's far from a perfect system. The law about bawdy houses needs to be done away with, and it'd be nice to see some actual regulation (which definitely isn't going to happen just now, but I won't get into a Canadian political discussion here). It'd also be good if the government took a more active role in protection of the workers. Still, it makes more sense than just making the whole thing illegal, as far as I'm concerned.

Not a fan of the morality police BS. Adults should get to choose how best to live their lives.

BTW- love that Carlin line.

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." - Ronald Regan

No, it should not be illegal. Niether should drugs.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I think "vice" laws and the enforcement thereof are largely a waste of taxpayer resources. I also think that sex laws regulating anything done by two consenting people over the age of consent (I use that phrase since I am also in favor of lowering the age of consent for sex, the drinking age, and the voting age, to 16) are just excuses for puritanical and sexually repressed people to exert control over people who feel freer to express their sexuality.

Nonetheless, I do think that prostitution, being in an overlap between sex and commerce, and being associated in recent times with abuse and exploitation of the unwilling, demands some regulation of the trade, though. The laws in Canada seem pretty good to me in that respect, except for the one outlawing houses of prostitution. I actually think legal prostitution would be both safer and easier to regulate and tax if there were houses of joy.

While we're at it, I also think that most illegal drugs should be legal, and it should be legal for private citizens to distill "personal-use" amounts of alcohol.

There needs to be regulation - and fairly strict regulation - of the sex industry. I believe it can work in a legal fashion (in fact, it does in many jurisdictions) but by the same token, there need to be many protections for both the sex industry workers and their clientele built in.

So, no to street walking and back alley blow jobs, yes to a well regulated and well policed clean and safe sex industry.

The war on drugs is a never ending bottomless money pit for the government. It can never be won and it can never be lost. It can only be continued with the tax payers willfully footing the bill. The only way it ends is if the tax payers decided they are no longer willing to support the so called "war."

According to the DOJ the average length of sentences for drug related offenses is longer then that for violent offenses:

Violent Felonies 63.0 months
Drug Felonies 75.6 months

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm

The amount of resources committed to drug prosecution is obscene. I worked parole and probation for many years. The number of times we released a violent offender to save room for a drug offender due to minimum federal sentencing was obscene. When you're releasing a rapist early because you can't release a guy caught growing pot it's hard to go home and hold down your dinner.

I'm not alone with this opinion:

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

With contracts and unions for protection and fair pay, I say go for it. I think it will happen as many things to do in this country - with time and persistence, and the people involved involving themselves. I think it is already happening albeit at a very slow pace. The sex industry needs some outspoken leaders, a Che Guervera if you will. Where is World's King when you need him?

There are people who shouldn't be having sex yet don't have to pay a thing for it. Seriously? who cares? what goes on between a man and a woman, including the exchange of money, is really no one's damned business. Like I said, there are worst people fucking for free.

100% true. This idiotic drug war wastes money that could go to improving public education, assisting the poor to escape from poverty, and housing the homeless-- not to mention funding a national health care system. We overcrowd our prisons with drug prisoners-- disproportionately poor people and people of color, and prioritize penalizing people for vices and addictions more than for harming others.

Not only that, but by criminalizing marijuana in especial, we prevent its widespread use as a cheap and gentle medication for people in need of such, and we prevent the growing of industrial hemp to make particle board, paper, cloth, and oil,-- all of which would be biodegradable, and have a far, far lower impact on the environment than the wood scraps, wood pulp, cotton, and petroleum we currently employ.

The DEA is a self-perpetuating money hole, and the only ones who truly benefit from this drug war are the oil, logging, paper, cotton, and pharmaceuticals industries.

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it and while your at it do it for pot also.

The fact is these laws create more crime then they stop. All we do is create a black market full of corruption and danger. If it is legal it is much easier to regulate it and make it safe as was seen with prohibition. You don't see a huge black market for alcohol in this county and the crime associated with it.

Hemp could be a viable solution for many issue in the US. But basically you can't grow it. You can but you have to apply for a special license. Last I heard, and it's been a while so I could be wrong, you have a better chance of getting a visa stamp to visit Cuba then to grow Hemp. A few are handed out each year, mostly for research. So far the federal government has turned a blind eye to the vast majority of that research.

Many of the founding fathers grew hemp. A large percentage of military uniforms were made from hemp, in WWII! Up until about 75 years ago it was a huge part of the economy for states such as Kentucky.

My apologies for the thread jack. But I do feel laws regarding prostitution are just as stupid. You want to get stone and visit a brothel, as long as you take a cab or have a buddy drive... knock yourself out. I seriously don't see much difference between smoking a bowl and doing several shots of tequila. Personally I'd rather share the road with a stoner then a drunk.

And no I'm not some pot smoking whore monger. But I certainly could be where I live, there's plenty of both to be had. Simply fact is neither work for me. Pot makes me paranoid and hungry, other then that not much. 25 years ago I saw a hooker while I was in the Navy. Being with someone who's simply interested in me for my cash doesn't exactly rock my world. Not to mention the STD thought would be rolling around in my head so much I doubt I could get it up. 25 years ago being drunk and young solved that problem. Don't see that happening now.

Ah but that would be learning from our mistakes and we just don't do that very well in this country. We would much rather live the truth of the old proverb about being doomed to repeat history if we don't learn from it. Sad really...

Oh if only drugs were legal, all of our problems would be solved!

The air would be fresher (well at least if you aren't around someone smoking marijuana, man that stuff reeks), the poor would no longer be poor, and our clothes would be made out of wonderous hemp.

I'd be for 100% drug legalization but only in a libertarian government.

Do what you want, but when you are stoned in the gutter starving from your various addictions, fucking get it over with and die, cheaply.

What is the psychological effect of prostitution on the women who participate? Sure, legalization and regulation can help with the physical health effects and coercion by pimps, but there is still the fact that it is a rather lucrative profession, and if legal, it will draw in women looking for easy money without regard for the mental toll it can take on them. I agree that we are too puritanical about just about everything in this country, and I suspect that legalizing and regulating the sex industry would be a positive change, but legalizing it is a de facto and de jure endorsement of that mindset, and I would want to be sure of a net gain before taking action.

The nagging thought in the back of my head on the issue has always been the opening of it for easy money to people who are not really capable of handling it but want the easy cash.

If only we could pump a couple more trillion into the war on drugs. We could imprison a few more hundred thousand citizens. Then we'd win! Then the streets would be free of people we prefer not to see. Then everyone left, those not incarcerated, would be hard workers and the US economy would boon. Hell, just employing those watching the inmates would add greatly to the economy. We can get the inmates to make widgets and that'll pay for they keep. That'll be great for everyone. Well, everyone except those people and companies currently making widgets, they'll be screwed.

Surely if we just spend a couple more trillion this will happen, just a few more trillion- I swear then you'll see results.


Many people speak about how awful the police are until someone breaks into their house, then they call the police and want help. On the flip side many people bitch about government spending and want to pay zip in taxes, they still want the fire dept. to show up when their house is burning down. They also seem to have little problem in spending trillions on our military. Of course it seems they prefer to borrow that money from China et el.

There's always a qualifier when people speak about drastic changes to our government. All in or all out rarely works when it comes to government, IMO

You're all heart.

I have the same reservations, but more for drugs than prostitution.

I think making it legal will be a de fact endorsement which will bring people to try/get addicted who otherwise would never have.

Maybe its just my mindset but I think handling taking money for sex is easier than handling crystal meth.

Well, drug use in the Netherlands, where just about anything and everything is legal is about the same rate as it is here. Could be for a variety of different reasons, but it does suggest that illegality doesn't dissuade people from using, and legality doesn't encourage people to use either.

I don't know how prostitution compares, but I thought I read an article recently where they said they were going to outlaw prostitution there again and shut down the Red Light districts, because it was causing more problems than it solved... but I cant seem to find it again anywhere.

Its rather hard to draw a cost without a baseline. How many more lives would be destroyed taking drugs vrs the cost of enforcing the existing laws? Lets assume its drastically in favor of making them legal, thats fine, but my comments were to the flowery, idealistic, and silly comments that ending the drug war would somehow make pretty much everything better.


This has pretty much nothing to do with Libertarianism. You can still fund the military and the police and be a Libertarian, its not about no taxes, its about not using taxes to redistribute wealth and buy votes. Its about having the government do the minimum required for the state to function.

I didn't put the needle in their arm, they want it legal, then be a grown up and take personal responsibility. If people can't do this then it shouldn't be legal.

And my comments were pretty much to the insanity of doing the same thing over and over and somehow expecting different results.

Libertarianism is no different then any other political philosophy, they're numerous positions within the philosophy.

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

And who decides what is the "minimum required for the state to function?"

Never said you did.

The war on murder costs millions and millions every year and yet people are still murdering, its obviously not working and insane to continue to spend money on the issue.

An absurd example but the logic is the same. The issue should not be how much, or how many, but what would be the cost of changing to society. I do not have a good answer for that, and neither does anyone. Perhaps it would be best if they were legal, I don't know for sure, but I do know that expense of enforcement alone isn't the only way to look at it.

Still doesn't explain why you included that in your first post. Its not relevant to the conversation.

The WoD should be reorganized. Pot should be legalized, buy I see no absolutely benefit to legalizing PCP or ecstasy. Some currently illegal drugs would be extremely dangerous even with regulation.

In the states where marijuana has been decriminalized, there is no evidence that it has resulted in greater number of users or greater use of harder drugs.

There is evidence that it has resulted in saving $millions for police and prosecutors to be put to better use.

I doubt you'd find anyone that really thought mj shouldn't be legal. It's the other stuff where people differ.

Why no ecstasy? It really isn't dangerous, unless you binge it. It's in the market with no regulation right now (besides being illegal), and that only adds to any danger it may have, IMHO (you never know what chemicals are actually in street pills, etc).

We're right it is an absurd example. Unless you think drug abuse and murder should be dealt with by similar methods?

If not I fail to see how the "logic is the same."

My first post? Are you getting threads confussed or simply not reading the same thread as I am?

At any rate- you stated "I'd be for 100% drug legalization but only in a libertarian government." And now you wonder why I addressed it in my post?

The cost to our civil liberties has been enormous. This is the most pressing problem with the WOD, as I see it. Some of these issues might crossover into prostitution as well... For a good (but long) read, check out this paper over at CATO: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-180.html

Not to mention, if your in the whole "America needs to spread democracy" bandwagon, the WOD is quite antithetical to that goal. We start arms races with the drug lords and basically turn them into warlords, who tend to be forces of oppression for anyone who isnt a part of their cartel.

Prostitution should be legal, provided that women enter it voluntarily and without compulsion or instances of human trafficking.

Ok, I'll be very clear.

The argument in favor of drug legalization often focuses on the costs involved, the people in prison, etc.

I am saying that just because its expensive it doesn't mean there isn't a valid reason for it that makes it worth the expense.

Murder trials and investigations are expensive too. I'm not equating drugs with murder, and I don't know how to explain this any clearer.

Your first response to me on this subject. You use a complete red herring as an example when I mention libertarianism and wonder why it has no place here? Not funding the police and army and borrowing from china? You might as well have typed random letters for all it had to do with what I am addressing.

Its quite simple for me here. You can make all drugs 100% legal for all I care as long as its the users total and sole responsibility. Not societies. Once its societies expense then society can start making laws against them.

Maybe MJ would be fine if it were legal, I think smoking it is amazingly stupid but I think smoking in general is amazingly stupid, and I don't have a problem with tobacco being legal, but we are talking the war on drugs, and thats more than MJ.

Dude, you're harshing my mellow....

Seriously, though, you're going to come down like that on legalization of drugs? Drug use is a victimless act unless you criminalize it. What possible reason could there be to have marijuana be illegal when alcohol is legal, cigarettes are legal, caffeine and sugar are legal...?

As far as I can see, the biggest danger of making marijuana legal is that we'd see a sudden spike in sales of Allman Brothers records, and the pizza delivery industry could begin to rival the military-industrial complex....

Random letters?

Alright.

Again you stated:

"I'd be for 100% drug legalization but only in a libertarian government."

I pointed out there are many different takes on political philosophies such as libertarianism, liberalism, conservatisms etc...

You then stated:

"This has pretty much nothing to do with Libertarianism. You can still fund the military and the police and be a Libertarian, its not about no taxes, its about not using taxes to redistribute wealth and buy votes. Its about having the government do the minimum required for the state to function."

And I provided a link to a definition of differing philosophies of Libertarianism and asked-

"who decides what is the "minimum required for the state to function?"


Without responding to that question you state:

The war on murder costs millions and millions every year and yet people are still murdering, its obviously not working and insane to continue to spend money on the issue.

An absurd example but the logic is the same. The issue should not be how much, or how many, but what would be the cost of changing to society. I do not have a good answer for that, and neither does anyone. Perhaps it would be best if they were legal, I don't know for sure, but I do know that expense of enforcement alone isn't the only way to look at it.


And now you claim I'm using a red herring? If you say so.

I don't think making prostitution illegal will stop it. It's been around for a very long time and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Maybe a better solution would be treating prostitution like any other line of work. Giving the workers rights like forming unions, working a maximum of hours (Or customers) per day.
Making sure brothels treat their employees with respect (As any other company should).

Also, make sure those wanting to quit their job will get help doing so.

Just a thought.

I think it should be legal.
As long as all parties are consenting, I don't see a problem with it.
I also think it would be somewhat safer for the prostitutes.

I pretty much feel the same way. Actually, I feel exactly the same way.

I don't think it's just women objecting though...I think it's also the Christian right (in general).

Ecstacy test results: http://www.ecstasydata.org/results.php

X is "supposed to" be pure MDMA, although it's common for it to be mixed with meth. Look at those test results. Of 23 pills, only 14 have any MDMA in them. 6 are pure MDMA, two are meth bombs and one is a meth bomb with caffeine, one is loaded with MDMA analogs and some novocaine, one is Benadryl, ketamine, and MDMA, and the rest are split between MDMA analogs, random pharmaceuticals, and a couple of generic Advil.

Can you really say that people who take those wouldn't be better off getting something pure rather than all that crap?

The illegality of prostitution, drugs, anti-social behaviour, etc, etc, are positions of morality where a section of society has tried and utterly failed to convince the mass of the population that they shouldn't engage in a certain kind of behaviour.

The illegality doesn't stop the behaviour, in fact it can and does act contrary to the interests of those who instantiated the laws as a means of social control. See the drug laws as an example; illegality creates a vastly overpriced marketplace with enormous profits to be gained solely because of the laws and their enforcement. The laws against drug use thus directly lead to MORE involvement in the drug trade by individuals who wish to enrich themselves no matter the risk - especially in those societies which exalt those who take risks to gain material wealth.

You can't really expect people not to break patronising, moralising, high-handed laws and cash in on such a situation when the rewards for doing so can be enormous.

Prurient sex laws create an atmosphere of fetishism which stimulates demand for the object of the fetish/prurience. See porn in the UK as a prime example of this (UK: number one consumers of internet pornography per browser)

What a person wants to do with their body, how they want sell it, what they want to put in it and in what manner should always be regulated in the _basic_ interest of rationalising harm to society but they should never be made illegal.

Laws stop no crimes from being committed, and make criminals of only those unfortunate enough to be caught while without sufficient opportunity or resources to cheat the system of enforcement.

maybe i should have said 'game' instead of 'cheat'.

They shouldn't be taking it at all. MDMA is fucking dangerous even if it's perfectly pure.

I'm not willing to compromise when it comes to poison.

My short answer is that yes, we should legalize the hell out of it.

I've long been in favor of legalizing both prostitution and marijuana. There are models of each in other countries that work (to varying degrees), and I'm pretty sure they could be adapted to the good ol' US of America.

I bet there'd be a lot of vehement, noisy, ugly opposition. I also bet you could tax the shit out of both and still not quell the demand much. I bet that gigantic spike in tax revenue would shut some people right the fuck up, too.

The adjustment phase would be painful, to put it mildly. However, I think both could be made to work here.

I'll cease discussing the sticky-icky now though, since this thread is about hobangin' and hookers.

And that's a great reason for you to not take it (and for me, for that matter). That doesn't mean I care even in the slightest if someone else deliberately chooses to ingest poison to get high. That's their deal-as long as I don't have to pay to take care of them.

1) Drug education in schools is absolutely abhorrent. Until I know that every moron teenager or aging raver is aware of how dangerous ecstasy is, there's no reason for me to think they're aware of all the risks.
2) Attempting suicide is illegal.

Yes, doing something with the intent to kill yourself is illegal (though, given this response and my previous response, my feeling on that should be pretty clear). Which is great, but we're not talking about people trying to kill themselves. We're talking about people who take a risk to take drugs in order to get high.

There's a risk if you sky-dive that you might die. Is sky-diving supposed to be illegal like drugs (poisons) because they both carry a risk of death and therefore constitute "attempting suicide"?

"How dangerous ecstacy is"

250 ecstasy-related deaths in the uk over a 5 year period.

Ecstasy-related means it was either mentioned during an investigation into the death or found in the blood during screening. It does not necessarily mean ecstasy was the cause of death or even a contributing factor.

Numbers of users in the UK

long story short, it adds up to millions of users, many habitual. Rates of death that low are exceptional for any pharmaceutical, let alone one produced outside of a statutory regulatory framework.

Hansard figures put the annual number of deaths where Ecstasy is the cause in low single figures. Even less than those attributed to viagra, which is again used by millions of people legally and illegally in the UK, though it is produced in a standard industrial fashion. i.e. regulated.

A recent documentary which ranked 20 substances taken for recreational purposes in the UK placed Ecstasy at number 19, which Alcohol at 5 and Tobacco at 7. (The rankings being made by medical doctors and scientists - trying to remember the title... Damn Alcohol. )

For the record, I have never taken and do not intend to take ecstasy. I find my unconditional love in others and mushrooms.

People on ecstasy are morons. Back when I worked for parole and probation I took a train from Portland to Seattle to see the Stones in concert. The whole way their my then wife and I listen to the people across from us loudly discuss some insane story about crooked real estate deals and how best to cheat her husband out of the money on the deals. As the train pulled into Seattle I stood up and the lady asked me "Hey, you know where to score some "X?"... "Umm, can't say I do." Moments later we're standing in line for a cab, she approached again. "Hey, where you guys going?, want to share a cab?" As my wife was saying "No"- I opened my wallet to see if we needed a trip to the ATM before catching a cab. The lady's eyes locked on my badge and suddenly looked like someone hit her in the head with a 2X4. She quickly walked away without saying another word.

Later that night we saw her hanging on to completely different guy. She walks up to us and explained "Hey, sorry about asking you if you knew where I could get some "X", I really just wanted it because it makes me want to dance and have sex all night."

Yeah, now we felt better about her.

You will note I'm not really strongly arguing they should remain illegal, and I've admitted I don't know what the long term effects would be of it. I just know that for some people these drugs will utterly destroy their lives making them worthless piles of shit. Thats fine with me, you have the right to be a pile of shit, many people accomplish this without drug use, what I don't want to see is the government spending money when you voluntarily turn your life to shit. It will be their choice, and if they want out it will be either them or private charities footing the bill.

Well it would be an amazing boon to Afghanistan, and could only help Columbia, but I'm sure you can see the argument against it. This would just be a nice bonus IF in fact good would come out of legalization. If it makes addiction issues worse, then it really can't factor into the decision.

Horizon. A pretty well respected documentary series that's been going since methusulah was a nipper.

Is alcohol worse than ecstasy?

So if E was legal, the death rates could very possibly rise.

Death comes to us all. It is not a reason for banning anything so benign as ecstasy - though I agree with the guy who said ecstasy is usually used by wankers.

Around 10-12 people per day are killed on the roads in the UK, which has the lowest rates of road traffic accidents in Europe. That's not seen as a reason to ban cars... we allow their use and demand that strict rules are applied to that use.

Illegal = abdication of responsibility by society
Legal = potentially regulated use and harm reduction

The hysteria surrounding any substance which alters consciousness and not encouraged or tolerated by those who consider themselves the moral elites, is entirely caused by the skewed information which is pushed onto the rest of society.

ECSTASY IS A KILLER!

well yes, but so is.... yadda yadda yadda... you know the argument.

Also: In the regulations surrounding prostitution, I say they must all be hot and I get to be the judge of this.

Viva la prostitucion!

(i've ne'er used such a service through an honest transaction; only through the purchasing of presents and dinner.)

Harm reduction? From post #57:

On what do you base that assertion?

Deaths directly caused by the substance? Lives wrecked by addiction? Medical conditions directly attributable?

And how do you back up the idea of disproportionate danger compared to other drugs, both legal and illegal?

ALL drugs can kill people. ALL substances can kill people.

In fact, the most famous case of death-by-ecstasy in the british media is Leah Betts.

A girl who in reality, not mediamyth, drank so much water that the concentration of electrolytes in her body became so low as to damage her body beyond repair, causing coma and then death.

7 litres in 90 minutes.

No dancing, no hot club, she was sat with friends in a living room.

Ban water.

I'll leave this with my point on the "Drug Problem".

It has never been possible to legislate drug use away to nothing, even in countries with incredibly repressive enforcement regimes. You can only reduce the harm that drugs do by trusting people's judgements, educating them and allowing them to exercise their own choice responsibly.

The price in human lives destroyed or lost through tainted drugs, wars of control, wars of enforcement, lack of regulation in supply and ignorance/lack of proper information to consumers of drugs is only, in reality, set against the moral repugnance of certain types of people who object to mind-altering substances.

Who is more likely to sell an ecstasy tablet to a child? A street drug dealer or a licensed, educated and legal pharmacist?

Are street-prepared substances likely to be more or less harmful than licensed and legal pharmaceuticals?

'Immoral' behaviour cannot be legislated into non-existence.

I'll go through that tomorrow and refute every part, not in absolute terms, but in relative terms to many other drugs and substances which are quite legal.

Also, NIDA is part of the US government - long known as a champion of truth and fairness in relation to problems of morality and drugs.

Those arguments would be fallacies.

A, which is illegal, has x effect
B, which is legal, has x effect.
Therefore, x is not dangerous.

I think the point is "x" is not dangerous relative to many other legal substances. Its not a fallacy, its pointing out something hypocritical and inconsistent with our own policy.

It became enemy number one, because rich and middle class kids started doing it in droves. Senators and sheriffs sons and daughters. No one usually cares about stopping a drug until it starts creeping out of the ghetto. The war on ecstasy was a class thing, but it wasn't because the drug was overly dangerous.

I have class in two minutes, so I can't get it all, but the commonly cited neurotoxicity studies, especially the ones suggesting that MDMA causes Olney's lesions in humans, are horribly flawed both in sample size and controls. The one that caused the big scare about X and "holes in the brain" turned out to be conducted with massive doses of meth, not MDMA.

Should prostitution be illegal?

It looks like the concept of the super-delegate has provided a viable work-around. There's always the US House and Senate.

It should be mandatory for everyone.

So do you think any of that is reason enough to prevent adults from determining if they want to put it in their own bodies? I mean, come on, of course a government agency is only going to talk about the negative effects. They never talk about the positive effects of drugs. That's why drug "education" is such a joke. All right, children, now someone is going to tell you all the bad things about these substances... that millions of people choose to use and we really have no idea why. Anyone with a thinking cap on can clearly see there's something else going on here.

It seems to me that alcohol can cause organ failure, brain damage, and death too, and much closer to the effective dose than many drugs, and the only difference is that you know it's going to be pure because it's legal and regulated. Of course, during alcohol prohibition, plenty of people died from toxins in poorly distilled moonshine as well, and the official government line was probably to stop drinking illegal alcohol. Fortunately once the Depression hit, everyone came to their senses...

The way I see it, there are a few (American) factors to consider:

1. In the Land of the Free, the basic idea is that if it does not harm a secular society, it should probably be legal. As far as I can tell, prostitution in certain Nevada counties works fine, they're safe, and there's a serious lack of pimps shooting other pimps so, using this as evidence, prostitution poses no serious threat to anyone. The girls are tested weekly (from what I remember) and condoms are a must, so it's a pretty secure business.

2. The government likes money. Unfortunately, they also love spending said money. So, taxes are great and since prostitution is a business, it could be taxed if legalized and that would be just dandy.

3. Kind of like gay rights, a lot of people are opposed to prostitution from a moral, often religious standpoint. The problem with making things personal like this is that this is a secular country and therefore nothing should be judged based on religious principles (even though this happens anyway), and simple logic dictates that decisions based on personal feelings cannot represent a whole and should be thrown out or revised for mass consumption. With moral and religious points of view thrown out, prostitution poses no threat.

4. Sex is good. No matter what any soccer mom might tell their poor little church-going spawn, sex makes for a less pissed off person. You know that office worker who sits across the hall staring blankly into his monitor? If he could just get a little tang, he probably wouldn't come in tomorrow and blow your smug head off. Just FYI.

5. This country needs more jobs, and we all knew the attractive blonde who could never possibly get a job and who would/did end up in a trailer park, jobless, pumping out little bastards. If she had job, she would be helping the economy and herself, and her her little bastards.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but as you might be able to tell, I support the legalization.

EDIT: I just realized this debate has gone in a slightly different direction, oops.

nope...

Welcome to Oz. It *is* legal here and I'm pretty sure all 6 of these are included, as well as (just about) mandatory condom usage too. From a 'safety' perspective, I'd hazard a guess that you are much more likely to come away from a visit with a prostitute with a much lower chance of catching something than from some random pickup in a bar...