Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Legalizing prostitution? Options · View
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, March 12, 2011 6:59:36 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,447
Location: Alabama, United States
What are your thoughts? In some parts of the states it is legal, but heavily regulated and monitored. Assuming everyone involved is of legal age, who does it harm? If you would legalize it what regulations/restrictions would you impose? If you wouldn't, why? And lets keep religion out of it We already know where that position would lie.. no pun intended.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, March 12, 2011 7:35:59 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
It's crazy that it's against the law in the first place. Right now, you will go to jail and be humiliated for accepting money for something which is perfectly legal to give away.

Sometimes people say that the logic there is that people can and do get exploited for the things they can sell, not the least of which is sex- and that is true. Here's what's even more true: those who would exploit women in the sex trade are essentially free to do so with impunity right now. Trust me, just because it's against the law doesn't mean anyone's protected from harm. Quite the opposite, actually- now that we've outlawed the business of sex, only outlaws hold the power in the sex business, to paraphrase the gun rights folks.

Let's say you're an 18 year old female. You don't have a great support system, or connections, or a college degree, or any business world skill. What you do have is a little bit of ambition and sexy way about you. There's money to be made if that's the circumstance, but watch out. If you get employment at a strip club and try to run your game from there, management will catch wind of it, and they'll either use it to exploit you further by demanding things in return for letting you do your thing, or you'll get fired on the spot. If you do it on your own for anything more than the pittance that the craigslist dollars=flowers girls do it for, then you'll attract attention. The kind of attention that makes you wish it was the cops telling you to knock it off. There are people who make it their business to control the high-end prostitution in a given area, and they aren't shy about consolidating that control. Once under that control, sometimes picture goes on a website under the guise of an 'escort service', and sometimes its completely secret. Either way, you'll earn a percentage of what the customer pays (probably taking more abuse in exchange for keeping a bigger percentage, but not necessarily), and you're an indentured servant for those in power. Don't even get me started on the 'massage parlors' or the craigslist girls. They have similar but sometimes gruesomely worse problems to contend with.

Everything I just described is a consequence of the woman- 'the service-provider'- having ZERO protection from evil, harmful, exploitation. What's a girl going to do, go tell a cop that her pimp is stiffing her, hitting her, (topic strongly discouraged by site rules) her? That the massage parlor she works for is actually a brothel where she's forced to work and that her family's life has been threatened if she squeals?

Yet, advocates for keeping it illegal have the gall to say that the laws are in place to protect women. Bulsh. Legalize sex for trade and so many of these scenarios will go away once the light of law and workers rights shines on them. They are cockroaches, they'll scurry away.
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, March 12, 2011 7:51:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,447
Location: Alabama, United States
I agree with this statement in it's entirety. Shine some light on the subject and most of the cockroaches will run away. There will always be some who can and will take advantage. But in the long run the women would be much better off.

What are your requirements? Frequent testing i'm sure. Where can this take place? RAndom corners seem to be a bad idea so should it be contained in a "certain" part of town. Taxed? Monitoried for violence/abuse? How do you keep the protesting crowds away to protect anonymity?





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Saturday, March 12, 2011 5:02:09 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,882
Americans sometimes are so back-as-backwards, it's funny. Rules: Make prostitution legal, have testing as a requirement, which can be done through the numerous, already existing testing entities out there, and require protection. And let the good times roll.

Why won't this happen? Because the federal government cannot perceive of way to get it's share, and would go against, the underlying issue, which I will not speak about for courtesy's sake since mister asked not to speak about it.

Been to brothels in Europe, in Athens, if you're going, go to Odos Phillis, "Kiss Street" appropriately named. If in the U.S. got to the Bunny ranch, shit they made an HBO special on it. It, like the talk of it in the first year of sex ed in the U.S., makes it uncomfortable to talk about, and goes against the "fiber" of our founding. And, the government won't make a dime, so it won't happen.

Silly, like the talk of penises and vagina's during sex education, precollege.

MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Saturday, March 12, 2011 8:26:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 551
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
It should be legalized! It's absolutely moronic that it is illegal to begin with!
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, March 12, 2011 10:04:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,447
Location: Alabama, United States
eviotis wrote:
Americans sometimes are so back-as-backwards, it's funny. Rules: Make prostitution legal, have testing as a requirement, which can be done through the numerous, already existing testing entities out there, and require protection. And let the good times roll.

Why won't this happen? Because the federal government cannot perceive of way to get it's share, and would go against, the underlying issue, which I will not speak about for courtesy's sake since mister asked not to speak about it.

Been to brothels in Europe, in Athens, if you're going, go to Odos Phillis, "Kiss Street" appropriately named. If in the U.S. got to the Bunny ranch, shit they made an HBO special on it. It, like the talk of it in the first year of sex ed in the U.S., makes it uncomfortable to talk about, and goes against the "fiber" of our founding. And, the government won't make a dime, so it won't happen.

Silly, like the talk of penises and vagina's during sex education, precollege.



Of cousre the federal gov would make money off of it. Legitimate job would bring in plenty of income taxes. Plus there would surely be a sin tax on it. And there would be some sort of annual licensure.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Saturday, March 12, 2011 10:15:06 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,882
You forget that such "income" would come from an "unholy" union.
TransitionalMan
Posted: Saturday, March 12, 2011 10:44:39 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/27/2009
Posts: 108
Location: Ohio, United States
The "holy" is the real problem. There is some evidence that the sexual purity/monogamy sanctioned by the judeoChristian faiths comes from a desire to separate themselves from the older pagan faiths, such as worship of the fertility Goddess Astarte. Under that worship, people tried ritual to influence matters like the weather and crop yields, often by having sex with a temple prostitute. It's said that Yahweh sought purity as proof you followed him and not the older faiths, a proof of sincerity.
I think there is a more compelling reason. It wasn't that long ago that people didn't understand how diseases were spread but we always realized that prostitutes carried sexually transmitted diseases. Which meant they were a vector for spreading STDs into the community at large. Nowdays, with good health regulation and condoms, that doesn't apply, but it certainly did apply for most of human history. I think that's probably a greater source of the stigma then faith teachings, only they retain today as the teachings (originally to maintain health) are retained out of tradition, and again because in the modern context sexual "restraint" is seen as evidence of piety. The ancient Israelites were never so chaste in real life, as the life of King David makes plain.

In my view what matters isn't so much the act as the consequences. If you cheat on your spouse with a hooker, your relationship may be threatened, which may threaten your family. But from the point of view of the woman, protecting her from disease and pimps greatly outweighs all other objections, and potential harm, with the benefit of all but removing her as a source of STD transmission. Even if you don't like an act it must be weighed against its possible and probable consequences.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:10:14 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,477
Location: Cakeland, United States
'Don't buy me $70 worth of flowers that will just be dead next week. Don't try to ply me with a $100 meal. Don't buy me any clothes nor gift me with anything to make me feel obligated. Straight Cash, Homes...I'll choose my own bills to pay."

Fuck off Government and the rest of puritanical society. What that woman and man do together is not any of my business. They are adults and capable of making their own life decisions.

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
sprite
Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:18:48 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 16,912
Location: My Tower, United States
so... i can have sex with strangers for free, and that's fine, but if i charge them, it's not? And, if they buy me something nice before or afterwards, still ok, but if they give me money, once again, not ok? yeah, i get it...

Live, love, laugh.
BicycleBum
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:03:25 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/1/2010
Posts: 633
Legalize and tax. Bye bye budget deficit. LOL
SweetPenny
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:57:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/15/2010
Posts: 1,274
Location: State of Confusion
I've never understood why prostitution is illegal but pornography is legal. In both scenarios, someone is getting paid to have sex with a stranger. The only difference is that with regard to pornography, the sex is filmed.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2011 3:17:38 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
lafayettemister wrote:

What are your requirements? Frequent testing i'm sure. Where can this take place? RAndom corners seem to be a bad idea so should it be contained in a "certain" part of town. Taxed? Monitoried for violence/abuse? How do you keep the protesting crowds away to protect anonymity?


I think they need to be tested weekly and licensed by the state, but it doesn't absolve the customer from liability. He/she can't sue an escort for giving him/her gonorrhea.

Since they hold a license, they can be freelance or work for a business, but either way, they would have a tax structure. Those taxes would pay for the testing and regulatory end of it.

As for avoiding protesters: they know where to find prostitution and sex trade already. By legalizing it, we only normalize it further.
Jacknife
Posted: Monday, March 14, 2011 3:52:52 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 197
Location: United Kingdom
Never understand how it can be argued against it. As has already been said sex between two people is legal, but adding the direct monetary exchange element thats the bit we can't stand and must outlaw. Madness

The other thing I've never understood is on the aspect of making it illegal (this applies to the similar drug debate) is do people think that by making something illegal they stop it from happening? and where do all the shady characters get involved and would they be so if it was legal.

By making something illegal all you do is add a criminal element and therefore add a potentially bigger profit margin to the people at the top, i.e Pimps and crime lords. This of course helps no one.
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 7:10:01 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,447
Location: Alabama, United States
Jacknife wrote:
Never understand how it can be argued against it. As has already been said sex between two people is legal, but adding the direct monetary exchange element thats the bit we can't stand and must outlaw. Madness

The other thing I've never understood is on the aspect of making it illegal (this applies to the similar drug debate) is do people think that by making something illegal they stop it from happening? and where do all the shady characters get involved and would they be so if it was legal.

By making something illegal all you do is add a criminal element and therefore add a potentially bigger profit margin to the people at the top, i.e Pimps and crime lords. This of course helps no one.


Drugs is a whole different story. Not counting marijuana... most other illegal/narcotic drugs should be illegal. Equating sex to meth, heroin, LSD, crack, etc.. isn't a valid comparison. Running out of money to buy sex won't send anyone into a rage of violence because of withdrawal. The dependency on drugs is a FAR worse thing than getting laid. After all, if a person can't buy sex he can at least masturbate to relieve some stress. A crack addict won't be able to get a fix on his own so he'll steal or do whtever to get it. A guy having safe sex with a prositute poses no risk to society. A guy whacked out of his mind on LSD is a big risk.

By this argument we could also say that kidnapping should be legalized because only the criminal element profits from it now. Some things are meant to be and should be illegal. Fucking shouldn't be one of them.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Jacknife
Posted: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 7:02:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 197
Location: United Kingdom
lafayettemister wrote:


Drugs is a whole different story. Not counting marijuana... most other illegal/narcotic drugs should be illegal. Equating sex to meth, heroin, LSD, crack, etc.. isn't a valid comparison. Running out of money to buy sex won't send anyone into a rage of violence because of withdrawal. The dependency on drugs is a FAR worse thing than getting laid. After all, if a person can't buy sex he can at least masturbate to relieve some stress. A crack addict won't be able to get a fix on his own so he'll steal or do whtever to get it. A guy having safe sex with a prositute poses no risk to society. A guy whacked out of his mind on LSD is a big risk.



Ah realised this needs more of an explanation than I actually gave in this comparison. My bad

Firstly I am for freedom for people to do whatever they like, AS LONG AS IT DOESN’T HARM ANYONE ELSE. That means if you are in your own home. Alone and you want to pump yourself with whatever chemical you like, I couldn’t care less and I don’t think society should ether. This is where I make the comparison with the prostitution issue, i.e it is someone’s personnel business if they want to pay someone for sex or not.

Now if a drugged fuelled moron comes out of his house, drives a car, steals, mugs, whatever, that is where I would have a problem with someone. In the same way I don’t think we are hard enough on our drink drivers (DUIs) and people who attack other people because they are drunk. A drink driver is just as likely to kill someone as a drug user driving a car.

Its not as if because of the illegality of drugs there aren’t dangerous people on those drugs around. Making Drugs/Prostitution illegal does not limit the amount of it that occurs. Addicts will still find their drugs and people will still find prostitutes.

Ok there is the Libertarian stuff done. Now on to the Economics

So lets take cocaine as an example. A Kilo of Cocaine is about $100K in the US. Cocaine is made mainly in Colombia and other South American countries where it costs about 2K per Kilo. Now this mark up is because the product is illegal, hence the smuggling. If you legalised it what would happen.

Well the Drug lords would be undermined and put out of business, Governments would be allowed to regulate and tax it and the product would be considerably cheaper so your addict doesn’t have to turn to stealing or mugging in order to get his fix. The addicts can then safely go home and do the drugs. If they harm themselves, it’s their choice whether to do so or not.

This economic theory is the same with most of certainly the foreign hard drugs. In fact the Taliban in Afganistan are mainly funded by drug money from heroin. Worth undermining I think.

lafayettemister wrote:
By this argument we could also say that kidnapping should be legalized because only the criminal element profits from it now. Some things are meant to be and should be illegal. Fucking shouldn't be one of them.


Well there is a straw man if ever there was one. If thats what you thought I meant I apologizes.


MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:07:20 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,217
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:

Yet, advocates for keeping it illegal have the gall to say that the laws are in place to protect women. Bulsh. Legalize sex for trade and so many of these scenarios will go away once the light of law and workers rights shines on them. They are cockroaches, they'll scurry away.


This is true for a lot of things - prostitution is just one of them. But it's just like the abortion issue - fat old white men want to control as many aspect of a woman's body that they can, probably out of a desire that nobody know they're secretly gay.

Make it legal, and put in place protections that actually protect women, not just drive them underground. And make pimping a crime that should be punished by hanging the pimp by his balls until they pop off...
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, March 18, 2011 7:48:52 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,447
Location: Alabama, United States
Jacknife wrote:
lafayettemister wrote:


Drugs is a whole different story. Not counting marijuana... most other illegal/narcotic drugs should be illegal. Equating sex to meth, heroin, LSD, crack, etc.. isn't a valid comparison. Running out of money to buy sex won't send anyone into a rage of violence because of withdrawal. The dependency on drugs is a FAR worse thing than getting laid. After all, if a person can't buy sex he can at least masturbate to relieve some stress. A crack addict won't be able to get a fix on his own so he'll steal or do whtever to get it. A guy having safe sex with a prositute poses no risk to society. A guy whacked out of his mind on LSD is a big risk.



Ah realised this needs more of an explanation than I actually gave in this comparison. My bad

Firstly I am for freedom for people to do whatever they like, AS LONG AS IT DOESN’T HARM ANYONE ELSE. That means if you are in your own home. Alone and you want to pump yourself with whatever chemical you like, I couldn’t care less and I don’t think society should ether. This is where I make the comparison with the prostitution issue, i.e it is someone’s personnel business if they want to pay someone for sex or not.

Now if a drugged fuelled moron comes out of his house, drives a car, steals, mugs, whatever, that is where I would have a problem with someone. In the same way I don’t think we are hard enough on our drink drivers (DUIs) and people who attack other people because they are drunk. A drink driver is just as likely to kill someone as a drug user driving a car.

Its not as if because of the illegality of drugs there aren’t dangerous people on those drugs around. Making Drugs/Prostitution illegal does not limit the amount of it that occurs. Addicts will still find their drugs and people will still find prostitutes.

Ok there is the Libertarian stuff done. Now on to the Economics

So lets take cocaine as an example. A Kilo of Cocaine is about $100K in the US. Cocaine is made mainly in Colombia and other South American countries where it costs about 2K per Kilo. Now this mark up is because the product is illegal, hence the smuggling. If you legalised it what would happen.

Well the Drug lords would be undermined and put out of business, Governments would be allowed to regulate and tax it and the product would be considerably cheaper so your addict doesn’t have to turn to stealing or mugging in order to get his fix. The addicts can then safely go home and do the drugs. If they harm themselves, it’s their choice whether to do so or not.

This economic theory is the same with most of certainly the foreign hard drugs. In fact the Taliban in Afganistan are mainly funded by drug money from heroin. Worth undermining I think.

lafayettemister wrote:
By this argument we could also say that kidnapping should be legalized because only the criminal element profits from it now. Some things are meant to be and should be illegal. Fucking shouldn't be one of them.


Well there is a straw man if ever there was one. If thats what you thought I meant I apologizes.




Ok, first off... I was being sarcastic with the kidnapping thing. Your argument is well thought out and intelligent. Wrong, but well thought out. Hahah...I jest.

Like you, I think that what a person does behind closed doors is his or her business as long as no one is getting hurt, or there are no children involved. If a person wants to fuck a monkey each night before bedtime, go for it. Just don't make me pay for it in anyway.

The problem with addictive drugs is that when someone is heavily influenced by them, their cognitive and responsible/coherent abilities are impaired. Chances are that legalizing cocaine, crack, heroin, etc.. would mostly impact the poor. Just like gambling is a tax on the poor so would drugs. The problem would arise when the economically limited would become addicted to one of these drugs and then his money ran out. An addict grinding for a fix is a far greater concern than a guy with a hard-on and no money for a prostitute. Legalizing drugs and not expecting a spike in robbery, assault and many other crimes is generous at best.

Yes, addicts will still get their drugs now. But by nationalizing and legalizing them, there would be a huge increase in the number of addicts. Therefore a huge increase in addict related behavior. And again, it would be a tax on the poor. Numbers prove out that the "poor" play video poker and the lottery at a much higher rate than the better off. Legalizing drugs will be very similiar to that.

Economically speaking, this would be a catastrophe. Just think of the cost of health and life insurance now. If a person is a smoker their rates are much higher than a non-smoker. Can you imagine telling your ins. agent, yes I smoke a pack of cigs a day. Oh yea, and I do a few lines of coke too. Of course for those who are using state money for medical attention, that would be even more expensive. And with the possibility of the U.S. having a nationalized medical system, why would the masses need to pay for the treatment of an addict? But if drugs are legal, the gov. would certainly have to cover the cost of any treatment or recovery. As an employer, I wouldn't want to incur that extra cost. Not to mention all the days of lost work that would occur. Too strung out to go to work would become common.

Like I said, people should be able to do whatever they like inside their homes. But we as humankind aren't responsible enough to keep it in our homes. It would trickle out. Yea, people would get arrested and locked up. After they've probably done irreparable harm to someone else in one way or another. And our prison systems are already over populated and over budget. Then it's too late anyway. Legalize drugs in theory not all that bad an idea, but at what cost?

Let's grab a beer and debate more. And we can finalize plans to legalize getting laid. I think that would make more people happy anyway.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Jacknife
Posted: Friday, March 18, 2011 7:06:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 197
Location: United Kingdom
lafayettemister wrote:


Ok, first off... I was being sarcastic with the kidnapping thing. Your argument is well thought out and intelligent. Wrong, but well thought out. Hahah...I jest.

Like you, I think that what a person does behind closed doors is his or her business as long as no one is getting hurt, or there are no children involved. If a person wants to fuck a monkey each night before bedtime, go for it. Just don't make me pay for it in anyway.

The problem with addictive drugs is that when someone is heavily influenced by them, their cognitive and responsible/coherent abilities are impaired. Chances are that legalizing cocaine, crack, heroin, etc.. would mostly impact the poor. Just like gambling is a tax on the poor so would drugs. The problem would arise when the economically limited would become addicted to one of these drugs and then his money ran out. An addict grinding for a fix is a far greater concern than a guy with a hard-on and no money for a prostitute. Legalizing drugs and not expecting a spike in robbery, assault and many other crimes is generous at best.

Yes, addicts will still get their drugs now. But by nationalizing and legalizing them, there would be a huge increase in the number of addicts. Therefore a huge increase in addict related behavior. And again, it would be a tax on the poor. Numbers prove out that the "poor" play video poker and the lottery at a much higher rate than the better off. Legalizing drugs will be very similiar to that.

Economically speaking, this would be a catastrophe. Just think of the cost of health and life insurance now. If a person is a smoker their rates are much higher than a non-smoker. Can you imagine telling your ins. agent, yes I smoke a pack of cigs a day. Oh yea, and I do a few lines of coke too. Of course for those who are using state money for medical attention, that would be even more expensive. And with the possibility of the U.S. having a nationalized medical system, why would the masses need to pay for the treatment of an addict? But if drugs are legal, the gov. would certainly have to cover the cost of any treatment or recovery. As an employer, I wouldn't want to incur that extra cost. Not to mention all the days of lost work that would occur. Too strung out to go to work would become common.

Like I said, people should be able to do whatever they like inside their homes. But we as humankind aren't responsible enough to keep it in our homes. It would trickle out. Yea, people would get arrested and locked up. After they've probably done irreparable harm to someone else in one way or another. And our prison systems are already over populated and over budget. Then it's too late anyway. Legalize drugs in theory not all that bad an idea, but at what cost?

Let's grab a beer and debate more. And we can finalize plans to legalize getting laid. I think that would make more people happy anyway.



I apologise for moving this thread to another area, but as no one is arguing that prostitution shouldn’t be legal, we shall see how this goes.

Your entire argument is based on a premise I simply do not buy in to. I don’t think people choose not to take drugs because they are illegal, I think it is because they know it is bad for them. I don’t think anyone takes a hard drug for the first time without the knowledge of “this might kill me” I already explained how legalising drugs would make them much cheaper than they are now, and I don’t think there would be a rush to use these drugs by people who haven’t previously been doing it.

In the UK, all our cigarette packets have little cards on them saying “Smoking kills” or similar and yet people continue to buy these products. These are people I have no sympathy for. You are being told that the product you are buying will kill you, it cannot be made more clear. Similar information would be put on the legalised drugs. Ignorance of their effects will not be an excuse.

I live in a small city in the UK and I’m fairly sure if I wanted to I could go and find any hard drug I wanted on the street. These drugs are essentially available to me now and yet I don’t become an addict. Amazing isn’t it. At no point do I think myself exceptional; I simply have enough cognitive function to realise something that says “This product will kill you” might kill me and I think anyone who can successfully inject him or herself also understands that.

I think we both agree that people should have personnel choice, I however extend that to personnel responsibility. Somebody who has become an addict of hard drugs made that choice and will have to live with that consequence.

How could a smoker and cocaine user lower their health or life insurance premiums? Well errrrrr………hmmmmm!!! Toughy isn’t it……………… Errrrr. Ah Eureka! By not smoking or taking drugs. Insurance companies may even have the option not to insure such people or at least for treatment that would be related to the drugs use. It is simply a consequence that the individual must weigh up.

In the case of an addicts treatment, I live in a country with already a nationalised health system, I don’t see why treatment is payed for by the masses now, even before any changes, when people have made a choice on what to do. I don’t see why smokers feel entitled to get treatment for lung cancer when their choice is the most likely cause of it. To me this is like chopping my arm off and the demanding the government replace it.

“Too strung out to go to work would become common” . Fine, fire them!!! Or whatever it is you would do if someone came in to work drunk on alcohol. You don’t respect your job enough, I’ll find someone who will.

When it comes to locking people up I think this comes down to another discussion entirely of what you think prison is for. Do you think prison is a deterrent or a place of rehabilitation? Personally I have long thought prison should be more of a deterrent than it is. I think if people knew the law on harming under the influence of drugs was so serve it would put people off taking them in the first place.

I have to remind you I am in no way encouraging people to use drugs, I am simply suggesting that people should be allowed to make up their own minds and face consequences for that.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.