Legalized Prostitution

[ModlrMike]

Legalize it.

Setup a Crown Corporation modelled on the post office to deliver the service.

Get CUPE to organize the labor force with full seniority rights.


Problem solved, social obligations met, worker's rights respected.

Don't we already pay the gov't to (*&^ us?

 

[Nemo888]

What a can of worms to have cracked open close to an election. The Conservative base will want it recriminalized. Whatever you do even the most thoughtful compromise will piss off huge swaths of voters. Almost best to ignore it and let it become legal.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Get CUPE to organize the labor force with full seniority rights.

Prostitution governed by seniority.  Sounds like the basis of an amusing film.

 

[dapaterson]

Sounds like the basis for much of what goes on on Parliament Hill.

After all, weren't Duffy and Wallin senior members of the press gallery?

 

[Bobert]

Here is the "Public Consultation on Prostitution-Related Offences in Canada" please fill this out so that your views can be heard:

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/curr-cours/proscons-conspros/index.html#2014_02_17

 

[WPJ]

I say, legalise it and tax it.  Legal gambling has a horrible effect on society. On the contrary, legal prostitution would reduce unwanted pregnancies, not to mention unwanted marriages.  Is this whole 'Blame the John" agenda pushed by ugly feminists who realize once prostitution is legalized they will never again have a boyfriend?

Could not stop laughing

 

[pbi]

When I was in the Reserve (the first time) I spent a few years working in the security departments of two hotels in downtown Toronto. One was a very big luxury hotel, and one was pretty well a dive. One of our major tasks (in both places...) was controlling overt prostitution, primarily to keep the liquor license intact and to avoid police bother. I say "overt" because we never saw the call girls, who are essentially invisible since they don't have to troll to do their work.

What I learned was that there is a lot of BS around prostitution: it isn't very sexy, or nice, or anything else. It's grim. There is very little glamour about it, and many of the girls we rousted out of the hotel were quite young: one was 14. You can go ahead and legalize it, but ask yourself this: is that what you want your daughter to do?

To me it's like legalizing drugs: go ahead, but it won't be a panacea for anything. You'll just exchange one set of criminal problems for another set of medical and social problems. Look at alcohol.

The great majority of women who end up working as hookers will be the sick poor and stupid, just like it is now.

 

[The_Falcon]

To me it's like legalizing drugs: go ahead, but it won't be a panacea for anything. You'll just exchange one set of criminal problems for another set of medical and social problems. Look at alcohol.

Except the actual act of selling sex (between adults), is legal and always has been for a very long time.  Communication in public, being in a brothel, and living off the money, those are what was illegal. 

 

[ballz]

You can go ahead and legalize it, but ask yourself this: is that what you want your daughter to do?

To me it's like legalizing drugs: go ahead, but it won't be a panacea for anything. You'll just exchange one set of criminal problems for another set of medical and social problems. Look at alcohol.

The great majority of women who end up working as hookers will be the sick poor and stupid, just like it is now.

If they legalized heroine tomorrow, no one who doesn't use heroine would go out and start using it just because it became illegal. I suspect the same types of people getting caught up in it now, would continue to be the ones that got caught up in it. I suspect whether my son or daughter ends up using heroine will not be dependent upon whether it is legal or not, but rather if my son or daughter grows up in poverty, etc etc etc.

I am guessing the same is likely for prostitution. As you say, the great majority of women who end up working as hookers will be the sick, poor, and stupid, just like it is now.

However... one point that opened my eyes was... what if we made drugs illegal and took all the money we spend on enforcing drug policies on rehab programs and access to rehab programs, providing better education to youth, etc etc... Look at the effect the "smoking is bad" campaign has had? Could the same not be done for drugs and prostitution?

Since we all agree that, legal or not, the same people will still get sucked in and all...

 

[pbi]

If they legalized heroine tomorrow, no one who doesn't use heroine would go out and start using it just because it became illegal...

Did you mean "legal"? If so, I still disagree. To me it is simple logic: the more accessible something is, the more people will try it. And the easier it is for the same sort of maladaptive, stressed, or low-coping (or whatever title you want to use...) sort of person to get hold of it, find that it does what they want, and start using it. Again, look at alcohol: it has taken, and continues to take, a very big toll on all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons.

There is a fallacy that making access to alcohol easier, or providing it in a family setting, will somehow reduce the risk of alcoholism. I have a relative who is a public health nurse in Portugal: she says that they have a problem with teen alcoholism, precisely because alcohol is so easy to get ( ie: on the table with most meals) and so is readily used as a "self-medication" for the stresses and dysfunctions that teens suffer. Interstingly, however, binge drinking doesn't seem to be as much as an issue for them as it is here.

I suspect whether my son or daughter ends up using heroine will not be dependent upon whether it is legal or not, but rather if my son or daughter grows up in poverty, etc etc etc.

Actually, some of the best drugs get taken in some of the best neighborhoods....

...However... one point that opened my eyes was... what if we made drugs illegal and took all the money we spend on enforcing drug policies on rehab programs and access to rehab programs, providing better education to youth, etc etc... Look at the effect the "smoking is bad" campaign has had? Could the same not be done for drugs and prostitution?

I think you meant "legal", again, right?

But, my answer is, "not necessarily". The people who need to take drugs or who are addictive personalities are probably not all that different from alcoholics (who are alcohol addicts). Alcoholism treatment and counselling has been widely available for years: do we have fewer alcoholics than we had 30 years ago, including teen alcoholics?

Anyway, this is a bit of a tangent from prostitution. And I'm certainly not an anti-boozer: quite the opposite.  :cheers:

I still think that about the best you can hpoe for where The Oldest Profession is concerned is to make things a bit safer and less stressful for the street hookers.

 

[The_Falcon]

I still think that about the best you can hpoe for where The Oldest Profession is concerned is to make things a bit safer and less stressful for the street hookers.

Which is precisely why according to SCC, they struck down the laws they did.  In thier view those laws were unreasonable, as they prevented those in the "profession"  from taking steps to protect themselves, in what is a legal transaction.

 

[ballz]

For all the legals / illegals, I think I was probably having a dyslexia episode, which happens to me more than I'd like to admit  :blotto:

Did you mean "legal"? If so, I still disagree. To me it is simple logic: the more accessible something is, the more people will try it. And the easier it is for the same sort of maladaptive, stressed, or low-coping (or whatever title you want to use...) sort of person to get hold of it, find that it does what they want, and start using it. Again, look at alcohol: it has taken, and continues to take, a very big toll on all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons.

I really don't agree with the line of thinking that because something is illegal, it is less accessible. We have this debate with gun control all the time, most people agree that criminals have no problems accessing a firearm. People have an even easier time accessing illegal drugs than they do accessing firearms. In fact, I would argue that in high school it was easier to obtain cocaine (which was illegal, full stop) than it was to access alcohol and tobacco (which was legal, but not for minors, and well-regulated by the gov't)... if you could afford cocaine of course.

There is a fallacy that making access to alcohol easier, or providing it in a family setting, will somehow reduce the risk of alcoholism.

I don't think making it more accessible would reduce alcoholism, I just don't think that making it illegal would make it less accessible. That has been tried before, and failed.

Actually, some of the best drugs get taken in some of the best neighborhoods....

Do we really need to Google the hard statistics to agree that those living in poverty are multiple times more likely to have a substance abuse problem than those not living in poverty? Yes, cocaine is a rich man's drug. I think you are also choosing to pick up on an outlier because it suits your thesis.

But, my answer is, "not necessarily". The people who need to take drugs or who are addictive personalities are probably not all that different from alcoholics (who are alcohol addicts). Alcoholism treatment and counselling has been widely available for years: do we have fewer alcoholics than we had 30 years ago, including teen alcoholics?

Hard to conclude. The definition of an "alcoholic" 50 years ago when my Grandpa was a raging alcoholic in rural Newfoundland was quite lax, and it wasn't considered out of the norm for a man to come home after working for a week, shower, eat, and then go booze it up all weekend and not come home again until Sunday night. I am sure you will agree, the definition of alcoholism these days is a lot less lenient and most of us infantry folk are at the very least considered binge drinkers.  :cheers:

Anyway, this is a bit of a tangent from prostitution.

A tangent for sure, but I think prostitution is an even better example of the point I was trying to make... Whether it is legal or not will not (in my opinion) influence people's decision on whether to partake in it or not, so we might as well legalize it, facilitate them in doing it safely, and try to help treat the root cause of the decision.

 

[The_Falcon]

A tangent for sure, but I think prostitution is an even better example of the point I was trying to make... Whether it is legal or not will not (in my opinion) influence people's decision on whether to partake in it or not, so we might as well legalize it, facilitate them in doing it safely, and try to help treat the root cause of the decision.

I will say it again, prostitution was already legal, PRIOR to this decision.  That fact is part of the reason (perhaps the biggest reason) that the communication, bawdy house, and living off the avails portions of the criminal code were struck down.  The courts essetianally said, that being able to sell yourself, but not actually use that money, practice in a location of your choosing, and discuss any of it in the open, is assinine.  And I agree, whatever government it was that wrote those provisions, was trying to straddle the fence and not pick a side (fully illegally, or legal and regulated).  The SCC has basically told the feds, pick a side.

 

[ModlrMike]

I will say it again, prostitution was already legal, PRIOR to this decision.  That fact is part of the reason (perhaps the biggest reason) that the communication, bawdy house, and living off the avails portions of the criminal code were struck down.  The courts essetianally said, that being able to sell yourself, but not actually use that money, practice in a location of your choosing, and discuss any of it in the open, is assinine.  And I agree, whatever government it was that wrote those provisions, was trying to straddle the fence and not pick a side (fully illegally, or legal and regulated).  The SCC has basically told the feds, pick a side.

This is also why the Scandinavian approach, that some advocate, won't work either. Selling is legal but buying is illegal? Pretty stupid and indefensible position if you ask me. It is difficult to think of another transactional relationship where only half of the participants are guilty of a crime.


As much as Wikipedia is not a source, here's a small explanation of my point:

The laws on prostitution in Sweden make it illegal to buy sexual services, but not to sell them. Pimping, procuring and operating a brothel are also illegal. The criminalisation of the purchase, but not selling, of sex was unique when first enacted in 1999, but since then Norway and Iceland have adopted similar legislation, both in 2009, and France began enacting a similar law in 2013.

 

[ballz]

I will say it again, prostitution was already legal, PRIOR to this decision.  That fact is part of the reason (perhaps the biggest reason) that the communication, bawdy house, and living off the avails portions of the criminal code were struck down.  The courts essetianally said, that being able to sell yourself, but not actually use that money, practice in a location of your choosing, and discuss any of it in the open, is assinine.  And I agree, whatever government it was that wrote those provisions, was trying to straddle the fence and not pick a side (fully illegally, or legal and regulated).  The SCC has basically told the feds, pick a side.

Ack, I am tracking all that, prostitution is legal, soliciting wasn't (still isn't?). That doesn't change my point at all, but I will choose my wording more carefully as I understand the legal nuance can be a thorn in the side. :cheers:

 

[FJAG]

This is also why the Scandinavian approach, that some advocate, won't work either. Selling is legal but buying is illegal? Pretty stupid and indefensible position if you ask me. It is difficult to think of another transactional relationship where only half of the participants are guilty of a crime.

The position is not indefensible. It is based on the "the prostitute (read woman mostly) is the victim" and "The man is the criminal" theory of the sex trade.

I totally agree with you, however, that it is stupid. All too often society--through its elected officials--uses criminal legislation in an attempt to achieve a pollyanna world that doesn't and cannot exist. It happens more and more when the legislators are kowtowing to vocal and strident religious factions.

:cheers:

 

[pbi]

I really don't agree with the line of thinking that because something is illegal, it is less accessible. We have this debate with gun control all the time, most people agree that criminals have no problems accessing a firearm. People have an even easier time accessing illegal drugs than they do accessing firearms. In fact, I would argue that in high school it was easier to obtain cocaine (which was illegal, full stop) than it was to access alcohol and tobacco (which was legal, but not for minors, and well-regulated by the gov't)... if you could afford cocaine of course.

OK, OK.....I just can't resist riding the Tangential Roller Coaster one more time!!!

Making something illegal would logically make it less accessible, to the population at large, less the percentage who are willing to break the law and risk the consequences (whatever those may be).
Under prohibition in the US, for example, liquor was not generally available for open, across the counter sales from about 1919 until about 1933 (In Canada, except for PEI, prohibition was pretty well gone by 1929 and never really enforced very strictly). This meant, I think, that for the average person who was not willing to risk being caught, it was less accessible. It doesn't mean that people willing to break the law couldn't get it, but they had to go some trouble and risk to do so.

BTW I thought Prohibition was a stupid idea, much like the equally ineffective "War on Drugs". What I guess I'm saying is that legalization of a harmful or potentially harmful practice isn't necessarily a panacea that suddenly stops making it harmful. It just doesn't make it criminal any more. Drugs and booze screw you up badly, legal or not. Prostitution is the sale of a human body and may involves some degree of degradation and risk, legal or not.

I think you are also choosing to pick up on an outlier because it suits your thesis.

Yes, OK. It did suit it quite admirably. But...I was really, really inebriated at the time. I'm sorry. >

 

[Journeyman]

...Prohibition....about 1919 until ......1929....

BTW I thought Prohibition was a stupid idea.....

Wow, you are old. 

 

[pbi]

Wow, you are old. 

Yes, I am. And drink-sodden.

But, whatever. :cheers:

 

[Journeyman]

But, whatever. :cheers:

Exactly  :cheers: