# Decriminalizing prostitution



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Seems a major step was just made in that direction.

Ontario Superior Court judge strikes down prostitution law - The Globe and Mail


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I strongly oppose the court's ruling - human "constitutional rights" over morality. Yikes...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oooooh those wascally wiberals.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This will get overturned.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I think it's a great day. Toss aside this Victorian era hangover. Prostitution isn't going anywhere. They don't call it the oldest profession for nothing.



> Judge Himel, however, found current laws offer little protection. Her judgment pointed at evidence that established violence against sex workers is endemic – from a string of gruesome serial killings by Vancouver pig farmer Robert Pickton, to a rash of missing prostitutes in Alberta and frequent violence against sex trade workers in the Atlantic region.
> 
> In her 131-page ruling which took her a year to produce, Judge Himel found that laws set up to protect prostitutes actually endanger their safety, forcing them to furtively engage in hasty transactions conducted in shady locations.
> 
> “By increasing the risk of harm to street prostitutes, the communicating law is simply too high a price to pay for the alleviation of social nuisance,” she said. “I find that the danger faced by prostitutes greatly outweighs any harm which may be faced by the public.”


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

What has been around forever doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Lars said:


> What has been around forever doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.


Would you rather prostitutes safety be endangered? Do you really believe the law is doing anything to curb or even stop prostitution?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> Would you rather prostitutes safety be endangered? Do you really believe the law is doing anything to curb or even stop prostitution?


The law as it is stops it from being open and exposed to everyone who doesn't want to see it, with few exceptions. With the current ruling, it'll be more open and revolting than ever. My two cents.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I guess you don't live downtown then.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No, he doesn't. But that's his business. Funny thing is, tons of prostitution goes on in the 'burbs these days. All those town homes and condos... brisk business. All you need do is advertise in Craigslist or one of the downtown weeklies. The rise of the net has brought with it a great deal of decentralization in terms of where johns and hookers do their business.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

his business or no, the law doesn't stop it from being 'exposed'.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

What a surprise. Another "judge" trying to "make" new laws all on her own. 

Time to elect them so we can eject them.


----------



## Puccasaurus (Dec 28, 2003)

Not to be small-minded but my first thought was "I hope none of my neighbours starts a brothel". Traffic is bad enough in my neighbourhood


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

groovetube said:


> his business or no, the law doesn't stop it from being 'exposed'.


The part that bothers me is that now, even if it's exposed, the police can't make any arrests, so it can continue to occur unchecked out in the open. And though it was always happening behind closed doors, the police could still shut the place down if they had a reasonable case with the evidence. I'm sorry, but prostitution as a legal business is ridiculous.

Let's hope for an appeal that will overturn this judge's ruling.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Lars said:


> The law as it is stops it from being open and exposed to everyone who doesn't want to see it, with few exceptions. With the current ruling, it'll be more open and revolting than ever. My two cents.


You do know that it is legal in Canada to exchange money for sexual acts, don't you?


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

I think its a step in the right direction for some reasons, but I can see pitfalls too.

A few of the good things are; potentially safer conditions for hoes, possible regulation, potential new tax base. If its legal then hookers can say they make their living off it and file taxes on their earnings.

Some bad things are increased exposure to nudity (though were way to uptight and puritan compared to Europe); umm thats all I can think of.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Perhaps we can make life safer for drug traffickers as well. Hell, they're forced into all sorts of unsafe conditions to peddle their wares!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Lars said:


> I strongly oppose the court's ruling - human "constitutional rights" over morality. Yikes...


Who's morality? Who cares what consenting adults want to do with their bodies.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Perhaps we can make life safer for drug traffickers as well. Hell, they're forced into all sorts of unsafe conditions to peddle their wares!


We should legalize and control the distribution of recreational drugs, or at least most. Less dealers, less problems. More freedom.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> We should legalize and control the distribution of recreational drugs, or at least most. Less dealers, less problems. More freedom.


I agree. But we don't see the courts ruling in the name of freedom--they're acting as advocates of one group over another, using the inherent lack of safety of a currently illegal activity as justification to legalize it.


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Perhaps we can make life safer for drug traffickers as well. Hell, they're forced into all sorts of unsafe conditions to peddle their wares!


I think your missing the point. There are all sorts of dangerous activities that are perfectly legal. Do you worry every time you get in a car? Do you shower when a thunderstorm is going on? What about professional sports? 

See there are all kinds of dangerous things going on. Sex is natural. The taboo thats associated with it and it being public and open inherently says how little we've changed since the Puritans. Same thing with those temperance unions and prohibition. The fact that we suppress and make taboo of sex and sex workers is really bad for everyone.

If you don't wanna see don't look. If you don't wanna participate don't. It's your choice. But just because you don't like it or want it, it doesn't mean that others don't, or that they wont either. Don't go raining on someone else's parade.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I agree. But we don't see the courts ruling in the name of freedom--they're acting as advocates of one group over another, using the inherent lack of safety of a currently illegal activity as justification to legalize it.


Seems as good a reason as any. The end result will hopefully be safer conditions for vulnerable members of our society.

Comparing drug trafficking to prostitution is a stretch. Yes they're both currently illegal. The difference ends there.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Comparing drug trafficking to prostitution is a stretch. Yes they're both currently illegal. The difference ends there.


Uh, no. Prostitution is legal in Canada. Drugs are not.

"Communicating for the purpose of" prostitution is however, illegal.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

This is a no-brainer.

Consenting adults should be free to have sex with whomever they want for whatever reasons they choose. If making money is the reason, that's their business.

The only difficult part of this is 'how can we tax it?'


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> This is a no-brainer.
> 
> Consenting adults should be free to have sex with whomever they want for whatever reasons they choose. If making money is the reason, that's their business.
> 
> The only difficult part of this is 'how can we tax it?'


Gotta say while I personally find sex for money rather unsavoury (not necessarily for the participants but more from the stand point of the unwitting wives and girl friends of the Johns) I have to agree. 

It will be pretty easy to tax the workers if they file income tax returns. Sadly the pimps will not likely be filing any tax returns.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> It will be pretty easy to tax the workers if they file income tax returns. Sadly the pimps will not likely be filing any tax returns.


Yes, and this is where it starts to get complicated. But the first step is obviously to legalize. Then we can start to tax the sex-trade, and the revenue can be used to mitigate the societal costs (which, I'll be the first to admit, are non-trivial).

The same approach should be used with respect to many (if not all) drugs. Legalize, tax, and use the revenue to mitigate collateral damage.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

I'm in favour of legalizing the industry but simultaneously clamping down on the Russian and Asian gangs and their enslavement of desperate females. Victor Malarek has written extensively on the topic and it's not a pretty picture.

Victor Malarek?s The Johns links sex-trade patronage to male rage | Vancouver, Canada | Straight.com


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

screature said:


> Gotta say while I personally find sex for money rather unsavoury (not necessarily for the participants but more from the stand point of the unwitting wives and girl friends of the Johns) I have to agree.
> 
> It will be pretty easy to tax the workers if they file income tax returns. Sadly the pimps will not likely be filing any tax returns.


Only a slight degree of difference between having sex with pros and having sex with your co-worker or the waitress from Denny's. In fact, I would say it's safer to go with the pros since it's a pure business transaction.

During the Heidi Fleiss trial, Charlie Sheen was asked why a big movie star would have to pay for sex. His answer was "I don't pay them to have sex with me. I pay them to go away.".

Prostitutes provide a useful service. Men have their needs. No Bible, Koran, Torah or made-up morality code is going to change that.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> I'm in favour of legalizing the industry but simultaneously clamping down on the Russian and Asian gangs and their enslavement of desperate females. Victor Malarek has written extensively on the topic and it's not a pretty picture.
> 
> Victor Malarek?s The Johns links sex-trade patronage to male rage | Vancouver, Canada | Straight.com


Agreed with that and it's a separate issue. Where there is vice, there is abuse. Doesn't mean you have to outlaw the vice. Gambling, booze, drugs - all fall into that category.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Uh, no. Prostitution is legal in Canada. Drugs are not.
> 
> "Communicating for the purpose of" prostitution is however, illegal.


Can you have one without the other?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

hhk said:


> Agreed with that and it's a separate issue. Where there is vice, there is abuse. Doesn't mean you have to outlaw the vice. Gambling, booze, drugs - all fall into that category.


I'm not a lawyer but one of the unsavoury conclusions I come to is that the previsions related to operating a bawdy house and living off of the avails of prostitution give these gangs protection.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hhk said:


> Only a slight degree of difference between having sex with pros and having sex with your co-worker or the waitress from Denny's. In fact, I would say it's safer to go with the pros since it's a pure business transaction.
> 
> During the Heidi Fleiss trial, Charlie Sheen was asked why a big movie star would have to pay for sex. His answer was "I don't pay them to have sex with me. I pay them to go away.".
> 
> Prostitutes provide a useful service. Men have their needs. No Bible, Koran, Torah or made-up morality code is going to change that.


Well if what you are talking about is an affair while in a relationship then yes I agree.
"Men have their needs" is a euphemism for saying may men are morally weak. Either be in a committed relationship or don't, but don't try and have it both ways at someone else's expense.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

BigDL said:


> You do know that it is legal in Canada to exchange money for sexual acts, don't you?


I'm aware.

I agree with the concerns outlined in this article: 
Former prostitute 'shocked' by Ont. court decision - CTV News.



Vandave said:


> Who's morality? Who cares what consenting adults want to do with their bodies.


To each their own.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Screature, "men have their needs" need not be a euphemism for moral weakness. It can also be, very simply, factual. Alas, it must be noted that women have their needs too.

Also, we tend to think of prostitution along certain lines but the reality of it is broader, more wide-ranging than the stereotype of a pathetic suburban john furtively meeting with a trashy hooker in some back alley downtown. There are, for example, those men who go to other men for paid sex, all the while pretending in public to be strictly hetero. Too, there are lots of 'rub 'n tug' massage parlours where sex transactions occur... and those are not just located in the downtown core. And I am certain there's a class of women who keep men around strictly for 'recreational' purposes - and accordingly pay them off for that privilege.

Perhaps we need to widen our definition of prostitution... might be a start. It's difficult to get a handle on the subject because people tend to run so much interference when it comes to human sexuality.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Morality aside, I generally agree with the legalization. It gives those that truly wish (?) to work in the sex trade a safer and legitimate way to conduct their business. I think they should be licensed (meeting age and health standards) and issued with ID. The licenses should be subject to frequent renewal after passing the health standards again. Hey, if you work in a risky industry, you should be subject to frequent health tests for your own safety as well as that of your customers.

Ideally, a legalized sex trade would compete with and reduce the illegal, underage and higher risk sex trade. Realistically, I think it would have hardly an impact on it. Can you imagine the amount of "sin-tax" applied to this business? What about all the other legalities of a legitimate business? Will the customers also be required to show ID? ("We card everyone under 30!") 

For the same reason that people continue to steal and smuggle cigarettes, despite a legalized alternative, the illegal sex trade industry with all its cruelty and risk will continue to survive in all its ugliness. It may also provide more business to professional forgers, forging renewed licenses or health test documents for those workers that do not pass the legal licensing requirements. Maybe we should license forgers too?


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

screature said:


> Well if what you are talking about is an affair while in a relationship then yes I agree.
> "Men have their needs" is a euphemism for saying may men are morally weak. Either be in a committed relationship or don't, but don't try and have it both ways at someone else's expense.


Ya sure. I'm not condoning it. I'm just recognising a basic human condition. I'm in my 40s and I have seen it so often it never surprises me anymore. Church ministers - check. Friends with gorgeous and loving wives - check. Neighbours doing it with their brother in law - check. The President of the United States - check.

Like I said, better to hire a pro and keep it pure business. I argue that prostitution *saves* marriages.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Screature, *"men have their needs" need not be a euphemism for moral weakness. *It can also be, very simply, factual. Alas, it must be noted that women have their needs too.
> 
> Also, we tend to think of prostitution along certain lines but the reality of it is broader, more wide-ranging than the stereotype of a pathetic suburban john furtively meeting with a trashy hooker in some back alley downtown. There are, for example, those men who go to other men for paid sex, all the while pretending in public to be strictly hetero. Too, there are lots of 'rub 'n tug' massage parlours where sex transactions occur... and those are not just located in the downtown core. And I am certain there's a class of women who keep men around strictly for 'recreational' purposes - and accordingly pay them off for that privilege.
> 
> Perhaps we need to widen our definition of prostitution... might be a start. It's difficult to get a handle on the subject because people tend to run so much interference when it comes to human sexuality.


I agree that it need not, but is very often used as a justification for weak behaviour. I have no problem with people doing whatever they want amongst consenting adults. I do have a problem with duplicity and deceit. Very often the expression "men have their needs" is a lame excuse to justify duplicity and deceit.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hhk said:


> Ya sure. I'm not condoning it. I'm just recognising a basic human condition. I'm in my 40s and I have seen it so often it never surprises me anymore. Church ministers - check. Friends with gorgeous and loving wives - check. Neighbours doing it with their brother in law - check. The President of the United States - check.
> 
> Like I said, better to hire a pro and keep it pure business. *I argue that prostitution saves marriages.*



Possibly for some men... I doubt very much many of the wives/partners would feel that way if they knew it was going.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

screature said:


> I agree that it need not, but is very often used as a justification for weak behaviour. I have no problem with people doing whatever they want amongst consenting adults. I do have a problem with duplicity and deceit. Very often the expression "men have their needs" is a lame excuse to justify duplicity and deceit.



Dante, Byron, Shakespeare. Every English King in history. In modern times, JFK, MLK Jr., Bill Clinton. I won't even get started on actors and athletes. Powerful, successful, strong men. All engaged in extra-marital affairs. Why? Because they can.

Even Jimmy Carter, in the famous Playboy Magazine interview, admitted to lust in his heart and I can't think of a more upstanding, moral man than Jimmy Carter.

Chris Rock said it best - "A man is as faithful as his options."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Can you have one without the other?


Yes indeed. The "communicating" bit was devised to allow police to curb the communicating in public along streets by hookers and johns in cars. Two consenting adults who negotiate an arrangement involving money or favours in private are of no concern to police in most cases.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yes indeed. The "communicating" bit was devised to allow police to curb the communicating in public along streets by hookers and johns in cars. Two consenting adults who negotiate an arrangement involving money or favours in private are of no concern to police in most cases.


In most cases? 

Whether it be public or private, communicating is communicating, non?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hhk said:


> Dante, Byron, Shakespeare. Every English King in history. In modern times, JFK, MLK Jr., Bill Clinton. I won't even get started on actors and athletes. Powerful, successful, strong men. All engaged in extra-marital affairs. Why? Because they can.
> 
> Even Jimmy Carter, in the famous Playboy Magazine interview, admitted to lust in his heart and I can't think of a more upstanding, moral man than Jimmy Carter.
> 
> Chris Rock said it best - "A man is as faithful as his options."


You aren't changing my opinion any. There is a world of difference between having lust in your heart and your penis in a woman/man that isn't your partner.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> In most cases?
> 
> Whether it be public or private, communicating is communicating, non?


Sure, but the "communicating" part of the law was made because they could not outlaw the act, as witnessed by the overturn of the law by the Ontario court.

It was made to be a tool to prevent public communication and rid the streets of hookers. They rarely prosecute private communication unless it is part of a criminal ring. If they did, they would have to arrest half the patrons of bars every weekend. "Buy you a drink, then go to your place or mine", also communication.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> In most cases?
> 
> Whether it be public or private, communicating is communicating, non?


It is the public part that is illegal. It is also illegal to drink an unlicensed public place, while not in a licensed establishment or in a private home. The law does make distinctions as to where acts are allowed (legal) and where they are not.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Look at the Google ad that's popping up at the top of this thread:

Single Ukraine Ladies
Ukrainian girls and women are looking for dating with foreign men
Online Dating Ukraine

A Ukranian girl who is willing to trade marraige (sex) for citizenship. Is that prostitution? Is it immoral? Should a lonely Canadian man willing to engage in such a transaction be considered morally weak?


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

hhk said:


> *Powerful, successful, strong* men. All engaged in extra-marital affairs.


The ironic dissonance astounds.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There's ads on ehMac? Who knew.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hhk said:


> Look at the Google ad that's popping up at the top of this thread:
> 
> Single Ukraine Ladies
> Ukrainian girls and women are looking for dating with foreign men
> ...


I don't see such things. As I am a paid member. 

If he is single, no, because he hasn't made a commitment to another person. My issue isn't with sex for money it is the matter of infidelity, duplicity and deceit that I have an issue with... I thought I had already made that clear... I guess not.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

screature said:


> You aren't changing my opinion any. There is a world of difference between having lust in your heart and your penis in a woman/man that isn't your partner.


For sure. But I'm not so quick to judge a man based on where his penis has been.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

screature said:


> I don't see such things. As I am a paid member.
> 
> If he is single, no, because he hasn't made a commitment to another person. My issue isn't with sex for money it is the matter of infidelity, duplicity and deceit that I have an issue with... I thought I had already made that clear... I guess not.


I get it. I'm just saying it's not so black and white. A married man having sex with a prostitute doesn't _necessarily_ make him a bad man.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hhk said:


> For sure. But I'm not so quick to judge a man based on where his penis has been.


Well if his penis has been some where he agreed it wouldn't be and didn't get out of that agreement before putting it there, then I am prepared to say I don't have much respect for that aspect of his character.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hhk said:


> I get it. I'm just saying it's not so black and white. A married man having sex with a prostitute doesn't _necessarily_ make him a bad man.


Doesn't make him a bad man, just displays a weakness in that aspect of his character.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

screature said:


> Doesn't make him a bad man, just displays a weakness in that aspect of his character.


I am weak. I am married and I am the first to admit that if Heidi Klum offered to have sex with me, I'd be tempted. Gotta stay away from Germany.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hhk said:


> I am weak. I am married and I am the first to admit that if Heidi Klum offered to have sex with me, I'd be tempted. Gotta stay away from Germany.


Definitely tempted, you can't be virtuous without temptation, otherwise all you are is innocent and naive. Virtue lies in ones strength to overcome temptation.

What you need is a designated cheat list for both you and your wife that you both agree if presented with the opportunity to have sex with people on that list, you both get a pass. Just put Heidi on the list.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

gotta love how many (but not all) conservatives are all for the free market except when it comes to things they don't approve of (sex & drugs), yet it's perfectly fine for corporations to rape the land and capitalism to warp our children.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you'll find some in men's bathrooms lookin apparently.

LOL


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> gotta love how many (but not all) conservatives are all for the free market except when it comes to things they don't approve of (sex & drugs), yet it's perfectly fine for corporations to rape the land and capitalism to warp our children.


Where the heck did that come from....? Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

some see the utter hypocrisy of many conservatives.

It can be somewhat shocking to hear though.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I think the Judge, from my reading of this topic, is talking about a public safety issue. Perhaps our general discussion (in Canada) should be who's public safety and what defines public safety.

Physical safety in my opinion should concern controlling disease, organised crime, as well freedom from harassment and unwanted attention from sex worker or from clients looking for sex worker.

How long does it take to admit this or any society is not going to stop the practice, perhaps the best we can attain is control over the providing an act(s) that most every person wants. 

Some people are willing to exchange money for the act(s). Some people desire to perform the act(s), currently some people are not willing to perform the act(s) but do so because of a criminal element in the "industry."

The control over the act(s) I am thinking about is in the name of everyone's public safety.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> some see the utter hypocrisy of many conservatives.
> 
> It can be somewhat shocking to hear though.


Hypocrisy is hardly the domain of any one political persuasion over another, both are equally guilty... I fail to see how these kinds of posts are productive in any way what so ever.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> I think the Judge, from my reading of this topic, is talking about a public safety issue. Perhaps our general discussion (in Canada) should be who's public safety and what defines public safety.
> 
> Physical safety in my opinion should concern controlling disease, organised crime, as well freedom from harassment and unwanted attention from sex worker or from clients looking for sex worker.
> 
> ...


Yep... I agree BigDL.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

i-rui said:


> gotta love how many (but not all) conservatives are all for the free market except when it comes to things they don't approve of (sex & drugs), yet it's perfectly fine for corporations to rape the land and capitalism to warp our children.


+1 on the sentiment of what is acceptable but would not limit the sentiment to conservatives but people in general.

It's a matter of conditioned response, I guess


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Where the heck did that come from....? Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?


just an observation. I wasn't talking about you. But I think many environmentalists view something like the oilsands as an even more heinous moral outrage than a whorehouse.

(although I fully admit I'd want neither in my backyard...but if i HAD to choose I'd go with the whorehouse)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Hypocrisy is hardly the domain of any one political persuasion over another, both are equally guilty... I fail to see how these kinds of posts are productive in any way what so ever.


sure. But we're talking about morality here. And conservatives are famous for preaching from the pulpit about the evils of sex, only to be found to be doing the very things they preached and warned against.

And since this is a thread about prostitution, it's relevant.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Prohibition doesn't work. People have been engaging in prostitution for millennia. Like drug prohibition, making it illegal will never make it go away.

What making it illegal does do however is make it impossible to regulate. You can't regulate something that is illegal. We can continue to keep prostitution illegal and continue to have it be unsafe for both prostitutes and customers and exploitive due to lack of regulation or we can make it legal and impose standards on how it is to be conducted, where it is to be conducted and what standards are in place for the sex workers, their employers and the customers. How about a health checkup to keep one's prostitute license and a health checkup to be able to obtain service? How about employment and cleanliness standards for brothels and non-exploitive compensation for the sex workers who work at these places?

We can continue to bury our heads in the sand on this issue and we end up with situations like the Pickton murders or these indentured sex workers brought here from other countries illegally. Why can't our society just grow up and leave adults to make their own decisions about their own morality? It's none of anyone else's business.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Why can't our society just grow up and leave adults to make their own decisions about their own morality?


:clap:


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

BigDL said:


> +1 on the sentiment of what is acceptable but would not limit the sentiment to conservatives but people in general.
> 
> It's a matter of conditioned response, I guess


I agree, but my observation had more to do with the whole "free market" ideology that many conservatives promote.

If it's something that the government can tax, and there is a deman & market for it, then by their own set of rules they should be for it (or at least tolerant).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> I agree, but my observation had more to do with the whole "free market" ideology that many conservatives promote.
> 
> If it's something that the government can tax, and there is a deman & market for it, then by their own set of rules they should be for it (or at least tolerant).


Free markets are hardly a conservative idea alone, it is a capitalist idea and there are plenty of liberal capitalists. But that being said every "ideology" has its internal inconsistencies, exceptions shall we say, and again conservatives are not alone in this. I still fail to see the point in making this an "us" against "them" issue.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> every "ideology" has its internal inconsistencies, exceptions shall we say, and again conservatives are not alone in this.


No disagreement. But I think you're being deliberately disingenuous if you're taking the position that the political Right has not been more spectacularly hypocritical in this regard. Of course, that has far more to do with the espousal of socially conservative "family values" by many of the Conservatives who've been caught with prostitutes than their economic philosophies.

I have to say that I've always found the affiliation of the evangelical Christians and extreme social conservatives with the laissez faire capitalists rather difficult to comprehend. From my reading of the Bible, Jesus was a classic sandal-wearing hippie who'd have been in favour of socialized medicine and opposed to tax-cuts-for-the-rich.

Cheers


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

It was an observation. From what I've perceived (and not only on this board) most people against legalizing prostitution also happen to be conservative. (it is the Federal Government that is appealing the decision after all...)

I'm sure there are exceptions, hence why i said "many (but not all)".


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> Gotta say while I personally find sex for money rather unsavoury (not necessarily for the participants but more from the stand point of the unwitting wives and girl friends of the Johns) I have to agree.
> 
> It will be pretty easy to tax the workers if they file income tax returns. Sadly the pimps will not likely be filing any tax returns.


When properly legalized and regulated, a pimp is no different than a manager of any business, or an agent of a self-employed prostitute. Prostitutes who declare income will have to declare their employer or agent they have a business relationship with.

A regulated industry removes the abuse from a pimp-prostitute relationship. Pimps can no longer threaten prostitutes using fear they will be arrested as a motivator. Prostitutes can confidently report any abuse that goes on because they aren't committing crimes themselves.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

jimbotelecom said:


> I'm in favour of legalizing the industry but simultaneously clamping down on the Russian and Asian gangs and their enslavement of desperate females.


Sure - the trafficking of women and enslavement is a separate issue. A legitimize and regulated industry will not increase and may even decrease human trafficking as most johns will now go to legitimate businesses instead of illicit street prostitutes.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

hayesk said:


> When properly legalized and regulated, a pimp is no different than a manager of any business, or an agent of a self-employed prostitute.


The pimp-business manager comparison is one I've made on many occasions.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> When properly legalized and regulated, a pimp is no different than a manager of any business, or an agent of a self-employed prostitute. Prostitutes who declare income will have to declare their employer or agent they have a business relationship with.
> 
> A regulated industry removes the abuse from a pimp-prostitute relationship. Pimps can no longer threaten prostitutes using fear they will be arrested as a motivator. Prostitutes can confidently report any abuse that goes on because they aren't committing crimes themselves.


In an ideal world what you say is true, but this takes organization and certainly would not immediately fall into place over night. We are essentially dealing with people who are used to being effectively outside the law and not having to pay tax on their income... they are not going to want to change their ways overnight, especially when it affects their bottom line.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

hayesk said:


> When properly legalized and regulated, a pimp is no different than a manager of any business, or an agent of a self-employed prostitute. Prostitutes who declare income will have to declare their employer or agent they have a business relationship with.
> 
> A regulated industry removes the abuse from a pimp-prostitute relationship. Pimps can no longer threaten prostitutes using fear they will be arrested as a motivator. Prostitutes can confidently report any abuse that goes on because they aren't committing crimes themselves.





GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The pimp-business manager comparison is one I've made on many occasions.


Let's not forget the role of, pimp as defender of personal safety, for the prostitute which may well disappear if the issue of public safety is positively addressed.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Lars said:


> The law as it is stops it from being open and exposed to everyone who doesn't want to see it, with few exceptions. With the current ruling, it'll be more open and revolting than ever. My two cents.


Zoning regulations solve that problem easily. Strip clubs aren't more "open" and they certainly aren't in every neighbourhood, yet I'll bet every neighbourhood has residents who have patronized such an establishment.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> In an ideal world what you say is true, but this takes organization and certainly would not immediately fall into place over night. We are essentially dealing with people who are used to being effectively outside the law and not having to pay tax on their income... they are not going to want to change their ways overnight, especially when it affects their bottom line.


I agree it won't happen overnight. It won't get worse either. It'll slowly get better.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> No disagreement. But I think you're being deliberately disingenuous if you're taking the position that the political Right has not been more spectacularly hypocritical in this regard. Of course, that has far more to do with the espousal of socially conservative "family values" by many of the Conservatives who've been caught with prostitutes than their economic philosophies.
> 
> I have to say that I've always found the affiliation of the evangelical Christians and extreme social conservatives with the laissez faire capitalists rather difficult to comprehend. From my reading of the Bible, Jesus was a classic sandal-wearing hippie who'd have been in favour of socialized medicine and opposed to tax-cuts-for-the-rich.
> 
> Cheers


Not being deliberately disingenuous at all, I simply see no point in dragging political affiliations into the debate surrounding this issue as it is completely irrelevant, especially when you are speaking of public hypocrisies that happened in the US and not in Canada.

Furthermore by saying the _"political Right has not been *more spectacularly hypocritical* in this regard. Of course, that has far more to do with the espousal of socially conservative "family values" by many of the Conservatives who've been caught with prostitutes than their economic philosophies."_ You are only belying your own biases. I would suspect there have been at least an equal number of liberals (democrats) caught with their pants down who espouse "family values". Especially in the US where there are very few to no politicians that don't espouse family values.

If you want to paint a sensationalist picture that may or may not be true in terms of who is most hypocritical regarding this matter, the liberals or conservatives, go right ahead, it doesn't mean I have to agree with you or that I am being deliberately disingenuous to suggest otherwise. It simply means I see no value in doing so.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> I simply see no point in dragging political affiliations into the debate surrounding this issue as it is completely irrelevant


the federal government (who last time i checked was conservative) is going to appeal the decision, so that DOES drag political affiliations into the debate.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

screature said:


> ... but this takes organization and certainly would not immediately fall into place over night...


Gawd, not another overpaid, underworked gov't department on the taxpayers dime...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

FeXL said:


> Gawd, not another overpaid, underworked gov't department on the taxpayers dime...


I'm quite confident that legalizing & taxing prostitution would more than pay for itself in terms of government revenue.

Between this and legalizing/taxing pot, Canada could have a very rosy financial picture.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I'm quite confident that legalizing & taxing prostitution would more than pay for itself in terms of government revenue.
> 
> Between this and legalizing/taxing pot, Canada could have a very rosy financial picture.


I wonder what the jump in job numbers that would be follow the legalizing and taxing of these two professions and the job numbers decline from people in criminal gangs getting their separation certificate.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> the federal government (who last time i checked was conservative) is going to appeal the decision, so that DOES drag political affiliations into the debate.


Sigh... Is this surprising? The point being made is that people of all political affiliations avail themselves of the services of prostitution and still promote "family values" hypocrisy exists on all fronts. But go ahead paint the picture the way you want it... 

Do you really think a Liberal federal government wouldn't appeal the decision of a provincial "lower" court. This isn't about political affiliation it is about what level of government gets to have jurisdictional supremacy. No federal government wants a provincial court to set the standard for the country.

Carry on with your (and others as well) partisan bashing of those with whom you disagree. I see no reason why it is necessary to lump people into simplistic groups just to try and divide and conquer. Cripes you would think that this was Question Period rather than just an open discussion on a web forum.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I'm quite confident that legalizing & taxing prostitution would more than pay for itself in terms of government revenue.
> 
> Between this and legalizing/taxing pot, Canada could have a very rosy financial picture.


Given time perhaps... the political fallout and subsequent sanctions that could come from our largest trading partner could easily off set those domestic revenues. We are a country that is heavily dependant on export revenues. If our domestic policies run counter to those of our closet neighbour and largest trading partner then our economic future is less clear and could easily be compromised.

Decriminalizing pot and the solicitation of sex for money in this country as public policy will ultimately follow very closely with the acceptance of such measures in the US. Like it not I believe that is the reality.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Do you really think a Liberal federal government wouldn't appeal the decision of a provincial "lower" court. This isn't about political affiliation it is about what level of government gets to have jurisdictional supremacy. No federal government wants a provincial court to set the standard for the country


actually i don't.

And it seems you missed the point i was making. It's about the disconnect between what the conservatives preach on one hand (fiscal responsibility) and then how they act on the other hand (neglecting a market & demand which will exist regardless of laws, yet refusing to legalize and tax it so the public can benefit from the tax dollars and the workers can be protected). If they want to balance the budget, here's one way that will help.

You don't have to look further than the Marijuana Reform Bill that the Liberal government tried to pass when they were in power, and which was struck down by the cons to see the difference between the 2 parties.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> actually i don't.
> 
> And it seems you missed the point i was making. It's about the disconnect between what the conservatives preach on one hand (fiscal responsibility) and then how they act on the other hand (neglecting a market & demand which will exist regardless of laws, yet refusing to legalize and tax it so the public can benefit from the tax dollars and the workers can be protected). If they want to balance the budget, here's one way that will help.
> 
> You don't have to look further than the Marijuana Reform Bill that the Liberal government tried to pass when they were in power, and which was struck down by the cons to see the difference between the 2 parties.


I didn't miss your point, but you seemed to miss my earlier one,



> Free markets are hardly a conservative idea alone, it is a capitalist idea and there are plenty of liberal capitalists. But that being said *every "ideology" has its internal inconsistencies, exceptions shall we say, and again conservatives are not alone in this.* I still fail to see the point in making this an "us" against "them" issue.


Re: the Marijuana Reform Bill it was not shot down by the Conservatives it was originally tabled in May 2003, but died on the Order Paper. The Marijuana Reform Bill was introduced again in February 2004, and once more in 2004, but never got past Committee stage.



> The Marijuana Reform Bill kept cannabis possession and production illegal under the Canadian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, but introduced softer penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana and tougher penalties for growers of marijuana. The penalties for traffickers remained the same, with a maximum sentence of life.
> 
> The intention of this bill was to send the message that marijuana is harmful and illegal, but to also provide a more realistic and consistent approach for law enforcement across Canada. New penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana meant that casual pot smokers and young people who experiment with pot would not be faced with a criminal record that would follow them for life.


Not really that dramatic a difference in policy as you seem to want to portray it.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Not really that dramatic a difference in policy as you seem to want to portray it.


The Liberals wanted to decriminalize possession. The Harper government is trying to enforce harsher penalties. That's a pretty wide gap.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> The Liberals wanted to decriminalize possession. The Harper government is trying to enforce harsher penalties. That's a pretty wide gap.


No the Liberals didn't... they wanted "softer" penalties for possession of smaller amounts. The Conservatives want stiffer penalties for growing and trafficking, which the Liberals were also advocating... how wide is that gap?

Backgrounder: Cannabis Reform Bill



> Backgrounder: Cannabis Reform Bill
> Developing a Balanced Approach
> 
> The Government of Canada is proposing amendments to the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in order to modernize the way Canada enforces its cannabis laws. Amendments would permit the use of provincial ticketing schemes for new offences involving the possession of small amounts of cannabis.* Other amendments regarding cultivation would help ensure the punishment fits the seriousness of the offence, with tough new penalties that target large-scale marijuana cultivators.*
> ...


The Liberal government was suggesting lighter punishments for possession of small amounts of marijuana and increasing the penalties for growing and trafficking. A modest difference in policy.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> No the Liberals didn't...


yes they did. they wanted to decriminalize simple possession so offenders would get a fine, but no criminal record. like a parking ticket. let me re-quote your post with the important parts bolded :



> The Government of Canada is proposing amendments to the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in order to modernize the way Canada enforces its cannabis laws. *Amendments would permit the use of provincial ticketing schemes for new offences involving the possession of small amounts of cannabis*. Other amendments regarding cultivation would help ensure the punishment fits the seriousness of the offence, with tough new penalties that target large-scale marijuana cultivators.
> 
> Any amendments to further enhance the legislation's effectiveness will be considered as the Bill moves through the Parliamentary process.
> Creating More Effective Possession Offences
> ...





screature said:


> The Conservatives want stiffer penalties for growing and trafficking, which the Liberals were also advocating... how wide is that gap?
> .


The Liberals wanted to increase penalties on trafficking, yes, but the final judgment could still be mitigated by the judge. The Harper government is trying to introduce Bill S-10 which has MANDATORY sentences for people with as few as 6 plants. If you can't tell the difference between a bill that decriminalizes simple possession and gives the judge the option of handing out a sentence, and another that criminally charges EVRYONE & hands out MANDATORY sentences for larger possession, then you're fooling yourself.

The Liberal bill would have been an important first step to becoming a more progressive nation, while the Harper bill is a step BACKWARDS. Couple this with their insane Multi-Billion $$$ (because they're SUCH fiscal conservatives!) push for an American style prison system and it's clear where the conservative government stands on these issues.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> yes they did. they wanted to decriminalize simple possession so offenders would get a fine, but no criminal record. like a parking ticket. let me re-quote your post with the important parts bolded :


For specifically small amounts of15 grams and less, so roughly a little more than half an ounce, they did not want to decriminalize possession in general.



i-rui said:


> The Liberals wanted to increase penalties on trafficking, yes, but the final judgment could still be mitigated by the judge. The Harper government is trying to introduce Bill S-10 which has MANDATORY sentences for people with as few as 6 plants. If you can't tell the difference between a bill that decriminalizes simple possession and gives the judge the option of handing out a sentence, and another that criminally charges EVRYONE & hands out MANDATORY sentences for larger possession, then you're fooling yourself.
> 
> The Liberal bill would have been an important first step to becoming a more progressive nation, while the Harper bill is a step BACKWARDS. Couple this with their insane Multi-Billion $$$ (because they're SUCH fiscal conservatives!) push for an American style prison system and it's clear where the conservative government stands on these issues.


As I said it is a modest difference in policy. However, in terms of economic benefit to the country (which is what we were discussing until you decided to derail the issue through an aside on a Bill that never even was voted on that you said the Conservatives shot down (which was not true at all)) this Bill would have done nothing to change the status quo... nothing. Growing and trafficking would still have been illegal with harsh punishments, so on matters that are of any real significance (economically) the Liberals and the Conservative policies have next to no day light between them.

Sure the Martin Government Bill would have been a vote getter for them amongst certain populations and in terms of social policy and the repercussions for the individual caught with the a small amount of pot it would have made a difference, but beyond that the policy was still to stigmatize the smoking of pot and the growing and distribution would still have been criminal. 

Cripes the way you talk it seems you think they were one the way toward making Canada the Amsterdam of North America. You may choose to believe this if you want but there is certainly no evidence for it and quite frankly the Liberals are smart enough to know that it would not fly with our neighbours to the south and we would pay for it economically in terms of trade if we did.

BTW have you actually read S-10. It is a Bill specifically related to Organized Drug Crimes, it is not intended to provide harsher penalties for the individual user:



> 4. (1) Paragraphs 7(2)(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:
> 
> 
> (a) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years if any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply and for a term of two years in any other case;
> ...


So if you grow six plants, it would still have to be proven that you were doing so for the purposes of trafficking for a minimum sentence to be imposed and that decision would still be up to a judge to decide.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> As I said it is a modest difference in policy. .....
> 
> Cripes the way you talk it seems you think they were one the way toward making Canada the Amsterdam of North America. You may choose to believe this if you want but there is certainly no evidence for it and quite frankly the Liberals are smart enough to know that it would not fly with our neighbours to the south and we would pay for it economically in terms of trade if we did.


it's a huge difference. it would have been an important FIRST STEP. you don't go from 0-100km in a split second. the point was it was a step FORWARD. The Harper government wants to take us BACKWARDS. that's why it's not a "modest difference". the liberal bill would've been progressive, while the Harper bill will be regressive.

And i love how on the one hand it's a "modest difference in policy", but on the other hand the US would've curtailed trade with us because of it. So i guess the difference isn't so modest?

But it is very telling that the Harper government would take it's cues from the States, since they basically take their policy from the Republican play book.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> it's a huge difference. it would have been an important FIRST STEP. you don't go from 0-100km in a split second. the point was it was a step FORWARD. The Harper government wants to take us BACKWARDS. that's why it's not a "modest difference". the liberal bill would've been progressive, while the Harper bill will be regressive.
> 
> And i love how on the one hand it's a "modest difference in policy", but on the other hand the US would've curtailed trade with us because of it. So i guess the difference isn't so modest?
> 
> But it is very telling that the Harper government would take it's cues from the States, since they basically take their policy from the Republican play book.


You misstate what I was saying, I wasn't saying that the US would have sanctioned Canada for the measures that the Liberals were proposing, I was implying that they would have sanctioned Canada if the change went any further, i.e. as I said "making Canada the Amsterdam of North America."

At any rate it has reached the time to agree to disagree. You are clearly entrenched and want to bend facts and statements to mesh with your arguments and biases, even the things that I say quite clearly. So we are done here.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

do you support the decriminalization of cannabis?

what about prostitution? 

(and i'm talking from a legal point of view, not as an ethical stance. no one wants someone they care for to become involved with prostitution but it does happen).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> do you support the decriminalization of cannabis?
> 
> what about prostitution?
> 
> (and i'm talking from a legal point of view, not as an ethical stance. no one wants someone they care for to become involved with prostitution but it does happen).


I do in both cases.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

so why are you defending policies that run counter to what you believe?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> so why are you defending policies that run counter to what you believe?


I'm not defending policies. I am speaking reasonably about the politics involved, it does no one any good to go off on a partisan rant, in my experience it only turns people off and makes them get their backs up. 

I don't believe there are really significant differences between the policies of the Liberals and the Conservatives on such issues because they still have to sway the same electorate. As I said the ultimate significance of the Liberal Bill would have been very minor only making a difference to those unfortunate few individuals who maybe caught with a small amount of pot. For those dealing in the drug trade the outcome would be basically the same... stiff penalties. 

I don't think, as you suggest, the Liberal Bill was a first step anywhere beyond where it was stated in the legislation. Most notably for the reason I have already stated a couple of times. Until the US shows significant cracks and softening of their own drug policies Canada is highly unlikely to take the lead and potentially at our economic peril as we do 270 billion dollars in trade annually with the US. So if they were unhappy with any truly significant change in our drug policy that could make it easier for pot to make its way across the border from Canada we could be exposing ourselves to serious sanctions indeed. The Liberals and the Conservatives both know this is a possibility.

I know plenty of Conservative supporters who have and do smoke pot, the status quo is not a deal breaker for them because they can still readily get what they want without significant risk of arrest. Do they wish it was different and they could buy pot like you buy booze and the government benefit from the tax revenues? Sure they do, but they are also pragmatic and realize that the time isn't ripe for significant change in this regard.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> As I said the ultimate significance of the Liberal Bill would have been very minor only making a difference to those *unfortunate few individuals* who maybe caught with a small amount of pot. For those dealing in the drug trade the outcome would be basically the same... stiff penalties.


so you think the end users would've been the smallest group of people affected by the proposed liberal bill? really? because i think it's very clear that in the percentages of people who are touched by the countries laws against cannabis, that would be the largest (by far) group. And the POTENTIAL of people who COULD get charged for possession is FAR FAR FAR greater than the percentage who could get charged for trafficking.

It wasn't some inconsequential gesture. It was an important first step. Maybe it was a baby step (of course I think it should have gone farther) but it was BETTER THAN NOTHING. And the Harper government with mandatory sentencing would be making things worse.

And with me it's not a liberal vs conservative partisan attack. I think McGuinty has done an AWFUL job at running Ontario. He was a passive idiot during the G20. I detest the province's draconian new driving laws. And now with the news that he's hiding a report that hydro rates are going up from the public I want to drop kick him right out of office If he's their leader at the next election, I won't be voting liberal. 

And although i generally vote liberal, i actually consider myself a libertarian (personal freedoms are paramount IMO - it's just no party comes close to really defending that so i choose the least of the available evils).

So while it's not an attack on conservatives, it IS an attack on the Harper government. What they're doing to the country is really disturbing. Their policies ARE damaging to the nation. And for some reason conservative voters constantly defend them even when it's against their own interest & principles.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> *so you think the end users would've been the smallest group of people affected by the proposed liberal bill? really?* because i think it's very clear that in the percentages of people who are touched by the countries laws against cannabis, that would be the largest (by far) group. And the POTENTIAL of people who COULD get charged for possession is FAR FAR FAR greater than the percentage who could get charged for trafficking.
> 
> It wasn't some inconsequential gesture. It was an important first step. Maybe it was a baby step (of course I think it should have gone farther) but it was BETTER THAN NOTHING. And the Harper government with mandatory sentencing would be making things worse.
> 
> ...


There you go putting words in my mouth again. Did I say that? For clarity, what I meant was, of the unfortunate few people who smoke pot *who actually get caught for possession*. In my experience I have known dozens and dozens of people (maybe even hundreds but I never actually saw them smoking pot or they fessed up to it) who have smoked/smoke pot and I know exactly 1 person who was ever caught and was charged with possession and it was because of his own stupidity. Even then it certainly didn't aversely affect affect his life in any significant way, more of a slap on the wrist, albeit he couldn't enter the US for a few years.

This really deserves a thread unto its own... I think we have derailed this thread long enough. If you care to start another thread we can continue the debate there. Peace out.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

screature said:


> I think we have derailed this thread long enough. If you care to start another thread we can continue the debate there. Peace out.


How ironic.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Yes.

And criminalize politics.

Or is there is a difference?


----------

