Prostitution (1 Viewer)

[Pacridge]

Gandhi - Your response is very short sighted. For one, if a person chooses to have sex with an individual after dinner and a movie... it's called a "date". Completely legal and no ones business. If that person has sex with someone and after receives a"gift" of a diamond bracelet... it's legal and simply a gift. They gift could be returned to the store for cash and no one would question the act.

Why is either scenario different than someone leaving money on the side table?

Further, if a person chooses to work in a hazardous job at risk to life and limb (coal miner, construction worker, firefighter)... it is legal regardless of the danger. Prostitution like any other "profession" involves risk and reward which should be ascertained by the person suffering the consequences. The only reason prostitution is illegal is because of the "moral" issues, where the government acts as an enforcement arm for the public.

"Pimps" and others who choose to control another person are present in all walks of life (see some of my posts on the church). However, your argument that if legalized, would make matters worse is completely incorrect. If legal, prostitutes could go to Police to protect them from abusers. Something they can't easily do now. In addition, both liquor (prohibition) and gambling once legalized and controlled not only regulated the activity but turned them into productive tax paying industries. Both of these were also regulated for moral reason and the negative impact they have on families etc. Unfortunately, there is a strong market for all these vices whether legal of illegal. Isn't it better to control them and gain tax revenue from them which can be used to regulate the activities?

Personally I’m for legalizing it and taxing it. Making the use of condoms mandatory and giving the workers regular medical exams. Much like drug abuse we’re not getting any where trying to stem the tide against this immoral illegal activity. People who decide they want to engage can. Those who don’t aren’t forced to engage. Then society isn’t spending tax dollars trying to cure social ills. Historically that’s never worked.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I don't think that prostitution should be come an industry. Even a industry that we get taxes off of.

It seems very immoral. Paying money for sex.

I really don't know what more to say.

I don't know many girls that would give it up if you just through a diamond necklace at them. Most would probably find it offensive. Probably something along the lines of making them feel like a prostitute.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

What could be more emotionally damaging to a person than to promote a business where their body is for sell at a government set price? It puts a monatary worth to the body of a person, and it promotes the idea that sex is something that we should sell as opposed to something that ought to be exchanged between two people who marry each other. There is no reason the government needs money from that sort of organization, and there is no reason that we should let women or men think that they are worth X amount of dollars for one night.

 

[Fantasea]

In addition, both liquor (prohibition) and gambling once legalized and controlled not only regulated the activity but turned them into productive tax paying industries.

You seem to be a guy with all the economics answers. Help us with this one.

What is the net difference in the taxes collected on liquor and the costs in:

1. Treating the effects of alcohol related illness,

2. The welfare cost due to the inability to support one's self due to alcohol related illness,

3. The welfare cost of families in poverty because of alcoholic related illness,

4. The children who will never realize their potential because of a parent or parents who suffer from alcohol related illness,

5. The losses to business and industry because of absences due to alcohol related illness,

6. The business defalcation and retail theft because of alcohol related illness,

7. The added strain on finite medical facilities due to alcohol related illness.

The list could go on and on, but I don't want to keep you up all night doing spread sheets.

Gambling, if that's what you call it, is not gambling at all. Even the casino operators can no longer call it gambling because gambling implies that the player has a reasonable chance to win. Since that is not the case at a casino, the casino operators had to invent a euphemism. They invented the word, "gaming". Cute, huh?

All that a casino does is tempt a fool to come in and be separated from his money. Not too quickly, of course, because then the jig would be up and the dope would never return. So they manipulate the odds sufficiently in their favor so that the transition takes enough time for that the 'mark' to think he's not doing too badly. However, he still leaves with empty pockets.

I wonder how many bankruptcies, foreclosures, divorces, defalcations, embezzlements, and other financial woes had their genesis in a casino?

Perhaps you can tell us that, too.

We all understand that the flesh is weak. That's why it should be protected rather than exploited, don't you think?

 

[Fantasea]

if a person chooses to have sex with an individual after dinner and a movie... it's called a "date". Completely legal and no ones business. If that person has sex with someone and after receives a"gift" of a diamond bracelet... it's legal and simply a gift. They gift could be returned to the store for cash and no one would question the act.

Why is either scenario different than someone leaving money on the side table?[

You seem to be trying very hard to convince us that, after all is said and done, you really don't know anything about economics.

A while back, the first scenario you describe used to be referred to by single young ladies as, "lookin' -- for a meal ticket".

The second was referred to as, "lookin' -- for a sugar daddy."

The third was, and still is, "hookin' -- just plain hookin'.

Notice the commonality? All involve the sale of sex. The only difference is the medium of exchange.

One is led to wonder whether you may have picked up the art of rationalization from the socialist-lib-dem PC crowd, who can always be relied upon to find a way to pseudo-legitimize anything that is degenerate in nature.

 

[Contrarian]

I don't think that prostitution should be come an industry. Even a industry that we get taxes off of.

It seems very immoral. Paying money for sex.

I really don't know what more to say.

I don't know many girls that would give it up if you just through a diamond necklace at them. Most would probably find it offensive. Probably something along the lines of making them feel like a prostitute.

That is not what is being advocated. The idea is that you or anyone else does not have the right to tell somene what they should do with their own property (their body). You and many other young ladies think that it is immoral to be prostitutes. Despite what you think there are MANY who do not share your opinion. The point is that it has been going on since long before Jesus made his entry... it IS the oldest profession and it will continue as long as human inhabit this rock. The point is, that it is far more acceptable to regulate it (health laws etc) and tax it (to pay for the regulation) than to let it go on unchecked.

The point about the compensation was also illustrative. You are nieve to believe that sex isn't being had for alternative forms of payment. It's all semantics.

 

[Contrarian]

You seem to be trying very hard to convince us that, after all is said and done, you really don't know anything about economics.

A while back, the first scenario you describe used to be referred to by single young ladies as, "lookin' -- for a meal ticket".

The second was referred to as, "lookin' -- for a sugar daddy."

The third was, and still is, "hookin' -- just plain hookin'.

Notice the commonality? All involve the sale of sex. The only difference is the medium of exchange.

One is led to wonder whether you may have picked up the art of rationalization from the socialist-lib-dem PC crowd, who can always be relied upon to find a way to pseudo-legitimize anything that is degenerate in nature.

Very good Fant! Economics is not the topic... it's property rights. You own your own body. People choose to engage in sex (or not) for their own reasons. As adults it is their choice and as you so often put it... their consequences to bear... except if you are one of the hundreds of parish priests who molested children and your cardinal covers it up for you! I know they didn't teach you that back in the seminary. So think twice before you pull out the "degenerate" card!

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Dude. Were we even talking about the Catholic Church?

Leave your hatred for the church in a thread that welcomes it.

This is issue isn't about ownership of one's body. I don't even know how to explain why the legalization of prostitution would be terrible. All I can do is say it is immoral which won't hold water because it's not your definition of morality.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Very good Fant! Economics is not the topic... it's property rights. You own your own body. People choose to engage in sex (or not) for their own reasons. As adults it is their choice and as you so often put it... their consequences to bear... except if you are one of the hundreds of parish priests who molested children and your cardinal covers it up for you! I know they didn't teach you that back in the seminary. So think twice before you pull out the "degenerate" card!

But the government does make policy against doing what one wants with their body. For instance, one cannot drive without a seat belt or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, both are restrictions solely based on the benifit of the people's body. What about the concuption of alcohol to minors, or the useage and selling of heroin? Those too are restricted but they do not affect anything but the body of the person choosing to take part in them, but they too are not legal. And surely you would not advocate that it is right that a sixteen year old should be able to get drunk or that heroin ought to be sold in supermarkets and taxed by the government?

 

[Contrarian]

Dude. Were we even talking about the Catholic Church?

Leave your hatred for the church in a thread that welcomes it.

This is issue isn't about ownership of one's body. I don't even know how to explain why the legalization of prostitution would be terrible. All I can do is say it is immoral which won't hold water because it's not your definition of morality.

You are obviously a very small thinker.

We weren't talking about the catholic church. We were discussing Fants label of a "Degenerate". It's easy to judge somone elses "morals" but sometimes hard to swallow when the tables are reversed. The point was that it is difficult to call the kettle black when there are so many dirty pots in ones own cupboard.

The further point is, that your personal morality will keep you from a life of prostitution. That my morality, which you have no right to predetermine since you obviously do not know me, is equally resistant to sinking to prostitution. HOWEVER, I also happen to feel that each individial adult in this free society should have the right to make whatever decision they deem right for them AND suffer the consequences for those action. Who the hell are you to suppose that you have the right to make those decisons for someone else.

 

[Contrarian]

But the government does make policy against doing what one wants with their body. For instance, one cannot drive without a seat belt or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, both are restrictions solely based on the benifit of the people's body. What about the concuption of alcohol to minors, or the useage and selling of heroin? Those too are restricted but they do not affect anything but the body of the person choosing to take part in them, but they too are not legal. And surely you would not advocate that it is right that a sixteen year old should be able to get drunk or that heroin ought to be sold in supermarkets and taxed by the government?

There are a number of states in which you do not need a helmet to ride a motorcycle, Connecticut included. As stupid as it is, the majority of people in this state ride without a helmet... it's their choice and if they fall on their head... tough sh*t!

Don't bring minors into this because we all agree that this is completely different. I speak about the rights of ADULTS in a FREE SOCIETY. Don't confuse the issue.

Alcohol is not restricted... if you are stupid enough to go home and drink yourself to death... have a ball! As long as you are not putting the public at risk (driving etc)

I feel the same way about drugs. I'd rather give junkies what they want and let them dope themselves into oblivion, then worry about them mugging innocent people on city streets or subways for money to get a fix. Or see innocent children killed in the crossfire of a housing project while drug dealers fight for turf.

Use your head

 

[sebastiansdreams]

There are a number of states in which you do not need a helmet to ride a motorcycle, Connecticut included. As stupid as it is, the majority of people in this state ride without a helmet... it's their choice and if they fall on their head... tough sh*t!

And what of seatbelt laws? They just passed a mandatory seat belt law in my state that requires everyone to be buckled up all the time. There body, their choice right? But the government doesn't think so.

Don't bring minors into this because we all agree that this is completely different. I speak about the rights of ADULTS in a FREE SOCIETY. Don't confuse the issue.

Oh no, not that easy. So we should really really care if a seventeen year old girl goes and decides to sell herself, because that would be absolutely horrible, but if it's her eighteenth birthday more power to her? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Just because you're older does not begin to make you more responsible. Especially not if you're selling yourself on the street. That is not a responsible decision for anyone to make.

Alcohol is not restricted... if you are stupid enough to go home and drink yourself to death... have a ball! As long as you are not putting the public at risk (driving etc)

No actually to the contrary public intoxication is a crime as well. If you are acting drunk in public, whether you are posing a threat or not, you're going to jail for the evening. Furthermore, alcohol is not allowed on public and governmental property in many places (ETSU for example).

I feel the same way about drugs. I'd rather give junkies what they want and let them dope themselves into oblivion, then worry about them mugging innocent people on city streets or subways for money to get a fix. Or see innocent children killed in the crossfire of a housing project while drug dealers fight for turf.

That's right, because you don't care what another person might do to themselves. You would let someone kill themselves and just say tough **** before you would pass a law that would prevent them from doing so. You know an attempted suicide results in a mandatory psychological evaluation a "that's there business, if they want to kill themselves don't try to stop them, that's not the government's place." I just disagree. Sometimes we have to save people from themselves. I have been admitted into a hospital for actions that would have taken my life, and if that hadn't happened, against my will no less, I would be dead. But I'm so glad I'm not. It is a difference of opinion, granted. But there is just no amount of debt that this country could be in that it would need to depend on getting a cut from a person selling her own body to for meaningless and emotionally scaring sex.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Such animosity Contrarian. Who the hell am I?

I'm no "small thinker."

How about you start thinking?

What would be the consequences of "each individial adult in this free society should have the right to make whatever decision they deem right for them?" Regarless of the consequences of their choices. What would be the consequences of those who did not make that choice?

Start thinking. I don't know you, I will concede that.

But you sure as hell don't know me.

 

[Fantasea]

What could be more emotionally damaging to a person than to promote a business where their body is for sell at a government set price? It puts a monatary worth to the body of a person, and it promotes the idea that sex is something that we should sell as opposed to something that ought to be exchanged between two people who marry each other. There is no reason the government needs money from that sort of organization, and there is no reason that we should let women or men think that they are worth X amount of dollars for one night.

Morals, as with character, ethics, and honor are in some ways akin to olives. Some folks want 'em; some don't. And, as you may have heard, "There's no accounting for taste."

 

[Contrarian]

And what of seatbelt laws? They just passed a mandatory seat belt law in my state that requires everyone to be buckled up all the time. There body, their choice right? But the government doesn't think so.


Oh no, not that easy. So we should really really care if a seventeen year old girl goes and decides to sell herself, because that would be absolutely horrible, but if it's her eighteenth birthday more power to her? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Just because you're older does not begin to make you more responsible. Especially not if you're selling yourself on the street. That is not a responsible decision for anyone to make.


No actually to the contrary public intoxication is a crime as well. If you are acting drunk in public, whether you are posing a threat or not, you're going to jail for the evening. Furthermore, alcohol is not allowed on public and governmental property in many places (ETSU for example).


That's right, because you don't care what another person might do to themselves. You would let someone kill themselves and just say tough **** before you would pass a law that would prevent them from doing so. You know an attempted suicide results in a mandatory psychological evaluation a "that's there business, if they want to kill themselves don't try to stop them, that's not the government's place." I just disagree. Sometimes we have to save people from themselves. I have been admitted into a hospital for actions that would have taken my life, and if that hadn't happened, against my will no less, I would be dead. But I'm so glad I'm not. It is a difference of opinion, granted. But there is just no amount of debt that this country could be in that it would need to depend on getting a cut from a person selling her own body to for meaningless and emotionally scaring sex.

Seatbelts are just government intervention into your life. It is mandated common sense. I know a guy who refuses to wear a seatbelt because it wrinkles his shirt. Do I think it is the governments job to tell this guy he is an idiot? No.

The "law" that you seem to feel protects us from ourselves says that at 18 you are an adult and capable of making your own decisions. It also makes you responsible for your actions where you suffer the consequences. I'm not saying that I agree with that number... that's simply the law. I personally don't believe that 21 is even the right age for reasonable consent, but I'm sure I'd get an arguement from most young people on that one.

I think your understanding of the laws for public intoxication are incorrect. Each jurisdiction handles it in their own way, but I assure you the jails in many municipalities would be filled to the brim on Friday nights. When someone poses a danger to others or themselves because their judgement is impared, they should be taken into protective custody. If they are alcoholic and are walking into a liquor store should the police bust them for their own good? That's not their job! BTW... alcohol, pot, commercial solicitation and religious ideology should all be banned from public property.

What is the role of government? Are they everyones keeper? The enforcer for behavior? The keeper of the moral compass?... or are they suppose to provide schools, public safety, protect property rights? Those on the political right in this forum (and the US in general) talk of smaller, less intrusive government. The speak of individual responsibility. Of pulling ones self up by the bootstraps and taking responsibility for themselves. Of being against welfare, medicaid etc.... but when it comes to vice - it is up to government to spend millions of dollars to protect these people from themselves? Do you see the contradiction in these arguements?

You still haven't told me what the fundamental difference is (other than the legality) between a consenting adult having sex with another consenting adult for dinner and a movie or for $100? Many women "prostitute" themselves for the security of being taken care of. A roof over their head and their bills paid. Should they be arrested too? Do you object to the freedom of having sex or the transaction?

 

[Contrarian]

Such animosity Contrarian. Who the hell am I?

I'm no "small thinker."

How about you start thinking?

What would be the consequences of "each individial adult in this free society should have the right to make whatever decision they deem right for them?" Regarless of the consequences of their choices. What would be the consequences of those who did not make that choice?

Start thinking. I don't know you, I will concede that.

But you sure as hell don't know me.

Yes who the hell are you to judge what someone else does? Do you think Mahatma judged the morals of the people around him?

You are a small thinker as evidenced by your deep and comprehensive posts. When is time when people take responsibility for themselves? Why is it the job of government to intervene in everyones personal decisions? Adults in a free society should be able to make their own choices and be responsible for those action? Does that work in all cases except those where people like you, Fant and Sebastian know better and will mandate their behavior. That is called FASCISM!

I've been thinking about these things long before you were born. If you value your freedom you need to throw off the yoke of intrusive control. Government for the common good does not include mandating what you do with your body. Next we'll be arresting fat people because they are causing a public health crisis of heart disease, hypertension, diabetes... or they might fall over and crush someone on a bus! What next?

 

[Fantasea]

That is not what is being advocated. The idea is that you or anyone else does not have the right to tell somene what they should do with their own property (their body). You and many other young ladies think that it is immoral to be prostitutes. Despite what you think there are MANY who do not share your opinion. The point is that it has been going on since long before Jesus made his entry... it IS the oldest profession and it will continue as long as human inhabit this rock. The point is, that it is far more acceptable to regulate it (health laws etc) and tax it (to pay for the regulation) than to let it go on unchecked.

The point about the compensation was also illustrative. You are nieve to believe that sex isn't being had for alternative forms of payment. It's all semantics.

Yes, we all know that "it" is the oldest profession. However, although age may have a beneficial effect on some things, it doesn't improve distasteful conduct. Prostitution, which was a capital offense in Biblical times, fared no better in polite company than did the spat between brothers Cain and Abel.

Both offenses are still offensive. To persons of good character, that is.

 

[Contrarian]

Yes, we all know that "it" is the oldest profession. However, although age may have a beneficial effect on some things, it doesn't improve distasteful conduct. Prostitution, which was a capital offense in Biblical times, fared no better in polite company than did the spat between brothers Cain and Abel.

Both offenses are still offensive. To persons of good character, that is.

Refusing to acknowledge the holy trinity was a capital offense. Refusing to worship devoutly in YOUR church could get you tied to the stake... so lets realize that passing wind in public could have been viewed as a demonic event.

Prostitution is like religion... they wouldn't exist if there wasn't a market for it. You and I may think it offensive, but there are millions of people who still buy into it. The single largest business on the internet is porn. Personally I find it dispicible, but it is not my job (or yours) to interfere with the personal choices of adults in a free society.... as I said. Just like religion

 

[Fantasea]

Very good Fant! Economics is not the topic... it's property rights. You own your own body. People choose to engage in sex (or not) for their own reasons. As adults it is their choice and as you so often put it... their consequences to bear... except if you are one of the hundreds of parish priests who molested children and your cardinal covers it up for you! I know they didn't teach you that back in the seminary. So think twice before you pull out the "degenerate" card!

Nice try, but you can't rescue him.

The truth is the truth, no matter how you choose to bend, twist, fracture, or torture it. Prostitutes are regarded as persons of ill repute for good reason; your zealous defense of them notwithstanding.

The weakness of your argument is exposed by your need to drag a red herring across the trail in the form of clerical scandals.

You may recall the old adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right." The fact that others have soiled their honor does not justify prostitution.

What you cannot seem to understand is that while degenerate conduct takes many forms, all of them are, nevertheless, degenerate conduct, regardless of the person or persons involved. That's a simple concept for me to accept. Why not you?

Why would you believe that I would consider degenerate conduct differently based upon the person or persons involved?

That's just one more of the shabby smear tactics employed so frequently by the socialist-lib-dem PC crowd. Surely, you can't be one of those, can you?

 

[Contrarian]

The weakness of your argument is exposed by your need to drag a red herring across the trail in the form of clerical scandals.

Why would you believe that I would consider degenerate conduct differently based upon the person or persons involved?

That's just one more of the shabby smear tactics employed so frequently by the socialist-lib-dem PC crowd. Surely, you can't be one of those, can you?

Actually the strength of the arguement is illustrating the fact that offenses and offensive behavior come in degrees, and that is accomplished through comparative analysis. You used the word "degenerate".

In the realm of comparative analysis, if we asked a pool of intelligent adults which behavior is more "degenerate"... (1) a Priest who repeatedly molested little boys under the protection of his church violating his trust to get access to his prey.... OR... a consenting adult who is having sex with another consenting adult and getting $100 for it? Maybe we should ask Vauge if he's set that up as a Poll?

When it gets uncomfortable for you, you never fail to drag out the old label machine! Now you know very well that I am a socialist, Lib, dem, independent, conservative, I believe you also made me a Nazi once, capitalist pig, heretic, Odinist ... I'll sum it up for you... I am the Contrarian !

 

[Fantasea]

Alcohol is not restricted... if you are stupid enough to go home and drink yourself to death... have a ball! As long as you are not putting the public at risk (driving etc)

I feel the same way about drugs. I'd rather give junkies what they want and let them dope themselves into oblivion, then worry about them mugging innocent people on city streets or subways for money to get a fix. Or see innocent children killed in the crossfire of a housing project while drug dealers fight for turf.

Use your head[/QUOTE]You have not yet responded to post #153 in this thread. Kindly so so in light of your comment above. Drug usage causes similar problems.

 

[Fantasea]

In the realm of comparative analysis, if we asked a pool of intelligent adults which behavior is more "degenerate"... (1) a Priest who repeatedly molested little boys under the protection of his church violating his trust to get access to his prey.... OR... a consenting adult who is having sex with another consenting adult and getting $100 for it? Maybe we should ask Vauge if he's set that up as a Poll?

You continually seek to compare an apple to an orange. Can it be that you do not realize that both are fruit? Simply of different kinds; but, nevertheless, still fruit?

What difference does it make if one behavior is more or less degenerate than another when both are, indeed, degenerate.

Is the concept over your head?

I'll repeat it. Both are degenerate. Those who commit either should face the full consequences of their actions. Can the statement be reduced to simpler terms?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Seatbelts are just government intervention into your life. It is mandated common sense. I know a guy who refuses to wear a seatbelt because it wrinkles his shirt. Do I think it is the governments job to tell this guy he is an idiot? No.

The "law" that you seem to feel protects us from ourselves says that at 18 you are an adult and capable of making your own decisions. It also makes you responsible for your actions where you suffer the consequences. I'm not saying that I agree with that number... that's simply the law. I personally don't believe that 21 is even the right age for reasonable consent, but I'm sure I'd get an arguement from most young people on that one.

I think your understanding of the laws for public intoxication are incorrect. Each jurisdiction handles it in their own way, but I assure you the jails in many municipalities would be filled to the brim on Friday nights. When someone poses a danger to others or themselves because their judgement is impared, they should be taken into protective custody. If they are alcoholic and are walking into a liquor store should the police bust them for their own good? That's not their job! BTW... alcohol, pot, commercial solicitation and religious ideology should all be banned from public property.

What is the role of government? Are they everyones keeper? The enforcer for behavior? The keeper of the moral compass?... or are they suppose to provide schools, public safety, protect property rights? Those on the political right in this forum (and the US in general) talk of smaller, less intrusive government. The speak of individual responsibility. Of pulling ones self up by the bootstraps and taking responsibility for themselves. Of being against welfare, medicaid etc.... but when it comes to vice - it is up to government to spend millions of dollars to protect these people from themselves? Do you see the contradiction in these arguements?

You still haven't told me what the fundamental difference is (other than the legality) between a consenting adult having sex with another consenting adult for dinner and a movie or for $100? Many women "prostitute" themselves for the security of being taken care of. A roof over their head and their bills paid. Should they be arrested too? Do you object to the freedom of having sex or the transaction?

The large difference between your idea of what government should be and what the courts say government should be are conflicting. The government does not just protect people from people, but people from themselves, even in means of common sense. If you don't want to wear a seat belt, but if you are found doing it, you are ticketed. Trust me, it doesn't take much to be arrested for public intoxication in some towns. I've seen it happen to my friends many times, and there was no threat in sight. Wait, did you just say that all those that religious idealogy ought to be banned from public domain? That is absolutely the most ridiculous act of prohibiting free right of speach and religion I've ever heard. To throw someone in jail because they are discussing religion is proposterous. To say that it ought to be illegal for someone to stand in public place with a t-shirt or anything marking their religious belief is ridiculous. You're an aethist, and you are attempting to push aethism on the world through law. This is the absolute reverse of what you once scorned me for because you thought I was doing this very thing for my faith.
You can't put me on the right chief. I make my own decisions based on what I believe, not what some party believes. I didn't vote for a president in the last election because they were both incompetent and neither supported my beliefs. So do not begin to tell me about the contradiction of the right, because I'm not one of them. But I certainly feel that it is the job of we as humans, be it whoever has the authority, to protect people from themselves at times.

You still haven't told me what the fundamental difference is (other than the legality) between a consenting adult having sex with another consenting adult for dinner and a movie or for $100? Many women "prostitute" themselves for the security of being taken care of. A roof over their head and their bills paid. Should they be arrested too? Do you object to the freedom of having sex or the transaction?

A) You know I do not condone that type of action either. I do not think it is a government issue (I'll get to that in a second) but I certainly believe that is being incredibly careless and it is abusing the right of freedom to have sex (like you spoke before of things that if handled with responsibility ie guns, cars), they are not being responsible, so they are putting themselves and potentially others in danger not only physically with possiblity of disease but also mentally because that sort of lifestyle (regardless of what you might argue) does have a negative mental affect on people. It adds an aspect of devalue. Why are you any more special than the girl or guy that person slept with last night?
B) It is not the place of the government to condone this. There have been talk of making it taxable and gaining money off it. But what you are taxing is the act of sex. It would be a case of our government taking something that is traditionally meant to be between a husband and his wife and making money off of making it meaningless and devaluing sex itself. If the government allows it, it is in a way, promoting it, and that is simply sending the message that there is absolutely nothing wrong with spreading your legs for money. And we should not be sending the message to anyone that it is okay to put a price tag on their body.

 

[Contrarian]

You seem to be a guy with all the economics answers. Help us with this one.

What is the net difference in the taxes collected on liquor and the costs in:

1. Treating the effects of alcohol related illness,
2. The welfare cost due to the inability to support one's self due to alcohol related illness,
3. The welfare cost of families in poverty because of alcoholic related illness,
4. The children who will never realize their potential because of a parent or parents who suffer from alcohol related illness,
5. The losses to business and industry because of absences due to alcohol related illness,
6. The business defalcation and retail theft because of alcohol related illness,
7. The added strain on finite medical facilities due to alcohol related illness.

The list could go on and on, but I don't want to keep you up all night doing spread sheets.

Gambling, if that's what you call it, is not gambling at all. Even the casino operators can no longer call it gambling because gambling implies that the player has a reasonable chance to win. Since that is not the case at a casino, the casino operators had to invent a euphemism. They invented the word, "gaming". Cute, huh?

All that a casino does is tempt a fool to come in and be separated from his money. Not too quickly, of course, because then the jig would be up and the dope would never return. So they manipulate the odds sufficiently in their favor so that the transition takes enough time for that the 'mark' to think he's not doing too badly. However, he still leaves with empty pockets.

I wonder how many bankruptcies, foreclosures, divorces, defalcations, embezzlements, and other financial woes had their genesis in a casino?

Perhaps you can tell us that, too.

We all understand that the flesh is weak. That's why it should be protected rather than exploited, don't you think?

I'm sorry Fant I didn't see this one in the flurry of posts. Thanks for directing me to it.

I agree that alcohol has it's cost, but for some reason the states feel it is economically worth that cost. In NY and CT the second highest source of tax revenue in the state is alcohol. Go figure, but I guess some economist or actuary figured out that this is a positive thing.

As far as the "gaming" industry goes, I couldn't agree more. I have never put a coin in a slot machine. Never played a game of poker (for money). Never took a change at the local parish casino night (gee isn't that illegal for everyone else?). It is simply not my "cup of tea". I think it is a stupid waste and is potentially destructive. I choose not to do it, but it is not my domain to tell someone else they may not. As far as my PhD in Economics, I can tell you that almost 45% of the revenues generated for the state treasury in Rhode Island is from their cut of "Gaming" revenues from video slots and dog racing. They plan on opening a full service casino as do many of the states in the union. I guess someone figured out that gaming revenues were beneficial to their state.

You and I have had this discussed this question before. Living life causes certain consequences. Obesity is the single reason the life expectancy estimates in the US have receeded. Heart disease, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, various forms of cancer can be directly attributed to being fat. Shall we bust fat people coming out of a Taco Bell because they are damaging themselves, their families and the economy? BEcause they spend more time in the doctors office than they do on the job? Shall we institute a "fat squad" to have the government intervene with these people who suffer from "weakness of the flesh"? What next?

 

[MOZO]

Does anyone know how it is working in Las Vegas?
As a society we try to protect all our citizens as best we can. Making prostitution legal gets pimps out of it, reduce the drug abuse, you can zone it to keep it away from the general population, screen the "consumers", and the prostitutes can get some medical exams. It boils down to:

Safe Sex :lol: