The Shotgun Blog
« Eat the Future Rich | Main | Anti-Ignatieff talk & idling bylaw »
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Prostitution likely to be banned in Rhode Island
I admit that the most surprising part of this Wall Street Journal article is that prostitution is legal in Rhode Island, but now it seems that legality is being threatened. A bill to ban prostitution has passed both levels of the legislature.
According the the WSJ, this new push to ban prostitution came from a high profile murder case involving a prostitute, a client, and Craigslist. I find this to be bizarre. Their response to this murder is to prosecute those in the same profession as the victim.
If a patient murdered their doctor would medical professionals be banned?
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on September 8, 2009 in Economic freedom | Permalink
Comments
Maybe it is designed to protect women from predators? You people sicken me - no concern at all for human beings. No wonder Ontario was able to segregate their schools without so much as a hint of opposition. I say expel Ontario from confederation and burn them out. No trace of their society should exist.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-08 12:06:57 PM
"Maybe it is designed to protect women from predators?"
How? Unless you think making prostitution illegal will lead to less demand for prostitution. I think it's reasonable to believe demand for prostitution will continue largely unabated. So now prostitutes will no longer be able to seek the help of the police when they feel they are in trouble.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-08 12:25:40 PM
They've been trying to ban prostitution in RI for years, and it looks like they've finally succeeded. A sad day for liberty.
Zebulon Pike:
"Maybe it is designed to protect women from predators?"
Yes, because women who hook are clearly ignorant of the risks of their profession and are equally incapable of handling themselves. Please.
Posted by: Ferdinand Bardamu | 2009-09-08 2:00:05 PM
Charles, there's a difference between there being a demand for something and people actually braving the possibility of prosecution for going after it. The second number is always lower, and depending on the perceived risk level, often significantly lower.
There is demand in this world for everything. Offering the fact that a law or laws will not totally erase demand for something is not an argument for having no law. Nor is the idea that prostitutes will not call the cops if they are in danger. Let me ask you this. If you were wanted for a minor offence that would mean a moderate fine, and you were bleeding to death from a wound, and your only hope of staying alive was to call out to a passing cop--the only soul for miles--would you let yourself die instead of paying the fine?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-08 2:01:35 PM
P.S. I don't have a problem with brothels if the host society doesn't. But if society decides as a group that something ought to be illegal, and they pressure their representatives in government to make it so, that is their prerogative. In this particular case, there is also no intrinsic injustice. There is no Constitutional right to sell your body. And, once they have passed a law, they are under no obligation to make breaking that law safer for the lawbreakers. Should we start leaving the lights on for the burglars next, so they won't be at such risk from stumbling over things in the dark?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-08 2:06:28 PM
Yes, because women who hook are clearly ignorant of the risks of their profession and are equally incapable of handling themselves.
Apparently. Otherwise they wouldn't be complaining that making prostitution illegal places them at risk.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-08 2:07:57 PM
They don't call it the "worlds oldest profession" without reason. Europe learned decades ago that it can be controled, made safer, have health standards and provide a decent tax base. They could also learn from Nevada.
Making it illegal is just another burden on the justice system and will serve no logical purpose whatsoever.
Posted by: peterj | 2009-09-08 2:10:47 PM
Peter, Europe "learned" many things decades ago, among them that socialism is good, why defend your own country when the Americans will do it for you, and that accepting massive quantities of unqualified immigrants from poor countries is a good way to foster interracial amity. Now, however, they are learning something else: that they were mistaken the first time.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-08 2:15:06 PM
"The second number is always lower, and depending on the perceived risk level, often significantly lower."
Let's deal with this first. You're obviously suggesting demand for prostitution is elastic. I disagree but let's forget that for a second. Do the costs justify the benefit? These costs include increased taxes, increased crime (which affects everyone), and negative social costs for the women involved.
There rest of your post doesn't deal with my point. Explain how you think making prostitution illegal will make prostitutes any safer.
"Offering the fact that a law or laws will not totally erase demand for something is not an argument for having no law."
Well that was not my point was it Shane? I was addressing the fact that ZP seems to think that laws against prostitution will make prostitutes safer. But if you want to get into this, the fact that prostitution is a consensual act is the argument against making it illegal. As human beings, we have the right to make such consensual agreements.
"But if society decides as a group that something ought to be illegal, and they pressure their representatives in government to make it so, that is their prerogative."
So if, all of a sudden, the majority of society goes gay, they'd have the right to outlaw heterosexual behaviour?
"Should we start leaving the lights on for the burglars next, so they won't be at such risk from stumbling over things in the dark?"
You're going to have to stop making statements like this. Burglary is theft and therefore not consensual, whereas prostitution is. (and I'm not talking about the women that are forced into prostitution, which should clearly be illegal). This example has no bearing or relevance.
"There is no Constitutional right to sell your body."
We're debating whether prostitution should be legal or not. But more importantly, we are debating whether someone has the right to control his or her own body. What is in the Constitution is irrelevant in this case.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-08 2:49:39 PM
Check out Happy Endings? a documentary film on Asian massage parlors in Rhode Island where prostitution is legal.
http://www.happyendingsdoc.com
The documentary follows the lives of women in Asian massage parlors in RI, as Politicians, Johns, a Woman Studies Professor, Police, the ACLU, community groups, and residents engage in a debate over changing the “loophole” in the law that allows for prostitution “behind closed doors”.
http://www.amazon.com/Endings-Masage-Parlors-Island-Prositution/dp/B002KBIIPQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1252358918&sr=1-1
Posted by: Happy Endings? | 2009-09-08 3:12:51 PM
Shane
"Now, however, they are learning something else: that they were mistaken the first time."
On some things perhaps, but nothing on prostitution.
Posted by: peterj | 2009-09-08 3:28:46 PM
Debating prostitution is such a pain in the ass. I remember debating this subject in 1967. Girls are free to do what they will. Men are not. Get over it.
Posted by: dewp | 2009-09-08 8:32:06 PM
On some things perhaps, but nothing on prostitution.
Actually, the Netherlands is talking about closing its famous "shop-window" brothels as well as its marijuana coffee shops. The trend in Holland in recent years, as in much of Europe, has been decidedly rightward.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-08 8:40:41 PM
There rest of your post doesn’t deal with my point. Explain how you think making prostitution illegal will make prostitutes any safer.
It won’t. That’s the point. As I said, we don’t owe it to lawbreakers to make breaking the law safer. Prostitutes choose their profession; it is not forced on them (usually), and even you will admit that doing so is a crime in itself.
Do the costs justify the benefit? That’s up to the host society to decide. Unless we are to base laws entirely upon naked self-interest, they will always cost more to administer than they will return in revenue. They are not intended to turn a profit.
Also, the “consensual” bit doesn’t wash. The selling of nuclear weapons to terrorists is a consensual act, but good luck getting social approval for that one. The fact that an act is consensual doesn’t make it risk-free, or even tolerable, for others.
I’m well aware that you consider theft to be a “natural” crime, and that only “natural” crimes should be prosecuted, but as our current society demonstrates, that is not a universal or even widely held belief, which means you have some selling to do. Your assertion that you have a “right” to sell your body is correct only if one accepts libertarian dogma as the truth, and other belief systems as false. Remember, Church and state are separate.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-08 9:13:10 PM
Girls are free to do what they will. Men are not. Get over it.
What do men get in exchange for getting over it, dewp?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-08 9:15:19 PM
I say expel Ontario from confederation and burn them out. No trace of their society should exist.
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 2009-09-08 12:06:57 PM
Ever notice stories like this always seem to come from Alberta. Harper once said he wanted to build a firewall around Alberta. I agree he should, to keep all the perverts away from the rest of Canada.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Alberta+accused+importing+child+porn+found+dead/1967008/story.html
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-09-08 10:04:15 PM
Ever notice stories like this always seem to come from Alberta. Harper once said he wanted to build a firewall around Alberta. I agree he should, to keep all the perverts away from the rest of Canada.
Running sores like Henry Morgantaler, Robert Pickton, and Clifford Olson don't come from Alberta, Stig. Alberta actually produces less than its share of perverts. Zeb is a bit over the top on the anti-Ontario thing, but he is right in that the lion's share of Canada's degeneracy is to be found there, even on a per capita basis.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-08 10:53:23 PM
Shane,
Given your views, I really don't see the point in continuing this debate.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-09 5:09:52 AM
To claim that someone's views makes debate pointless is a cop-out, Charles. Debate is never pointless so long as talk continues. If your entire argument devolves around one's having to accept a given set of beliefs, then you have no argument. And if this is how you respond to a challenge to sell your policies more effectively, one wonders if you also have no merchandise.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-09 6:29:20 AM
"To claim that someone's views makes debate pointless is a cop-out, Charles."
No, it's the implicit understanding that our views are diametrically opposed and that no common ground is possible.
"If your entire argument devolves around one's having to accept a given set of beliefs, then you have no argument."
This statement is a pile of crap and typical of you Shane.
"And if this is how you respond to a challenge to sell your policies more effectively, one wonders if you also have no merchandise."
Leave it up to Shane to not understand something as simple as "selling". Good salesmen quickly identify who their potential customers are. They don't sell stuff to people who are not interested in buying. It in no way means they have nothing to sell however.
Keep on thinking that the majority should be allowed to violate the rights of the minority Matthews. You're a farce and I'm done with you. You are one of the most illogical individuals I have ever had the displeasure to debate. Don't address me any further as I won't acknowledge you. Doing so is a complete waste of my time.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-09 7:10:44 AM
.Leave it up to Shane to not understand something as simple as "selling". Good salesmen quickly identify who their potential customers are. They don't sell stuff to people who are not interested in buying.
Excuse me, you're quite wrong. The best salesmen generate interest in their wares; they don't simply wander around with a handbell and sandwich board and wait for the business to come to them. Growing the business consists of recruiting converts, not in preaching to the choir. If you can do no better than this, Harper was right to call you a fringe group.
Keep on thinking that the majority should be allowed to violate the rights of the minority Matthews.
You have not demonstrated in this case that there are any rights to be violated in the first place. Sure you believe it, but belief is not proof. Which brings us back to your total reliance on your own articles of faith. That you have them is all the proof you need. Which puts you in the same boat, rationality-wise, as lunatics who fly airliners into office buildings.
You're a farce and I'm done with you…Don't address me any further as I won't acknowledge you. Doing so is a complete waste of my time.
Bold words; you’ve uttered them before. Many times. This oft-disproved threat only serves to diminish your credibility further.
You are one of the most illogical individuals I have ever had the displeasure to debate.
Screeched the ideologue pitching the hissy fit and chucking all the mud.
This statement is a pile of crap and typical of you Shane.
Consider your surrender accepted, Charles, for two reasons. You didn't back up this rather bald declaration with reasoning, and you also got personal first. Looks like I hit a nerve. Thanks for playing.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-09 8:57:19 AM
Alberta actually produces less than its share of perverts.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-08 10:53:23 PM
As usual when dealing with Alberta perception and reality don't add up. Lets look at statistics per 100,000 population statistics for Canada, Alberta and Ontario.
Sexual assault
Canada - 64.5
Alberta - 67.2
Ontario - 57.0
Other sexual offences
Canada - 8.9
Alberta - 8.5
Ontario - 4.4
In ever category that StatsCan uses Alberta is significantly higher than the national average, while Ontario is significantly below. There is no category that Ontario has more crime than Alberta.
Criminal and perverts, that pretty much sums up Alberta. The stats are from July of this year.
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal04b-eng.htm
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-09-09 10:51:09 AM
The stats are from July of this year.
And you conspicuously omit the fact that B.C. has a higher rate than Alberta, and that Saskatchewan and Manitoba have a much higher rate than Alberta. Most of that extra crime is committed by aboriginals. Ontario's aboriginal population is two percent. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, it's 15 percent, and what a surprise, those are the provinces with the worst crime rates.
In any case, your contention that Alberta is the most likely candidate for a pervert wall is pretty much hosed. There is little evidence that crime in Alberta affects Ontario. Crime in Ontario sure affects Alberta, though, because what's good for Ontario is good for the country, if national policy is any indication. The gun registry was invented by hysterical women in Toronto, not politicians in Calgary.
Oh yeah, and if you find yourself walking in the Jane and Finch area--duck.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-09 11:50:07 AM
And you conspicuously omit the fact that B.C. has a higher rate than Alberta,.......
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-09 11:50:07 AM
The discussion wasn't about B.C., though I find it amusing that all the you westerners are always lecturing the east about crime.
Most of that extra crime is committed by aboriginals.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-09 11:50:07 AM
Extra crime. So natives have a special category Why don't you take a look at Toronto's crime numbers and see who commits most of the "extra" crime. But then that wouldn't be fair to your pal Da Punk. But you should be spending your time on American and European blogs explaining that the "extra" crime is committed by natives because a lot of Americans and Europeans are seeing stories about the junkies in Vancouver and the much higher rate of crime in BC than in eastern Canada and asking is it safe to go to Vancouver.
The gun registry was invented by hysterical women in Toronto,
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-09 11:50:07 AM
It was women in Quebec Matthews.
Oh yeah, and if you find yourself walking in the Jane and Finch area--duck.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-09 11:50:07 AM
The chances of me ever being in Jane-Finch are zero. It's like Port au Prince without the palm trees.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-09-09 6:01:35 PM
The discussion wasn't about B.C., though I find it amusing that all the you westerners are always lecturing the east about crime.
Yes, specifically about how little teeth you Eastrons are prepared to give our laws so we could actually put some of these hoods in jail. Unfortunately, our system is top-heavy with relics from the Quiet Revolution.
Extra crime. So natives have a special category.
“Extra” as in “that part of rate that exceeds Ontario’s.”
Why don't you take a look at Toronto's crime numbers and see who commits most of the "extra" crime.
Granted, at least for garden-variety crime. I have noticed, however, that virtually every single serial killer, serial rapist, serial pædophile of any note has been white. Representation of minorities among this “elite” group of psychos is almost non-existent. I wonder why that is?
It was women in Quebec Matthews.
Wendy Cukier, whose Coalition for Gun Control was hugely instrumental in forming Bill C-68, is from Toronto, as were most of the politicians who pushed it through. Granted, support for the registry is highest in Québec, and why shouldn’t it be? That’s where all the country’s mass shootings seem to happen.
The chances of me ever being in Jane-Finch are zero. It's like Port au Prince without the palm trees.
Actually I had Kingston, Jamaica more in mind.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-09 6:30:41 PM
Here is a link to an article on Natives in jail. 22% of Canadian prisoners are native and they make up 3 % of the population. In manitoba they make up 81% of the prison population and 11% of the general population. While in Quebec they make up 2% of the prison population and 1% of the general population. Could be the deciding factor when calculating crime rates.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090721/canada/canada_native_justice_society_1
Posted by: Bret | 2009-09-10 10:54:05 AM
Ne one ever think of the consequence of making anything illegal that is in demand? BLACK MARKETS. Which often are heavily involved in violence and crime, this includes human trafficking. Granted the odds are that some human trafficking and abduction is still going to happen in a regulated market. But the odds are extremely higher in an unregulated black market. There's a pretty good documentary about human trafficking that was on the cbc, it offers a inside look into prostitution markets. The women are often forced into contracts that become impossible to escape and pay off, keeping them against their will, killed if they flea, extremely sad. Keep it legal, keep them safe(er).
Posted by: Baker | 2009-09-10 11:10:07 AM
Personally I would rather having these women voluntarily selling their bodies than stealing my stuff to earn a living. If prostitution was legalized and controlled then proper support services could be provided without criminalizing the act of prostitution. It could be controlled in designated areas, keeping it out of neighbourhoods and away from schools. Health services targeted at at risk groups would be utilized to a greater degree. Such as needle exchanges. The savings to taxpayers (over the lifetime of a person)resulting from keeping these prostitutes HIV free is $200 000.
http://www.drug-addiction.com/syringe-exchange.htm
There is prostitution in places where it is illegal so criminalizing it will not make it go away. It will push it into more remote or isolated areas putting everyone involved in more danger. If legal the criminal parts (forced prostitution, child prostitution, etc) would be greatly reduced. As well the enforcement agencies could divert resources and manpower into fighting the actual criminal side of prostitution. This multi-million (billion?) dollar industry would also have financial benefits to the country as a whole if legalized.
Posted by: Bret | 2009-09-10 11:27:01 AM
"But if society decides as a group that something ought to be illegal, and they pressure their representatives in government to make it so, that is their prerogative."
Shane, society is made up of a number of individuals that have a number of opinions, there is no one "society" standard that can be pointed to or put into law accurately.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-10 11:34:19 AM
Actually, Baker, a lot of human trafficking involves women trying to escape from other countries willing to sell themselves into a term of sex slavery to snakeheads in exchange for passage. Such arrangements, while one-sided, are consensual; therefore no sympathy. Kidnap victims are a completely different matter. Your logic here fails to convince. The fact that factories are legal does not prevent illegal sweatshops, so why would legal prostitution prevent illegal brothels and massage parlours?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-10 1:36:19 PM
Bret, what makes you think people who are currently willing to break the law to hook near schools will not break any future law that makes it illegal to hook near schools, but makes it legal for them to hook elsewhere? Prostitutes troll where they think they will find pickings. You'll get more business by seeking it out than by waiting for it to come to you.
Your drug addiction angle is also unconvincing. You don't have to mainline heroin to to hook, although granted losers are disproportionately drawn to both practices. Furthermore, there is no evidence needle exchanges solve anything. Vancouver has a 40% HIV rate among its IV drug users and a needle exchange, and Seattle has a 3% infection rate and a needle exchange. Why the difference?
Yes, breaking the law is dangerous. That's the whole point. Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp? For that matter, why is morality such a difficult concept for you to grasp? Because you seem to think that, in this matter as in others (notably drugs), public policy should serve only the almighty dollar. What makes money is good and what costs it is bad.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-10 1:39:24 PM
Shane, society is made up of a number of individuals that have a number of opinions, there is no one "society" standard that can be pointed to or put into law accurately.
Yes there is. It's called "consensus." Granted, contrarians and malcontents seem to have a difficult time with it...
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-10 2:00:14 PM
Shane,
Unlike now where everywhere public is illegal, providing a legal area for them to congregate gives them an option. Kind of like providing a skate park for kids so they are not riding on public/private property. Providing a legal place will remove them from other areas, such as schools and neighbourhoods. It doesn't make sense that a john would drive around a city when an area is available and the largest number sellers are in that area. Allowing a legal avenue gives the authorities the ability to concentrate on the areas that are illegal such as forced or child prostitution.
I will re-post the article about needle exchange because it looks like you didn't read it.
http://www.drug-addiction.com/syringe-exchange.htm
Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong. What business is it of mine what someone chooses to do with/to their body. Why do you insist on protecting people from themselves? If it is a moral issue go preach to them, it should not be societies place to interfere with someones personal rights as long as they do not affect others.
Costs are a very real part of the argument, but so is personal freedom. What is your argument again? You know best so don't do things you don't approve of? Why do you care who Joe blow chooses to have sex with? Whether he buys her dinner first or pays her cash? None of your business or mine.
That is not the point. The point is that it is none of our business. Moral laws based on the need for control are the point. "Morality" is subjective.
Just because its popular doesn't make it right.
Posted by: Bret | 2009-09-10 2:56:06 PM
Shane's clearly illogical thought processes are amazing. It's like watching a fly beat itself to death against a window. Inspiring, but incredibly mypoic.
What is the purpose of this law? According to RI they want to stop prostitution.
Well, we know that making any product or service illegal has very little impact upon demand. It has been proven in numerous studies, whether it is alcohol, prostition, marijuana, or even hard drugs. The evidence is all over Canada. Prostitution is illegal here, and the same kinds of services offered on Craigslist in RI are offered in Canada.
Posted by: Q | 2009-09-10 2:57:36 PM
I read your link, Bret; I'm simply unconvinced by it. It is an opinion piece by a partisan site that beats the tired dogma that "addiction is a disease, not a crime," even though it described no underlying pathology. You, on the other hand, have not advanced any explanation for why HIV infection rates should differ so widely in two geographically related cities, both of which have needle exchanges. If anything, Vancouver throws more money at the problem than Seattle does. Now, what does it have to show for it?
As for providing people "with a legal area," you completely miss the point. People don't want this activity legal, anywhere. They are morally offended by it. It demeans the customer; it demeans the vendor; and it demeans the whole neighbourhood. It also tends to attract undesirables, which is one reason Amsterdam is reviewing its "shop window" red-lights district (and also its pot/coffee shops).
Society does not owe it to people to make breaking the law easier, nor to refrain from passing laws that a reasonable consensus of voters desire (and which violate no protected liberties) just because it limits the career options of those who spent their high-school years majoring in Smoking Area.
One last thing. If it's true that there's no link between what's right and what's popular, then just because something is popular does not make it wrong, either. You have not made a case that it is right, or at least not wrong; just that it doesn't offend you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-10 3:45:31 PM
Shane's clearly illogical thought processes are amazing. It's like watching a fly beat itself to death against a window. Inspiring, but incredibly mypoic.
If you're going to throw big, ostentatious words around, Q, learn to spell them.
Well, we know that making any product or service illegal has very little impact upon demand.
Controlling demand is the ideal. However, I'll settle for controlling the offending behaviour. As I said above, there's a difference between demand and actual consumption. The second number is always lower. You're essentially dismissing the law is irrelevant based on the fact that the results are not perfect. Well, thanks for clearing that up. When you find something that does have a 100% success rate at the social level, call me.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-10 3:48:27 PM
Shane
"Actually, Baker, a lot of human trafficking involves women trying to escape from other countries willing to sell themselves into a term of sex slavery to snakeheads in exchange for passage. Such arrangements, while one-sided, are consensual; therefore no sympathy."
A lot eh? Why that's quite the figure, can i ask from what sources you are getting this from? But even if it was 100%, the market for those women are illegal ones, unregulated, where they can get away with sex slavery. You cant conscript someone into slavery in a properly regulated market(if that were one of the regulations, but im sure SLAVERY would be high on the list). So the illegal markets create the demand for these women, thereby allowing people to profit from their slavery and suffering. And if you believe that any sort of "sex SLAVERY" is "consensual" and does not deserve sympathy, then imo you sir are a disgusting example of a human being.
"Kidnap victims are a completely different matter. Your logic here fails to convince. "
Well many of these women i spoke of being sex slaves are kidnapped and sold my friend. In the cbc documentary they follow one man on a quest to get his wife back who was sold by an acquaintance of theirs.
"The fact that factories are legal does not prevent illegal sweatshops, so why would legal prostitution prevent illegal brothels and massage parlours?"
I don't know what you are trying to argue here. Sweatshops happen because of an unregulated market.ie. there is no age regulation to prevent child labor. So in an unregulated market it could be said that the workers are taken advantage of more often then those who work in a regulated one, so thank you for that comparison. Now the second part of that part is where i really loose you. Legal prostitution would prevent illegal prostitution because prostitution would not be illegal. lol ur one silly willy Shane!!
Posted by: Baker | 2009-09-11 11:19:48 AM
Shane,
I did not respond to your comment about seattle because you provided no links. It could be another one of your off the cuff comments thrown out there to try and prove a point. Provide links to where you get the info, it helps show that its not just made up. Not saying that you made it up but who knows.
Shane you don't want it legal. The fact that it was legal shows that some people out there at one time thought it should be legal. So no, everyone is not morally opposed to it. People may not agree with it but it is none of their business what 2 consenting adults do, as long as it harms no one else. I think that fat people eating fast food is wrong. It demeans the customer, it demeans the seller and it makes others look poorly on our society. Does that mean I am right? No it means that I have an opinion. Does that mean there should be a law against it? No it is their problem what they do to their bodies.
What is it exactly that you find wrong with legalized prostitution? You have stated before that if an act is physically harmful to the person/people directly involved that doesn't matter. You have kids so I am assuming you have had sex before so that can't be it. There is no "blood money" involved in legal prostitution. Legal prostitution does not mean it is legal for children or people forced into it to be prostitutes. They are willing adults. It was still illegal to perform sex acts in public so that didn't change. Those "undesirables" will still be around whether it is legal or not. Do you think they just disappear when it becomes illegal? It reduces property crime by providing these people with a way to make income without stealing your stuff.
So from your argument the reasons it should be illegal is you don't approve, some others don't approve and its the law.
I took the quote " just because its popular doesn't make it right" from a previous post on a different subject written by you. You provided the same amount of proof as I did. Sorry I didn't give you credit for it.
Posted by: Bret | 2009-09-11 12:37:33 PM
As I said above, there's a difference between demand and actual consumption
Really? In my economics classes we didn't describe that as such. Where do you get this information from? What is the difference between demand and consumption?
I am using the generally accepted universal definition of demand; namely: willingness and ability of a consumer to purchase a given product in a given frame of time.
And thus, my point stands. Making a product illegal has very little effect upon demand.
Could you please point out some studies showing illegality of goods having a strong impact upon the demand curve? Or whatever it is you deem 'consumption'?
Posted by: Q | 2009-09-11 3:00:55 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.