Should prostitution, gambling and drugs be legalized nation wide?

Well, you read the title.
(and if this has been covered, which I'm sure it has, feel free to kill this thread).
Not that I sleep with prostitutes, do drugs, or gamble;
But seriously, should these three things be de-criminalized, legalized and gov't regulated in all of the US?
Would it serve to reduce (or even eliminate) the national debt?
Would legalizing these things make them less taboo?
I mean, if we are indeed considered a tremendously decadent society, why not go all the way, right?
(besides, doesn't it work well for the Netherlands?)

What do you all think?

posted by wu kung

Not that I sleep with prostitutes, do drugs, or gamble; But seriously, should these three things be de-criminalized, legalized and govt. regulated Would legalizing these things make them less taboo? What do you all think?

The War on Crime was declared in 1941, by FDR. Local FOPs sold badges fitted to standards for mounting on your car.

The War on Poverty was declared in 1965, by LBJ, and we still have h0okers trying to make a living off the streets. Look at Nevada for a better way to do things.

The War on Drugs was declared in 1969, under Pres. Nixon. The DEA was created the following year. We have spent several billion a year and have only cheaper drugs to show for it.

Let’s get off this religious kick and be realistic.




[edit on 7/15/2006 by donwhite]

I'm all for the legalization of gambling. It can create a lot of income for the state, which takes some of the burden off the tax payers.

As for the drugs, I have mixed feeling on that one. Drugs that are grown naturally, or occur naturally, I have no problem with. If someone wants to go smoke some pot, who am I to tell them they can't? But when it comes to the drugs people make in their bathtubs... That's a whole different story. Something about smoking/snorting/shooting up rat poison and bleach doesn't seem like the greatest idea ever.

I have mixed feelings on prostitution too. If the women (or man, whichever the case may be) has gotten into prostitution because they like being paid for their services, are not forced or coerced into it in any way shape or form, and are able to stop if and when they decide they don't want to do it anymore, then I don't care. It's their body, I'd just recommend that they be extremely careful as you never know what disease someone may have just by looking at them. However, situations where they are abducted/ran away and are forced into prostitution to either a)keep someone from killing them, or b)get someone to keep protecting them from someone else from hurting them, or any variation that leads to them being forced into it, I don't agree with.

The first thing I'll say is that I would not judge any of these issues on the grounds of morality or personal preference.

Prostitution That's the easy one; it's a slam dunk. Selling is legal. Screwing is legal. Why isn't selling screwing legal? Nothing tangible happens in prostitution that doesn't happen in promiscuous sex, except of course for commerce, and last time I checked commerce was a good thing. If there is no constitutional grounds to outlaw promiscuous sex, then there's no grounds to outlaw prostitution.

And stand by for chauvanism, but who draws the line on prostitution? I've never used a prostitute, but I've paid top dollar for sex. It must have cost me a thousand bucks before things were stable enough in my first relationship that I could opt to stay home without losing my priviledges. And let's no even go into what the breakup cost me. I heard in a certain movie "you don't pay a (pro) to (do) you. you pay her to leave". Well boy did I do that.

Gambling Really another slam dunk to a certain degree. It aint against the law to throw your money away. The only possible snag is for compulsives. If you've got bad debts or commit crimes related to gambling, you've gotta be pulled out of the game and given a good reason to stay out, because now you're hurting others to support your obsession.

drugs
Now that I've got that out of the way, "drugs" is generally not a very useful word. Accusing someone of "doing drugs"is a lot like accusing them of "committing crimes". Are we talking about failing to wear your seatbelt or are we talking about murder 1? Are we talking about nicotine or crystal meth?

It's still a tricky subject though, because it's difficult to articulate a standard that you'd never waiver from. For instance, alcohol clearly does become addictive to certain people and is associated with many public bads ranging from severe health risks to accidents to the comission of crime under the influence or for the purpose of obtaining. Yet for most of us, it's clear that alcohol doesn't warrant prohibition.

Yet the exact same standards would be the arguments used against meth amphedamine (the affects of which I have seen in family members and friends, and I can assure you that meth amphedamine is a severe threat to the public in areas where it is produced and distributed in substantial amounts- having spent a lot of time in the scene of the movie "Salton Sea" I would know a thing or two about that).

I stumbled across the answer by seting aside the standard for a minute and questioning enforcement. The costs (both financial and social) of our prison system simply are not justified by the benefits of total enforcement.

So if we cut down enforcement to the must-catch cases, we find the standard for legality as well.

Drugs known to have lingering effects must not be consumed by drivers or operators of other dangerous equipment. I've done a lot of work around machinery that will literally chewup up and spit you out the split second you stop respecting it- conveyor systems, bull dozers, mining trucks, cranes, aggregate crushers, etc. I've seen sober guys dang near say good night just because they'd been putting in too much overtime, and I definately don't want a crashing tweaker or a zoned out stoner standing near my equipment or operating equipment near me.

A person who is convicted of a drug-related crime should thereafter be subject to a prison term if they go back to using, with the penalty depending upon the severity of the crime the individual committed in relation to that drug. For example, if you shoplift liquor, your next drink should land you some community service. You kill somebody for crack, do 20 years, get out and go back to crack- you're going in for all day because we can't have you killing somebody else to get crack.

But you know what, if you can smoke crack without screwing up anyone's life but your own, thats on you. Do us all a favor and OD as soon as possible, but we don't need to waste our money putting you up at the Hotel California.

There's manufacture to consider though. Non-organic drugs have to be created in a licnsed and safe lab. No meth labs next door to my house please, especially if it's a duplex. And of course sales. What's the point in letting the American people do anything that makes them happy unless you can tax the holy hell out of it? Only seems fair that the companies who profit from it and the people who take the risks should cover the costs for those who screw up. Tax the crack factory so that we can build prisons to house the pistol-packin' crackheads. Only fair really.



That being said, personally I think a lot more goes into gambling than a table and some friggin cards. I love Vegas and I don't want vegas put out of business because every 7-11 in America has a slot machine.
I also hate most "hard drugs"- I've got some understanding for E and the VERY VERY occasional line of coke, but you know, there's seldom such a thing as occasional, so I'm willing to live with out it so I don't have to deal with cokeheads. I've been in one too many fights with high strung coke fiends already, and I've only been in one. I particularly hate tweakers and slammers of all breeds. I can't believe the crap they pull. It's puts me out more than usual when the tweaker in question is a member of my immediate family though, and I've been through that two times too many too.

And prostitution... knock yourself out, I honestly don't care. Not my thing for a variety of reasons, some of them of a personal nature and others of a graphic sexual nature, but suffice it to say that on many levels a pro would fall short of what I'm looking for. If you're that easy to satisfy there must be a lot wrong with you for you to have to pay for it. That's why God invented damaged goods.

posted by The Vagabond

The first thing I'll say is that I would not judge any of these issues on the grounds of morality or personal preference.

Prostitution. That's the easy one . . Selling is legal. Screwing is legal. Why isn't selling screwing legal? Nothing tangible happens in prostitution that doesn't happen in promiscuous sex, except of course for commerce . . “ [Edited by Don W]

I know you are speaking tongue-in-cheek, Mr. Vagabond. The issue of STD - sexually transmitted disease - notwithstanding, the issue is protecting women (and men) who cannot protect themselves, for a variety of reasons.

Even the legal prostitution in Nevada begs this issue. The exploitation of women (children and men) is a blight on any society. As old as the Hebrew Bible, I believe it was the patriarch Jacob who encountered a prostitute on his way home and benefitted from her services. And he practiced an early form of birth control, too.

When I was a young man in Korea, the local government operated “Fun Houses” for the visiting GIs. The Japanese were always fastidious, and public health was high on their agenda. Called “business girls” in Tokyo, GIs were advised to demand a Health Card before consummating our transaction. Some of the young ladies produced a dozen undated Health Cards. So much for private enterprise over public health.

Gambling. It ain’t against the law to throw your money away. The only possible snag is for compulsives. If you've got bad debts or commit crimes related to gambling, you've gotta be pulled out of the game and given a good reason to stay out, because now you're hurting others to support your obsession.

It is not the act of gambling which is the danger to society. It is the operators of gambling facilities that corrupt public officials, that become enablers of the other vices associated with people. Surely you’ve seen the Humphry Bogart movies where the young woman becomes indebted to the gambler and he exploits her for vile purposes.

Everybody jokes that Nevada belongs to a Mafia family. We see this story run and re-run on History Channel. The issue of gambling corruption pulled down Jack Abramoff and I don’t know how many others. The gambling issue has disrupted Rhode Island. Easy money - I’m speaking of operator - is too much and too tempting.

Gardena - a small city inside Los Angeles - solved its problem with legal card games in closely supervised card houses. Kentucky and other states had a law that put the burden of compulsive gambling on the operator. It also provided that no gambling debt could be enforced legally. It also provided that a family - usually mother and children - cold sue the operator for the husband’s losses. None of which laws were ever energetically enforced for the reason cited above - too much money too much temptation.

Drugs. "Drugs" is generally not a very useful word. Accusing someone of "doing drugs"is a lot like accusing them of "committing crimes". Are we talking about failing to wear your seatbelt or are we talking about murder 1? Are we talking about nicotine or crystal meth? Alcohol clearly does become addictive to certain people and is associated with severe health risks to accidents to the comission of crime . . Yet for most of us, it's clear that alcohol doesn't warrant prohibition . .

Yet the exact same standards of arguments used against methamphetamine does not produce a desired public health outcome. I stumbled across the answer by seting aside the standard for a minute and questioning enforcement. The costs of our prison system simply are not justified by the benefits of total enforcement . . we cut down enforcement to the must-catch cases . .

I would assume with legally available alternate drugs that the demand for meth and crack would go way down.

And of course sales. What's the point in letting the American people do anything that makes them happy unless you can tax the holy hell out of it? Only seems fair that the companies who profit from it and the people who take the risks should cover the costs for those who screw up . . “

Yes, the tax on gambling, prostitution and drugs should be at revenue positive rates. But, consumers are not the real problem as I see it. It is the operators, promoters and large scale providers that are the source of problems faced by society. We see the outcomes, not the inputs.

I love Vegas and I don't want Vegas put out of business because every 7-11 in America has a slot machine. I also hate most "hard drugs" - I've got some understanding . . I can't believe the crap they pull . . And prostitution . . knock yourself out, I don't care. Not my thing for a variety of reasons . . That's why God invented damaged goods.

See my other comments above.

posted by Jenna

I'm all for the legalization of gambling. It can create a lot of income for the state, which takes some of the burden off the tax payers. [Edited by Don W]

I disagree. In this case, tax revenue is secondary. I cannot conceive how gambling is a trait or a practice we would want to teach our children. It is a bad habit that can become destructive of the individual and those around him or her. I am
unaware of anything we’d describe as “good” coming out of
gambling. The state revenues and taxpayer’s burden is not an adequate reason to have state sponsored or state approved gambling, IMO.

As for the drugs, I have mixed feeling on that one. Drugs that are grown naturally, or occur naturally, I have no problem with. If someone wants to go smoke some pot, who am I to tell them they can't? But when it comes to the drugs people make in their bathtubs . . That's a whole different story . .

I agree with you. OTOH, I am willing to see the old time drugs of heroin and coc aine back on the drug store shelf. Maybe not OTC, but surely for sale to adults only. Like today’s Suda-fed. Not by medical prescriptions. That - medically prescribed drugs - is one of the two major problems in our “drug culture.” 1) We should ban all tv ads of medicines or drugs, and 2) we must teach our medical practitioners to stop prescribing to patients unless it is medically indicated - and not socially or business-wise.

I have mixed feelings on prostitution too. If the women (or man, whichever the case may be) has gotten into prostitution because they like being paid for their services, are not forced or coerced into it in any way shape or form, and are able to stop if and when they decide they don't want to do it anymore, then I don't care. It's their body, However, situations where they are abducted ran away and are forced into prostitution to either A) keep someone from killing them, or B) get someone to keep protecting them from someone else from hurting them, or any variation that leads to them being forced into it, I don't agree with. [Edited by Don W]

And none of us do. I’m thinking there are underlying causes why a person wants to expose themselves to high risks of disease and violence. It is not normal. For this reason if no other, I would have great reservations about allowing any person to engage in prostitution. Admitting it cannot be stopped any more than I could stop drug use or gambling, I am nevertheless willing to build “Fun Houses” where under the right circumstances - including the medical examination of the would-be customer - which would assure as much as is possible, the safety of the prostitute. Of course, sex for hire involving any person under 18 is verboten. But providing sex for consenting adults under proper settings seems to me to be a socially desirable goal.

All I have said about prostitution applies to pornography as well. I admit it is also impossible to stop - just listen to what is posted on MySpace dot com. Again, while it is women who are “used” in 95% of pornography, there are more men and regrettably, more children found in pornography.

Because of the internet it is unrealistic to think porn cannot be transmitted, but I tell you one thing: Porn has to be sold. And as we just learned a few weeks ago in the WOT hullabaloo there is a company in Belgium called SWIFT which transfers funds around the world. Every internet website requires a credit card to sell the porn, so if we want to, we can stop that. It’s a matter of will. And we can do it without violating anyone’s privacy. Well, the porn sellers excepted.



[edit on 7/16/2006 by donwhite]

Yes, to all three.

Donwhite, you seem to overlook many issues.

Take Gambling for example. You're on the internet, if people were die hard gamblers they can do it on here. They can go out in the United State's and buy scratch cards or lottery tickets. There are now National Poker Championships that are on television. You can bet on horse races which are on television, sport? So on and so fourth. They're all gambling and like it or not children already see it.

As for drugs? I'd say legalize every drug which is "self use". If I take it, when I take it they cause no harm to anyone else or force anyone else to take it. Things like coc aine, '___', speed, etc. Drugs which if I take, nobody around me has too. Why should I not be allowed to? Especailly when many drugs which are just as bad are out there. Drugs will destroy while people can sell them illegally. If the Government bothered to place tax on them and control them, only clean drugs would be taken and thus there is less risk. In all the time I worked in clubs, every club used to have "allowed dealers". The bouncers and owners, knew these people were selling but new it was "clean" and because of this they had no problem with it. The problem with drugs is when coc aine is cut with rat poison or so on and so fourth.

Prostitution should be legal. If sex was for sale, I honestly believe rape would be in decline. The "houses" will be known by the police and they could employ securtiy, if anything does ever get out of hound. All those involved could get "clean checks" before they can enter. The problem with things such as STDs is the culture where we ignore them and look away instead of bothering to be more open and cure them.

posted by Odium

Yes, to all three. Donwhite, you seem to overlook many issues. Take Gambling for example. You're on the internet, if people were (1) die hard gamblers they can do it on here. They can go out in the United State's and buy (2) scratch cards or lottery tickets. (3) There are now National Poker Championships that are on television. You can bet on horse races which are on television, sport? So on and so fourth. They're all gambling and like it or not children already see it. [Edited by Don W]

(1) The sponsor of the gambling website has a name and an account number. If we want to stop internet gambling, it would be comparatively easy. If we really don’t want to stop it, we’ll find a dozen reasons (or excuses) not to.

(2) I voted against the state’s constitutional amendment to permit gambling in my home state. The vote was about 65 for 35 against. 2 to 1. I still think I was right.

(3) I have never been for the “anything goes” concept of the First Amendment. And I am not a Meesian ‘Original Intent’ person either. I am convinced the FFs meant only to protect political speech. Oh, yes, I’m for flag burning, but not on free speech grounds. Just that as long as it’s the property of the burner, it is his to do with as he wishes - not hurt others, etc. The high cost of flags tends to limit that form of expression.

As for drugs? I'd say legalize every drug which is "self use". If I take it, when I take it they cause no harm to anyone else or force anyone else to take it. Things like coc aine, '___', speed, etc. Drugs which if I take, nobody around me has too. Why should I not be allowed to? The problem with street drugs is when coc aine is cut with rat poison or so on and so fourth.

I agree subject to thoughts posted here previously.

Prostitution should be legal. If sex was for sale, I believe rape would be in decline. The "houses" will be known by the police and they could employ security, if anything does ever get out of hand. All those involved could get "clean checks" before they can enter. The problem with things such as STDs is the culture where we ignore them and look away instead of bothering to be more open and cure them. [Edited by Don W]

I agree, with modifications posted elsewhere on this thread.

Why should they not be able to gamble though?

If you make a choice, not to Gamble, why should everyone else have to live with your ideas? It's the same as many things. If you do not want to do it, watch it or see it you can avoid it. Nobody will force you to gamble and I have ye to find a credible study which shows if a family member gambles, his children are more likely to gamble. The arguement is the age old "Moral Decay" one, which has never been proven yet used time and time again.

I believe our laws regarding these three issues, as they are implemented nationwide today, are perfectly fine. Everyday I am thankful that there is honor and dignity in the -whitehouse-...Because if we had liberals running this nation it would have been desecrated long ago. I may disagree with some conservative viewpoints, however in the long run I see that it is integrity that will last the longest, and that’s something liberals never had.

posted by Odium

Why should they not be able to gamble though? If you make a choice, not to gamble, why should everyone else have to live with your ideas? I have yet to find a credible study which shows if a family member gambles, his children are more likely to gamble. The argument is the age old "Moral Decay" one, which has never been proven yet used time and time again. [Edited by Don W]

Thrift. A penny saved is a penny earned. Ben Franklin. The thrill in gambling comes from knowing you are doing something you should not be doing. Why should you not be doing it? Well, for starters, it is definitely throwing your money away. Even non-compulsive gamblers frequently will stay at the tables or at the slots, pouring any winnings back, until they have spent their allowance or are broke.

I have gambled. I have been to Las Vegas. Over 25 years ago. I set aside $1,000 to gamble with. I was surprised how quickly I lost that much. Fortunately, I did not cash a check, or buy chips on my credit card. I gave up the money I had planned to lose and I stayed away from the tables. I realized that I could not go back to Vegas until I had $25,000 to blow. Fortunately, I have never had that much to blow.

OK, so why should I want others to follow my lead? Well, I’m still convinced that criminals are deeply involved in gambling in the US. I believe that millions if not billions are skimmed off the casinos and so on, avoiding taxes and corrupting our governing officials. Because gambling serves no useful purpose, I’m prepared to see in relegated to history books.

I don’t know how many people are deprived of necessities of life by a parent or spouse who gambles. I dare say most who gamble do not admit to their spouse how much they gamble. We know they lose. Only the operators win. Players lose. That is their function in life. If anyone does win, he becomes famous. But that is rare. Let me end this ramble by reminding you of the billboard the Illinois State Lottery posted in a poor black Chicago neighbor. Picturing a lottery ticket and a poor black child, it said, “Your Ticket Out Of Here!” I’m surprised it didn’t say, “Yo tikee outa heah.”



[edit on 7/16/2006 by donwhite]

laiguana, while you are there, you might make an appointment fo Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Ken Lay and Scooter Libby.

Originally posted by donwhite
I cannot conceive how gambling is a trait or a practice we would want to teach our children. The state revenues and taxpayer’s burden is not an adequate reason to have state sponsored or state approved gambling, IMO.

Gambling has been around for practically forever. The majority of people who do gamble do not take it to the destructive level. For the majority, it is simply a game to play. Granted it’s more expensive to go gamble than it is to go play a golf, but it is still seen as a game by a lot of people. I know I can’t speak for everyone, but when I go gamble I go in planning on walking out of that building without any of the money I walked in with. I don’t walk in thinking “I’m going to hit the jackpot tonight!” Actually, I think a very important lesson can be taught to children with regards to gambling. That lesson would be, gambling can be expensive but in moderation is fine. Regardless of what we are talking about, any activity that costs money can become a destructive habit. Gambling does not have a monopoly on self-destruction.

...willing to see the old time drugs of heroin and coc aine back on the drug store shelf. Maybe not OTC, but surely for sale to adults only.... medically prescribed drugs - is one of the two major problems in our “drug culture.” 1) We should ban all tv ads of medicines or drugs, and 2) we must teach our medical practitioners to stop prescribing to patients unless it is medically indicated...

I partially agree with you here. Part of the reason that heroin and coc aine were taken off the shelves is due to the fact that you can over-dose and die while taking them. The same is not true of pot. I have yet to hear of anyone who has actually managed to OD on pot. I think it’s possible to OD on mushrooms, but I’m not positive… Anyway, back to the subject. I would not be willing to have heroin and coc aine back in drug stores. Talk about a destructive habit!! The part I do agree with is banning TV ads for medicines. Half the time you have no clue what exactly the drug is supposed to treat or cure, and most of them are not in any way informative. I also agree that doctors shouldn’t be giving people medicines that they don’t really need.

Continued in next post. (It's times like these I hate character limits!)

It is not normal. For this reason if no other, I would have great reservations about allowing any person to engage in prostitution... I am nevertheless willing to build “Fun Houses” where under the right circumstances - including the medical examination of the would-be customer - which would assure as much as is possible, the safety of the prostitute. Of course, sex for hire involving any person under 18 is verboten. But providing sex for consenting adults under proper settings seems to me to be a socially desirable goal.

All I have said about prostitution applies to pornography as well. I admit it is also impossible to stop - just listen to what is posted on MySpace dot com. Again, while it is women who are “used” in 95% of pornography, there are more men and regrettably, more children found in pornography.

Because of the internet it is unrealistic to think porn cannot be transmitted, but I tell you one thing: Porn has to be sold. And as we just learned a few weeks ago in the WOT hullabaloo there is a company in Belgium called SWIFT which transfers funds around the world. Every internet website requires a credit card to sell the porn, so if we want to, we can stop that. It’s a matter of will. And we can do it without violating anyone’s privacy. Well, the porn sellers excepted.

Just because prostitution is not a normal activity for you or me does not make it wrong. I don’t think that a woman walking around in 6-inch heels for 8 hours or more a day is normal, but it isn’t wrong. I don’t mean to make light of your statement, I merely mean that abnormality for one person does not equal wrongness. As was stated earlier by Vagabond “Selling is legal. Screwing is legal. Why isn't selling screwing legal? Nothing tangible happens in prostitution that doesn't happen in promiscuous sex, except of course for commerce”

As far as porn is concerned, the grand majority of porn shows images of consenting adults doing acts that they agreed to do before being taped/photographed. If someone decides that they want to have sex with someone else in front of a camera and then decides to sell the images of what they did, who has any right to judge them? With rare exceptions, those who star in porn films or magazines or websites for that matter wanted to be in them. No one forced them to do it, and no one is forced to buy that pornography or to watch it/look at it. Of course, I do realize that child pornography is a completely different situation in which the child is a victim, not a consenting adult. (All statements in the above paragraph are to be considered about consenting adult pornography unless otherwise noted!)





Edited to say sorry about putting my response in two posts, but if I tried to put it all in one it wouldn't fit and cut me off at the end of the above quote!


[edit on 16-7-2006 by Jenna]

Those are non-issues they don't even relate to anything I am or have to say. Bush is an honorable President and I am very happy we have him in office and not some liberal nut job that would destroy all of our values.

Originally posted by laiguana I am thankful that there is honor and dignity in the -whitehouse-...Because if we had liberals running this nation it would have been desecrated long ago. .

Well, I feel compelled to disagree with you on the honor and dignity in the whitehouse. And actually we have had liberals running this nation until quite recently and I don't feel that they "desecrated" this nation. Do You? How?

And please no quotes from Rushs' "how to gut a liberal pamphlet" Your own thoughts please!

On topic: I don't need anyone telling me how to spend my money that I worked honestly for, whether it be on Hoochies, the ponys, or anything else. Leave me alone!

[edit on 16-7-2006 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa

On topic: I don't need anyone telling me how to spend my money that I worked honestly for, whether it be on Hoochies, the ponys, or anything else. Leave me alone!

[edit on 16-7-2006 by whaaa]

hehehe That gave me a laugh! I can't find a way to disagree with your logic.

These issues are at the core of the Libertarian political philosophy. Here's a link to their bible:

Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do:
The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes
in Our Free Country

from
www.mcwilliams.com


Oodles there to crib from if you're looking for some quotes.

This nation has every right not to tolerate reckless individuals who will gamble into debt, those that will spend their money on prostitutes and get AIDs or other STDs, which would eventually lead to medical expenses that they can't afford, and drugs which are connected to crime of all sorts. I don't see anything -okay- with these issues. If you want to do that, you go to another country. USA is meant for people that abide by the laws.

SAY THANKS TO>>>


[edit on 16-7-2006 by laiguana]

This thread is NOT about Scooter Libby or whether or not Bush is an honorable president.
It is about drugs, prostitution and gambling and whether they should be de-criminalized and legalized.

Please keep your comments within the topic