|
Grex > Agora56 > #125: Kludge Report Part C -- Die, You Little Black Babies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 331 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 206 of 331:
| 
Mar 1 01:41 UTC 2006 |
re #204: having goofed once, I'd've looked it up the second time.
"cirrhosis" has an "h" in it..
|
scholar
|
|
response 207 of 331:
|
Mar 1 01:47 UTC 2006 |
fo shure
|
richard
|
|
response 208 of 331:
|
Mar 1 01:53 UTC 2006 |
re #206 it can be spelled either way.
|
slynne
|
|
response 209 of 331:
|
Mar 1 02:16 UTC 2006 |
resp:185 It looks like a prescription heroin program is being started in
Vancouver so I guess we might all get to find out if heroin junkies
function better than alcoholics or other drug addicts. Based on past
heroin prescription programs, I think there is at least some evidence to
support that.
Personally, I think that most substances should be legal but also that
some effort should go into educating people about the actual
consequences of taking drugs (including over the counter drugs,
nicotine, caffeine, etc. I think some recreational drugs should be sold
under similar regulations as alcohol and others, perhaps, should only be
available by prescription.
Legalizing drugs will not make the drug problem go away any more than
legalizing alcohol has made alcohol problems go away. What it would do
is free up a lot of resources that are currently being devoted to
enforcing drug laws. It also would allow for more regulation of
substances. But trust me, there will still be a lot of abuse and
addiction.
|
slynne
|
|
response 210 of 331:
|
Mar 1 02:17 UTC 2006 |
Oops, I forgot a link to the news story about Vancouver's heroin
program:
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2054.cfm
|
jep
|
|
response 211 of 331:
|
Mar 1 15:15 UTC 2006 |
There is a level at which I'd like to see both recrational drugs and
prostitution be legal. If they were both legal for truly consenting
adults, who would be presumed to understand the risks and be
responsible for the consequences, and could be kept away from those too
young for those things, I would favor legalization.
But that's not the world I live in. Drug dealers *target* young
people. Drugs are probably more available in schools than anywhere
else.
Prostitution is a very seamy, dark business in which the youngest and
the most innocent are in the most demand. Children are brought into
prostitution by being misled, by being given addicting drugs, or by
straightforward abduction. They're used up and discarded when they're
too old and broken to be fun any more. They don't keep any of the
money they bring in. If they manage to escape, they are tracked down
and forced to go back, or they are killed. I think you'd have to be
pretty naive (or pretty callous) to want to legalize prostitution.
|
keesan
|
|
response 212 of 331:
|
Mar 1 15:18 UTC 2006 |
Isn't it legal in Nevada?
|
jep
|
|
response 213 of 331:
|
Mar 1 15:22 UTC 2006 |
Someone up there said prostitution is now legal in just a couple of
counties in Nevada.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 214 of 331:
|
Mar 1 15:35 UTC 2006 |
>Prostitution is a very seamy, dark business in which the youngest and
>the most innocent are in the most demand.
In the most demand, or the most vulnerable and therefore the easiest and
most profitable to supply? The argument in favor of legalisation would
be (I imagine) that customers would opt for the legal and safer option,
thereby cutting out the middleman, and reducing demand for and supply of
the currently lucrative younger ones.
|
richard
|
|
response 215 of 331:
|
Mar 1 15:44 UTC 2006 |
re #209 prescription heroin makes sense since you can and always have been
able to prescribe morphine. thats like making scotch legal and vodka illegal.
|
jep
|
|
response 216 of 331:
|
Mar 1 15:49 UTC 2006 |
I don't think it's deniable that, in America, younger women are
considered more attractive as sex symbols.
I've never had dealings with a prostitute. I am extending what I know
into an area about which I don't have direct knowledge, and
*speculating* that prostitutes who are young women and adolescent girls
are likely to bring a higher price than a mature adult. This
hypothesis makes so much sense to me that I am going to indulge myself
and consider it as a fact until and unless someone can give me reason
to do otherwise.
|
richard
|
|
response 217 of 331:
|
Mar 1 16:16 UTC 2006 |
jep in europe that is in america, in europe they prefer older women.
also men can be prostitutes too, ever see "American Gigolo"
|
slynne
|
|
response 218 of 331:
|
Mar 1 16:20 UTC 2006 |
resp:211 Obviously some drug dealers target kids. But to you think that
would be worse if drugs were legal. You see, in black markets like the
market for illegal drugs, the sorts of people who get involved on the
supply side of things might be....criminals.
Now, I would make an argument that that making drugs legal would reduce
their availability in schools. Except, based on how available alcohol
is, I dont think that is probably true. I dont think a drug's legal
status affects the supplies of it in schools as much as people might
like to think.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 219 of 331:
|
Mar 1 16:30 UTC 2006 |
>*speculating* that prostitutes who are young women and adolescent girls
>are likely to bring a higher price than a mature adult.
My guess (wink wink) would be that price depends mostly on category.
Streetwalkers would be in a low price range, "massage" parlors and
"escort" services higher, private word-of-mouth clients most expensive.
I would imagine that, within those categories, youth and beauty do
indeed carry a higher price tag. My guess, too, would be that underage
prostitutes are most likely to work the street, rather than in
quasi-legal business front operations which would theoretically need a
minimum age for employment to reduce the threat of prosecution. Hence
then, I suppose, the argument that if you legalize prostitution and give
customers a legal place to go, you'd largely eliminate the street crowd
and therefore the biggest supply of underage prostitutes.
|
keesan
|
|
response 220 of 331:
|
Mar 1 16:30 UTC 2006 |
I think morphine is legal (by prescription) because it blocks pain without
also causing mental changes (except for making you very sleepy for a day
afterwards), and people are unlikely to use it as a soporific when there are
drugs with fewer side effects. The side effects of heroin are why it is
popular.
|
richard
|
|
response 221 of 331:
|
Mar 1 16:37 UTC 2006 |
I think if prostitution was legalized and regulated, as it is in some places
where "sex workers" must be licensed and pass regular health/aids tests, and
the industry limited to certain areas, some of these problems wouldnt be
there. In any industry that has no controls you are going to have employees
being abused. Children get abused in sweatshops making clothing, does that
mean clothing factories should be illegal? No, they just need to be regulated
properly as they are in this country.
|
jep
|
|
response 222 of 331:
|
Mar 1 16:46 UTC 2006 |
re resp:217: Why do you say that Europeans favor older women, Richard?
That must be really nice for some, if it is true; aging sex symbols who
are too old for Americans can extend their careers and their stardom by
going to Europe.
But I am sorry to say, your credibility is such that I would need some
kind of evidence for anything you say right now. You sometimes make up
things for convenience in arguments. If I don't already know something
for myself, your saying it does not lead me to believe it. Integrity
is a terrible thing to give away. Yours went pretty cheaply.
re resp:218: Tobacco and alcohol are legal; marijuana and meth are
not. All of those substances are illegal for students to have in
school. I wonder which of them are the most common?
From the way my teenage stepdaughter talks (she's a freshman), they'd
do better to make all drugs mandatory and supervise the kids to make
sure they're taking them regularly. Presumably, some kids would then
evade them, and drug usage would drop. I suspect she may exaggerate
some of her observations, though.
|
richard
|
|
response 223 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:06 UTC 2006 |
re #222 why are you making personal attacks? what did I say that pissed you
off so much? I don't think it speaks well of you at all jep that you use
items like to cut other people down rather than simply directly attacking
positions in their arguments.
|
richard
|
|
response 224 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:08 UTC 2006 |
oh and its pretty gutless of you jep to accuse people of "making things up"
without being able to back it up
|
nharmon
|
|
response 225 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:10 UTC 2006 |
Re 224 (the gutless remark): See #223 (about cutting people down
instead of simply attacking positions)
|
richard
|
|
response 226 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:14 UTC 2006 |
re #225 I was expressing a personal opinion, not stating something as a fact
nharmon. jep was claiming something as a fact, that I deliberately make
things up, which he has no basis for and was therefore lying.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 227 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:30 UTC 2006 |
Still, is it really necessary to call people gutless? Does it make you
feel better?
|
richard
|
|
response 228 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:32 UTC 2006 |
jep stated "you sometimes make up things for convenience in arguments" I do
not and jep is in no position to state that as a fact. I, like anyone else,
am perfectly capable of misunderstanding some story I read or something from
some time back, and misstating something. We're all human. But to state that
I deliberately *make things up*, without any facts to back it up, and to act
high and mighty using that to claim one lacks integrity, is pretty low of jep
to do. He should apologize.
|
richard
|
|
response 229 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:33 UTC 2006 |
nharmon, if someone calls me a liar with no facts to back it up, I'll call
him gutless because its my honest opinion and he deserves to be called as
such.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 230 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:11 UTC 2006 |
Well, as long as you save face, then ok.
|