diablopilot 2 #51 August 29, 2007 Quote>so is your argument that if its legal then criminals wont bother with it. Nope. But make it illegal and criminals will bother with it a whole lot more. >legalizing the selling of organs could result in murder for organs, the > murders might not take place in the us but outside of it and then >imported into, the reliability of these organs might be questionable >as well resulting in more innocent deaths . . . Like I said, that's happening right now. Making it legal will allow much greater oversight of the process. Google "China organ transplant" for one creative way of increasing the organ supply. Read any Larry Niven? Specificaly the "Gil the ARM" series?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #52 August 29, 2007 Yep, although I was thinking more along the lines of "A Gift from Earth." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #53 August 29, 2007 There is one short (the title is slipping my mind right now) where a guy tries to escape jail, conviction, and sentencing to the "organ banks", and at the end we find his origional crimes were trafic viollations.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #54 August 29, 2007 QuotePublic drunkenness arrests were going down as the temperance movement gathered more and more converts. As soon as prohibition began, arrests began to rise. If arrests began to rise during prohibition, it could have been because police were less tolerant of public drunkenness (since alcohol was illegal), rather than more public drunkenness actually occurring. QuoteTotal consumption went down - but consumption also switched from beer and wine to high-alcohol-content spirits because they were easier to transport and conceal. How would we know what the total consumption was (of any type of alcohol) during that time? And anyhow, there are just as many alcoholics who use beer or wine as their drug of choice as there are who use liquor. They just consume more to get the same effect. QuoteAmericans began drinking at an earlier average age during prohibition. And again, how would we know this? Though it could be a logical assumption, given that more alcohol was being produced and consumed at home, and therefore more available to young people. But then a lot of today's alcoholics began drinking at a very early age, so I don't know what the explanation would be for that. QuotePerhaps it would be more accurate to say that there is no evidence that outlawing something reduces its harmful effects on society. Perhaps. Though it is interesting that legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are a much bigger problem in our country than any of the illegal drugs. But that could be because they've been around longer and are more ingrained in our culture. Hmm, hard to say . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #55 August 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't think the government has any business regulating ANYTHING between two (or more) CONSENTING adults. I think they should legalize it, license it, and then tax it just like any other service. Should rich people be able to purchase organs from poor people if they both agree on a price? Their bodies, their choice. No, I think Darius has a good point. Of course you have a "choice" as to whether or not to sell one of your kidneys, eyes, or lungs, maybe even your heart or liver (after they kill you first). But do you really know of anyone who's economically well off resorting to selling their organs ? I think not. They may be organ donors, or they might give an organ for a family member, but I don't know any wealthy people excercising their "free choice" to sell ANY of their organs. On the other hand, if you're homeless and destitute, you might be induced to sell a kidney for a couple thou. Or to rent out your uterus to help a couple of rich DINKS have a baby. Again, I've yet to meet any women of means who were into baby farming for the cash. So it can be with prostitution. It's not an argument against legalization, but it certainly is a cautionary note that a great deal of prostitution IS involuntary, whether from economic desperation or outright bondage. The sex trade is in fact a major component of slave trafficking in the world today. Which is part of the reason that obtaining a prostitute's license in Nevada involves a background check with the local County Sherriff's before a license is granted. There can be no felonies, ever, as well as no misdemeanors for something like 2 - 3 years. A woman (or a man) might choose to make a living offering sex to consenting adults, but it should be a truly free decision, and not because some monster is beating her and threatening to harm her children if she won't turn out and trick. And for some reason, these are the same poor women who get busted, while the judges let their scum pimps walk. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #56 August 30, 2007 >Which is part of the reason that obtaining a prostitute's license in >Nevada involves a background check with the local County Sherriff's before > a license is granted. There can be no felonies, ever, as well as no > misdemeanors for something like 2 - 3 years. This would argue that legalizing prostitution (or organ sales) can actually prevent abuses, no? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #57 August 30, 2007 Organ sales, just like prostitution, are happening. Legalization allows us to exercise more control over it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #58 August 30, 2007 I've always thought the same thing! I always thought that if by some chance I need to become a prostitutue, I will just videotape all of my business and call it porn. How can you get arrested if you're being paid to make porn?There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derekbox 0 #59 August 30, 2007 Wanna make a movie? ;) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #60 August 30, 2007 Quote Which is part of the reason that obtaining a prostitute's license in Nevada involves a background check with the local County Sherriff's before a license is granted. There can be no felonies, ever, as well as no misdemeanors for something like 2 - 3 years. That's hilarious. You can be banged silly legally, but not if you got caught smoking pot 10 years prior. I guess you do get fucked, by the government. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #61 August 30, 2007 Quote Hence, if you hire a prostitute and videotape it for yourself, it's prostitution. If you hire a prostitute and videotape it for distribution to others, then it's pornography. And "distribution" does not necessary means a film factory. You might just want to create an adult web site, and that is going to be your first video. Everyone has to start from clean slate, right?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #62 August 30, 2007 Quote For me I could not just accept that desperate people can and should be taken advantage of. I believe someone who is left no choice but to sell their body for food, You probably only consider street hookers (who mostly sell their bodies for illegal drugs, and not for food). Just look on craigslist in "erotic services". It is $200-$1000 per hour. That's A LOT of food. Quote or sell there kidney to save their children is a sad thing that should not happen. Should someone be "forced" to do hard, boring, low-pay jobs, not seeing their children for weeks? Do you think septic tank cleaners really like their job? That was the main problem with Communism. The idea was great - there is no money; everyone has to work, but you should only do what you would love to do, not being forced to do something you do not want to. Like open your talent, and do your best. And the only problem was that there was not enough people who would love to do septic cleaning. Would anyone open their talent, and work night shifts in Safeway?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #63 August 30, 2007 Quote Agreed. But what is an enlightened, compassionate society to do about those who are the weakest and most vulnerable? That is very vague. If everyone could afford to eat three times a day, but one person could only afford to eat two times a day, this person will be considered the weakest and most vulnerable. However there is a lot of people in other countries who cannot afford to eat at least once a day! If everyone has a Ferrari, the only person who has Ford Focus is the weakest and most vulnerable as well - among them. If you look from some African or ex-USSR countries, there a NO weak and vulnerable people in U.S. at all.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #64 August 30, 2007 Quote A woman (or a man) might choose to make a living offering sex to consenting adults, but it should be a truly free decision, and not because some monster is beating her and threatening to harm her children if she won't turn out and trick. That's a pointless arguments. There are already laws against beating and threatening to harm. And this is actually the result of law. During the Prohibition some bar owners were forced as well to sell illegal alcohol as well - because the mob wanted to. Most likely they used beating and threatening - I haven't heard about the mob issuing court orders. This is similar case.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #65 August 31, 2007 Quote>Which is part of the reason that obtaining a prostitute's license in >Nevada involves a background check with the local County Sherriff's before > a license is granted. There can be no felonies, ever, as well as no > misdemeanors for something like 2 - 3 years. This would argue that legalizing prostitution (or organ sales) can actually prevent abuses, no? It would seem so. I don't need to be convinced about legalization. Just saying that even with legalization, great care has to be taken to safeguard against coercive situations. Even in Holland and Germany there are women being held in slavery by Russian mobsters, who are "minding" their children back home in Mother Russia. Legalization is part of the solution, but only a part, this isn't a free for all that ignores the very real slave trafficking issues involved. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #66 August 31, 2007 QuoteYou're assuming that the drug laws work and if they weren't in place that lots of people would be doing drugs who otherwise wouldn't be. For myself I wouldn't use illegal drugs even if they were legal. I think legalization would open the floodgates and the damage to society would be tremendous. Abuse seems to follow a waveform of peaks and valleys, and it seems Darwinian in a way. More and more people abuse drugs or whatever until there is a big die-off; the system finds and equalibrium, and the cycle begins again. This takes place whether something is legal or not; however, I for one cannot abide by state-sponsored vice (e.g, make it legal and tax it). It also seems to me that those who are advocates of legalizing drugs are also the some ones who want universal health care and other nanny-state impositions. This seems hypocritical with respect to individual rights. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #67 August 31, 2007 Quote This takes place whether something is legal or not; however, I for one cannot abide by state-sponsored vice (e.g, make it legal and tax it). It also seems to me that those who are advocates of legalizing drugs are also the some ones who want universal health care and other nanny-state impositions. This seems hypocritical with respect to individual rights. no more hypocritical than the 'nanny state' deciding what individuals can and cannot do with their bodies while leaving the health care of said bodies entirely in their hands and wallets.. punish actions not substance usage.. we currently have the entire social causality problem reversed....your "reasons" (drunk, drugged, poor, stupid, insane) are irrelevant.. it is your ACTIONS that have significance and are the only thing individuals should be judged on.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #68 August 31, 2007 >I think legalization would open the floodgates and the damage to society would be tremendous. Hmm. Legalization of alcohol did not "open the floodgates" and cause tremendous damage to society. (At least, it did not significantly _increase_ the damage to society.) Indeed, while alcohol consumption rose somewhat after prohibition was repealed, it then began a slow and steady decline over the next 20 years. Now, alcohol is far more damaging physically than either legal prostitution or marijuana, so it would stand to reason that the lesser vices would pose less of a threat. >however, I for one cannot abide by state-sponsored vice (e.g, make > it legal and tax it). You have to get out of the mindset that the government determines what is legal. The government determines what is ILLEGAL - everything else is legal. In other words, YOU have rights, not the government. All they can do is take them away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #69 August 31, 2007 I agree. What I dislike most about the state of things is that, there is a huge rush to make things safe and protect people from themselves. I just don't see that as being the job of government. I don't think people should be protected from them self. Protect me from others. Make laws or enforce the ones we have. I don't need to be protected from me. If I want to go out and do something stupid and end up getting myself killed, so be it. I don't like that as time continues on more and more beliefs of other people are being pushed on me. I am going to do what I want regardless of what you think is right. Should I infringe on your right to do what you want while pursuing my cause then by all means, strike me down, but if I am minding my own business and staying out of your way, leave me the fuck alone.~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
