Seriously, this conversation is not worth having because Curtis LeMay provides no cites for his absolutely wild assertions. He is all for expanding the role of government way beyond what even card carrying socialists like me are comfortable with. More incarcerations, more law enforcement, bigger social services department, busting up families, violating people’s civil rights, etc. All in the name of getting rid of gangs, but no consideration for other options, which actually have a fighting chance of getting rid of or weakening gangs. And no real world understanding or cites for his stance.
That, and the way he starts every paragraph with “Look” – it’s not worth it. This isn’t a Great Debate.
I wasn’t talking about pot, I was talking about hard drugs like cocaine or heroin.
Yes, crime has gone down in the rest of the Republic also but the reason for it’s decline is because in general of “get tough against crime” policy throughout the Republic.
Oftentimes prostitution will be a higher paying job then most menial jobs, thus a lot of girls may want to become prostitutes for the money.
Yes agreed.
Unfortunately there aren’t statistics I could find, but it’s pretty obvious that kids will be better off then in broken homes.
What I meant is like arresting Nazi war criminals, arresting hard drug users and dealers in neccessary for justice despite the costs.
People are desitute to-day but are less likely to be whores because it’s illegal.
Porn performers or people like clerks, CPAs, technicians, and other middlemen?
Because the Republic’s government thinks (foolishly in my opinion) that it’s better for kids to be in a family environment. Unfortunately a lot of foster parents are perverted pedophiles or abusers who deserve nothing less then to be shot in the back of the head.
Fair enough I tend to be for legalization across the board, but I am uncomfortably so as it regards Cocaine and Heroin.
That’s definitely part of it. Though I don’t think it’s so much tougher policies as much as it is an increase in efficiency through superior information technology accompanied by a rise in prosperity across the board.
Yes, but the emotional cost is higher for prostitution which is why it’s not more prevalent. I dated a prostitute for a while. She didn’t like that life once she was in it.
Glad we’ve come to a point of commonality.
Well the tough part is defining, ‘broken’, homes.
I don’t agree that arresting hard drug users is necessary for justice. And the only thing that separates a drug dealer from any other businessman is legality.
Might see an uptick in prostitution but I doubt it’d be that massive. I think Sage Rat is really up on this issue. This is his one issue that he really cares about.
Well all of the above really. But there are a whole host of porn performers. Remember this includes every webcam girl out there.
Yeah, my issue with that idea isn’t so much that they wouldn’t be better off, just that their aren’t enough people to implement your idea. Remember you’d have to create a whole industry that currently doesn’t exist and there are all sorts of attendant risks there.
Yes, but as I understand it one of the most effective anti-crime measures that has occurred recently is the ability to map crime reports in real time and beef up police presence in heavy crime areas. When you fight crime in one area it just moves over to the next neighborhood, but now they can track how the crime moves from one neighborhood to the next and police accordingly.
Because everyone was destitute. That’s the time when we had massive immigration and people wouldn’t hire the Irish. The time of child labor and big machines taking off the arms of ten year olds.
Well if you take them from households that ignore their kids you’re going to be breaking up a lot of well to do homes.
Well in that case regulation will stamp that out. Sell it over the counter with mandatory warning labels.
He’s a forum member, and I think he’s the one that is against legalizing prostitution. Try looking up posts by him, if it’s who I am thinking of he’s started many threads about it.
Yes, sometimes, and sometimes no. Sometimes they are party girls who support themselves any way they can. Othertimes housewives. They come from all walks of life really.
True. But you are advocating a very sweeping nanny-state (literally) expansion.
More incarcerations, more law enforcement, bigger social services department, busting up families, violating people’s civil rights, etc. All in the name of getting rid of gangs, but no consideration for other options, which actually have a fighting chance of getting rid of or weakening gangs. And no real world understanding or cites for his stance.