<p>I don't think they are whores. Feelings aside, they are offering a service and get paid for it. It may be considered unorthodox and lowly in our modern society, but prostitution has been around for a long time. I doubt it will go away away. I never understood watching two people having sex in a porn flick is okay, but paying to engage in sex with another person isn't???? </p>
<p>I think moderating it, that is legalizing it, seems like a logical step. At least if it is legalized, standards could consistently be put into place, such as with hygiene and safety.</p>
<p>When you legalize any activity it allows for regulation and better education. If prostitution were legal there would be better education because people woulnd't be as ashamed to ask what they don't know. With any black market the cost in production is much higher because of the cost to the suppliers that they might go to jail, and thus the prices will be higher in ANY black market.</p>
<p>pot is not addictive. I don't know a soul who steals money to pay for pot. You could not physically overdose on pot because once you became too impared you wouldn't physically be able to smoke (and thus intake the increase which you would need to OD). Pot doesn't make people aggressive (unlike alcohol). Pot should be legal.</p>
<p>prostitution will not increase crime rates. Drug addiction, which causes people to steal, is MUCH MUCH MUCH more prevalent than sex addiction.</p>
<p>the problem with pot legalization is that the government would not legalize pot at the current THC levels, which push 20-25%. Legalized pot would only be 5-10% THC and so those who reach a tolerence threshold will no longer get stoned by that level of THC...thus they will go to a black market for highly concentrated pot. </p>
<p>And yes, pot has been found to be psychologically addicting.</p>
<p>Whether it is addicting it or not is hardly relevant. Its still a matter of (unwarranted) control.</p>
<p>sooooooooo many things are psychologically addicting, but that doesn't mean they're illegal. You could be psychologically addicted to sex, or to anything really (ever heard of an OCD?) </p>
<p>Why aren't ciggarettes illegal? or Alcohol? they are both MUCH more addictive, in the physical addiction meaning, and much worse for you (no one chain smoked pot) than pot.</p>
<p>When I said whore, I didn't mean it in the sense that "she dresses like a whore" or whatever. The term "whore" comes from prostitution when women would "whore" themselves to men. To be a whore, is the same as being a hooker, prostitute, etc.</p>
<p>Plain and simple, we should be able to do to our bodies what we will. They are not the government's responsability to "save." As long as what you do does not cause you to impare the freewill of OTHERS you should be able to do whatever you want if its your body.</p>
<p>good example: you are allowed to drink, but once you get in a car and get on a road it is too far. Similar regulations should apply with pot.</p>
<p>Cigarettes arent illegal because they are the single most heavily taxed industry in the US.</p>
<p>Alcohol isnt taxed because they are the second most heavily taxed industry in the US.</p>
<p>Both industries also spend a TON of money on lobbying.</p>
<p>So I doubt you can get that changed any time soon.</p>
<p>See my last post about why legalizing pot would not be useful.</p>
<p>I have to agree with equine. People can do what they want with their bodies as long as other people are not forcefully involved.</p>
<p>Plain and simple, we should be able to do to our bodies what we will. </p>
<hr>
<p>No, you shouldnt be able to. </p>
<p>The masses should not be free to take heroin whenever they want and die at 26 years old. If you arent intelligent to realize this, then the government needs to be.</p>
<p>"But these woman are PROSTITUTES. If they were smart they wouldn't work in that proffesion. I am sure that normal people would try and prevent STDs, and I am sure that some prostitues do...but still. They're whores."</p>
<p>Um, have you ever heard of how much money stripper make? or for that matter porn stars?? I think its a very smart choice, as long as you are safe about it (which legalization and regulation would help). You don't need to invest in a $200k education, and if it is your body it should be your choice. a girl could go out and **** ten guys a day and it's perfectly legal--why shouldn't she be able to charge for her "services"?? I see no difference between that and say, a masseuse (except for the education) in terms of charging for a hands on service.</p>
<p>Why does it matter what part of your body you touch other people with as long as it's consentual on both sides? Both services cause pleasure, why should one be allowed and not another???</p>
<p>"The masses should not be free to take heroin whenever they want and die at 26 years old."</p>
<p>Why not? A person can step in front of a bus if they want to end their lives, or drink themselves to death. I see no difference. If individuals can choose to have a baby and bring a life into the world (which I fully believe they should be able to), then a person should be able to choose when they end their lives. Even if a person accidentally OD's, people also accidentally get into car accidents.</p>
<p>but cars add something vital to this society. </p>
<p>what does a person on heroin add to this society?</p>
<p>do cars really add something vital to society?? What about roads, and pollution and how many hundreds of thousands of people die on the roads each year? There's a film imparticular about the effects of individuals having cars as a result of GM's efforts to shut down the electric trolly system (to increase their market for cars). Think about how many resources go into making the millions of cars (rubber and steel) and taking care of the roads and drilling for oil (Iraq?) that all goes into people having cars. I can't remember the exact name of the film but it was very well done and I believe there's a book about it. If we had no cars and could go back to efficient electric trollys (which there were NO problems with until GM took over the systems to destroy them) there would be absolutly nothing gained by having cars. Also all of the garbage caused by them (all of the junkyard filled with old cars or oil leaked into rivers and lakes). . .</p>
<p>Who chooses what adds something to society? Should people be allowed to choose not to work? I'm sure that if all of the women who stay at home were forced to work instead of just take care of kids there would be a HUGE boost in the productiveness of the united states. Or what about people who retire early?? If no one were allowed to retire before age 65 we would be much more productive. Where should government intervention stop?? </p>
<p>People each have their own person benefit curves and cost curves. They will do enough heroin that the cost equals the benefit to them. People who would chose to do heroin until they are no longer functional would likely drink past function without heroin as an alternative and thus have the same level of negative contribution towards the nation.</p>
<p>To be honest, it would be better if eveyone walked, biked, or at least used mass transit considering the rates of obesity in this country...</p>
<p>I must say that I am apathetic to people who want to use drugs. To me they can do whatever they want to themselves...I base this on the assumption that they recieved info/have access to info about the drugs they are taking.</p>
<p>exactly. It should be your choice to destroy your life. If that is what you wish to do, you will do it however you can. Legalizing drugs will simply take away the black market aspect and allow for regulation.</p>
<p>I will NEVER walk, bike, or take mass transit to work, so get that idea out of your head!</p>