Topic: Canada to legalize prositution.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #7,570
( ˃ ヮ˂) !!jdS+H4VgV joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #131,428
What did I just read?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,429
( ˃ ヮ˂) !!jdS+H4VgV replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,430
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,432
( ˃ ヮ˂) !!jdS+H4VgV replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,435
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,437
@previous (( ˃ ヮ˂) !!jdS+H4VgV)
They could, but don't they already? I don't see what legality has to do with this. Maybe they will unionize?
They could, but don't they already? I don't see what legality has to do with this. Maybe they will unionize?
Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,442
Why can't America into prostitution?
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,444
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,447
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> Nevada
> As of 2009, prostitution is illegal under state law in Clark County (which contains Las Vegas)
lolwat
> Nevada
> As of 2009, prostitution is illegal under state law in Clark County (which contains Las Vegas)
lolwat
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,450
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,477
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,481
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
It just doesn't add up. Out of all the places in Nevada, Las Vegas is the place with illegal prostitution?
It just doesn't add up. Out of all the places in Nevada, Las Vegas is the place with illegal prostitution?
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,482
@131,450 (E)
Prostitutes don't go to federal prison because it is not a federal offense abd if it is it is most likely applied to human trafficking/sex slave cases in which case it would be the pimps getting punished.
Prostitutes don't go to federal prison because it is not a federal offense abd if it is it is most likely applied to human trafficking/sex slave cases in which case it would be the pimps getting punished.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,486
> selling is legal
> fucking is legal
> selling fucking is illegal
WTF
> fucking is legal
> selling fucking is illegal
WTF
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,488
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #131,495
@131,481 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
It's the fuckin Mormons. There are a lot of them in Nevada. I blame them.
It's the fuckin Mormons. There are a lot of them in Nevada. I blame them.
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #131,513
> legalizing the selling of ones body> not legalizing the sale and purchase of weed
Hurrrrrrrrr.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #131,522
Are they at least going to make it mandatory to be tested for STDs first?
Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #131,524
@previous (I)
Weekly tests at a specialized doctor are mandatory here for all sex workers l; hope they aren't too lax over ther.
Weekly tests at a specialized doctor are mandatory here for all sex workers l; hope they aren't too lax over ther.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #131,531
@131,450 (E)
> Federal law trumps state law
Nope. Sorry. The Feds wish it did, but it doesn't. State rights yo.
@131,513 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
> > legalizing the selling of ones body
> > not legalizing the sale and purchase of weed
>
> Hurrrrrrrrr.
Nevada has the strongest punishment for possession of Marijuana in the nation, one joint = up to 25 years in prison.
> Federal law trumps state law
Nope. Sorry. The Feds wish it did, but it doesn't. State rights yo.
@131,513 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
> > legalizing the selling of ones body
> > not legalizing the sale and purchase of weed
>
> Hurrrrrrrrr.
Nevada has the strongest punishment for possession of Marijuana in the nation, one joint = up to 25 years in prison.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
hamfist !!mtq555+/1 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #131,532
!poISOnioxc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 55 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,578
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 53 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,603
@131,531 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> > Federal law trumps state law
>
> Nope. Sorry. The Feds wish it did, but it doesn't. State rights yo.
It's called the supremacy clause.
But for many things: drinking age, smoking age, age of consent, it is merely up to the states however they lose funding by setting a drinking age under 21, a smoking age under 18, etc.
Although, if a state did lower the drinking age to 18, they might make up for some of the lost funds in tourism.
> > Federal law trumps state law
>
> Nope. Sorry. The Feds wish it did, but it doesn't. State rights yo.
It's called the supremacy clause.
But for many things: drinking age, smoking age, age of consent, it is merely up to the states however they lose funding by setting a drinking age under 21, a smoking age under 18, etc.
Although, if a state did lower the drinking age to 18, they might make up for some of the lost funds in tourism.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,624
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,627
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It states that when state and federal law conflict, federal law supersedes state law.
The tenth amendment only states that any laws not reserved for the federal government fall to the states, and then to the individual. If the federal government prohibits x, it does not fall to the state, according to the supremacy clause.
It states that when state and federal law conflict, federal law supersedes state law.
The tenth amendment only states that any laws not reserved for the federal government fall to the states, and then to the individual. If the federal government prohibits x, it does not fall to the state, according to the supremacy clause.
nimj joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,634
nimj double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,637
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,643
@131,627 (A)
> It states that when state and federal law conflict, federal law supersedes state law.
>
> The tenth amendment only states that any laws not reserved for the federal government fall to the states, and then to the individual. If the federal government prohibits x, it does not fall to the state, according to the supremacy clause.
Yet California has successfully trumped federal marijuana laws. Seems like there is more to the story.
> It states that when state and federal law conflict, federal law supersedes state law.
>
> The tenth amendment only states that any laws not reserved for the federal government fall to the states, and then to the individual. If the federal government prohibits x, it does not fall to the state, according to the supremacy clause.
Yet California has successfully trumped federal marijuana laws. Seems like there is more to the story.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,644
@131,637 (nimj)
Exactly. Even the state militias are funded by the federal government, primarily. If a governor refuses to send the national guard out (which is legal), he has to make the state pay for it.
The states are all the feds bitches.
Exactly. Even the state militias are funded by the federal government, primarily. If a governor refuses to send the national guard out (which is legal), he has to make the state pay for it.
The states are all the feds bitches.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,647
@131,643 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Medical marijuana is tolerated, but not truly legal.
One of the concerns about prop 19 was that full legalization would have definitely meant losing funding, whereas they got away with purely medical use.
It was partly because all the state is saying is that a doctor's recommendation (not prescription) lets you avoid state punishment.
Medical marijuana is tolerated, but not truly legal.
One of the concerns about prop 19 was that full legalization would have definitely meant losing funding, whereas they got away with purely medical use.
It was partly because all the state is saying is that a doctor's recommendation (not prescription) lets you avoid state punishment.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,648
@previous (A)
> Medical marijuana is tolerated.
>
> One of the concerns about prop 19 was that full legalization would have definately meant losing funding, whereas they got away with purely medical use.
The feds still do raids occasionally. I dunno, its a complicated issue I guess. States should be allowed to do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.
> Medical marijuana is tolerated.
>
> One of the concerns about prop 19 was that full legalization would have definately meant losing funding, whereas they got away with purely medical use.
The feds still do raids occasionally. I dunno, its a complicated issue I guess. States should be allowed to do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.
nimj replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,651
@131,643 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Glug, no we haven't. Last year when proposition whatever was out there, we knew that fed would cut funding (and California is already lacking) and we pussied out. It was some crazy huge number, but I don't remember the details. We've only made it a misdemeanor when we were so close to legalizing it.
Glug, no we haven't. Last year when proposition whatever was out there, we knew that fed would cut funding (and California is already lacking) and we pussied out. It was some crazy huge number, but I don't remember the details. We've only made it a misdemeanor when we were so close to legalizing it.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 39 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,676
Ninjj joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,737
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Medical marijuana has been. It's fully legalizing it that was the problem.
@131,648 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
ron paul 20202202002 #italiano
Medical marijuana has been. It's fully legalizing it that was the problem.
@131,648 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
ron paul 20202202002 #italiano
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,740
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,742
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
Basil Marceaux is adorable. I want to take him home, put him in a box, and feed him political theorists.
Basil Marceaux is adorable. I want to take him home, put him in a box, and feed him political theorists.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,744
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,753
@131,737 (Ninjj)
> Medical marijuana has been. It's fully legalizing it that was the problem.
Then why do the feds raid dispensaries?
> Medical marijuana has been. It's fully legalizing it that was the problem.
Then why do the feds raid dispensaries?
Ninjj replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,754
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,755
@131,753 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It’s legal at the state level. The feds still consider it illegal and have raided some California dispensaries that might have been a bit too brash in celebrating their status.
It’s legal at the state level. The feds still consider it illegal and have raided some California dispensaries that might have been a bit too brash in celebrating their status.
Ninjj replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,756
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,768
@131,755 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Yeah this is why I say state law trumps federal law. They may do a few raids for show, but it has no overall effect.
Yeah this is why I say state law trumps federal law. They may do a few raids for show, but it has no overall effect.
hamfist !!mtq555+/1 replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,778
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,815
Prostitution has been legal in New Zealand for a few years now.
FreeCode !!4IKKtS9GG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 35 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,851
There is not any reason to keep prostitution illegal outside of misguided emotion and half-baked social theories. There is real, tangible evidence that legalizing prostitution is a very effective means for protecting prostitutes and clients with testing and regulation. While this would also increase the use of prostitution services, it would decrease if not neutralize the negative consequences associated with it - privacy concerns (a brothel or service is more anonymous than a street), safety for prostitute and client, and the spread of STDs. It would also decrease costs by encouraging free-market competition, so individuals drawn to prostitution services would have less negative financial impact and far less social fallout.
The theoretical and emotional arguments against prostitution include that it is against God's will (if I have to tell you, you won't get it anyway), won't someone think of the children? (because brothels are worse than streets), and that it degrades women (which is similar to claiming a junkie degrades his dealer, except with sex and dogma tossed in). The problem is that many senators who see the rationality in legalizing prostitution are most likely also fearful of proposing legislation, as this is a "dirty" profession and would put the interests of their constituency and people's lives above their political careers. You know, actually changing things for the better and such.
The theoretical and emotional arguments against prostitution include that it is against God's will (if I have to tell you, you won't get it anyway), won't someone think of the children? (because brothels are worse than streets), and that it degrades women (which is similar to claiming a junkie degrades his dealer, except with sex and dogma tossed in). The problem is that many senators who see the rationality in legalizing prostitution are most likely also fearful of proposing legislation, as this is a "dirty" profession and would put the interests of their constituency and people's lives above their political careers. You know, actually changing things for the better and such.
Ninjj replied with this 15 years ago, 36 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,872
hamfist !!mtq555+/1 replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #131,878
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #132,368
@131,768 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It's the feds that are allowing them to be around at all. Obama has said he won't interefere with the dispenseries (not completely fullfuilled that promise though).
It isn't a matter of inability. Often times, they will raid a place, and confiscate any property anyone has there, and leave. Literalyl coming in, taking people's wallets, and leaving without arresting anyone.
It's the feds that are allowing them to be around at all. Obama has said he won't interefere with the dispenseries (not completely fullfuilled that promise though).
It isn't a matter of inability. Often times, they will raid a place, and confiscate any property anyone has there, and leave. Literalyl coming in, taking people's wallets, and leaving without arresting anyone.
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #132,707
Prostituion's always been legal in Canada.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #132,710
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #132,831
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 16 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #133,442
The only thing worse than prosecuting both parties is only prosecuting one.
Legalize it!
Legalize it!