Hacker News Reader

Comment by jussij | Hacker News Reader

Who would have expected that outcome?

Lets look back in history to see how well prohibition has worked in the past.

The exact same result happened back in the 1920's with the prohibition of alcohol. The 1920's prohibition resulted in nothing more than the rise of the Mafia.

Back in the 1920's there was similar waste of government money fighting alcohol, only to see the rise in the power of the Mafia.

Move forward to today's 'war on drugs' and once again government is wasting massive amounts of public money trying fighting a loosing war.

The harder the fight the richer the drug kings become.

But now the states decide to go softer on a 'war on what ever' and guess what, the 'drug kings' once again start to loose money.

Nothing more than history repeating :(

View on HN

The only thing that makes me hesitate this popular view:

1) There was a mafia in Italy and US long before Prohibition and after Prohibition

2) The violence and deaths of police officers in the US started to rise in 1900 and peaked at 1921 and declined for another 30 years.

3) Doesn't explain the statistical violence peaks of the 1970s and 1980s in our society.

4) We are at one of the least violent and peaceful decades in US History

[1] Police deaths in London and NYC (I could use other markers just this was a lazy first choice http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586786/ [2] US Crime Rate (Which I would argue is flawed since the recording of crimes prior to 1960s was not tracked in the same way as records are now kept after JFK assassination http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate...

1) The mafia didn't only deal in alcohol. Prostitution and gambling, two other popular-but-illegal things were often controlled by organized crime. Prohibition did allow organized crime a boom where they could squirrel away money and use it for their enterprises later on, which explains their presence after the fact.

2) I'm not sure that police deaths are the best metric, since most of the violence during prohibition was carried out by gangs against other gangs. Given enough police corruption, violence wasn't even necessary.

3) How about cocaine followed by crack cocaine?

4) That doesn't mean we couldn't be less violent and more peaceful, and it doesn't mean that our law enforcement resources are efficiently allocated.

In the places where prostitution is legal (Netherlands, Germany, Austria, New Zealand...) there is still a huge criminal organisation built around human trafficking. Most prostitutes in such countries are poorer immigrant women from neighbouring countries in economic desperation, and very frequently acting against their will.

Not every popular-but-illegal activity benefits from becoming legal. Selling alcohol is very different from selling people. Don't conflate the two activities.

Selling people is very different from allowing people to sell their services. Don't conflate the two activities.

Seriously, the existence of problems related to legal prostitution in any particular location doesn't necessarily indict the entire practice. Also, in close analogy with drug prohibition, the state gives criminals space to thrive whenever it limits the free movement of people.

As I said in a reply, 'jordigh has an important, correct point about a certain segment of the market. I upvoted, and I'd appreciate if others did as well in order to ungray this:

They're not selling a service. They're selling their bodies. With a service, someone is performing something, not having something done to them. With a service, the more experienced practitioners are more valuable. With prostitution the opposite is true: the least experienced people are the most valuable, and there is no training required nor even desired.

It's not a job when the most desirable "employees" are the least experienced ones.

With a service, someone is performing something, not having something done to them

The idea that sex is having something done to you, as opposed to something you're doing for or with someone, strikes me as a rather old-fashioned and sexist attitude. I'd like to believe that my wife and I share something better than that.

Of course, there are a lot of personal values tied up in this question, so I don't think that either your opinion or mine necessarily prevails. That being the case, I think the best indicator is what each individual chooses to do of their own free will.

Sex can certainly be done to someone, and comparing prostitution sex with marital sex is a bit disingenous. I imagine you don't pay your wife each time you two want to have sex, nor that she would have sex with you only if she had few other options left.

The problem with "what each individual chooses" and prostitution is that it's extremely difficult to get an accurate reading of what people truly want. There's lots of coercion, pressure, and outright threats. I think it's fair to say that given the opportunity, most people would not choose prostitution. It's very important to have a society where no one ever feels the need to become a prostitute.

The whole "consent" argument also tries to ignore the question of harm. If someone consents to be harmed, should we harm them? If a drug addict wants to keep drugging themselves, should we not do anything about it? I'm not outright saying that prostitution harms every prostituted person or not, just that this question should be considered, not elided with the "consent" argument.

The implicit assumptions that ones' choice to have sex with strangers for money is coerced, wrong, constitutes self harm, and must be protected against are telling a story that denies the people who make that choice the very same autonomy such a statement pretends to protect against.

I'd say that is incorrect and based on incomplete understanding. I'd say it's a choice, made, no matter how incomprehensible, for money. Like other choices people make, eg choosing such and such career path, or such and such relationship, sometimes there's peer pressure. And because it's connected with orchestration by criminal enterprises, tainted by that association. However, when you come down to it, people could sell themselves before criminals wanted a cut. It works to consider how you might come to make that choice, and whether your assumptions about prostitutes are filtered through the landscape of what you perceive as your own possible choices.

So before I pronounce prostitutes as victims to fit a narrative of exploitation I've chosen (seductive also for it suggests my moral superiority that I would never make such a choice! :), maybe I'll remember it doesn't work to victimize the people I'm talking about by pretending they had no autonomy. Isn't that, the very same hypocrisy I'm trying to accuse others of? Using a person for a purpose? And when that person may have done the choosing, and I in my argument may be doing the using, haven't I neatly reversed the roles all by myself, and undermined the very argument I was making?

Tl;Dr - when you're talking about people you want to paint as victims it works to consider them as autonomous, choice making beings, to gain more accurate insight, even tho it's seductive to pretend that somehow you've more autonomy than they.

Stl;Dr - fantasising that prostitutes have no autonomy is trying to use them for an intellectual "dry sex", without paying, for the sake of argument without their consent! Definitely only for scoundrels!! :)

I think it's fair to say that given the opportunity, most people would not choose prostitution.

Given the opportunity, most people would not choose to work.

That being said, from my neighbourhood, women who did chose prostitution could have done some other work instead. They picked prostitution because it was 1. easier and 2. it paid better.

Being a stripper and being a hooker are different things, but I think there's a high degree of correlation.

I've known three strippers (for reasons unrelated to their careers), and I know for certain that in all cases their choice of profession was absolutely a personal choice. The cost/benefit opportunity was the best one open to them, and they took it.

Like I said, stripping isn't the same thing, and of course anecdote isn't the singular of data. But my experience personally, and what I hear second-hand elsewhere, makes it difficult for me to believe that violence and force are significant factors in that world. And to the extent that they are present, it seems more likely that they enter the picture precisely because it's an outlaw black market lifestyle, and if allowed in the light of day that aspect would likely disappear.

I don't understand your point... at all. The relationship between a client and a prostitute is nothing like the relationship between a romantic couple. Do you really equate your relationship with your wife to that of a sex worker? Come on.

I don't think thats true, if that was the case, the price of prostitution would drop with experience/skill/quality.

A quick google leads me to http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-average-prostitution-price...

From this, it looks like the price for prostitutes increases with quality.

I see no indication that "quality" here means "expertise" or "experience".

come on, now you're just grasping at straws.

He's not, though I don't agree with him (think it's a him?). Yes, experienced prostitutes can and do charge more. but there is a parallel traffic in vulnerable prostitutes, for whom their pimps charge more because they are young or less willing/able to stand up for themselves.

I'm in favor of legalization, but there is some economic research suggesting that at least in the short term, expansion of the market for prostitution (through decriminalization or legalization) results in a net increase in illegal trafficking, because market sector growth >> the substitution effect (whereby many customers prefer the legal alternative). It's not the simple 'ban it or legalize it' dichotomy that advocates on both sides suggest.

Not at all. The very article linked above says, "India -- $1,000 for virgin, $1-$4 for adult."

...the least experienced people are the most valuable, and there is no training required nor even desired.

I think you're right about a certain segment of the market. After all, we know that pedophiles exist, so some "customers" would want the "services" of a child who lies there crying, which would require no "training". I think those would be few in number when compared to a legal market for adult prostitution, although they would necessarily be a larger portion of any illicit market.

Can one be said to sell something if one still maintains possession after the sale?

This is the premise of software as a service.

How about a haircut?

I've always been curious about this. Sure human trafficking brings poor women in against their will but what happens then? They obviously can't work in legal brothels because they wouldn't have a work permit and I'm not sure who would visit shady illegal brothels if legal brothels existed or even where they would be set up.

Also, in a country with legal prostitution, aren't there regular inspections? interviews with the workers? I can understand in a poor country but how are these women being held against their will in shady establishments in a country with strong laws and an effective police force.

i believe it is legal in the UK, but lots of activities related to it (e.g. running a brothel, soliciting it in public places) are illegal.

afaik (i have no real, direct, experience of this tbh, so don't quote me) there are none of these safety measures that you see in Vegas or Amsterdam etc. its basically treated as a form of self employment and is completely unregulated.

you should also consider the psychologies of vulnerable and desperate young women and criminal gangs. there is a long history of techniques they will both use to avoid problems with the police and both types will see it as protecting themselves from harm...

Oh but a number of them do work legally. Their masters pay all the fees to get them into the country and then they work off the loan for the rest of their life. This method isn't just used to import women.

Yes, but how does making prostitution illegal help against trafficking? It just makes the scene go (further) underground, and the actual victims can't even go to the police now because they get arrested themselves (albeit probably just instead of being deported immediately).

Also, I'd like to see a reference on the 'most' and 'frequently'.

In some countries in Scandinavia, buying sex is illegal, but selling is legal. That combats this exact problem somewhat.

This does not combat anything. The prostitute is trying to sell something to someone. Making it illegal for the customer to buy something from the prostitute does not solve anything. In fact, it discourages the customer from entering into the exchange.

There is a reason that a person chooses to be a prostitute. You may not agree with that person's decision, but criminalizing one party of the exchange doesn't change the prostitute's available choices. In many cases, prostitution is the only way to finance drug addiction, because of drug prohibition. You can criminalize any party -- the prostituted or the customer -- and it doesn't address the root issue, it only suppresses it.

"Making it illegal for the customer to buy something from the prostitute does not solve anything. In fact, it discourages the customer from entering into the exchange."

What it does is destroy the market for those exploiting prostitutes. I.e. traffickers. It changes very little for those who want to engage in sex with prostitutes.

> Most prostitutes in such countries are poorer immigrant women

Citation? I ask because that's not my personal experience and I haven't heard the same information from the sex workers I know.

"...there is still a huge criminal organisation built around human trafficking."

I'm slightly suspicious of these claims. I've seen reports about trafficking in my country showing numbers of foreign people trafficked that are completely unrealistic. NGOs are just making up these numbers when they are pleading to well-meaning but clueless people for donations.

The point here is that if someone can actually bring up evidence that there is a huge criminal organisation, then that organisation can be shut down effectively. But there is no evidence. It's a bit like so many conspiracy theories that tell about the secret conspiracy; the proof of existence of conspiracy consists of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence, because the conspiracy is so effective.

This is not good, but doesn't mean it's intrinsic to legalization. For example consider legalized gambling in Las Vegas. For decades it was intertwined with criminal activity and shady people. Eventually the regulation, laws, and legitimate business interests prevailed.

And on a more relevant note, prostitution in Nevada (which, last I checked, is quite legal).

I don't believe that. Most prostitutes in the countries you mention render their services voluntarily. Could you please give credible references for your claim?

In the context of prostitution, the term "human trafficing" itself us primarily used for shaming purpose where prostitution is no longer illegal. For this reason it should be avoided like the plague.

I wonder if treatment of said prostitutes is improved because of its legality, and can be managed and legislated? If I understand your comment correctly you're saying all things being equal nothing has changed (for better or for worse) except now prostitution is legal. What I would say is if this is the case at least a legal framework allows the government to mandate improved work conditions, or cut down on illegal human trafficking etc if they want to.

3) Doesn't explain the statistical violence peaks of the 1970s and 1980s in our society.

I don't think the OP was making any correlation with crime in the 70s and 80s. You could however link that rise in crime to the spread of crack cocaine through NYC and LA if you really wanted to.

4) We are at one of the least violent and peaceful decades in US History

Interestingly enough, while that is true, our incarceration rate is the highest ever and it started just as the drug war started. See also The New Jim Crow [1]

[1] http://newjimcrow.com/

Lead poisoning due to leaded gasoline has been one of the more interesting (and common sense) explanations of that rise and fall of crime.

And it's almost certainly bullshit. There is no correlation with crime rates and lead exposure. The pattern observed is a massive spike in crime during the '80s and '90s due to gang activity from the crack boom, which then falls back down to '60s/'70s levels afterward. What you'd expect to see if lead exposure was the problem is a very gradual increase over time and then a gradual tail off as exposure reduced. Instead the homicide rate doubled for folks under 25 between 1983 and 1993, and then fell back to 1980s levels by the early 2000s.

The background crime rate increase from the 1960s forward is more readily explained by societal changes, as well as the start of the "war on drugs".

Relevant article: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...

the "Crack Epidemic" really didn't start till 1984. Though this doubled the murder rates in teens in minority groups it doesn't explain the 1970 - 1984 rise. Though the lead gasoline seems crazy but very interesting.

I suppose one could make the argument that one reason for the decline in crime rates is due to the fact that so many criminals are in prison. I don't necessarily agree with that, but the argument could be made.

But I've been led to believe that a large amount, if not majority, of drug crime prisoners are due to low-level and non-violent criminal acts. Many of the drug laws are extremely heavy-handed that puts many people in prison for little reason. If that's the case, I doubt most of these people would have contributed to violence statistics.

> 3) Doesn't explain the statistical violence peaks of the 1970s and 1980s in our society.

I thought that at this point it was pretty much accepted that by far the strongest factor here was leaded gasoline.

That's a fascinating theory, but leaded gasoline has never been confirmed as the reason.

> Doesn't explain the statistical violence peaks of the 1970s and 1980s in our society

This probably came because of the creation/rise of gangs, an organization dealing with things very similar to the Mafia.

And what do many gangs use to fund their activities?

The sale of drugs, perhaps?

That's one of many things they do. (Gang Leader for a Day gives great insight into the many role gangs play in their communities [1])

It's also a possible consequence of Nixon's War on Drugs [2]

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Gang-Leader-Day-Sociologist-Streets/dp...

[2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs

> 3) Doesn't explain the statistical violence peaks of the 1970s and 1980s in our society.

The statistical increase in crime rates that peaked then is largely well explained by the baby boom of the 1940s and 1950s and the widely-observed correlation between crime and the proportion of population that is adolescent to young adult males.

> 4) We are at one of the least violent and peaceful decades in US History

Which is also largely well explained by the same demographic effects.

Lead exposure through lead in gasoline also can explain some of both of these effects, as noted in other comments.

It's also noteworthy that most of the drug war is being fought in Mexico, where drug-related murders went up by a factor of 6 between 2006 and 2011. Also note that while we've had a small dip, we're still near an all-time high when it comes to incarceration rates in the US, despite lower crime rates.

The impression I get is that the entire illicit drug trade vertically integrated to increase profits and localized the competition aspect between suppliers (killing each other) to a geographic location where law enforcement is less capable and easier to buy off.

> The statistical increase in crime rates that peaked then is largely well explained by the baby boom of the 1940s and 1950s and the widely-observed correlation between crime and the proportion of population that is adolescent to young adult males.

Crime rates are based per 1000 so it is percentage based and not population based.

BUT the correlation young adult males makes senses. Right now we are starting the smallest proportion of young adult males that US has ever seen and it is going to keep getting smaller. I should dive into the percentage of young adult males and the crime rate and see what I come up with.

Don't downvote without a comment? Sorry I changed my mind when someone presented a good argument?

I changed my mind in seeing that young adult males percentage of population could be the answer to the mid 1960s to early 1990s crime bump?

the baby boom is relevant not because of the overall size of the population, but because it created a demographic bulge that reached the critical age range starting in the 1960s, and peaking somewhere in the late 1970s to 1980s.

Could you elaborate on your point about the recording of crimes prior to the 1960? I'd be interested to see a source and a few google searches didn't bring up anything.

> 3) Doesn't explain the statistical violence peaks of the 1970s and 1980s in our society.

Hmm... let me see. What related thing started in the early 70s? Yep, the "War on Drugs", started by Nixon.

The rise in violent crime preceded the drug war. When Nixon uttered the phrase "drug war" in 1971, the violent crime rate had more than doubled since 1960. http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/1.... To a great extent, the drug war was a response to the increase in violent crime rates. People blamed drug use for the collapse of the social structure of the inner cities.

There was also the Vietnam War in progress, training 100s of 1000s of people in armed conflict. And there was the Civil Rights movement and the associated brutal crackdown. In other words, there was violence all around.

> Doesn't explain the statistical violence peaks of the 1970s and 1980s in our society.

The big theory for this is the widespread use of lead paint that was banned in the 70s.

Last I've read, there are dozens of plausible-sounding theories, and none of them hold up all that well under serious analysis, at least as far as explaining the whole rise and fall. Maybe some or all of them are a little true, maybe it's something nobody's thought of or figured out yet.

Actually, leaded gasoline is more likely to be the culprit.

I'm glad it wasn't only me that was thinking "wasn't it leaded gas?" ... I would like to find the citation for this though before I repeat it at cocktail parties.

Here you go[0].

[0] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...

Do you support prohibition for prostitution?

What about for illegal pornography?

I find that even those against prohibition support it for things they personally see as really really wrong. Even many of those who don't use drugs don't see pot as a major problem, only as something they don't want. And as such they don't support prohibition of it. But pick something that they do outright hate, and they will support prohibition regardless of how ineffective it may be.

Woah, dude chill out. First of all prohibition of prostitution has been shown to create the same problems as prohibition of alcohol and drugs. Its wrongly assigns the crime to the people at the bottom of the hierarchy. Its perfectly reasonable to conceive of a system of prostitution where everything is consensual and everyone is protected, which is what we have for alcohol and what people are fighting for with drugs. Let people do what they want as long as they aren't harming other people.

Child porn cannot exist under these terms. Science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that children cannot give informed consent and therefore cannot participate in the creation of pornography consensually. So to compare prohibition of alcohol, drugs, or prostitution to prohibition of child pornography doesn't hold up.

>Let people do what they want as long as they aren't harming other people.

Take alcohol. Ideally it doesn't directly cause harm to another individual. Now remind me again how many people are killed by drunk drivers each year? Now, is this alcohols fault? Or is it the drunk driver's fault? Or is it both? Or some fourth option? Well we've now reached a point where 'harming other people' is quite a subjective standard when determining what is causing that harm and thus what can be prohibited.

>Science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that children cannot give informed consent

Links?

Of the limited amount of science concerning informed consent that I've read (dealing with mentally disabled individuals ability to give informed consent), most teens would easily meet the standards set for a mentally disabled adult.

But we can avoid that whole moral quagmire by instead focusing on outlawed images that look like children but do not involve any children in their production (such as photorealistic CGI). Even when no one is harmed in making, would you still be for prohibition?

And swinging back round to prostitution, what about those who are financially coerced into it? Fully informed consent requires that one be both of age and not coerced. Thus someone who is financially coerced is incapable of consenting, which means that the parallels and comparisons made here do stick.

Finally, even if we say that the prohibition of A cannot be compared to prohibition of B, if the original point being made was that prohibition of anything fails, then it fails regardless if it is A or B being prohibited.

>what about those who are financially coerced into it?

You will never get a reply to this point. I've read feminists and non-feminists assert this reality, as you have, for about a year now and never come across an honest engagement with it. One has to begin to suspect unwillingness over inability.

What kind of reply to that point are you looking for? Not asking to nitpick or anything, but I'm curious what kind of engagement you'd like to see.

I only see three possibilities.

1. Financial coercion for sex isn't like financial coercion for labor (which needs to be accompanied by a reasonable argument as to why).

2. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and they are both done without consent (admitting that most labor is a form of slavery, albeit it not as bad as what people generally think of).

3. Financial coercion for sex is like financial coercion for labor, and as such financial coercion for sex still allows consent, which then leads to the conclusion that coercion (of at least some forms) is not sufficient for stating consent cannot be given.

2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape. So either an argument for 1 or to admit the conclusion of 3.

> 2 can outright ignored because almost anyone making that argument will never actually live by it and are merely using it as an escape.

Plenty of socialists seek fundamental reforms of the economic system to mitigate, to the extent possible, and to eliminate if possible, the economic coercion for labor generally, whether the labor involves sex or not, so I don't see how you can say that 2 is always just an escape when it comes to sex work. That position on labor in general is one of the major positions in economic politics in the world.

People make that argument, but if you see how they act, they do not treat it like slavery outside of their arguments.

To bring up another hot topic to show a comparison (because I am more familiar making this point with the other topic), look at a group of pro-life people who call abortion murder, yet do not react the same as if it were. They do not treat those who participate in abortion as child murderers, they do not go through the same extremes that people go through to stop child murder, they do not even fully support rhetoric to treat it like murder (those who seek to outlaw abortions almost never support it being treated as murder with the same penalties, including the doctor being charged similar to a hitman and the mother similar to someone who paid a hitman for a hit). Look how they will treat individuals who had abortions but then changed their view to pro-life compared to how they treat those who have committed acts such as legally murdering a child (or things of near the same nature).

Yes, they say it is murder, but the vast majority do not actually act as if it is.

In the same way, those who say economic coercion is slavery do not act as if they were slaves.

An honest reply could be, say, "it's true that, if I use a prostitute, there is no way of knowing whether she is consenting or if she is financially coerced and it is therefore forced, but is the same not true of clothes? How do I know the shirt I'm wearing didn't have slave labor involved in its creation?"

To which one may respond by, for example, pointing out that clothes are general necessary for human life, while having sex is completely optional.

But such acknowledgements (that use of prostitutes without the possibility of rape is impossible, that sex is optional) would betray the sex-positivity line and the rewards that come with sticking to it.

> And swinging back round to prostitution, what about those who are financially coerced into it? Fully informed consent requires that one be both of age and not coerced. Thus someone who is financially coerced is incapable of consenting

"Financial coercion" inferred from material need isn't generally recognized as voiding consent in any other domain where consent is critical (e.g., marriage, contracts in general -- labor included, but not exclusively, etc.) If "financial coercion" were treated as a real form of coercion that voided consent, capitalism -- even in the moderated form seen in modern mixed economies -- would collapse entirely.

> Do you support prohibition for prostitution?

I support the Swedish model. The prostitute is not the criminal; the pimp and the john are. It has demonstrably reduced human trafficking and has helped many women and some men get out of prostitution.

http://www.government.se/sb/d/13420/a/151488

That's still leaving women's lives in the hands of criminals. Why not allow a woman to control her own body as an independent contractor? This is how the heavily regulated brothels work in the state of Nevada.

Nevada prostitution is by no means all sunshine and rainbows.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender

http://prostitutionresearch.com/2007/03/17/prostitution-and-...

So we should make selling drugs legal, but keep the use of them illegal? That way cartels would still be undercut, but we could still lower drug use.

I wonder if that would actually work.

Why is lowering drug use an actual goal here?

Is it totally unheard of for drug use to be a responsible recreational activity? Is it fundamentally the case that drug use is irresponsible? Why?

that's (Edit: exactly he opposite) of how it is in several European countries (consuming/possession of some drugs / quantities is legal, it's illegal to sell)

That's opposite what I was suggesting. The drug dealers can legally sell drugs, the users get in trouble for buying drugs. Just like the prostitutes can legally sell sex, but the johns get in trouble for buying sex.

I think it is the opposite of what you were saying. It's illegal for drug dealers to sell drugs (the pimp). It's illegal to grow or make drugs (the trafficker). It's not illegal to consume drugs (as the drug user is the prostitute or the perceived "victim" of the crime).

In this case there is no john. Addiction is a mental illness, so the drug user is the victim just like the prostitute would be.

I believe that you cannot criminalize half of a transaction. Further, you cannot criminalize any necessary step in a chain of commerce that ends in a legal transaction.

If it is okay to use a drug, it is okay to buy it. If it is okay to buy it, it is okay to sell it. If it is okay to sell it, it is okay to produce it. If it is okay to produce it, it is okay to acquire the raw materials and precursors (i.e. grow cannabis, grow mycelium, grow ergot, buy pseudoephedrine).

If there is a possible malicious use or purpose, you can only criminalize that chain as far back as the last link in an innocent use or purpose. If you criminalize methamphetamine, you cannot also criminalize pseudoephedrine, because it is still a decongestant cold remedy, which is an innocent purpose.

In my view, you cannot separate links from the web of commerce by outlawing an intermediate activity and pretend that the orphaned innocent activities are not affected by it.

I think those laws previously mentioned are thus aimed more at influencing policing activity. Left to their own devices, a cop would prefer to arrest a prostitute than 10 johns, and would prefer to arrest a pimp than 10 prostitutes, and would prefer to arrest an organized crime captain than 10 pimps, and would prefer to arrest a kingpin than 10 captains. Interrupting that walk to the root of the crime tree at the prostitute level forces them to fight the crime where it occurs rather than seize the money.

Sure you can. Just say it's not illegal to use drugs but it's illegal to sell them. Easy as that. You're outlawing every activity that happens except the actions of the victim.

Addiction is considered a mental illness by the US government. If we outlaw consumption of drugs by an addict, we're throwing people in jail for having a mental illness. It doesn't matter where they got the drugs from, they're the victim. However, selling drugs is not an addiction. Growing drugs is not an addiction. They're crimes, because you're victimizing someone with a mental illness.

You're not criminalizing any necessary step in a chain of commerce that ends in a legal transaction because in this situation there is no legal transaction that lets you purchase illegal drugs.

The one having to buy drugs is the victim while the ones selling it is the criminal, but the one having to sell sex is the victim while the one buying it is the criminal? As long as we are talking about consensual prostitution, this makes no sense.

The problem is we're comparing a hypothetical situation to a real, different situation in a different country with different laws. In most places in the US, there is no such thing as consensual prostitution. However, if buying sex is illegal and selling women for sex is illegal but being a prostitute is not illegal, then we're effectively saying the woman is the victim of the transaction. There is no way it could be consensual if it's illegal on one side but not the other. The reason it would be legal to sell yourself for sex but not legal to purchase is because the women were often being coerced or otherwise forced into prostitution. These laws automatically assume the woman is the victim and automatically assume the sex is non-consensual even if both parties agree to it. Just like how a minor cannot consent even if they say yes, with these kinds of laws a prostitute cannot consent even if they say yes.

If both buying and selling sex are legal, then it's a different story. But if buying is illegal but selling is legal, the prostitute is the victim. And if a drug dealer is offering something an addict cannot prevent themselves from buying due to their mental illness, the dealer is the criminal and the buyer is the victim.

Bear in mind, the point of not charging the prostitute with a crime is because they don't want to arrest someone who was forced into an illegal transaction, they want to arrest the people who are forcing others to commit crimes. If a carjacker puts a gun to your head and tells you to run a red light, you won't get a ticket. And if you're addicted to heroin, you don't really have a choice if you want to buy heroin or not. But the person who is providing you with that heroin doesn't have to sell it to you. That's why they're the criminal.

>In most places in the US, there is no such thing as consensual prostitution.

I have long since rejected the notion of the law having any say in what is or isn't consensual. If the law says that pi is 3 or that climate change isn't happening, would we give any weight to it? No, and not because the law happens to be wrong in this case, but because any educated person would reject what the law has to say concerning the reality of the situation. (Not to say the law can be ignored if one is looking to stay out of jail, but thankfully online arguments about reality aren't likely to get one jailed.)

>But if buying is illegal but selling is legal, the prostitute is the victim.

You define the victim based on what the law says? Once again, I reject the notion that what the law says has any bearing on reality.

>Bear in mind, the point of not charging the prostitute with a crime is because they don't want to arrest someone who was forced into an illegal transaction, they want to arrest the people who are forcing others to commit crimes.

If every prostitute can be considered forced, then so can every john. A john would only be seeing prostitute because a more socially acceptable hookup is not available, and in such they are forced into it in much the same way that a prostitute is forced into it because a more socially acceptable job is not available (BTW, I'm being sarcastic because I reject that whole argument).

>But the person who is providing you with that heroin doesn't have to sell it to you.

When you are in a gang and are told to go seel some crack, you don't tell the leader no if you favor your health and wellbeing.

In the case of a consenting prostitute, sex is what is being sold. In the case where they aren't consenting, you are dealing with a human trafficker selling (renting) a human. But as long as we are talking about consensual prostitution, sex is the item being sold, not the person.

You are making an important point but doing so in a confusing manner.

The argument was made that prohibition is inherently ineffective.

Some people who make this argument may nonetheless support prohibition in some cases.

In fact, whether prohibition works or not is intrinsically tied to the general moral views of society at large. When over 1/3rd of the U.S. population has tried marijuana - including a former President - it's really no surprise that prohibition of marijuana is ineffective.

Prohibition is effective at controlling deviant behavior.

It's a strange thing. It works solely to punish behaviors that most people wouldn't engage in or don't approve of anyway anyway. Once society's stance changes on those behaviors, the punishment comes to be seen as unjust and the law as unnecessary.

>You are making an important point but doing so in a confusing manner.

I'm going to plead drugs (of the legal/prescribed nature) and sleep deprivation due to a recent illness. Reading back in a few of my post I think I was losing sight of my main point.

>Prohibition is effective at controlling deviant behavior.

Is it? Prohibition on Kinder Eggs seems to have worked because there isn't much of a market for them. But prohibition on prostitution has not worked, even though I don't think the majority would openly support it. Prohibition on things more generally agreed outright wrong doesn't work as long as there is a demand for them. Kinder Eggs have no demand, so prohibition in general worked. But things that have a demand that cannot easily be fulfilled by other goods/services seem unable to effectively be prohibited.

I support the legalization of prostitution. If someone makes a conscious decision about what they would like to do with their own body, and that includes having sex in exchange for money, then that is their prerogative and they should have the opportunity to do so via a well-regulated "system" of sorts.

"Illegal pornography" is too general a term for this type of discussion. Sodomy is still illegal in many places throughout the world, including fourteen states in the US as of April of last year, but is something that can be a very enjoyable experience for everyone involved. If the "illegal" pornography involves individuals who are capable of making a conscious choice about the acts they engage in, then yes, it should be legal. If the "illegal" pornography involves coercion and/or rape of anyone, or animal, involved, then no, it should remain illegal.

>If the "illegal" pornography involves individuals who are capable of making a conscious choice about the acts they engage in, then yes, it should be legal. If the "illegal" pornography involves coercion and/or rape of anyone, or animal, involved, then no, it should remain illegal.

Ignoring for the moment that I can kill and eat an animal for my own pleasure... we aren't focusing on if it should be prohibited, but if prohibition of it would work.

People will say that prohibition of drugs is stupid because prohibition fails. I'm interested in if this argument, not the argument that drugs shouldn't be prohibited for any other reasons, holds up.

Illegal porn, at least of the digital variety, is easier to produce and trivial to copy compared to drugs. If prohibition of drugs is doomed to failure irrelevant of one's stance on their morality, then should not the same be true of illegal porn?

As for what I mean by illegal porn, pick whatever you think should be made illegal for whatever moral reasons you want. If you want to ban midgets because Shiva told you so; it doesn't much matter why because my point is talking about the argument that prohibition inherently fails regardless of the moral judgments upon what is being prohibited.

The two cannot be compared. Illegal porn (child porn, rape, etc.) is illegal because of a lack of consent and potential for assault, psychological scarring, etc. of the victim. Drugs are illegal in an attempt to "protect" consenting adults from themselves and have no victim aside from the users themselves.

Here's the same hypothetical that you're proposing from another angle: "If banning whistleblowing is doomed to failure irrelevant of one's stance on its morality, then should not the same be true of war crimes?"

>The two cannot be compared.

They can be compared for the purpose of the argument. The argument that 'prohibition doesn't work' does not place any conditions as to what it can be applied to.

>"If banning whistleblowing is doomed to failure irrelevant of one's stance on its morality, then should not the same be true of war crimes?"

If the properties of whistleblowing that dooms to failure the ban on it are also found in war crimes, and if war crimes does not possess properties that are lacking from whistleblowing that would counteract those properties they both share, then banning war crimes is doomed to failure.

Why does banning drugs fail? Because there is a demand that will not go away and thus the potential for money to be made and there are those who are willing to do anything to make that money. Notice that the moral considerations of drugs do not factor into this.

>and have no victim aside from the users themselves.

Maybe for a college student smoking pot this is the case. There are plenty of third party victims to many other drugs, even some of the legal ones (take alcohol which factors into drunk driving injuries and sexual assaults). Also consider pregnant women who give birth to babies that are born addicted to drugs.

It's also a matter of actually asking whether prohibition helps. Does it help prostitutes? Not in the least.

I'm all in favor of prohibiting theft, murder, etc., but drugs are a little ludicrous. It's obviously unenforceable, and a government will bankrupt itself trying.

Prohibiting theft works, but prohibiting the sale of stolen goods has largely failed. An even worse track record is the prohibition of copyright violations. A prohibition on suicide may be an interesting case to look into.

To me, it seems that prohibition has some complex equation to determine if it will or will not fail. This becomes even more complicate when you consider the option to prohibit with only fines, at which point it is nearing becoming a sin tax instead.

What is illegal pornography? Child Porn?

I don't think it's fair to compare child porn, which is almost universally considered immoral, to drug use or prostitution, which is a very grey area of morality.

Well, there is also snuff, and then you have gore which is legal and acceptable even though I don't see big differences from stuff involving children, and then you have drawings/cgi that are illegal in many locations but not all, and then you have stuff involving animals, and then you have the underage but almost adult sexting, and then you have things like porn involving ivory or leather (if using an animal is bad, why is using part of its carcass acceptable).

But beyond all that, the morals of the issue change over time and do not factor into an argument of feasibility (even things that are 'almost universally immoral' have a very large market, one large enough that it makes me question the 'almost universal' part of the sentiment).

You are comparing apples to oranges. There is a difference between "prohibition of a substance" and "prohibition of an activity that exploits human beings".

The first is purely voluntary [e.g. both parties desire to engage in the transaction without coercion] while the second is generally due to coercion of some kind. Addiction isn't "coercion" in this sense when you are the one that voluntary took the substance with knowledge of the risks in the first place.

The only truly "illegal" [as in widely agreed upon across many countries] prostitution and pornography is that of children so I assume that is what you were getting at.

I don't think many people here are really in favor of criminalization of any transaction between consenting adults [as long as no coercion is involved].

>You are comparing apples to oranges. There is a difference between "prohibition of a substance" and "prohibition of an activity that exploits human beings".

Is there that big of a difference between prohibition of drugs and prohibition of prostitution?

Also, where does prohibition of a substance produced by an activity that exploits human beings fall?

>Addiction isn't "coercion" in this sense when you are the one that voluntary took the substance with knowledge of the risks in the first place.

I wonder how many of those addicted fully understood the risks? Especially if they first became addicted while underage and thus unable to partake voluntarily.

As to what type of prostitution I'm talking about, I'm including adults because there are many places it is still illegal.

>as long as no coercion is involved

What counts as coercion? Does "If I don't have sex with this John, my children won't eat tonight" count? (Of course, one may also ask the same for other jobs; is "If I don't produce garments for the next 12 hours, my children won't eat tonight," slavery?)

> ...is "If I don't produce garments for the next 12 hours, my children won't eat tonight," slavery?

I think this is often overlooked in definitions of a freedom and liberty; "the freedom to starve" is a pretty low bar for freedom. How can we structure a civilization that we're free from coercive choices like "take the only available, shitty, demeaning job left, or starve to death"?

Nearly every incorporation law allows the corporation to have a specific purpose, rather than "any lawful activity". Incorporate for the purpose of providing food rations sufficient to prevent all malnutrition diseases to all shareholders. Then trade shares for labor which supports the food production.

If your company grows large enough, the people most worried about starvation can literally work for food, using industrial capital rather than subsistence tools.

That's probably as close as one person can get to "structuring civilization" without spending at least $10M on politics, lobbying, and capital investment.

Yes, but its a complete misrepresentation of what I'm talking about and a disingenuous argument.

Providing for the welfare of people is a separate topic that isn't "solved" by banning prostitution. It is solved by rational welfare policies that guarantee a basic level of subsistence that no one is forced to make that decision in the first place.

Otherwise, once again, you can replace "prostitution" with "any job people don't like".

> Also, where does prohibition of a substance produced by an activity that exploits human beings fall?

It isn't inherent to the substance that people were exploited. Labor laws cover that. You are using arguments that equally apply to sweatshops. No one goes around arguing we have to prohibit shoes because of sweat shops.

> I wonder how many of those addicted fully understood the risks?

If they are an adult and didn't understand the risks beforehand, that is on them. For the most part, you can't really protect adults from their own choices. It isn't practical [or frankly] possible. They just become criminals as prohibition has shown. Criminals who only break the law in regards to themselves are going to do it anyway. You can't magically protect people from risk when its clear people will do it regardless of the legality.

Its commonly understood addictive substances are risky. We aren't talking about some guy in China sneaking a harmful substance into baby formula.

> Of course, one may also ask the same for other jobs; is "If I don't produce garments for the next 12 hours, my children won't eat tonight," slavery?

That is kind of my point. Situations like you describe are solved best by other solutions. [e.g. Welfare so people aren't that level of desperate]

>No one goes around arguing we have to prohibit shoes because of sweat shops.

But shoes from sweatshops, I know many who say we should prohibit those.

>If they are an adult and didn't understand the risks beforehand, that is on them.

What does turn 18 (or what ever age you set adulthood to) magically remove the need of informed consent?

>Its commonly understood addictive substances are risky.

At least in the US, growing up the risks of drugs were vastly blown out of proportion (as was the risks of premarital sex). If those who told you that K was dangerous cried wolf on A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, why would you believe them about K?

> But shoes from sweatshops, I know many who say we should prohibit those.

But once again, you are outlawing the labor practices of sweatshops. It is not inherent to a substance prohibition and is a different class of law.

Once a good is produced, the harm to the labor is already done. Banning things "after the fact" is pointless. By the time you've identified a "sweat shop" to "ban the shoes" you can already take appropriate actions against the fact it is a sweat shop, y'know?

You just keep trying to somehow link problems that are already solved in other ways that are as least as effective [if not more so] with the good itself. That isn't how it works. You aren't magically going to have the power to identify "Shoe X" as from a sweatshop without also recognizing the fact that "Shoe X" was produced by "Group Y" which is a sweatshop.

You punish the sweatshop, not the person in possession of a given good.

> What does turn 18 (or what ever age you set adulthood to) magically remove the need of informed consent?

Informed consent is the adorable assumption that information is always going to be equal. It isn't. We hold people to legal contracts they failed to consult a lawyer on all the time. How is that any different?

You are an adult. You have to take responsibility and do your own research and/or decide which sources of information you trust.

You cannot somehow magically force adults to be responsible members of the population. You can only say "Hey, we aren't going to fuck you over and we will provide tons of free research about whether or not X is good or bad for you via institutions like the NIH and CDC."

> At least in the US, growing up the risks of drugs were vastly blown out of proportion (as was the risks of premarital sex). If those who told you that K was dangerous cried wolf on A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, why would you believe them about K?

Once again, how is that different than literally any other behavior that contains risk? You are aware the same could be applied to a wide array of medication you are prescribed, the tobacco people still smoke, etc?

There isn't some magical solution to the fact human beings have agendas. You can only write laws requiring research into these things, to make the information publicly available for free, and so forth. You can't somehow outlaw personal agendas that cause certain groups of people to behave irrationally in a democratic system.

-------

Look, if you have an actual solution to the fact human beings have agendas [and can express those agendas via voting for people that will cater to their desire for an overblown reaction to Moral Risk X], by all means provide it. However, literally no human being of significant intellectual prowess has ever succeeded in the endeavor in the real world. This should tell you that you are either the founder of a new political movement that will solve a fundamental problem with democracy....or that you are simply wrong.

You have to let people think for themselves and have faith they realize they need to learn things on their own.

None of the problems you've stated with my position can actually be "solved" in a reasonable manner because the freedom for adults to make stupid choices [due to ignorance or otherwise] is a fundamental right they have [even if you think they shouldn't have it].

>Once a good is produced, the harm to the labor is already done. Banning things "after the fact" is pointless. By the time you've identified a "sweat shop" to "ban the shoes" you can already take appropriate actions against the fact it is a sweat shop, y'know?

Sometimes you only have jurisdiction over the point of sales.

>You punish the sweatshop, not the person in possession of a given good.

If you cannot punish the sweatshop because they are not under your jurisdiction, then the only thing you can do to discourage profit from flowing to the sweatshop is to punish those who benefit from it's product.

>We hold people to legal contracts they failed to consult a lawyer on all the time.

Considering many are too poor to afford a lawyer... I don't see it as a major difference. I actually see the contract law in much of the modern day world as allowing for the exploitation of the lower class and less informed.

>You are an adult. You have to take responsibility and do your own research and/or decide which sources of information you trust.

Once again, why can't we just say 'you are a person, you have the...'? What is magical about being an adult that suddenly makes taking advantage of someones lack of resources and information acceptable (if not admirable)?

>None of the problems you've stated with my position can actually be "solved" in a reasonable manner because the freedom for adults to make stupid choices [due to ignorance or otherwise] is a fundamental right they have [even if you think they shouldn't have it].

What if I think that freedom should happen at 13 instead of 18? Or 23 instead of 18? Or when you can past this comprehensive test instead of 18?

> If you cannot punish the sweatshop because they are not under your jurisdiction, then the only thing you can do to discourage profit from flowing to the sweatshop is to punish those who benefit from it's product.

We are talking about domestic law. Once again, you go from "apples" to "oranges".

The fact you can't stay in the context of domestic law causes me to say f it, honestly.

This whole thread has simply consisted of you talking in circles in an attempt to obfuscate the topic at hand. Instead of refuting points with a counterpoint of your own, you modify the premise of the question and answer that instead.

What is the argument you are attempting to make? Let's start there and see where we can go, yes?

>This whole thread has simply consisted of you talking in circles in an attempt to obfuscate the topic at hand. Instead of refuting points with a counterpoint of your own, you modify the premise of the question and answer that instead.

Except it doesn't, so stop making statements to try to sideline the actual argument.

>What is the argument you are attempting to make?

That people who say they do not support prohibition because it doesn't work are being dishonest about their reasoning because in reality they do support prohibition of some materials/goods/services/items/ect. even when such prohibition doesn't work.

My second and lesser point is that people determine their support of prohibiting something based on both an effectiveness and their subjective moral feelings about the subject being prohibited.

You are aware I reached the same opinion as him and stopped talking to you because you kept reaching for arguments outside the context of domestic prohibition, right?

As far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what you are doing which is why I dropped this. The only difference is, I picked a different way to say it.

>You are aware I reached the same opinion as him and stopped talking to you because you kept reaching for arguments outside the context of domestic prohibition, right?

I actually didn't reply to your other comment because you basically said your arguments fail as soon as goods start crossing borders. Considering that for almost everything having been discussed (goods made by slaves, goods made by abusing non-consenting individuals, and most definitely drugs) involves crossing borders. The original article is even about a substance that is crossing legal borders.

>As far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what you are doing which is why I dropped this. The only difference is, I picked a different way to say it.

It is pretty clear your arguments fail as soon as goods crossing borders were taken into account. As such, your arguments have no place in discussing prohibition in reality except for services that don't cross borders at all.

It's interesting to look at murder rate over time: https://madeinamericathebook.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/hom.... It was already extremely high at the turn of the century and only went up slightly during prohibition. And after the trough in 1960, it started rapidly rising before the drug war got going up in the 1970's.

Also banning leaded gasoline.

Why the sad face? Isn't this a great part of history repeating?

Bad parts of history repeating means that people are not paying attention to what happened before. The whole situation could have been avoided if people had taken the time to look back.

I hope the people will look back to the way the tobacco industry has killed thousands by ruthlessly effective marketing, intentionally making their product more addictive, spreading misinformation and lobbying against laws that were in the interest of public health. Can you think of any particular reason why "Big Marijuana" will behave better?

lose, not loose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com