Hookers
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Rudi Hedman  Caterham 27 Nov 17 10.24am |
  |
|---|---|
|
All for it, for the reasons given, and also no point in making criminals of people for something that'll never go away where control would be better. Might also help productivity if available at lunchtimes. (Sorry)
COYP |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 Michaelawt85 Bexley 27 Nov 17 10.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Sure. I do recall reading an article once which said a lot of those women in Amsterdam are still trafficked there and pimped though. The issue here is with the street workers. There is still a market for that. Some men like the thrill of using those women who are cheaper, more vulnerable and more easily abused and taken advantage of due to their dire situation. Look at the ladies still working in Ipswich when steve Wright was killing them. Paula clenell still went out to work and she sadly ended up as one of his victims. Some of those women wouldn't want to go legit in a licenced place. Questions from social services if they have kids and have chaotic homelives etc. And no massage parlour will employ heroin users. It's too risky.
When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Nov 17 10.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by tome
No this is not a link to scantily-clad women, though I'm sure someone may provide some in time. I thought this was an interesting article about a different topic - wondered what views are on whether prostitution should be legal, what to do about trafficking, pimps, and drugs. Also, anyone able to clearly define the difference between legalisation and decriminalisation? Or are they two terms for the same thing? I think that legalisation and unionisation (not necessarily a trade union - but some form of sex worker funded organisation) might be the best approach for sex workers. State approved licenced brothels, run by the sex workers / their union. One of the things that really appeals about trade unions, is that they offer a range of services for their members such as pension schemes, health plans, mortgages as well as education programs and training. Such organisations would need to be obligated to provide health services and outreach programs - as well as career structures (within the union as a means of escaping prostitution). The ideal situation is to have a scenario where in prostitution doesn't exist as an option subsistence (ie funding drug habits, illegal immigrants etc). So hand in hand with such an objective, you need to focus police efforts into cracking down on illegal prostitution, with punitive punishments for those who frequent and operate illegal services (the clients and the pimps), rather than the women. In the first instance to incentivise them into using legal schemes, and in the second to push them out of the business.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 27 Nov 17 10.49am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Michaelawt85
I do recall reading an article once which said a lot of those women in Amsterdam are still trafficked there and pimped though. The issue here is with the street workers. There is still a market for that. Some men like the thrill of using those women who are cheaper, more vulnerable and more easily abused and taken advantage of due to their dire situation. Look at the ladies still working in Ipswich when steve Wright was killing them. Paula clenell still went out to work and she sadly ended up as one of his victims. Some of those women wouldn't want to go legit in a licenced place. Questions from social services if they have kids and have chaotic homelives etc. And no massage parlour will employ heroin users. It's too risky. You make a good point. The black market will always exist within societies unless you have a significant 'secret police' to an extent which isn't what we want in a free society. Trafficked sex workers is a problem that we need to deal with better and a problem that would still exist..... thank you for bringing it up.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Nov 17 11.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Because it's cheaper....because it's additional...because you might not want an 'other' to know...any number of reasons. People are people living wildly different lives and some don't do what you think is sensible. The black market exists where drugs have been legalised. It was an obvious flaw in the original logic and pro legalization claims should have always recognised it . That's unlikely. You'd keep the same legal restrictions on precursor chemicals required for drug manufacture, except for legalised outlets. One thing people tend to forget is why drug trafficking is so profitable - These are very cheap drugs to manufacture but have a high resale value. Where the NHS procure diamorphine (heroin) and cocaine analogues, from pharmaceutical firms, the price those outlets sell to the NHS is about the equivalent of five pounds, for pure grade quality equal to about a gram of the drug on the street. The same drug, acquired though the black market is around 50 pound a gram, at about 20% quality if your lucky. Drugs like LSD, Ecstasy and speed can be manufactured for pennies on the pound (if you have access to the right chemical precursors). What drives up the street value is the a) the costs of the precursor chemicals (which are hard to get hold of), the number of people in the supply chain and the infrequency of manufacture (illicit labs tend to produce erratically). Any black market would likely be from stolen legal sourced drugs, or be like the booze and cig black market where its about dodging duty. Similar to how no one is really engaged in producing illict alcohol for market (it happens but its rare), but the black market is around the evasion of duty, not production). Simply put, you could undermine the black market to the extent that the majority of the criminality and profits are reduced. People aren't likely to be interested in smuggling cocaine into the UK to make a couple of quid a gram on, when facing a 8-10 year prison sentence for selling it. The illegal drug market is about profit. The state could afford to simply push the black market out of business. Cocaine labs in Colombia, produce cocaine for around one pound a gram, which by the time it hits the UK streets is 250 a gram (as it will be cut at least five times). You could take out the middle men and likely provide pure quality cocaine for 35 times less than the street value, make a 500% mark up. Criminal markets just couldn't compete. In all likelihood the cocaine growers would do what the alcohol producers did in prohibition, and become legit - as far as legalised countries would be concerned - because they'd have more profit for less overheads (crime is a very inefficient system of distribution).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Nov 17 11.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
You make a good point. The black market will always exist within societies unless you have a significant 'secret police' to an extent which isn't what we want in a free society. Trafficked sex workers is a problem that we need to deal with better and a problem that would still exist..... thank you for bringing it up.
The trick here is to then to 'protect' the legal trade, by making the punitive repercussion such that being caught using, or exploiting make such activities undesirable. Effectively, the state becomes the organised crime faction that pushes out the competition. Similar to drugs, you provide a legal outlet, and then you go after the users, and organisers of the criminal networks with the full force of the law, and severe sentences and fines, pushing the users towards the legal source, and the criminals elsewhere. A black market will always exist of some kind. What your doing is starving it of one or more very lucrative sources of income. People get killed over the drug trade because its monumentally profitable (In the UK, the cocaine trade is worth at least 2bn a year at the most conservative estimate, it could be worth as much as 10-12bn).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 27 Nov 17 11.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
That's unlikely. You'd keep the same legal restrictions on precursor chemicals required for drug manufacture, except for legalised outlets. One thing people tend to forget is why drug trafficking is so profitable - These are very cheap drugs to manufacture but have a high resale value. Where the NHS procure diamorphine (heroin) and cocaine analogues, from pharmaceutical firms, the price those outlets sell to the NHS is about the equivalent of five pounds, for pure grade quality equal to about a gram of the drug on the street. The same drug, acquired though the black market is around 50 pound a gram, at about 20% quality if your lucky. Drugs like LSD, Ecstasy and speed can be manufactured for pennies on the pound (if you have access to the right chemical precursors). What drives up the street value is the a) the costs of the precursor chemicals (which are hard to get hold of), the number of people in the supply chain and the infrequency of manufacture (illicit labs tend to produce erratically). Any black market would likely be from stolen legal sourced drugs, or be like the booze and cig black market where its about dodging duty. Similar to how no one is really engaged in producing illict alcohol for market (it happens but its rare), but the black market is around the evasion of duty, not production). Simply put, you could undermine the black market to the extent that the majority of the criminality and profits are reduced. People aren't likely to be interested in smuggling cocaine into the UK to make a couple of quid a gram on, when facing a 8-10 year prison sentence for selling it. The illegal drug market is about profit. The state could afford to simply push the black market out of business. Cocaine labs in Colombia, produce cocaine for around one pound a gram, which by the time it hits the UK streets is 250 a gram (as it will be cut at least five times). You could take out the middle men and likely provide pure quality cocaine for 35 times less than the street value, make a 500% mark up. Criminal markets just couldn't compete. In all likelihood the cocaine growers would do what the alcohol producers did in prohibition, and become legit - as far as legalised countries would be concerned - because they'd have more profit for less overheads (crime is a very inefficient system of distribution). When it comes to cost not all drugs are the same and also the black market doesn't only exist due to cost. Also, you assume that the state is going to run legalisation purely as a kind of social programme...whereas in reality they are going to treat it like every other unhealthy life choice and tax the feck out of it. I do think that legalisation would reduce the black market problem.....as obviously in an illegal system it's massive. However, the realities of how black markets work should have always been recognised within pro legalisation arguments. However, there are still valid arguments against legalisation much as they exist against all overtly unhealthy life choices the state makes money from. But I agree, there are also powerful arguments for legalisation. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Nov 2017 11.16am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Nov 17 12.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Nov 2017 11.16am) I think reasonably you could probably squeeze a 100% mark up on production cost, to sales, and price the black market out - especially for the market in heroin (where you can cheaply produce synthetic diamorphine which is already mass produced for the NHS). Cocaine is tricker as there isn't an effective synthetic alternative (as those in medical use were developed without the 'high factor'). I think were it become problematic is more to do with moral issues, such as selling addictive substances like cocaine (which is used to make crack) and heroin (diamorphine) for recreation use, knowing that there is a real addiction factor involved. I don't see how an illegal production model could reasonably compete with a legal market model - Maybe in counterfeit products (similar to the garment industry where the ridiculous mark up's on brand labels has bred a monumental counterfeiting crime syndicate). The profit just isn't there to make the risks worthwhile. Even if you tax the f**k out of the substance, you're competing with substances that are already monumentally inflated in price compared to production costs. That said, if you legalise and just ignore the situation, you'll end up with much cheaper precursor chemicals available, which would make an illict market more viable in competition and I supposed you'd have more precursor chemicals available to the black market through legitimate sources. Its important to remember that most of these drugs, if not all the common ones, are already cheap to manufacture and approved for medical and research use on humans (so the cost of bringing drugs to market usually seen in pharma costs doesn't exist). The reality of producing illegal heroin is tricky. First you require opium to produce morphine, and then have to convert the morphine into diamorphine. Typically, this involves growing opium poppies (Afghanistan), those farmers selling the milk resin from the poppies to a group that will produce opium (Afghanistan). The opium is then typically smuggled from that country to Turkey, where its processed into morphine and then heroin - as the process is somewhat more complicated) and then distributed by gangs in turkey to neighbouring countries and so on (so usually by the time that it gets to the UK its been through at least two more counties and dealers) - Then in the UK it will be sold off in bulk to suppliers, who will sell it on in smaller quantities to another supplier, who will likely then sell in small quantities to 'street level dealers', and then on to drug users This chain is what drives up the cost - as you have a very top heavy distribution to market model, each with higher than usual overheads due to the risk posed by law enforcement at each stage (and this model also protects the supply chain, as it forms a cell like network). Where as where we produce cigs and booze, the number of parties directly involved is reduced (Producer - Distributor - Supplier - Consumer) is much smaller, with much lower overhead due to access to legal distribution models (its cheaper to move stuff on bulk by truck, legally, than to have to smuggle it across borders). The black market really couldn't compete as a producer in the way it does now.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 27 Nov 17 12.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The trick here is to then to 'protect' the legal trade, by making the punitive repercussion such that being caught using, or exploiting make such activities undesirable. Effectively, the state becomes the organised crime faction that pushes out the competition. Similar to drugs, you provide a legal outlet, and then you go after the users, and organisers of the criminal networks with the full force of the law, and severe sentences and fines, pushing the users towards the legal source, and the criminals elsewhere. A black market will always exist of some kind. What your doing is starving it of one or more very lucrative sources of income. People get killed over the drug trade because its monumentally profitable (In the UK, the cocaine trade is worth at least 2bn a year at the most conservative estimate, it could be worth as much as 10-12bn). If we legalise recreational drugs then we increase its usage. More car deaths, more overdoses. more unhealthy lifestyles being promoted to children.....Saying taking recreational drugs is valid because....'look it's legal'.....don't we legitimatize and so play a part in destroying enough weak willed or misled people through alcohol already? Having said that, I'm sure there are ways and means to legalise and find a way through this difficult area. I'm just not intelligent enough personally to see how those threads are brought together effectively. You have shifted my views in this area somewhat. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Nov 2017 12.37pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 27 Nov 17 12.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
there should be strong laws to prevent pimps existing. Especially those who control their girls with stuff like Heroin. apart from that, maybe the only other consideration is to make condom use compulsory. The situation in ireland now is totally bonkers. complete criminalisation, that can only lead to tons of criminality and exploitation.
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Nov 17 3.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If we legalise recreational drugs then we increase its usage. More car deaths, more overdoses. more unhealthy lifestyles being promoted to children.....Saying taking recreational drugs is valid because....'look it's legal'.....don't we legitimatize and so play a part in destroying enough weak willed or misled people through alcohol already? Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Nov 2017 12.37pm) I think that in the short term, yes we'd see high usage but not too significantly - given that illicit drugs are remarkably easy to get a hold of (even easier now than when I was a teen or in my 20s). To a degree that astonishes me. I don't think we necessarily have to legitimise 'taking drugs' by making them legally available, anymore than we legitimise stupid drinking by making alcohol available. Advertising should be restricted (possibly to the point of being outlawed), and of course we shouldn't be 'promoting them' to children. The problem of weak willed and misled people probably has plateaued already, as arguably most peoples first experience is via a friend. There is definitely a moral element - I don't really think making crack and heroin available is necessarily a positive for society, I think the individual health impact, on those who choose to partake, are outweighed by the cost born by those who don't (especially in poor areas). Problem is that like booze in the 1920s, the illicit drug market has created a far bigger problem for society than drug addiction. Especially for people who don't have an interest - as they're the people tending to be the ones being robbed or otherwise f**ked over to finance peoples habits. And that's an issue. A junky, with a heavy habit is spending around 100 a day on heroin, but to finance that is committing 300 plus in crime. On prescription the same heroin habit would generously cost about a fiver a day. And yes, they could build up a bigger habit, but not by much more without dying (tolerance has a limit). Sure you could push yourself to a double habit, but much more than that would be fatal for the hardest smack head.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Southampton_Eagle At the after party 27 Nov 17 3.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If we legalise recreational drugs then we increase its usage. More car deaths, more overdoses. more unhealthy lifestyles being promoted to children.....Saying taking recreational drugs is valid because....'look it's legal'.....don't we legitimatize and so play a part in destroying enough weak willed or misled people through alcohol already? Having said that, I'm sure there are ways and means to legalise and find a way through this difficult area. I'm just not intelligent enough personally to see how those threads are brought together effectively. You have shifted my views in this area somewhat. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Nov 2017 12.37pm) In regards to your first sentence, I believe I read a while ago that decriminalising all drugs in Portugal led to less usage. I'm probably wrong though.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.