5 ms·

>> You can own it and use it, but you can't produce it, sell it or distribute it. Maybe the government believes in the spontaneous generation of drugs? I am su

by param 16y ago

>> You can own it and use it, but you can't produce it, sell it or distribute it. Maybe the government believes in the spontaneous generation of drugs? I am sure the point is for the Govt. to prosecute the producer, not the consumer. This is similar to some countries outlawing 'consumption' of prostitution services, but not offering of such services.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
That's something I've never understood. How come the drug buyer is the victim, and so is the sex seller?
- Qz 16y ago
  When you learn how many of the women in prostitution are forced into that work by sex traffickers or sheer poverty, it's not hard to understand. The sex 'seller' often isn't the one who gets the money.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    The law I was questioning assumes every single prostitute is a victim, including the ones who are not enslaved. It also assumes every single drug seller is not a victim, even the ones who are enslaved. If the real issue is enslavement, why not just carve out a general exception in criminal law to acts which you are performing against your will? I.e., if you rob a bank because your wife/children are being held hostage, the person holding your wife hostage is criminally liable for that act. (I'd actually be very surprised if this exception doesn't already exist.)
    - jbooth 16y ago
      I think a good way to look at it is that it's not so much about right and wrong or about who's a victim but about average outcomes. The average outcome of prosecuting a drug user or prostitute is you spent a bunch of government resources processing, trying and incarcerating the person in order to take someone off the streets who's not actually particularly dangerous. So, why do it? Drug dealers on the other hand frequently beef over territory, sell bad product that kills people, get into interesting sideline work, etc. And they're very few in number compared to the users. So as far as bang for the buck, it makes sense to prosecute them. Yes, there are exceptions, but you make policy for the average case and hope that your cops and DAs are smart enough to exercise some judgment when warranted.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        I don't think you really believe that logic. Hypothetically, suppose it turns out that black drug dealers are far more likely than white drug dealers to be violent criminals [1]. Would you then favor prosecuting drug crimes committed by blacks, but not by whites? Depending on what the numbers work out to be, you will get the same statistical "bang for buck" that you would prosecuting drug sellers but not sex sellers. [1] Lets give this hypothetical a TV face: take Weeds as the average white drug dealer, and The Wire as the average black drug dealer. Of course, this is only statistics - there are violent white drug dealers and harmless black drug dealers, even in the hypothetical.
        jbooth 16y ago
        I was arguing prosecuting dealers as opposed to users, because it's a massive waste of money to prosecute the latter (not that that stops us from doing it, with 3 million people in jail and growing). Entirely different argument. Regarding prosecuting black ones instead of white ones.. well we already do that, so I'd say the reality has surpassed both of us. However, as far as what I think should happen, then yes, I would differentiate between gang bangers who own corners, run protection rackets, etc and the dude in high school who sells a little weed to his friends. But as far as consistency in the law, if you're decriminalizing usage and keeping dealing criminal, then you need to apply that consistently when you catch people dealing. Anecdotally, I think the difference you're perceiving isn't so much black/white as it is weed/hard and suburban/urban.
        rick888 16y ago
        "Regarding prosecuting black ones instead of white ones.. well we already do that, so I'd say the reality has surpassed both of us." After this statement, I can't really take you seriously. Do you have any proof beyond this statement? "However, as far as what I think should happen, then yes, I would differentiate between gang bangers who own corners, run protection rackets, etc and the dude in high school who sells a little weed to his friends. But as far as consistency in the law, if you're decriminalizing usage and keeping dealing criminal, then you need to apply that consistently when you catch people dealing." If drugs were legalized, most likely, dealing without some sort of license would still be illegal.
  - b-man 16y ago
    Not really related to the article, but do you have any data on forced prostitution? It is a common argument, and I don't deny the existence of it, but I never saw any real research on the fact, besides watching this documentary[1], which did not presented much research on the subject in a global basis. [1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/slaves/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/slaves/
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Depends on your definition of "forced", it could run from literal sex slave through "hooked on drugs and unable to fend for self so stuck with pimp" to just plain "has to feed self and has no other options". I'd say all of those are forced to some degree.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        If the customers are helping the prostitute feed herself, how is she a victim and how are they harming her? She would be worse off if not for the voluntary transaction. In fact, the government is actually harming the hungry prostitute by reducing demand for her services by criminalizing the customers.
        Qz 16y ago
        You can't take the isolated circumstances of 'customer helps prostitute feed herself' and proclaim everything peachy, because the reality of the situation is that it goes beyond individual prostitutes, and involves a global dynamic of human trafficking, sexism, class discrimination, income inequality, media stereotypes, and more. It's easy to read some article and say, if A then B so therefore C (or not C, whatever, etc.), but if you don't have experience with people who actually suffer through these experiences every day, then you have no basis from which to say "In fact".
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        I'm trusting the individual prostitute who voluntarily chose to sell sex on the belief that it made him/her better off. I trust his/her experience more than yours. As for this "unless you have personal experience, you can't comment" argument, I call BS. That is nothing but an attempt to keep outside views out of the debate. Thanks to the powers of logic and reason, humans can draw all sorts of correct conclusions without personal experience. I've never experienced quantum mechanics, the inside of a computer chip, or plate tectonics, yet I can draw all sorts of correct conclusions about them. You are trying to tell me that I can't draw correct conclusions about a slightly different human experience?
- jbooth 16y ago
  I wouldn't call the drug buyer the "victim", just "harmless in almost all cases". Drug users don't typically commit violent crimes unless they're a junkie in search of a fix (very small minority). Most of the violence, theft and other law breaking comes from the people trying to make a business of it. Regarding the sex seller being the victim, well, it turns out that many times she is.

by param 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

That's something I've never understood. How come the drug buyer is the victim, and so is the sex seller?

Qz 16y ago
When you learn how many of the women in prostitution are forced into that work by sex traffickers or sheer poverty, it's not hard to understand. The sex 'seller' often isn't the one who gets the money.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  The law I was questioning assumes every single prostitute is a victim, including the ones who are not enslaved. It also assumes every single drug seller is not a victim, even the ones who are enslaved. If the real issue is enslavement, why not just carve out a general exception in criminal law to acts which you are performing against your will? I.e., if you rob a bank because your wife/children are being held hostage, the person holding your wife hostage is criminally liable for that act. (I'd actually be very surprised if this exception doesn't already exist.)
  - jbooth 16y ago
    I think a good way to look at it is that it's not so much about right and wrong or about who's a victim but about average outcomes. The average outcome of prosecuting a drug user or prostitute is you spent a bunch of government resources processing, trying and incarcerating the person in order to take someone off the streets who's not actually particularly dangerous. So, why do it? Drug dealers on the other hand frequently beef over territory, sell bad product that kills people, get into interesting sideline work, etc. And they're very few in number compared to the users. So as far as bang for the buck, it makes sense to prosecute them. Yes, there are exceptions, but you make policy for the average case and hope that your cops and DAs are smart enough to exercise some judgment when warranted.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      I don't think you really believe that logic. Hypothetically, suppose it turns out that black drug dealers are far more likely than white drug dealers to be violent criminals [1]. Would you then favor prosecuting drug crimes committed by blacks, but not by whites? Depending on what the numbers work out to be, you will get the same statistical "bang for buck" that you would prosecuting drug sellers but not sex sellers. [1] Lets give this hypothetical a TV face: take Weeds as the average white drug dealer, and The Wire as the average black drug dealer. Of course, this is only statistics - there are violent white drug dealers and harmless black drug dealers, even in the hypothetical.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        I was arguing prosecuting dealers as opposed to users, because it's a massive waste of money to prosecute the latter (not that that stops us from doing it, with 3 million people in jail and growing). Entirely different argument. Regarding prosecuting black ones instead of white ones.. well we already do that, so I'd say the reality has surpassed both of us. However, as far as what I think should happen, then yes, I would differentiate between gang bangers who own corners, run protection rackets, etc and the dude in high school who sells a little weed to his friends. But as far as consistency in the law, if you're decriminalizing usage and keeping dealing criminal, then you need to apply that consistently when you catch people dealing. Anecdotally, I think the difference you're perceiving isn't so much black/white as it is weed/hard and suburban/urban.
        rick888 16y ago
        "Regarding prosecuting black ones instead of white ones.. well we already do that, so I'd say the reality has surpassed both of us." After this statement, I can't really take you seriously. Do you have any proof beyond this statement? "However, as far as what I think should happen, then yes, I would differentiate between gang bangers who own corners, run protection rackets, etc and the dude in high school who sells a little weed to his friends. But as far as consistency in the law, if you're decriminalizing usage and keeping dealing criminal, then you need to apply that consistently when you catch people dealing." If drugs were legalized, most likely, dealing without some sort of license would still be illegal.
- b-man 16y ago
  Not really related to the article, but do you have any data on forced prostitution? It is a common argument, and I don't deny the existence of it, but I never saw any real research on the fact, besides watching this documentary[1], which did not presented much research on the subject in a global basis. [1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/slaves/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/slaves/
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Depends on your definition of "forced", it could run from literal sex slave through "hooked on drugs and unable to fend for self so stuck with pimp" to just plain "has to feed self and has no other options". I'd say all of those are forced to some degree.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      If the customers are helping the prostitute feed herself, how is she a victim and how are they harming her? She would be worse off if not for the voluntary transaction. In fact, the government is actually harming the hungry prostitute by reducing demand for her services by criminalizing the customers.
      - Qz 16y ago
        You can't take the isolated circumstances of 'customer helps prostitute feed herself' and proclaim everything peachy, because the reality of the situation is that it goes beyond individual prostitutes, and involves a global dynamic of human trafficking, sexism, class discrimination, income inequality, media stereotypes, and more. It's easy to read some article and say, if A then B so therefore C (or not C, whatever, etc.), but if you don't have experience with people who actually suffer through these experiences every day, then you have no basis from which to say "In fact".
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        I'm trusting the individual prostitute who voluntarily chose to sell sex on the belief that it made him/her better off. I trust his/her experience more than yours. As for this "unless you have personal experience, you can't comment" argument, I call BS. That is nothing but an attempt to keep outside views out of the debate. Thanks to the powers of logic and reason, humans can draw all sorts of correct conclusions without personal experience. I've never experienced quantum mechanics, the inside of a computer chip, or plate tectonics, yet I can draw all sorts of correct conclusions about them. You are trying to tell me that I can't draw correct conclusions about a slightly different human experience?
jbooth 16y ago
I wouldn't call the drug buyer the "victim", just "harmless in almost all cases". Drug users don't typically commit violent crimes unless they're a junkie in search of a fix (very small minority). Most of the violence, theft and other law breaking comes from the people trying to make a business of it. Regarding the sex seller being the victim, well, it turns out that many times she is.