3 ms·
It's a terrible policy: - Making only one side of a transaction illegal is absurd. - Because the customer assumes more risk, they are often more antagonistic.
by Ericson2314 6y ago
It's a terrible policy:
- Making only one side of a transaction illegal is absurd.
- Because the customer assumes more risk, they are often more antagonistic. Sex workers have to more explicitly offer to protect their customers from legal repercussions to maintain their business, rather than the the mutualism of same risk (with legal or illegal for all).
- Legal work is always the least exploitative; that's why big agriculture wants migrant workers etc.
- herbst 6y ago- Making only one side of a transaction illegal is absurd. Kinda standard practice in europe. Ex. Drug laws are also often written like this. Basically to make sure to hurt those most who profit most, ex. it doesnt make much sense to bill a junkie every other day.
- Ericson2314 6y agoA) I understand many of those countries also have government-dispersed drugs, which dramatically changes the situation by making there be legal drug transactions legal too. Unless someone is proposing government run sex work, it's not a fair comparison. B) Drug dealing and sex work are also quite different in that the former in it's modern day incarnation can be highly anonymous with dead drops and whatnot, but that isn't possible for most sex work. C) Finally, maybe the above does make drug dealing a nastier business, but few people are worried about the well being of drug dealers that aren't also for legalization.
- herbst 6y ago> Unless someone is proposing government run sex work, it's not a fair comparison. Even thats a thing. Sex workers for mentally challanged people, is a state organized programm, which is paid by health insurance.