[mike777]

So if you alter your face in public to hide from cameras you go to jail but being a pimp or a pusher is ok.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Nov 21 2006, 01:53 AM, said:

So if you alter your face in public to hide from cameras you go to jail but being a pimp or a pusher is ok.

The Dutch seem to think so, and I see no reason to complain.

In all seriousness, I don't necessary agree with the Dutch regulations banning face masks. I have very real concerns whether these sorts of regulations can be be applied in a fair/uniform manner. For example, back when I lived in Germany, we celebrated "Fasching" (aka Karneval). Masks and costumes were integral to these celebrations. I'd be curious whether the Dutch regulation apply in situations like this (then again, for all I know, the Dutch don't celebrate Karneval)

Regardless, its their country. With a few exceptions, they get to do what they want with it... I'm certain not going to work myself up into a tizzy over Holland. Hell, I'd love to take another vacation over there.

[pbleighton]

I greatly dislike banning the PUBLIC wearing of clothes which hide the face.

I dislike even more banning PRIVATE sex-for-pay and drug use.

Mike, what's your rationale for banning private non-coerced adult behavior?

Peter

[mike777]

As I said it is not a victimless crime. Would you condone your children or grandchildren being legal prostitutes?


I do not think the test should be, alcohol is legal and this is not worse than that so anything not worse than it should be legal...Heck we cannot even handle all the crime from legal alcohol.....we just ignore most of it.

I think we would just end up ignoring most of the crime fall out from legal drugs and pimping. Who can afford the jails, guards, prisons, judges and courtrooms?

Do I have a good answer, of course not, but legalizing this stuff is worse than any other solution.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Nov 21 2006, 03:34 AM, said:

As I said it is not a victimless crime.  Would you condone your children or grandchildren being legal prostitutes?

Depends on how much they were making, I suppose...

Of course, this completely begs the question: What does my approval have to do with whether my hypothetical daughter considered herself a victim.

Oh yeah, for the record

A friend of mine once talked about leaving her position at a software company we both worked at. The Precident of the company said "XYZ", you can't ever leave. If you tried, we'd just pay you a million dollars to stay another year. My friend responded "I'd ***** a goat for a million dollars, but thats not enough to get me to stay at a job that I didn't like". I chimed in that I ***** a goat for $10,000, and let them take pictures for another 20.

Weird, evening. At the end of it I was bald and $200 richer... Also, when I was in grad school, I worked security for a "lingerie modeling service" which racked in a hell of a lot more money than modelling could explain. So I guess I don't really have much of a problem with prostitution.

[pbleighton]

"As I said it is not a victimless crime."

This is what I asked you to explain. You didn't explain, you reiterated.

Can you explain why this is any of your business?

Can you point to any evidence that criminalization reduces frequency?

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on Nov 20 2006, 07:45 PM, said:

"As I said it is not a victimless crime."

This is what I asked you to explain. You didn't explain, you reiterated.

Can you explain why this is any of your business?

Can you point to any evidence that criminalization reduces frequency?

Peter

You think it does not reduce frequency?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Nov 21 2006, 05:09 AM, said:

pbleighton, on Nov 20 2006, 07:45 PM, said:

"As I said it is not a victimless crime."

This is what I asked you to explain.  You didn't explain, you reiterated.

Can you explain why this is any of your business?

Can you point to any evidence that criminalization reduces frequency?

Peter

You think it does not reduce frequency?

Frequency only matter if you think there is something wrong with sex or doing drugs. From my perspective, I think that the costs these acts are negible so long as they are decriminalized. Frequency doesn't concern me much.

What does concern me is "incidence". If drugs are decriminalized, the costs that do occur are born by the individual who is doing smack (or whatever). If drugs are criminalized, the costs increase dramatically and shift from the individual to the society. Society is suddenly paying for interdiction, incarceration, as well increases in secondary crimes.

[pbleighton]

"You think it does not reduce frequency?"

1. I am certain that it doesn't have a material impact on the number of people who use and abuse drugs (and I include alcohol as a drug, as it is one of the nastier and more addictive ones). For many people, the price increase caused by criminalization has some impact on the amount used, though not whether or not they use it. It also shifts use/abuse to some extent (though not much) from other drugs to alcohol. As to the price/usage issue, this can, and should, be addressed by taxation. Drugs have a negative effect on society, and should therefore have excise taxes. You're a closet liberal, Mike, you should know this by now

Case in point: I smoked pot (at some points heavily) for a long time (a long time ago), then quit, and the legal status (including the effect on price) never had ANY effect on my usage, except that I smoked indoors. I know a LOT of people who have the same story.

2. I won't duplicate Richard's post on the costs of shifting costs, except to add one fact: we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world, five to ten times that of Western European countries, and half of our inmates are there on drug-related offenses. That's a hell of a price for all of us to pay. How do you justify this?

3. Did Prohibition work?

4. Why is it any of your business?

Peter

[mike777]

1)When I got to pick up your medical costs
2) When you drive home from that festival or friends house or bar
3) When you do it in front of your kids and I pick up the costs
4) Everyone seems to forget in the 20's alcohol use decreased by any reasonable measure and so did the related crimes and illness.
5) I end up paying for most of those costs....everyone too stoned or dying from std or getting raped/beat up by those who try not to pay, etc etc....

Any way I see I cannot convince you guys so ok....

As I said we could just choose to ignore the problem even more than we already do...See Europe which is why so few in jail for DUI.

I seem to remember a piece that said that 20-35% of all drivers on the road after midnight were legally impared.

Jails are full of all those women wearing pieces of cloth over their face I guess

[cherdano]

mike777, on Nov 21 2006, 05:32 AM, said:

Jails are full of all those women wearing pieces of cloth over their face I guess

Certainly not as full as the Californian jails of teenagers who stole a CD and got hit by the three-strikes rule...

Mike, a lot of good and bad things (including many interesting ones) can be said about either side if you want to compare US vs Europe. It might even be fun to giving out plusses and minusses to either side....but if you start an argument about imprisonment, I don't see how the US can end up on the positive side, or even avoid a blitz for Europe (unless you think it's a genuinely good idea to keep 0.7% of the population in prison).

[mike777]

To be fair, we are trying to throw even more in jail but no one wants to pay for it.

See Utah and all the very very young girls who go into polygamy.

Utah tries to arrest the worst cases of very very young girls but if it arrested everyone the state would go bankrupt many times over.

Court costs and many thousands of babies from these families.

Germany has a somewhat similiar problem with all the young girls abducted in other countries and sold as young brides or sex slaves.

Of course selling very young girls is common culture practice in many countries.

Others call it slavery and rape of children.

I am still in a bit of shock about so little outrage, esp from women, about going to jail for wearing a piece of cloth in public over your face?

[pbleighton]

So Mike, you are in favor of outlawing alcohol?

After all, you are intellectually consistent, aren't you?

Peter

[helene_t]

mike777, on Nov 21 2006, 05:32 AM, said:

Jails are full of all those women wearing pieces of cloth over their face I guess

Certainly not. If a policeman doesn't have anything else to do and the weather isn't too bad to keep him inside his car, he may occasionaly fine someone for wearing a burka. My guess is that the fine will be some EUR 100 or less. Even in repeated cases, nobody will go to jail for such a minor offense. Besides, the number of women wearing burkas is not that great. I've been living in NL for ten years in all parts of the country and I don't recall that I ever saw one.

But if we were to put people in jail for smoking marihuanna, selling/buying sex or walking on street topless we really had to build more prissons.

As for Richard's question about carneval: yes, we do celebrate it in the South of the Netherlands. I suppose the police will make an exception in such cases.

FWIW, personally I'm in favor of outlawing alcohol. Burkas, tobacco and marihuanna should be confined to private homes. As for prostitution and toplessness I don't see why anybody can have problems with it.

[pclayton]

Late coming in here. I can't live on just bridge alone

We've screwed the pooch in Iraq. Our initial mission was some vague terrorist threat, and it will be difficult to extricate ourselves. Frankly, I'd have more respect if we were to just admit that we were plundering the oilfields. Up until 150 years ago, this was the primary reason for war, even if it was under the guise of religious motives. I think getting the oilfields falls under the definition of 'winning' the war, if you want to try to define it.

I don't think we have the resources to actually win this war. Even if we did, we sure don't have the political will to dedicate these resources. Iraq is too complicated of a place, and too vast. I have great respect for our servicemen and women that are over there trying to take care of business.

Everyone is too scared to cut our losses and bring everyone home. Frankly, I think this is the best course of action now. No one is discussing 'withdrawal', but if you don't dedicate the necessary resources, thats effectively what you'll have. The difference is you'll have our personnel in harms way in the meantime. What happens if we leave? Iraq dissolves into factions, with our without centralized government (see: Serbia / Bosnia), however this isn't radically different than what its been for the past 1,000 years. Afghanistan is a similar model.

As others have said, the mideast governments are not the enemies, it is the terrorist organizations themselves. How relevant is it that Iraq disintegrates? I would be concerned about a sympathetic Russia, or Chechnya that wants to trade arms to the Mullahs for oil rights, however. That could get messy.

Who knows whats going to happen under a McCain or Clinton White House? I can the pendulum swinging back, especially if Hill gets elected. I fear that our best personnel will be needed at home to fight the terrorism thats likely going to occur 'over here'.

[pbleighton]

"I don't think we have the resources to actually win this war."

What is "this war", and what is victory?

Bush seems to think victory consists of intimidating the entire Muslim world. Were he king, Iraq would just be the start. Think how long the Crusades lasted (and Bush initially referred to his so-called "war on terror" as a crusade).

Peter

[Winstonm]

Does anyone actually take anything Bush says seriously anymore? I have an easy solution to anything he proposes: Just Say No.

[the hog]

"As I said it is not a victimless crime. Would you condone your children or grandchildren being legal prostitutes?"

This must be one of the greatest non sequiters of all time. You logic is totally twisted. If prostitution is legal, then it is victimless. Even if it is legal, if both parties engage with no duress, then how can there be a victim? I guess you failed Logic 101!

"Germany has a somewhat similiar problem with all the young girls abducted in other countries and sold as young brides or sex slaves.

Of course selling very young girls is common culture practice in many countries."

As for those last two comments....Do you have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about without making blind assertions?

[helene_t]

mike777, on Nov 21 2006, 02:34 AM, said:

As I said it is not a victimless crime. Would you condone your children or grandchildren being legal prostitutes?

Huh? Whether I condone my grandchildrens behavior depends on specific family traditions. Maybe I wouldn't condone them eating non-kosher food. But as a citizen of a multicultural country I would not argue that non-Jews eating non-kosher victimizes anyone, let alone that it should be considered a crime. I think prostitution is very similar, as long as the sex worker in question is old and mentaly sane enough to decide for herself. Of course, forcing someone into prostitution is slavery and as such a crime, but the same is true for forcing someone to picking cotton. Yet I would have no problems with my grandchildren picking cotton.

Quote

Do I have a good answer, of course not, but legalizing this stuff is worse than any other solution.

I do not necesarily disagree with this. The fact that drugs are impossible to get rid of is not necesarilly a good (let alone a sufficient) case for allowing it.

[DrTodd13]

No sane person can compare the US and the Netherlands and conclude that the US has a better drug policy. The US has one of the highest rates of imprisonment of any country all due to its crazy drug policy. If you get rid of drug prohibition and all the crimes that people commit trying to get money for drugs then you'd probably decrease prison populations by 3/4 and reduce property crimes by at least the same amount. If you feel that you are a child or a sheep then by all means acquiesce to letting the government tell you what is good and bad for you but if you're a person then reject all forms of the nanny state. The US drug policy is nothing but a bunch of people who think they are smarter than you trying to engineer society to maximize tax revenue so that they'll have more power. Drug addicts aren't generally very productive citizens so they can't allow that.