Legalising Prostitution & Drug Use

[Devil]

What's everyone's opinion, then, if the government decided to legalise prostitution and drug use in certain area's do you think this would decrease organised crime and go some way to stop human trafficking?

• Red light districts with policed brothels where the women are testing and protected. 
• Legalisation of lower class drugs that could be made available to buy over the counter. 
• Drug centres where current drug abusers can come and get their fix and also seek help for their addictions if that's what they wish.

Surely the introduction of these measures would see a large part of criminal networks decreased enough that the police can spend more time trying to catch the criminals at the higher end of the food chain. How much money is waste in resources raiding properties with cannabis grows, how much money could be saved from no longer having to raid illegal brothels when paying customers know they can go an pay for sex without the worry the police are going to raid them and arrest them for sleeping with a trafficked girl, in some case under the age of consent. 

You'd also clear up a large number of the petty criminals who start out selling small quantities of cannabis but eventually move on to supplying the heavier class A drugs. 

I also think drop in centres for drug addicts would be huge as well, give them their fix but give it them in a safe environment, drop in centres will mean less crack dens, it would also mean less young vulnerable people will be drawn in by the lower end of society. You could start treating this individuals as sick patients rather than criminals who have to go out to fund their habits, with each drop in centre having advisors willing to help get these people back on track. I think if you gave these addicts the choice of a free fix over the possibility of a prison sentence they'd take the fix every time and especially if its a young women who would likely sell sex to fund an addiction. 

The only grey area would be the so called party drugs, Cocaine and MDMA (Ecstasy) 

 

[Stan]

22 minutes ago, Devil said:

I also think drop in centres for drug addicts would be huge as well, give them their fix but give it them in a safe environment, drop in centres will mean less crack dens, it would also mean less young vulnerable people will be drawn in by the lower end of society. You could start treating this individuals as sick patients rather than criminals who have to go out to fund their habits, with each drop in centre having advisors willing to help get these people back on track. I think if you gave these addicts the choice of a free fix over the possibility of a prison sentence they'd take the fix every time and especially if its a young women who would likely sell sex to fund an addiction

There's a few flaws in this...

• Drug addicts don't just have their fix and that's it. A lot of the knock-on effects last days, weeks, months even. Giving it to them 'safely' might be well and good in that moment in time but it's the effect of it after not only on them, but who they're going to be around. Partners, family, friends etc. 
• You'd be surprised how many people choose prison over a free fix. In prison, in this country anyway, they get a lot more than they would out of just having their 'free fix'. A generalisation, but I've seen and spoken to a lot of people who genuinely would rather go back in to jail because they get their free fix and more in there. 

I don't know enough about organised crime to really comment on the policed brothels etc but there must be a huge cost to legalising it and policing it. I know @Carnivore Chris has spoken about legalising cannabis in this country before. 

I do agree having drop-in centres with advisors to help people remove themselves from their habits but if I'm right in thinking this is already in place now; ultimately it's still up to that person to actively want the help.

[Devil]

4 minutes ago, Stan said:

There's a few flaws in this...

• Drug addicts don't just have their fix and that's it. A lot of the knock-on effects last days, weeks, months even. Giving it to them 'safely' might be well and good in that moment in time but it's the effect of it after not only on them, but who they're going to be around. Partners, family, friends etc. 
• You'd be surprised how many people choose prison over a free fix. In prison, in this country anyway, they get a lot more than they would out of just having their 'free fix'. A generalisation, but I've seen and spoken to a lot of people who genuinely would rather go back in to jail because they get their free fix and more in there. 

I don't know enough about organised crime to really comment on the policed brothels etc but there must be a huge cost to legalising it and policing it. I know @Carnivore Chris has spoken about legalising cannabis in this country before. 

I do agree having drop-in centres with advisors to help people remove themselves from their habits but if I'm right in thinking this is already in place now; ultimately it's still up to that person to actively want the help.

In my eyes these drop in centres would be for registered drug addicts already mate, the families, friends and partners would more than likely feel peace of mind that a trained professional is helping them lower their daily dosage of drugs in a safe manner whilst also offering them advice on how they can beat the addiction. 

I don't see it open to just anyone. 

[Pyfish+]

There's already legal red light districts in the UK 

[Whiskey]

10 minutes ago, Pyfish said:

There's already legal red light districts in the UK 

@MUFC

[nudge+]

Legalise light drugs and prostitution; it will always be part of society so it's surely better to regulate it, ensuring the quality of the product and the safety of consumers/clients as well as the well being of sex workers. Not to mention additional tax flow into the budget. I wouldn't legalise the hard stuff like heroin or meth though, because they are just vile. But decriminalise the possession/use of it, and rather focus on those who are behind the manufacturing and trafficking - too bad that will never happen as it's a lucrative business. 

[Devil]

1 hour ago, nudge said:

Legalise light drugs and prostitution; it will always be part of society so it's surely better to regulate it, ensuring the quality of the product and the safety of consumers/clients as well as the well being of sex workers. Not to mention additional tax flow into the budget. I wouldn't legalise the hard stuff like heroin or meth though, because they are just vile. But decriminalise the possession/use of it, and rather focus on those who are behind the manufacturing and trafficking - too bad that will never happen as it's a lucrative business. 

Makes too much sense to me if I'm honest. 

There both something that aren't ever going away anyway so why not regulate them. 

[Inverted]

We have had decent results with safe-use drug vans in Glasgow so I think those are worth exploring further. 

I agree that distribution of the likes heroin should be illegalised but ultimately the problem of addiction is so severe and complex that to really root it out requires far far more than just the criminal justice system, and if you’re too heavy handed you just create new problems. 

Addiction is an end-product of loads of different failures - employment, education, mental health, housing, poverty, culture... you name it. Very few sane people with a decent standard of living get up one day and decide “I’m going to become a smack head”.

Walk through Glasgow at the wrong time of day and it’s like the Walking Dead, with crowds of junkies and beggars shambling around. I’m sure there’s a minority who really are just horrible people, who love heroin because it feels amazing, and they never wanted anything else. But generally there is a better explanation.

So although it’s tempting just to say “lock them up”, ultimately you’re never going to fix the problem that way - not for them and not for the rest of the population. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Portugal's policy on drugs is a great example reason why legal and well regulated drugs are a better scenario than having an illegal drug trade. Needle exchange programs, which let junkies get clean needles to shoot up with, have demonstrated success at getting addicts to get treatment for their addictions.

An illegal drug trade is just a black market. And black markets lead to organised crime. So a regulated legal drug trade would ultimately lead to a reduction in organised crime and gangs that are funded by selling drugs. And if you tax weed, cocaine, shrooms, etc... that's money that can goes towards roads, schools, the NHS, etc... it doesn't go into the pockets of gang members.

I do think if you're fucked up on something and you commit a crime, it should be factored into what you've done. But I'm not sure use and possession are worth keeping criminalised by themselves. Distribution and sale should be regulated, though - like alcohol is. Imo alcohol and drugs should be treated pretty similarly. They're substances that are used recreationally for their effect on the mind... like alcohol. Yes, there is a risk of serious addiction... but that's the same as alcohol too.

Similarly, gangs and human traffickers make shitloads of money from prostitution. And these people don't have the wellbeing of the prostitute or the customers in mind, they just want their cut of the sold sex. Treating prostitution as a legitimate industry makes things better and safer for everyone concerned... except the criminals who are currently reaping the rewards of prostitution being illegal.

At the end of the day, reforms to policies with regards to drugs and prostitution would free up a shitload of police resources to focus on crimes where there's actual victims. Rather than "victimless" (although I'm not sure victimless is the right word - self-victimisation maybe, though) crimes.

I do think if you commit violent crimes while on drugs (or alcohol) it should be a factor that leads to the criminal punishment being harsher. And I think making drugs legal doesn't mean you remove personal responsibility from people who do drugs. But at the end of the day, I'm not sure current drug laws are really helpful in protecting the public or doing anything to treat addiction.

[Dave]

Prostitution itself is not illegal. The offences come from people pimping, soliciting in a public place and kerb crawling. Soho has the famous Soho walk up and I'm pretty sure Leeds has its own red light district.

As for legalising drugs I was always under the impression that the legalising cannabis discussion was a dead conversation starter in the UK because of the difficulties in differentiating the chemicals between cannabis and skunk. The link between smoking skunk and developing schizophrenia makes legalising cannabis a very difficult notion for the government to comprehend.

 

[Devil]

19 hours ago, nudge said:

Legalise light drugs and prostitution; it will always be part of society so it's surely better to regulate it, ensuring the quality of the product and the safety of consumers/clients as well as the well being of sex workers. Not to mention additional tax flow into the budget. I wouldn't legalise the hard stuff like heroin or meth though, because they are just vile. But decriminalise the possession/use of it, and rather focus on those who are behind the manufacturing and trafficking - too bad that will never happen as it's a lucrative business. 

Just out of curiosity how do you view men that sleep with prostitutes in the countries where it is legal?

Only ask because me and the wife have been to Amsterdam a good few times and we always drink around the red light district at some point in the day and we'd often watch business men pop into a window during the day. My wife would be disgusted but I'd just point out that the women in Amsterdam are doing this by choice so the man isn't actually doing anything wrong. 

I personally wouldn't ever sleep with one myself if single, just the whole mechanical process doesn't sit right with me mentally and I know I just wouldn't get off on it. 

[nudge+]

35 minutes ago, Devil said:

Just out of curiosity how do you view men that sleep with prostitutes in the countries where it is legal?

Only ask because me and the wife have been to Amsterdam a good few times and we always drink around the red light district at some point in the day and we'd often watch business men pop into a window during the day. My wife would be disgusted but I'd just point out that the women in Amsterdam are doing this by choice so the man isn't actually doing anything wrong. 

I personally wouldn't ever sleep with one myself if single, just the whole mechanical process doesn't sit right with me mentally and I know I just wouldn't get off on it. 

I find paying for sex a bit sad, but other than that, I don't view men who do it as "disgusting". Everyone has their needs, that's just one way to fulfill them. Especially when it's older men or men with disabilities, etc., it's not always easy for them to get laid, so who am I to judge? Some others just simply can't be arsed and are looking for a quick fun with no strings attached. As long as it's done by consenting adults, doesn't include minors and trafficking victims, why would anyone even care? 

[Danny]

Drugs don't go away, making them illegal and filling up prisons with people caught selling them is mental. Drop in centre's are great for what they do, provide a safe space for someone to inject/smoke whatever it is that they're doing. They don't prevent drug use, they just create a safer space to do it in that doesn't involve dirty needles and overdoses. Drug addicts will find a way to get drugs, making it illegal does not challenge the issue of crowded prisons, does not challenge the issue of drug related crimes and does not challenge the issue of addiction. It just makes people who have nothing to do with any of those issues feel better.

[CaaC (John)+]

18 minutes ago, Danny said:

Drug addicts will find a way to get drugs...

Same as cigarettes, pricing them out to the high heavens (I think the cheapest pack of 20 nowadays costs over £14) banning adverts, pictures etc makes them easier to get the duty free ones under the table and cost you about £7 for a pack of 20.

[Devil]

25 minutes ago, Danny said:

Drugs don't go away, making them illegal and filling up prisons with people caught selling them is mental. Drop in centre's are great for what they do, provide a safe space for someone to inject/smoke whatever it is that they're doing. They don't prevent drug use, they just create a safer space to do it in that doesn't involve dirty needles and overdoses. Drug addicts will find a way to get drugs, making it illegal does not challenge the issue of crowded prisons, does not challenge the issue of drug related crimes and does not challenge the issue of addiction. It just makes people who have nothing to do with any of those issues feel better.

I wouldn't agree with that highlight statement there pal, I don't profess to be whiter than white and I've known a few drug dealers like I'd imagine most people have or do. 

But ultimately we should be filling up the prisons with these individuals, these guys are destroying families, destroying lives. 

Growing up in South Manchester in the 90's you had a generation boom of addicts during that period and it was like zombie town for a period, those individuals are now either dead, locked up or living rough on the streets. Teenagers/kids make bad decisions and are often influenced by others but selling someone a drug that basically ruins theirs and their families lives forever is in my eyes one of the most evil crimes there is. 

The country is fucked up, the moment someone tests positive for having heroin in their system they should be scooped up in a police van and taken to a safe unit until they are clean of the drug and realise how bad it is. People will say it would cost too much but given we've just been giving furlough hand outs into the billions of pounds I think this country has more than enough money to tackle this issue better than it currently does. 

Too many homeless, too many drugs addicts and too many evil people making a living off others misgivings. 

Legalise it, police it and supply it via the NHS. Kill off the drug at is source, who'd want to import a drug into a country that helps it's addicted by giving them free what the drug dealer want's money for. 100% this will lead to less addicts, less people being tempted into taking the drug. 

Treat the addicts we have now as victims and the sick and I'm convinced we cut cut the thing right down. 

I'm pretty certain if you said to any addict we have a facility where you can be housed, fed and given a prescription of the drug whilst getting further help via counsellors and doctors they'd jump at the chance, I doubt it's much fun hanging about filthy squats or dropping your knickers down a back ally whilst a fat taxi driver pounds you into the wall. 

They could build them out in the countryside, away from the Cities.

[Carnivore Chris]

19 hours ago, The Palace Fan said:

Prostitution itself is not illegal. The offences come from people pimping, soliciting in a public place and kerb crawling. Soho has the famous Soho walk up and I'm pretty sure Leeds has its own red light district.

As for legalising drugs I was always under the impression that the legalising cannabis discussion was a dead conversation starter in the UK because of the difficulties in differentiating the chemicals between cannabis and skunk. The link between smoking skunk and developing schizophrenia makes legalising cannabis a very difficult notion for the government to comprehend.

 

Skunk is actually a strain of cannabis and one that was mainly popular in the 80s and 90s.

I can't remember the last time I knew of anyone selling skunk, it's mainly the likes of stardawg, different Haze or Kush strains, the California strains(Skittlez, Blue dream, Girl Scout cookies...), etc that you find nowadays. You hardly hear of people selling Skunk, Super skunk, Northern lights or White widow anymore.

It makes me cringe when the media label strong cannabis flower with high levels of thc and low levels of CBD as "skunk". They sound massively out of touch. Skunk is simply a strain of 100s. @Dr. Gonzo  will tell you the same. Skunk is just the name of an old skool strain.

https://www.leafly.com/strains/skunk-1

The stuff they smoke in the USA and Canada is also much stronger, especially the wax and concentrates. The strain skunk, when grown properly probably contains 15-16% THC while those concentrates are from like 90 to 99% THC. They legalised it in California and people abuse fuck out of it .

The worst thing about the illegal market is that people don't know the strength of what they are smoking or whether it's been sprayed with god knows what. That is as good a reason as any to legalise it. It being illegal makes it much more dangerous. People are growing low quality bud and spraying it with nasty substances or pesticides. Some of the hash sold over here also used to contain ketamine. 

I haven't smoked it for 4 months as for some reason it doesn't agree with me now(so strange), but I'd still legalise it tomorrow if the decision was mine. It's safer than alcohol and if I'd drank alcohol on the level that I smoked weed, I'd either be dead now or as good as dead.

They won't ever legalise it here though as it's a proper uptight, snobby country.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Carnivore Chris said:

Skunk is actually a strain of cannabis and one that was mainly popular in the 80s and 90s.

 I can't remember the last time I knew of anyone selling skunk, it's mainly the likes of stardawg, different Haze or Kush strains, the California strains(Skittlez, Blue dream, Girl Scout cookies...), etc that you find nowadays. You hardly hear of people selling Skunk, Super skunk, Northern lights or White widow anymore.

It makes me cringe when the media label strong cannabis flower with high levels of thc and low levels of CBD as "skunk". They sound massively out of touch. Skunk is simply a strain of 100s. @Dr. Gonzo  will tell you the same. Skunk is just the name of an old skool strain.

https://www.leafly.com/strains/skunk-1

The stuff they smoke in the USA and Canada is also much stronger, especially the wax and concentrates. The strain skunk, when grown properly probably contains 15-16% THC while those concentrates are from like 90-99% thc. They legalised it in California and people abuse fuck out of it .

The worst thing about the illegal market is that people don't know the strength of what they are smoking or whether it's been sprayed with god knows what. That is as good a reason as any to legalise it. It being illegal makes it much more dangerous. People are growing low quality bud and spraying it with nasty substances or pesticides. Some of the hash sold over here also used to contain ketamine. 

I haven't smoked it for 4 months as for some reason it doesn't agree with me now(so strange), but I'd still legalise it tomorrow if the decision was mine. It's safer than alcohol and if I'd drank alcohol on the level that I smoked weed, I'd either be dead now or as good as dead.

They won't ever legalise it here though as it's a proper uptight, snobby country.

 

I haven't seen skunk around very often at all - even before leaving the UK. I think it was big before I started smoking weed... and yeah, it's not even one of the more "powerful" strains out there.

In any case, the chemical in skunk that can exacerbate schizophrenia is... THC. And that'll be found in every strain of weed all over the world. Furthermore, skunk/all weed generally also has CBD which appears to counteract schizophrenia psychosis. But generally speaking, weed will almost always have more THC than CBD and you'll feel the effects of the THC more.

But it's just a strain of marijuana too - and nowadays I feel like everything is some sort of Kush or Cookies (because even in California now, it's hard to find "pure" Girl Scout Cookies or "pure" Blue Dream - they're usually cross-bread now and sold as "Blue Cookies") and pretty much every indica is OG Kush cross-bread with something else to make "____ Kush" or "OG ______"

The link between marijuana and schizophrenia is real - but it's all pretty murky and tenuous. Doctors in places where marijuana is legal recommend:

• That teens avoid marijuana 
• If you have schizophrenia, don't use marijuana
• If you have a family history of schizophrenia, don't use marijuana

When you compare the potential health detriments of weed smoking to drinking booze... weed still comes up as the less dangerous drug by far. So if the government wants to keep marijuana illegal for the purposes of protecting public health... they really ought to be doing the same thing with booze and shit food that's also terrible for our health.

But they absolutely shouldn't be doing that either. People should have a degree of personal responsibility - just because some people might need to be protected by themselves... doesn't mean the entire population needs to have certain recreational activities banned.

[Dr. Gonzo]

I also think it's just safer, generally, when things are legal. I've lived in California for... a while now... and I've lived through illegal cannabis consumption to legal cannabis consumption. Not all weed shops are like the one I go to - but when I buy weed now, I know: 1.) where it was grown/who grew it, 2.) the THC/CBD content of the weed, 3.) it's got a sticker on it that says it was grown pesticide free.

When you buy weed illegally, you're getting it in a little plastic bag that gives you none of that information. Imo being a bit more informed about the drugs you're buying is being a bit safer about the drugs you're buying.

When you look at other, less safer, drugs - I think that becomes more immediately apparent. Someone buying coke or E typically has no clue where it came from or what it's been cut with - which was an issue where I live now because people were snorting coke cut with fentanyl and it was causing accidental fentanyl overdoses by people who had no idea what was put in the drugs they'd bought.

That shit is far less likely to happen if there's a legitimate and regulated market.