nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Call to legalese brothels in Ireland.

Run_to_da_hills

A leading academic today called for prostitution to be decriminalised to protect women forced to work in the sex industry.

I think that this would be a great idea, it would give the Government the much needed extra revenue and would also take heaps of sluts off the live register.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/ireland/call-to-decriminalise-prostitution-in-ireland-415356.html

Find more posts tagged with

is this about jesus yet?

t -10 seconds til jesus

jesus <3 mary macarena

Quick Links

Comments

philologos

liah: You act as if that is in the majority and that is the majority case, and that there is really no problem with prostitution for the women who are involved in it. I personally think we should deal with reality however.

I personally feel sorry for prostitutes who are involved in it. It's not the people I have the issue with, it's the practice. The difference between my position and the position that is being argued from the other side is, I think if a practice has proven to be detrimental to society in a large way it should be minimised. Others think we should just open the doors wide open.

liah

liah wrote: »

Jakkass you're using a very "Thank You For Smoking" argument here-- every time someone brings up the crux of the matter (women's choice) you fall back and try to make yourself out like you're fighting for the Good Cause (being against degradation and exploitation) to turn the argument in your favour without addressing the issue at hand.

There are an awful lot of women out there being degraded/exploited/objectified against their will. I won't argue that for a second. But there's an equal amount of women who feel themselves empowered by their trade-- be it sex or anything else. Your morals DON'T factor in. Just because you see things from an exceedingly small worldview doesn't mean everyone else does.

Please re-read all of what I wrote above and stop twisting it to conform to your preaching platform.

Jakkass wrote: »

liah: You act as if that is in the majority and that is the majority case, and that there is really no problem with prostitution for the women who are involved in it. I personally think we should deal with reality however.

This is the reality. You're living in some cotton-wrapped little world where you think everything should be just as it is in the Bible and every prostitute is just a woman who's been wronged along the way. That's hardly the case at all. I repeat: yes, there are some women out there that are there out of desperation. I will not argue that. But there are women out there who do it because they enjoy it.

Once you accept that we'll all be dandy.

Edited for your edit.

How/why on earth is it detrimental to society? And please, no pseudo-Christian propaganda or brainwashing. Truth and cold hard facts go a long way. Prostitution has been around since the dawn of time and I see no great ill effects that come strictly from the passing of money for goods. Sure, there's negative things tied to it as with ANYTHING else, but as for the pure, simple act of paying money for sex? Hardly detrimental. Mutually beneficial, more like. Each party gets what they wants.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

liah: You act as if that is in the majority and that is the majority case, and that there is really no problem with prostitution for the women who are involved in it. I personally think we should deal with reality however.

I personally feel sorry for prostitutes who are involved in it. It's not the people I have the issue with, it's the practice. The difference between my position and the position that is being argued from the other side is, I think if a practice has proven to be detrimental to society in a large way it should be minimised. Others think we should just open the doors wide open.

What's the point in talking about trafficking, exploitation and other criminality then, since even if you are completely convinced that these can be eliminated you won't change your mind?

What exactly do you mean by "detrimental to society"? It's a very vague term. What you consider detrimental others might think is great. In what way is it detrimental, bearing in mind that you cannot use the examples of trafficking, exploitation and criminality since you would still want it to be illegal if these weren't problems

Quint

The whole point of legalising it is to get rid of the people who are forced into it. They have to be registered with an RSI number (or whatever it's called), pay tax, go for regular STI checks etc. If it's policed properly girls can have panic alarms and linked to police stations.
The way it is now an illegal immigrant can do it handy enough without ever leaving an appartment with a pimp "owning" her.

philologos

liah wrote: »

Please re-read all of what I wrote above and stop twisting it to conform to your preaching platform.

I don't consider a two way back and forth discussion on prostitution to be a preaching platform. I don't consider it right, other people do. That's their perogative. How about an open discussion instead of ad-hominems?

liah wrote: »

This is the reality. You're living in some cotton-wrapped little world where you think everything should be just as it is in the Bible and every prostitute is just a woman who's been wronged along the way. That's hardly the case at all. I repeat: yes, there are some women out there that are there out of desperation. I will not argue that. But there are women out there who do it because they enjoy it.

It is absolute fiction to say that there aren't severe problems as a result of prostitution that wouldn't exist if there was a serious effort to minimise it. It's also absolute fiction to say that a lot of problems go away through legalising prostitution. So yes, I think I'm fair in saying that your position does not deal with reality at all.

I haven't once referred to the Bible in this discussion. I'd settle for a world with freedoms for all, where women are respected for who they are rather than what they look like. That'd be a good start anyway.

liah wrote: »

Once you accept that we'll all be dandy.

Are you for real? Who is the one doing the preaching here? I'm promoting that we have a back and forth and deal with our points one by one. You are the one saying that I have to accept your position to be "dandy". My opinion is fine, as is yours, I just don't agree with yours. I'm fine with you voicing your opinion. This is a discussion, not an endeavour to force people to accept your opinion.

liah wrote: »

How/why on earth is it detrimental to society? And please, no pseudo-Christian propaganda or brainwashing. Truth and cold hard facts go a long way. Prostitution has been around since the dawn of time and I see no great ill effects that come strictly from the passing of money for goods. Sure, there's negative things tied to it as with ANYTHING else, but as for the pure, simple act of paying money for sex? Hardly detrimental. Mutually beneficial, more like. Each party gets what they wants.

I actually can't believe what I am reading. Reports have dealt with gang involvement in prostitution even when it is legal and you are here discussing how prostitution isn't detrimental to society.

You then go on to make ad-hominems as if I only am basing this on my religion. Look up the facts.

Edit: Sam, I'd be a lot more willing to tolerate prostitution if it was 100% free choice and if factors of financial desperation and exploitation weren't involved. Since both of those factors are very much involved, this can't be guaranteed I support legal prohibition. One cannot determine if it is free choice with this kind of coercion being a factor in that.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It is absolute fiction to say that there aren't severe problems as a result of prostitution that wouldn't exist if there was a serious effort to minimise it. It's also absolute fiction to say that a lot of problems go away through legalising prostitution. So yes, I think I'm fair in saying that your position does not deal with reality at all.

Firstly, saying it's fiction doesn't make it so. It is demonstrably not fiction. And secondly, all of these side problems are completely irrelevant because even if, for example, gang activity could be eliminated you would still want it to be illegal because you think having sex for money is inherently wrong.

So please explain to us why it is inherently wrong. That is the only thing that is relevant because it it the only way that your mind can be changed.

philologos

I personally disagree with prostitution in terms of morality, but I do not support it's prohibition for that reason I support it's prohibition because of the high risk of abuse, the mere exploitation behind it, gang involvements amongst other things and I see the appropriate solution as a clampdown not legalisation.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: Sam, I'd be a lot more willing to tolerate prostitution if it was 100% free choice and if factors of financial desperation and exploitation weren't involved. Since both of those factors are very much involved, this can't be guaranteed I support legal prohibition. One cannot determine if it is free choice with this kind of coercion being a factor in that.

you say that legalisation cannot guarantee 100% that there is no coercion so you support prohibition. But prohibition can't make that guarantee either. Legalisation could make probably a 90% guarantee of no coercion but you'd rather stick with a 100% guarantee that there will be coercion. It doesn't make any sense!

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally disagree with prostitution in terms of morality, but I do not support it's prohibition for that reason I support it's prohibition because of the high risk of abuse, the mere exploitation behind it, gang involvements amongst other things and I see the appropriate solution as a clampdown not legalisation.

The high risk of abuse can only be decreased through legalisation because some control better than none.
The exploitation can only be decreased through legalisation because some control better than none.
Gang involvement can only be decreased through legalisation because some control better than none.

They might not drop to zero but they could only decrease. Which leaves: you think it's morally wrong. So why is it morally wrong?

Quint

Funny tag btw!

t -10 seconds til jesus

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The high risk of abuse can only be decreased through legalisation because some control better than none.

The exploitation can only be decreased through legalisation because some control better than none.

Gang involvement can only be decreased through legalisation because some control better than none.

Which leaves: you think it's morally wrong. So why is it morally wrong?

That is nonsense. Abuse is still possible, exploitation is still as possible as it was if it is legalised. All these things remain the same. Gang involvement still takes place in the Netherlands.

Prohibition is the only reasonable way to minimise this. Opening the doors merely exascerbates the problem.

As for dealing with the morality about it, I'd like to have the assurance that we can keep a respectful attitude on the thread before I will be getting into that.

liah

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't consider a two way back and forth discussion on prostitution to be a preaching platform. I don't consider it right, other people do. That's their perogative. How about an open discussion instead of ad-hominems?

Ah it's hardly a discussion, Jakkass, now, is it? It's just picking the way you think and running with it. And in this case, it is preaching, because you're not actually paying any attention to facts.

It is absolute fiction to say that there aren't severe problems as a result of prostitution that wouldn't exist if there was a serious effort to minimise it. It's also absolute fiction to say that a lot of problems go away through legalising prostitution. So yes, I think I'm fair in saying that your position does not deal with reality at all.

My position is based on reality. Look at the countries who have it legalized and look at their crime rates compared to those of countries who have deemed it illegal. The only reason you're banking on it so much is because of your own warped notion that sex can only ever be something sacred between two people and you're using every possible route you can to try and make it what you want it to be. If you want to pretend your argument is not based on that, by all means, go ahead, but you're only fooling yourself really.

There's severe problems with pretty much anything. Look at the things that go down with big business-- embezzlement, assassinations, fraud, and everything else you can think of. Does that mean big business should be illegal? I doubt it. Just because some parties do things in an unpleasant manner doesn't mean they all do and it doesn't mean they all should be punished for the actions of others. It happens with everything that involves money. The only reason you're targeting prostitution is because of your beliefs.

I haven't once referred to the Bible in this discussion. I'd settle for a world with freedoms for all, where women are respected for who they are rather than what they look like. That'd be a good start anyway.

You don't need to reference the Bible, every post you make is indicative of where your position is from, and considering your history of posts it's obvious where your platform lies and why.

And you, laughably, bring up respect? What is there not to respect about a woman doing what she wants as a career path and empowering herself and being comfortable in her lifestyle and decisions? Seriously? I'd say kudos to any woman who did what she wanted to do and was happy with it and made money from it, regardless of what it was.

Are you for real? Who is the one doing the preaching here? I'm promoting that we have a back and forth and deal with our points one by one. You are the one saying that I have to accept your position to be "dandy". My opinion is fine, as is yours, I just don't agree with yours. I'm fine with you voicing your opinion. This is a discussion, not an endeavour to force people to accept your opinion.

I'm not saying you need to accept my position. I'm saying you need to accept reality. Reality is that just because YOU deem it objectification, exploitation, or degradation does NOT make it so. It is ultimately up to the person involved to make that decision. To realize that is hardly preaching, it's opening your eyes.

I actually can't believe what I am reading. Reports have dealt with gang involvement in prostitution even when it is legal and you are here discussing how prostitution isn't detrimental to society.

Oh for god's sake.

Right, let's put it this way.

When alcohol was placed under prohibition, gang involvement rose to an absolutely ridiculous level. What happened when alcohol was legalized again?

It became regulated and now there is less gang involvement. There are still negative side effects to alcohol. Murders are committed because of it, accidents happen because of it, domestic violence happens because of it, there's still plenty of blood and gore because of it. But it is still legal, still regulated, and the negative effects, while not gone, are lessened.

The same thing can and has happened with prostitution.

The moment you prohibit something is the moment it becomes dangerous. It is much safer for ALL involved to legalize and regulate. To deny this is just completely ignorant.

You can't expect perfection with everything. There isn't a thing in this world that some misdeed hasn't arisen from. Not a damn thing. Making it illegal exacerbates the problem.

Also I find it interesting that you're attempting to preach from the women's rights standpoint while utterly ignoring the fact that an awful lot (and I will not claim all) of women would be much safer, much happier, and much healthier if it were legalized and regulated.

Entirely hypocritical and exposes your real motives, to be honest.

partyguinness

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally disagree with prostitution in terms of morality, but I do not support it's prohibition for that reason I support it's prohibition because of the high risk of abuse, the mere exploitation behind it, gang involvements amongst other things and I see the appropriate solution as a clampdown not legalisation.

I think we all accept that those issues are there. So surely the situation cant get any worse..the horse has bolted a long time ago so to speak.

So an attempt to clean up the area can only be a good thing? And even that wont get rid of problems completely. I have seen documentaries in the past with illegal prostitutues stating that they would be quiet happy to have a safe environment to work in i.e. a legal brothel.

I feel that you are allowing your own morals and emotions to prevent you from seeing the positives that legalising prost may bring. All you see is negative and that it is inherently bad. As I said before, you dont have to agree with it but you should accept the reality that it does exist whether you like it or not and perhaps regulatio in this area may bring benefits.

It is like someone who is anti drugs being against the methadone clinics?

The only way you would like to see it being dealt with is by stricter police enforcement thus keeping the issues underground and out of sight.

For all your moralising about exploitation, degradation etc, this approach does not remove these evils you so much abhor (and they are real concerns dont get me wrong).

Effectively sticking your head in the sand.

You are offering no solutions or ways to make the situation better. Legalising is one such approach that may work.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

That is nonsense. Abuse is still possible, exploitation is still as possible as it was if it is legalised. All these things remain the same. Gang involvement still takes place in the Netherlands.

Prohibition is the only reasonable way to minimise this. Opening the doors merely exascerbates the problem.

I never said they would be completely eliminated but they by no means remain the same. Imagine this situation. A woman:

lives in her own apartment
Pays taxes
Has regular check ups with a doctor
Undergoes psychological analysis regularly to ensure proper mental health
Is given real alternatives to her trade, possibly giving grants to registered prostitutes or preference in FAS courses

How can you possibly say that the risks are the same in that case as with a woman who is locked up in a pimp's apartment and addicted to drugs? How can you possibly say that it is easier to manage that situation than the first one?

And anyway, all of the above is irrelevant because even if those problems could be eliminated, you would still think it should be illegal, no?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for dealing with the morality about it, I'd like to have the assurance that we can keep a respectful attitude on the thread before I will be getting into that.

I don't know Jakkass. You have often said I was being disrespectful when I didn't think I was. All I can so is promise to try my best.

philologos

liah: You're basically saying that I'm preaching because I hold a different position than you do. IT seems that you have to be liberal before people don't regard you as preaching. I just don't think it's safe to legalise prostitution, that's all. You then go on about "agenda" and so on. I haven't once brought any ulterior agenda into this discussion rather it is you who assumes that I have these ulterior motives. I'm not interested in discussing if you are only interested in being intolerant of other viewpoints or opinions on prostitution, and I'm not interested if you are going to go on a condascending rant about how "hypocritical" I am. I'm dealing with peoples points one by one, you are attacking me personally for even posting an alternative view.

How am I hypocritical in saying that women should not have to endure this horrible practice and that it should be made illegal?

Sam: It wasn't you I was referring to don't worry

. I think I'm on my way out of this discussion anyway.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

liah: You're basically saying that I'm preaching because I hold a different position than you do. IT seems that you have to be liberal before people don't regard you as preaching. I just don't think it's safe to legalise prostitution, that's all. You then go on about "agenda" and so on. I haven't once brought any ulterior agenda into this discussion rather it is you who assumes that I have these ulterior motives.

Well Jakkass, you as much as admitted you have "ulterior motives" because you're talking about gang activity, exploitation etc and avoiding the elephant in the room: you think prostitution is inherently wrong. Until this issue is dealt with there's no point discussion anything else because your mind cannot be changed by discussing any of those issues. They are add ons to back up your opinion, they are not the core reason for your opinion

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam: It wasn't you I was referring to don't worry . I think I'm on my way out of this discussion anyway.

I'd really rather you didn't, I think we're getting somewhere here.

liah

I'm not attacking your viewpoint, I'm attacking the fact that you are not looking at this realistically. It has nothing to do with being liberal. It has everything to do with human rights.

And how AREN'T you being hypocritical? You have the opportunity to back a decision that would help thousands upon thousands of prostitutes become safer, happier and healthier via regulation by government, but instead you would rather it remain illegal and leave those thousands upon thousands of prostitutes without proper assistance or health care.

But it seems you realize you've got no real backing for your stance and are therefore copping out on the premise that I'm "attacking" you, which is bs, and now you're dropping out of the discussion, probably because you know you've lost credibility due to lack of actually looking into what you're discussing and not facing up to the fact that it is ultimately your beliefs rather than reality that pushes your opinion.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well Jakkass, you as much as admitted you have "ulterior motives" because you're talking about gang activity, exploitation etc and avoiding the elephant in the room: you think prostitution is inherently wrong. Until this issue is dealt with there's no point discussion anything else because your mind cannot be changed by discussing any of those issues

The issues for me in legalisation have been discussed. The reasons why I personally wouldn't go to a prostitute are what you are asking about now, which I think aren't relevant to legalisation.

In a plural system reasons why I wouldn't go to a prostitute would differ with another person. However, in a plural system the negative effects of prostitution remain the same. As such it is the rational viewpoint to come from this position, rather than why I personally wouldn't go to a prostitute surely?

Hopefully both you and liah can understand my position more clearly now.

Sam Vimes

liah wrote: »

And how AREN'T you being hypocritical? You have the opportunity to back a decision that would help thousands upon thousands of prostitutes become safer, happier and healthier via regulation by government, but instead you would rather it remain illegal and leave those thousands upon thousands of prostitutes without proper assistance or health care.

In fairness to him he thinks that legalising it will make those problems worse so he doesn't think legalisation will make them happier and healthier so it's not hypocritical. He's wrong and thousands of years of prohibition show that but it's still his opinion.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The issues for me in legalisation have been discussed. The reasons why I personally wouldn't go to a prostitute are what you are asking about now, which I think aren't relevant to legalisation.

In a plural system reasons why I wouldn't go to a prostitute would differ with another person. However, in a plural system the negative effects of prostitution remain the same. As such it is the rational viewpoint to come from this position, rather than why I personally wouldn't go to a prostitute surely?

Hopefully both you and liah can understand my position more clearly now.

I know those reasons aren't relevant to legalisation which is what I'm trying to get across to you. All of the other problems you mentioned are made worse by having prostitution illegal so it's hard for us to accept that they are your sole reasons for wanting it to be illegal. Can you understand our position here?

carly_86

Dont refer 2 them as sluts

partyguinness

Jakkass wrote: »

The issues for me in legalisation have been discussed. The reasons why I personally wouldn't go to a prostitute are what you are asking about now, which I think aren't relevant to legalisation.

In a plural system reasons why I wouldn't go to a prostitute would differ with another person. However, in a plural system the negative effects of prostitution remain the same. As such it is the rational viewpoint to come from this position, rather than why I personally wouldn't go to a prostitute surely?

Hopefully both you and liah can understand my position more clearly now.

I dont think anyone here has mentioned going to a prostitute personally.

But Jackass, do you think:

a. That prostitution is not all bad; and
b. Legalisied prostitution may bring benefits that might reduce the exploitation gangs etc involvement which is already there
c. Some women make a career choice to become escorts for money, to pay for college and it is just a job?

If there is a chance that legalised prost would reduce exploitation etc that it is a chance worth taking? (Note: I use the word "reduce" not eradicate)

A little story, I used to live in Stoneybatter. As ye may or may not know there are a good few street prostitutes in the area. When I moved out one evening, I had a load of condoms in my bedroom. I put them in a bag and handed them to one of the regular girls I used to see in the area. I told her that she needed them more than I did. TBH I felt good about myself afterwards as my good deed for the decade.

philologos

liah wrote: »

I'm not attacking your viewpoint, I'm attacking the fact that you are not looking at this realistically. It has nothing to do with being liberal. It has everything to do with human rights.

You are also throwing in your fair share of ad-hominems too. Let's be mature and calm?

liah wrote: »

And how AREN'T you being hypocritical? You have the opportunity to back a decision that would help thousands upon thousands of prostitutes become safer, happier and healthier via regulation by government, but instead you would rather it remain illegal and leave those thousands upon thousands of prostitutes without proper assistance or health care.

It will only improve certain things, it will also exacerbate some things also. I just think that getting the prostitution business down as small as possible would mean that less women would be affected by this. Whereas where it is legal more women are involved in the trade and more women will be affected by factors such as financial coercion leading them into prostitution against their will. Policing allows the Government to control how small the prostitution business is given how much support is left aside for it. I just think it's more effective than legalisation. I don't think it's one bit hypocritical to ensure that as few women as possible manage to get roped into this business so that they will have no risk at all of the abuse, and the financial coercion that other women are under. Minimising is much much more effective than maximising.

Look, I see where you are coming from, but I cannot possibly agree with it given what reasoning I have on how best we can deal with the issue.

liah wrote: »

But it seems you realize you've got no real backing for your stance and are therefore copping out on the premise that I'm "attacking" you, which is bs, and now you're dropping out of the discussion, probably because you know you've lost credibility due to lack of actually looking into what you're discussing and not facing up to the fact that it is ultimately your beliefs rather than reality that pushes your opinion.

I disagree, I've got a rather robust backing compared to some of the proponents on this thread. Minimising makes more sense to me than maximising. Maximising means the threat is more possible and more real, and that people who cannot find another way of life are more likely to think that prostitution is a last resort, but at least is avaliable to me. This raises big exclamation marks over genuine consent in the prostitution business for me.

I don't think that I have lost credibility for bringing real world examples into the discussion to demonstrate my points.

I haven't pushed my opinion at all. You effectively posted to me, that you'll have no problem with me if I see things your way and agree with you. How immature is that? I personally don't care if people agree or disagree with me, and I don't care if I convince anyone, I just want to bring a few points to the table and think a bit about the issue. As such, leave the frustration and the anger elsewhere and just calm down

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It will only improve certain things, it will also exacerbate some things also. I just think that getting the prostitution business down as small as possible would mean that less women would be affected by this. Whereas where it is legal more women are involved in the trade and more women will be affected by factors such as financial coercion leading them into prostitution against their will. Policing allows the Government to control how small the prostitution business is given how much support is left aside for it.

Let me try and explain better, the problem is not the number of prostitutes, the problem is how the industry is managed. There are problems associated with the industry but these problems can only decrease through regulation.

Basically 1 million prostitutes getting medical check ups and paying taxes is better than 1000 getting beaten and being drug addicts. Legalisation probably would increase the number of prostitutes but as long as they follow strict rules such as the ones I mentioned above (regular health check-ups etc), that in itself is not a bad thing............unless you think prostitution is inherently wrong. Which is why that is the only relevant issue and everything else is window dressing

shqipshume

carly_86 wrote: »

Dont refer 2 them as sluts

Why not,That's what they are and 98 percent of them would rob your teeth from your head and stab you in the back,Have you ever met one? I had two who i knew and they are scum of earth nasty nasty people.

The ones who are forced into it and have no choice are not,

Legalising it will never clean it up,as there is certain things that alot of men want and its women who are beaten and get off on been able to rape them.The only reason government would want it legalised is so they could get their bit of money out of it.
Oh what is Ireland turing into when people start shouting for legalising this to.:rolleyes::(

nix

We already have a brothel in dublin no?

WTF is copperface jacks then ?

:pac:

shqipshume

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Let me try and explain better, the problem is not the number of prostitutes, the problem is how the industry is managed. There are problems associated with the industry but these problems can only decrease through regulation.

Basically 1 million prostitutes getting medical check ups and paying taxes is better than 1000 getting beaten and being drug addicts. Legalisation probably would increase the number of prostitutes but as long as they follow strict rules such as the ones I mentioned above (regular health check-ups etc), that in itself is not a bad thing............unless you think prostitution is inherently wrong. Which is why that is the only relevant issue and everything else is window dressing

Still wont stop any of what you said by legalising it.:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

nix wrote: »

We already have a brothel in dublin no?

WTF is copperface jacks then ?

:pac:

Naaa, that's not a brothel. You don't have to pay them except for maybe a smirnoff ice

Sam Vimes

shqipshume wrote: »

Still wont stop any of what you said by legalising it.:rolleyes:

I never said it would stop it, in fact I said the exact opposite several times :rolleyes:

What I'm talking about is minimising the risks and legalisation and regulation is the best way to make sure these problems don't happen whereas prohibition has proven to be ineffective. Basically you're saying "legaisation can't 100% guarantee eliminating the problems so let's continue with the system that has allowed the problems to continue for thousands of years and hope that this year is the lucky one"

shqipshume

Why was my post deleted?I told the truth they would rob your teeth from your head and stab you in back as quick as look at you.

I didn't insult any member here and now i am not allowed to tell the truth about prostitutes.
How many of you people actually ever knew one in the sense of everyday life? :rolleyes: