HN user

PickledHotdog

222 karma
Posts0
Comments137
View on HN
No posts found.

Iran was "contained" under Obama's deal with them....that Trump tore up....and when he was in the middle of negotiating a new one he attacked Iran who were in good faith negotiations.

The rogue nation here is the US.

And yet millions of people starve, are tortured and are worked to death in the name of Capitalism. How many die or are made destitute due to lack of affordable healthcare in the US alone?

Not to mention the trillions of dollars (and lives) given up in the pursuit of halting what we're told is a fragile, prone-to-collapse form of government for a hundred years now.

Strange that.

Lions don't attack every animal that sets foot on their turf.

The release of "Collateral Murder" damaged public opinion of the US invasion of Iraq and US foreign policy in general. If journalists embarrass the US government by telling them their nose looks funny, Assange embarrassed them by pulling their pants down at the half time show at the Superbowl.

Trade unions were involved in the push for the ban. So, rather than cynical motives, it might actually just be regular old "the health and safety of workers" behind it.

There's a substantial amount of lobbying, but the reporting requirements on it are laughably low. Agree it's not at the level of the US, though. The member for Kooyong was working to establish a bill about it. At the moment lobbyists have unfettered access to parliament house.

Nice feelings you have there.

Why can't we legalise sex work and cut a lot of pimps out of the equation? Maintain a "ban" on street walking, but allow brothels and escorting.

What is prostitution anyway? A coal miner sells his body in similar ways to a prostitute.

Why can't we legalise drugs and cut cartels and gangs out of the equation? Personal use amounts, manufactured and taxed like other drugs (alcohol, cigarettes etc)

Why can't we legalise abortion and cut backyard operators out of the equation?

Why should your moral stances take precedence over the safety of others?

You can't legislate behaviours away. They're going to happen. We've been taking drugs for 10s of 1000s of years. We've been trading our bodies for benefits for at least a few thousand.

These actions are largely harmless. Let's realise that making them illegal is a large part of what makes them dangerous.

Oh weird. Having read the book, I agree it's a tough read. But would it have been the same if prostitution was legalised (or at least decriminalised) and regulated? I doubt it very much.

Sex work can be made far safer. A holier than thou blanket ban on legalisation of sex work will only guarantee that it won't become safer.

Similar to drug use, if we as societies continue to pretend that people won't partake in drugs because there are laws against it, all we're doing is ensuring drug use is more dangerous.

If you don't want to be a sex worker, don't be one. If you don't want to take drugs, don't take them (though I'm sure many anti-drug types enjoy a whiskey or 10).

But don't pretend you're doing people a favour by refusing to entertain the idea of legalising largely harmless behaviours. You're just ensuring that the actions which are going to happen regardless are more dangerous for those involved.

A bit like abortion, really.

Ah yes, that would explain the enormous raft of benefits that Portugal came into when it decriminalised drug use for personal amounts and would explain why the Prohibition Era was so wildly successful and free from downsides

Which drugs do you draw the line at? Coffee? Alcohol? Nicotine?