Hacker News Reader

This is how I feel about many things that are illegal as well. We can sell our physical and mental health to our employers till the day we die, yet there are people imprisoned because of sex/drug crimes? Absolute insanity if you step back and look at it.

Even worse is that in a country like the US, they practically have their own version of slavery with how inmates are effectively forced into labour for insignificant wages, which then benefit private corporations.

This is definitely an aspect of humanity that will be looked upon very poorly in the future.

My apologies if you're mainly talking about relatively harmless drugs like weed/psychedelics, but the hard drugs like meth and heroin are absolutely devastating to humans and I don't see any benefit to legalizing their sale.

I realize drug dealers aren't forcing anyone to take them, but seeing what meth can do to a community is horrifying to the point where I feel most would agree it shouldn't happen (which is what laws are for).

Certainly the way our prison systems run needs a major overhaul, but imprisonment due to permanently destroying lives, their potential children's lives, and communities for personal monetary gain (drug trafficking) does not sound like absolute insanity.

No one would become a meth addict if better drugs were cheap and legal. Even meth addicts would probably prefer some nice cocaine. Eventually, the most effective treatments for addiction will include supervised doses of psilocybin. Research is difficult when the law interferes, however.

I am extremely against criminalization for any drugs, regardless of their impact to the person. Yes, some drugs are horrible and people should not take them. That does not mean ruining their lives and imprisoning them is something to even consider. Especially given that their family's lives are impacted even more so from them being absent, and the worse yet the dark cloud that continues to follow them for the rest of their lives now that they have federal charges, which makes them discriminated against for employment and forces crime through desperation.

Harmful drugs and drug addiction should be treated through education, healthcare and community involvement. It actually disgusts me at this point that people think drug criminalization is a good thing despite what prisons are in much of the world.

The post above yours said 'sale' though, not consumption. Do you think it should be permitted to sell heroin freely?

Unfortunately yes, but even more so I would prefer if there were safe, licensed places to buy these drugs so that people can do them safely if they so choose.

If/when we do eventually go down that road, I certainly hope people are well educated in the harms of these drugs, and that they are in a position mentally/physically/socially to not have to turn to such things...

Your first two words are pretty much exactly how I feel as well. I can't see how to avoid supporting the black market in any other way.

I would like to see some kind of hurdle erected to give kids (and young adults) a serious educational blast before selling them their first dose, but otherwise I think it has to be legal if you're interested in harm-minimization.

In my experience the only effective education about these particular drugs is experimentation. Problem here is that if they were administered safely and legally, there would be (predominantly) zero downsides. Barring unexpected negative side effects, the only time "this is bad" comes into play is long, long after addiction takes hold. You can tell somebody for 30+ years "this is bad don't do it" even up to the point of using unethical methods (i.e. force a teen to smoke a whole pack of cigs, or give a preteen a shot or three of Popov)... it doesn't really click that first time, or even after several times.

The missing element with drug legalization is the preventative aspect. It simply doesn't happen in large enough numbers using the exposure/education method.

However, shame based propaganda has been showing significantly positive(?) results with cigarettes. Most people I've e countered from younger generations cannot fathom smoking a cigarette. Vaping, sure, but stinky cigarette? Ewwww, gross.

Meth and heroin legalization and "it's all good if you're responsible" mentality isn't going to work.

I don't think anyone said "it's all good if you're responsible" lol...

You're right though, often times the only solid education is experience.

Do you see a distinction between consumption and clandestine trafficking?

Well the trafficking is necessary because the substances are illegal, so yes..? If there were just legal, safe ways to obtain these drugs, the vast majority of people who wanted to do them would choose to do so. For those who chose to go for the cheaper but riskier options, that's their choice, they should be educated on the dangers, and then that should be end of it

Have watched a number of people decline from hard drugs. Have lost years and huge sums trying to help some. Now it’s to the point where entire family hopes they get arrested before they kill someone.

A few cleaned up some. But never the same.

Zero sympathy for people pushing stuff.

You're missing one: those who literally actually have the power have somehow been subsumed by a system into becoming powerless.

Ergo, if workers realized that their work was valuable and created a bloc, we can turn the tables (unions come to mind as well as brothels and other collectives which seek to harness their power). The trick is you have to know you're powerful.

And I'm not suggesting that's enough to solve the entire problem, but its enough to enable negotiations to continue improving the situation.

If you create a bloc of people providing a service that is illegal, now you've formed a criminal organization, at least in the eyes of law enforcement, and you've painted a target on your back. Can't really unionize effectively unless you're on the right side of the law. Which is another argument for decriminalization.

> Both are dangerous work

Because the regulation is crappy. Current regulation and laws is what made them dangerous.

> Both have high degree's of human trafficking

Again. This is due to the current laws. If woman were able to travel to another country (say, USA) and do short-term entertainment work for a few months on her own terms, you will reduce human trafficking.

The current laws benefit lots of people. For politicians, this problem doesn't exist since prostitution is illegal. For human traffickers and clubs, this brings them money because if woman were to operate legally on a freelance basis, they'll have no business mode. The customers don't really care.

> For human traffickers and clubs, this brings them money because if woman were to operate legally on a freelance basis, they'll have no business mode.

Operating legally on a freelance basis is the norm for strippers right now. The club's business model is that they charge the stripper for use of the floor.

> If woman were able to travel to another country (say, USA) and do short-term entertainment work for a few months on her own terms, you will reduce human trafficking.

I don't think regulation would fix this. Is the main impetus for human trafficking the inability for sex workers to independently travel? Doesn't fit my mental model of the issue.

It could be a factor, but probably not a main one.

I know first hand that there are organizations that will help people in poor countries get a tourist visa to a wealthier country, and set them up with under the table jobs for a few months so they can go home with enough cash to support their families for the rest of the year. Not legal, but relatively harmless.

I've heard stories, but no personal knowledge, of traffickers pretending to be one of the above organizations, but once the victim is in the foreign country, they effectively enslave them using some combination of confiscating their documents, direct threats, threats against relatives, and lying/exaggerating what the local law enforcement will do if they find out they came to work illegally. By the time people back home realize something is wrong, the traffickers have already moved on. No idea how accurate or how common this is.

Same would apply to orgs offering to smuggle people into a wealthy country without a visa with the intention of staying indefinitely. In either case, I suppose a freer flow of labor could reduce that grey market and therefore the opportunity for abuse.

> Current regulation and laws is what made them dangerous.

Could you please elaborate a bit more?

> Because the regulation is crappy. Current regulation and laws is what made them dangerous.

Regulation will never work to create better working condition. There will always be more laborers willing to replace you than amazing job opportunities. Also, labor regulation is constantly being worked around by companies. Eg. in Europe, due to tough regulation of working conditions, many workers are now being employed as freelancers and therefore receiving exactly zero worker protections.

Competition for workers is what has empirically worked to improve working conditions. UBI or just reducing monopolistic living costs, such as real estate rent, could give people the option not to work - the biggest contribution to competition for workers.

> Regulation will never work to create better working condition.

Regulations do already create better working conditions, including making workplaces safer and things like overtime pay for wage earners. Why do you think that more regulations can’t improve the conditions further?

The very unparallel difference between prostitution and labor though (pre-modern-technology) is that the former often left a permanent, enduring, and very personal reminder of the activity ... a child. That's the genesis of almost all differences in treatment of prostitution vs labor, the one almost all commentators here have not addressed. With the "Brave New World" upon us in increasing degrees, that may change.

EDIT: Brave New World

Disease control is possibly a more compelling argument. I've seen some articles that suggest some prostitutes primarily provide oral gratification which does not lead to pregnancy. Your argument also presumes that all sex work is heterosexual which is another problem with it.

Human sexual morality is complex. Disease control and the consequence of pregnancy are large parts of the reason sex is such a loaded issue.

This is a poor argument for suggesting people should not be allowed to provide sexual services for cash if they so choose.

100% agree. That might look like only one difference, but it makes all the difference here.

Aside from that, you also have the personal aspect of the two. When you leave labor related work and go to your house, you don't generally do labor on your own or with other people you share an interest (or a deep emotion with) with, you might do it as an hobby, but that's pretty much it. Sex on the other hand, is different. You can still do it without any emotions attached, but you also do it when you are deeply involved with other people. It's one of the basic ways to share deep affection with other people, which can be hindered if you do it professionally.

Of course this depends on the person, or more generally, the society. Maybe that's probably why prostitution is legal in some countries.

I think the one big emotional difference which has put prostitution in a separate category is that it kind of overlaps with drugs and addiction.

Sex releases happy chemicals, just like drugs. Nobody is getting hooked on paying people to pour concrete.

There's the saying "if you look for yellow cars, you'll find them." I think your assumption that the difference was gender is just a product of the times: you were looking for that answer. Even though male prostitutes are illegal too. And there's clearly an emotional difference between having sex with someone, and having them mow your lawn.

> Nobody is getting hooked on paying people to pour concrete.

So you think sex work is illegal / made very impractical in so many countries to protect the customers?

Only one is a transmissible disease vector that presents a threat to all of society.

These things aren't illegal soas to protect the unfortunates who would become addicted, so much as the society as a whole. So that (most) people don't just give up and smoke crack all day or become too immoral or whatever. In principle at least, every individual vice has it's own complicated story.

>There's the saying "if you look for yellow cars, you'll find them." I think your assumption that the difference was gender is just a product of the times: you were looking for that answer.

Without passing an opinion on the subject, isn't that kind of a flaming laser sword? You could apply it to any parallel drawn between two things regardless of whether the comparison is valid or not. It doesn't seem like a useful tool to discriminate valid ideas from invalid ones.

This form of argument does not seem to apply to every parallel drawn between any two things. It seems to apply specifically to comparisons that are very close fits with dominant cultural trends.

In 1800s Britain, it could be applied to reject claims such as "cholera is caused by the jews", but it could not be applied to claims such as "cholera is caused by contaminated water pumps".

Similarly, the claim "prostitution was made illegal because the Plumbers and Deliverypeople Union wanted exclusive nibs on spontaneous sexual encounters" would be impervious to this 'sword', because blaming plumbers for the problems of society is not a current trope of our culture.

Disregarding the merits of this particular instance, that seems like a reasonable general heuristic: after all, if some conclusion is socially desirable, then people may reach it even when it's not supported by the preponderance of evidence.

Why couldn't it? The statement has nothing to do with current tropes, but rather is an implicit accusation of a confirmation bias on a single person. You can make a claim, and regardless of what it is I can reply with "well, you're saying that because you have an a priori belief and you were looking for any evidence to confirm it".

The statement has a lot to do with current tropes: that's exactly what "product of the times" means.

Cf. a "sign of the times": something that shows the kinds of things that are happening, popular, important, etc., in a culture at a particular period in history.

~~If you watch any interviews with sex workers it's clear that they view it as a job, not as a pleasure act. Many porn stars for instance have boyfriends/husbands and note that sex with them is different then their day job sex.~~

Also I am talking more about hard labor, construction, dock work, mining, landscaping is is taxing but it doesn't pay the big sell-your-back-knees-and-possibly-a-limb bucks.

You misunderstood. The people who presumably get 'hooked' aren't the workers, but the customers. People don't sell drugs as a pleasure act either.

Ah, I see.

success and completing things also release happy chemicals, but we you're allowed to build things or play sports for payment.

Even with that emotional connection, both psychologists and masseuses exist just fine

I've made a few friends in life who've done pretty much every drug under the sun. The only one that I've consistently heard described as "better than sex" is heroin.

Please, reflect on that for a second. Imagine going through all the drugs you could, trying heroin, and being like: "woah, this one drug is actually better than sex." It says a lot.