112
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
112 points (90.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26904 readers
631 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Dude it's 90% of their income - of course it will hit them. They won't disappear but believe me legalisation is the biggest thing they fear.
All I can do is point to how much power the mob amassed in the US during prohibition, and how long they held that power after prohibition ended. Sure, their revenue took a hit, but they moved fairly smoothly into other areas, and corrupted other power structures in order to build and maintain illicit revenue streams. It wasn't until the 80s and 90s that the mob families in NYC really saw significant consequences.
As an example? Mozarella cheese on pizza. That was fully controlled by the mob for a long time.
Who cares man? Gambling, prostitution, cheese, trash? Those are legit businesses.
As long they're out of the murder and dismemberment game that's the win right?
Gambling should never be considered a legit business. IMO casinos et al. should be shut down, for the same reason that payday lenders should be beaten to death in the streets: they're fundamentally predatory businesses.
The problem with prostitution and organized crime is that it's not victimless once the mob gets involved. "Bitch better have my money" is a threat; you pay the pimp, or you get beaten, and possibly killed. You want to hire an independent escort? I'm fine with that. But significant amounts of prostitution involve sex trafficking, esp. "agencies" that constantly advertise "new girls".
All of the businesses that the mob--or any organized criminal gang--is in end up increasing costs due to corruption, and involve the threat of violence if anyone disrupts their money. People that try to compete in sectors controlled by criminal groups tend to end up dead very, very quickly, regardless of what the nature of the business is.
"Prohibition…goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes." - Abraham Lincoln
I get that you personally might have moral issues with gambling etc. but making something illegal doesn't stop it, it just pushes control into the hands of criminals. Want to give me a single instance where prohibition has ever worked?
If you want to stop cartels legalisation is literally the only path.
That's... Not a good argument. Child pornography and prostitution is illegal because it's morally reprehensible, and incredibly, profoundly harmful to children. Same with murder, robbery, theft, etc. By definition, anything that is illegal is going to be done--or controlled--only by people that are criminals.
Does prohibition stop those things entirely? No, of course it doesn't. But it gives society tools to fight against them in a way that decriminalizing does not.
Prohibition doesn't give society tools, it removes them.
Take prostitution. Legalisation immediately leads to registration of hookers (blocking most human trafficking), gives oversight to inspectors, forces safety standards, allows for checks on welfare etc.. It also removes criminals from the chain, pimps, violence, drugs etc.. If you do a little research on this you'll see it's the better option. If you are a moral person your imperative should be on keeping all parties safe. And you have to realise prohibition never stops it.
Legalization of prostitution is a problem by itself, because the regulatory costs end up being borne by the sex workers (more on that in a tic). For prostitutes that are working at a subsistence level or only doing sex work occasionally as a stop-gap--which is the majority of voluntary prostitution--that's not going to work. And what do you do, for instance, when a registered sex worker suddenly tests positive for HIV, or hepatitis C? Revoke their license, and then...? Legalizing doesn't eliminate trafficking, it just pushes the prices for trafficked prostitutes down, because trafficked prostitutes are slaves.
There are definitely harm-reduction models that can, and do, work for sex work, but legalization and regulation--when that regulatory costs are paid by either the sex worker or the customer--will not work the way you think for harm reduction. For the system to work as intended, you would also need things like national single-payer healthcare (...that isn't constantly getting funding slashed by conservatives), and licensing that was both on-demand and free to the licensee, and you would need something to deal with the loss of income if they contracted an incurable STI. (Otherwise they would continue working, which would be a public health risk.) Inspections, compliance measures, et al. could not be a cost borne by the sew worker/clients or else you'd see non-compliance with regulatory measures. Most sex-worker advocates call for decriminalization rather than legalization/regulation because that's the model that moves the most risk away from the sex worker, but you do need to also balance the needs of the worker against the the needs of society to a degree.
You seem to be using the cost of regulation as an excuse against decriminalisation or legalisation of prostitution which i find wild.
Firstly a slightly higher cost to cover overhead would be fine for most johns if they didn't have to risk jail I'd imagine. I'm also sceptical that would even be needed. My understanding is currently in the US pimps take the majority of what sex workers earn.
Remember theres also tax revenue generated here so that would easily cover any government oversight...or does in other countries.
Also take into account that cost of not regulating is far far far higher. It's like the cost of homelessness - it costs massive amounts to a community oddly! The medical, policing, social services etc etc not to mention cost in terms of violence from criminal behaviour, drug addiction etc etc.. At the end of the day it bringing people into society is a far better option for all.