Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - 008

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 26
51

What could possibly mitigate his numerous follies?

52
I've never met a functioning crack head.


I have, actually.  And I've met plenty of nonfunctioning alcoholics.  So then what?

Yeah. Alcohol is waaay more addictive than crack.  ::)

So you wanna outlaw drugs based solely on their addictiveness?  That makes no sense.  If, on the other hand, one's measure of whether a drug should be legal is harm to society, then which of the two is actually more damaging?  Exactly.  Keep on rollin' 'em.

I think there's a decent argument for regulating prostitution to the extent that they require regular STD testing, condom usage, and birth control for sex workers.  Don't need people spreading disease or having babies they can't pay for.
I agree with this.  I like the way that the brothels work in LV, with the constant gynecological tests and std screenings.  Everyone is safe and healthy and not being harmed--and they are paying taxes.  Win/win IMO.

Actually, Nevada brothels are a prime example of the perils of legalization.  It's by no means a win/win.

I've never met a functioning crack head.


I have, actually.  And I've met plenty of nonfunctioning alcoholics.  So then what?

Give more info on the brothel situation.

As for crackheads, I think it should be decriminalized.  People are adults, if they want to ruin their lives, then let them.    They'll serve as a deterrent to future generations.

I like how you agree with me on the drugs, but I kinda don't respond well to imperatives. :D The info about Nevada isn't hard to find online.  You can look up any number of prostitute orgs (SWOP, COYOTE, BAYSWAN . . . ) or check out a copy of, among others, Whores and Other Feminists.  Luckily, my overwhelming need to reeducate folks has won out, so, rather than using one of my myriad bookmarks, I did something novel - I went to Google and typed in 'nevada brothel decriminalize.'  And look it!  The very first link!!

http://www.sexwork.com/legal/NevPimpHouses.html

It has a number of testimonials and info about sex work in a legal brothel in Nevada plus source links; I picked this one at semi-random 1)because it hits a lot of the highlights and 2)was conveniently near the top.

----

Working In Nevada
by Laura Anderson
Source: http://www.bayswan.org/Laura.html

Many people think that a legal brothel system, similar to the state of Nevada's is the best way to allow prostitution to operate. Speaking as a former Nevada brothel intimate, current self-employed call girl, and sex worker advocate, I would like to inform others of the disadvantage to prostitutes created by this system. From 1986 to 1991, I worked at four different brothels in Northern Nevada. Two of them were large, well known houses. I met other women who had worked the state's brothels extensively, and certain common conditions prevailed which were disadvantageous to us.

By Nevada statute, the only prostitute can legally work is in the brothels. Due to intentional default, the state and brothels retain an unfair advantage in regulating the working women. Under this system, prostitutes give up too much autonomy, control and choice over their work and lives. Because prostitutes are not allowed to work independently, or outside the brothel system, Nevada has essentially institutionalized third party management with no other options. While the brothel owners love this profitable solution, it can be exploitative and is unnecessary. prostitutes are usually quite capable of transacting their own businesses without interference.


This is a non-issue.  Prostitutes may be capable of transacting their own business without interference, but that is also the danger.  State regulation of prostitution is a trade off for the state and the prostitute.

[qoute]

Even though the brothels consider prostitutes to be independent contractors (convenient and less costly to them than employee status), the prostitutes do not have the control or freedom that independent contractors or sole proprietors have. If they decide to refuse a customer, management must be provided with what it deems an acceptable reason. Some "customers" should certainly be avoided at all costs. They might be rude, rough, or drunk, want too much for their money, have an attitude problem, or just simply be jerks. I don't think anyone should have to provide sexual services to men like that. Yet, many of the brothels put the burden of proof on the prostitute. She must justify her right to refuse business, even though she loses money herself by doing so. The prostitute is the best judge of who is eligible for her services, and she should be able to decide that without feeling pressured by a third party. Throughout Nevada, the standard percentage kept by the house per transaction is 50%. The brothels charge additional for room and board and several of them have the prostitutes supplement the house employees income by giving them required tips. This mandatory tipping can start at a minimum of $18 per day in the larger brothels. This is an effective way for the house to minimize its labor costs.

[/quote]
Sounds like a brothel to brothel problem.  Again, nonissue because anyone could make these complaints about their employer in this way and if it is really a problem then get another employer.  Would working for pimps be better?  If they have a better job opportunity, then take it, yes?
Quote

Another problem with the Nevada system is the restrictions imposed on prostitutes' freedom. They are required to live in brothels while they work there. 12 to 14 hour shifts are usually imposed and any plans to leave the premises of these establishments must be approved by management or a prostitute may forfeit her job or money. At most of the brothels I worked at, we weren't allowed to read books while waiting for customers in the parlor. If business was slow, this could mean a long, boring shift and a waste of valuable time.

Mandatory STD testing and sheriff department registration are also required. The houses discourage and in many cases forbid prostitutes to see doctors of their own choosing. My experience with the house doctors has often been rushed, inadequate exams for inflated prices; some even exhibiting a patronizing or sexist attitude! HIV testing is done on a monthly basis even though many health professionals say that testing twice a year is adequate. The people most concerned about the health of the prostitutes are the prostitutes, not the brothel owners, and certainly not the state, which imposes politically motivated and gender biased controls on prostitutes rather than holding customers equally accountable for their own sexual behavior.

Sorry, I'm not bothered that they are tested for STD more than they would like.  Also, regulation is the trade off.

Quote

Registering with the sheriff can be a conundrum, as fingerprints are sent to the FBI. If a woman is known to work as a prostitute, she is subject to various social and economic penalties such as being unable to get health insurance, discrimination in housing or future employment, or accusations of unfit motherhood. In several countries a known prostitute is not allowed to immigrate or her travel is severely restricted.

I am not opposed to brothels per se. They can be a good option, especially for less experienced workers who can benefit from the shared knowledge of other professionals. But when that is the only legitimate way a prostitute can work, she finds herself with no other way to conduct business legally, while the power of third parties over her is lopsidedly strengthened. This naturally leads to exploitative circumstances. Until the needs and desires of prostitutes are fully considered and included in any schemes legitimizing our profession, many of us will choose to work illegally rather than sacrifice values important to us like freedom, privacy, and control over our work, lives and bodies.




Where are the big societal drawbacks?  I dont see any.

53
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: July 17, 2008, 11:18:21 PM »
In additional comments from that same conversation, first reported by TVNewser, Jackson is reported to have said Obama was "talking down to black people," and referred to blacks with the N-word when he said Obama was telling them "how to behave."

In mitigation, referring to oneself and other black Americans collectively as "n*ggas" or any other version of the term is much less offensive than referring to Obama, disparagingly, as a "half-breed n*gger," which is what was originally reported.  Of course, Jackson's previous call to ban the n-word makes even this mild, common usage entirely unacceptable.
agreed

54
I think there's a decent argument for regulating prostitution to the extent that they require regular STD testing, condom usage, and birth control for sex workers.  Don't need people spreading disease or having babies they can't pay for.
I agree with this.  I like the way that the brothels work in LV, with the constant gynecological tests and std screenings.  Everyone is safe and healthy and not being harmed--and they are paying taxes.  Win/win IMO.

Actually, Nevada brothels are a prime example of the perils of legalization.  It's by no means a win/win.

I've never met a functioning crack head.


I have, actually.  And I've met plenty of nonfunctioning alcoholics.  So then what?

Give more info on the brothel situation.

As for crackheads, I think it should be decriminalized.  People are adults, if they want to ruin their lives, then let them.    They'll serve as a deterrent to future generations.

55
News Discussion / Re: The Pickens Plan - Great Idea or Shortsighted?
« on: July 17, 2008, 05:02:02 PM »
Ok, assuming T. Boone Pickens is telling the truth and the US is the Saudi Arabia of wind power, and that neat little graphic showing the wind power going through the middle of the US is accurate, then I like the idea sans the reliance on natural gas.  Why go out of th efrying pan and into the fire?

56
News Discussion / Re: The Pickens Plan - Great Idea or Shortsighted?
« on: July 17, 2008, 05:35:30 AM »
First of all, if you're not familiar with T. Boone Pickens' new plan for the energy crisis, check here:
www.pickensplan.com

What do y'all think about this Pickens Plan? I'm sure many of you have read about it or seen the TV commercials, but here's the gist of Pickens is saying:
-The world's production of oil peaked in 2005. Demand, however, has continued to rise. Therefore, oil prices will just continue to skyrocket.
-The US imports 70% of its oil, costing this country about $700 billion dollars this year alone.
-We currently get 22% of our electricity from natural gas. Natural gas is a clean-burning fuel.
-Let's reduce our dependence on foreign oil with an alternate fuel source. That alternate fuel source? Wind power!
-Pickens is investing $2 billion in wind power in an effort to create a wind power "corridor" in the Great Plains, stretching from Texas to North Dakota, that could supply the US with 20% of it's electric power. He wants other private investors to jump in, as well.
-With that 20% "freed up," we can then devote our natural gas resources to use as transportation fuel, using newly developed Natural Gas Vehicles that don't rely on oil.


This plan has been pretty universally lauded as a great proposal by a wealthy philanthropist who is effectively "putting his money where his mouth is." His proposal has a whole lot of merit at face value, too: oil prices will only continue to rise as the increase in demand will continue to outstrip the increase in supply; this country has become far too dependent on foreign oil; we need to invest in an alternate fuel source to power our transportation. All of this is very true, and it's great that Pickens is investing in a source of energy - wind - that is a great alternative for this country.

His proposal to divert our natural gas resources to transportation, however, is foolhardy. Why replace one expensive source of fuel (oil) with another (natural gas)? Natural gas, like oil, is a natural resource in short supply - US production of it peaked in 2001 - and is far too valuable to "waste" on an extremely inefficient use of its power, the car. Having wind power take over a significant energy burden in this country is a tremendous idea, but wouldn't it be far more useful to use this moment to invest in electric-powered cars, a far more long-term solution than natural gas?

There's potential for a great national debate here, and I applaud Pickens for actually doing something, no matter how much I despise the man personally (he was a main funder of the "Swift Boat" attack ads in 2004). What does everyone think? Great idea? Terrible idea? Good idea, but needs some tweaking?


Sounds like a great idea.  Is it really true, or just hype?  I dont know and have trouble trusting Mr. Swiftboat himself.

57
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: July 17, 2008, 02:04:34 AM »
*****aye use a sophisticated computer...and it is nice to know that some get my copy early...and get to read it before others*****
nice i.p's ;)  cute.

v.p. schwarzenegger. chew on that.

I don't understand teh 2pt font statement.

I agree that race is elusive, if not a total myth. I was told taht there are exactly 5 races that can be prven by genetics and four of them are in Africa. 

That is not to say that a poll cannot ask people questions and categorize their results by color...  The color of one's skin happens to correlate with a specific response. 




Also, you cannot define the word "blue" with perfect precision but you know it when you see it.  It's much harder to define "warrior" but that doesn't stop people from using it.

58
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: July 17, 2008, 12:51:26 AM »
Come on blue, you know what she is getting at.  There is a disparity in perception between two groups of people.

59
General Off-Topic Board / Re: why obama win
« on: July 16, 2008, 09:52:52 PM »
mccain such doofus:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/mccain_camps_new_attack_obama.php

lol.

Now that's a new one.  I dont see it sticking, but its great to hear repubs attack Bush.

60
General Off-Topic Board / Re: why obama win
« on: July 16, 2008, 04:38:58 PM »
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/07/15/are_facts_obsolete?page=full&comments=true

Obama won't win when his half-cocked supporters wake up and smell what the rock was cooking.

Is anyone else having a problem with this link, i.e., it is hijacking your browswer?  Say it aint so Jeff

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 26