re: prostitution vs. porn

[lauralh]

A little googling brought up this link.

"But the performers testified at trial that they were not having sex for pleasure, they were doing it for the money."

Comments

[wurmwyd.livejournal.com]

Hi There!

And why isn't prostitution protected by the First Amendment as well? There's no personal harm, no theft of property, the act is consentual. True, prostitution is a SIN in some religions, but if that were the basis for laws vs. prostitution, it would be basing a law on religion. And we NEVER have that in America...

Sorry. Personal gripe of mine. I'll STFU now. :(

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

you may as well ask why heroin is illegal and alcohol isn't.

[wurmwyd.livejournal.com]

Hi There!

Um ... okay. Why IS heroin illegal and alcohol isn't??

[jimbojones.livejournal.com]

Because alcohol was a strongly culturally sanctioned recreational pharmaceutical for centuries in this society, and therefore had tremendous business interest lined up both for continuing its manufacture and distribution AND for suppressing the manufacture and distribution of any competing substances without existing "legitimate" business banking.

I am not suggesting that breweries actually organize DARE, mind you, but I am most certainly suggesting that existing business interest is the primary reason alcohol does not get targeted with other considerably less harmful drugs.

[lemur68.livejournal.com]

For clarification purposes and the information of the curious, during filming of any insertion scene coming close to fisting, the general rule to avoid legal complications is that:

* 'the thumb must be visible'

* Number of fingers inserted is immaterial, provided all 5 digits do not disappear inside the plane of the lips or sphincter ring.

A BUNCH OF STODGY LAWYERS HAD TO SIT AROUND AND COME UP WITH THIS

[chris.livejournal.com]

actually up until the early part of this century, you could buy heroin and syringes from the sears catalog. and pretty much every other drug was legal too. opium/heroin was somewhat demonized by its use by chinese immigrants, especially in san francisco, who were made out to be drug-crazed lunatics who raped white women all day. I think SF was the first to outlaw opiates in an attempt to shut down opium dens and make the city less attractive to the chinese (at the time, something like 1/3rd of china were regular opium users.)

and dont forget that alcohol *was* made illegal, and generally that was deemed to be a bad idea because it just shifted all the money to organized crime. Technically its pretty arbitrary why some drugs are legal and others aren't. more of a tinfoil hat answer would be that the drugs that happen to be legal a) dont have as serious a potential for abuse and b) are enjoyable yes, but tend to drag people down and keep them into the status quo, rather than "expanding their mind" or any such nonsense.

[jimbojones.livejournal.com]

I am aware that drug criminalization didn't occur until relatively recently. My statements as to why particular drugs were or were not criminalized stands.

The argument that criminalization creates an immensely profitable and violent criminal underclass is perfectly valid - for ALL drugs, meaning you still need an explanation as to why Prohibition was repealed but narcotics laws were not.

"Established business interest" is pretty much the only sensible one that I know of.

[chris.livejournal.com]

i think its still kind of arbitrary. alcohol had *more* established business interest, but I dont think they were so much muscling other drugs out. after all, there's plenty of money to be made in diversification.

they got thrown a bone because they were the biggest thing at the time, and illegal alcohol was generating a lot more crime than the goverment could deal with. other drugs are outlawed because they make nice scapegoats. heroin in the 60s, cocaine/crack in the 80's, now i think meth is going to be the next big devil.

basically i think business and money obviously have a hand in it, but there's a lot more going on. for instance, some of these guys dont *want* their products legal, it keeps prices up and standards down.

[jimbojones.livejournal.com]

after all, there's plenty of money to be made in diversification.

If that were the way big business really thought, the automotive industry wouldn't have been kicking their heels and fighting and screaming to avoid developing reasonable alternative energy vehicles for the last 20 years.

SMALL businesses are generally very interested in new ways of doing things: because they're looking to shake up the market to create room for themselves. BIG businesses are generally interested in precisely the opposite: keeping the market as unchanged as possible, because they are not only already adjusted optimally for their market as it stands, but due to their size, are poorly adjusted to cope with rapidly changing conditions.

Phillip Morris industries has ZERO interest in the legalization of marijuana, heroin, meth, or any other drug: the possible opening up of a "new" market would really just create a chaotic scenario in which they could easily lose their current unchallenged domination of the legal recreational drug market, rather than winning more revenue in the changed market.

[chris.livejournal.com]

you really think that's true? is this why coca-cola makes like 10 different flavors of soda and sells bottled water too? or why kraft makes a zillion different foods? the thing here is that unlike the oil industry, a lot of these products compliment each other. people are more likely to consume both than picking between them. or alternately you have people who say wont consume alcohol at all, but would use other drugs. start selling those and you have an instant market share that didn't exist before.

i think the comment about phillip morris is especially off. ever notice people smoke more when they drink? with a lot of drugs thats like times ten. I knew a dude who said (and did) something like "nothing like smoking a marlboro right after smoking a bowl". its extremely predatory and evil, but its still in PM's best interest to get more people using drugs, because they will smoke more. and anyway no one is going to stop smoking because they can now do coke legally.

[jimbojones.livejournal.com]

We're getting into hazy enough areas that it's difficult to back things up, so here is where I'll just agree to disagree. I think that multiple flavors of soda is far more akin to multiple "brands" of cigarettes (ie PM's current business model) than it is to multiple completely different intoxicants, all with wildly differing effects, differing production methods, different etc etc etc.

I also honestly believe fewer kids would get suckered into smoking cigarettes if they had an easier time obtaining marijuana - given that it's safer AND produces a more "fun" high. Given a more apples-apples comparison of the two products, I think it would get even more obvious to even more people just what a sucker's game fucking with nicotine is.

But, like I said, agree to disagree.