Nice straw man, thimblewit. A plain meaning of what I said was clearly that those recreational drugs that are now illegal were legal. Of course alcohol is a drug, a dangerous addicting one. You must need to practice typing to take that long to make a point that dull. Time for your suppository. Nighty night, moron. Shorter than maroon, and more to the issue. Woodstock. Jeez. How outdated a reference can you dredge up? The sixties were over before that rainsoaked dopefest ever took place. Monterey Pop was the high water mark. I was there.

Yeah, that's what my brother keeps telling me.. He's been investing in gold and ivory for over a decade now.

Take a look at this gold price chart.. Gold started up in early 2001.. the really savvy folks knew what was coming when Bush was "elected".

http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/gold-pf.html

A plain meaning of what I said was clearly that those recreational drugs that are now illegal were legal.

Not plain since that was not what you wrote..

If recreational drugs were legal, there might be instances of victimless behavior

Clearly, you meant that no recreational drugs are now legal..

I'd have to get my suppository out of your mouth before I could use it and I don't think I'd want it after that..

The number of people who remember being at the Monterey Pop Festival, like those who remember being members of the Forces Françaises de l'Intérieur, far exceeds the number who were actually there.

You don't sound like someone who would have been there, but then we do get crustier as we get older. Full disclosure: I wasn't there. I was in Big Sur. We decided to sit on the beach and continue smoking dope, rather than make the trek north.

At least I don't remember being there..

Or maybe that means I really was there :->

And for the record, I wasn't at Woodstock either, I was on Parris Island on those dates. Nowhere near as much fun as Woodstock but an interesting experience to have had nevertheless.

This is my rifle/

this is my gun/

this is for shooting/

this is for fun/

N/T

A lot of people seem to have the idea that "victimless crime" means that no one was hurt in any way.

That is not the real meaning of the phrase.

What "victimless crime" means is that no other person's rights were violated by the act in question.

When a woman of her free will engages in sexual acts for money, whose rights are violated?

Be specific.

I'm not talking about slavery, intimidation or coercion here, those are clearly a violation of the woman's rights and I'm deadset foursquare against that.

For anyone who thinks that their routine financial transactions are "private", you should listen to the NPR segment on how, exactly, Spitzer's activity came to the attention of law enforcement.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88116176

Yep, the whole notion of prostitution as a victimless crime is bankrupt.

Intellectually at least so much as morally too. Worst of all are the intellectual vacuums like the person who argues that it's crimeless cause the woman went into it on her own free will. Some twenty something without healthcare and education, had to run away at 13 when her stepfather raped her, has a kid to support probably too, and she's going to blow you for a sandwich, but hey, she's getting paid and it's her own "free will"!

I did my senior thesis at Berkeley on victimless crime. If recreational drugs were legal, there might be instances of victimless behavior, but that begs the question, not only of the public health implications ....I'm no bluenose, but I have to say I was gobsmacked by that statistic of one in four teenaged girls having STD.....Lives, reproductive futures, are at risk in appalling numbers.

Thank you. This is what they miss, the obvious costs and burdens on society. Hidden costs, opportunity costs, tangible medical costs. But lazy, fat slobs aren't going to get off the couch and do what they have to do so chicks like them. Easier to be as big as a barn and have someplace where you can pay someone to pretend they want you.

Personally I've never had to pay for it and if I did I'd consider it the worst kind of degradation. I think I'd sooner poke my eyes out with needles actually.

My quick look said that it's one if five white girls, one in two black girls.

If they're sexually active unmarried women, unfortunately I would wager far higher. Worse, the numbers for poor, rural blacks don't seem to be any better.

To be fair, though, our former president diid say that a blow job wasn't sex. As I dimly recall, it sure felt like it to me.

LOL! Me too. Ah, Clinton. Glenn's typical anti-Clinton diatribes not withstanding, it was obviously stupid of him, reckless even. Still, for some reason he obviously had some affection for the overweight, dysfunctional, low-rent Monica and clearly they had a little fun together. It just doesn't reek of the same kind of dysfunctionlism (not to mention moral rectitude hypocrisy) that Mr. Spitzer's engagements do. What a colossal waste of a career and talent; what is it they say, a candle that burns twice as bright will only burn half as long?

When a woman of her free will engages in sexual acts for money, whose rights are violated?

Be specific.

Free will! LOL Surely you are depriving a village someplace of it's rightful idiot. Didn't I list every significant traffic sh*thole on the globe in all it's squalor from Hollywood to Nigeria for you? Did I somehow miss all the "free will" going around?

How I hate to rain on your smug little parade but that gal seeking your money probably din't want a career in prostitution from the time she was six. Dude, she didn't't have any viable alternative (working for a dollar a day in sweatshop or starving or both really isn't one - nor is McDonalds when you have two kids to raise.)

If you want into a contract like that it would be called entering the contract under duress an the courts would negate the contract as null and void for that reason.

And that's not even getting into the societal price which others have already touched upon.