Actually, I do consume a small amount of alcoholic beverages, but little caffeine. Even if I did, those are not necessarily choices involving morality, unless I abused them. The reason I stopped drinking coffee is that I found it was bad for me. I did not need a law to make that happen, nor does anyone. I've been trying to figure out what your point is in a few posts here, but so far cannot.

I firmly advocate letting adults make choices for themselves. Hopefully, you understand that making choices for one's self automatically eliminates the false choice of forcing someone else to do something. The underlying right to freedom is the right to be left alone. I keep repeating myself about this, but there are too many people who can't seem to grasp the concept, or rational concepts in general. Why is there so much irrationality in the world? That would make for an interesting topic.

--Ron

<<lemecdutex

I think prostitution and drug use are very bad choices, so I do not engage in or advocate them.

Sigh..

I have to ask.. Do you perchance consume alcoholic beverages?

How about foods/beverages with caffeine?

Caffeine is in a tremendous number of food items these days and it chemically quite similar to cocaine and more addictive than cannabis or LSD.

Try crushing up some No-Doz and snorting it, you'll get a surprisingly strong rush.

http://www.caffeinedependence.org/caffeine_dependence.htmllemecdutex

I think prostitution and drug use are very bad choices, so I do not engage in or advocate them.

Sigh..

I have to ask.. Do you perchance consume alcoholic beverages?

How about foods/beverages with caffeine?

Caffeine is in a tremendous number of food items these days and it chemically quite similar to cocaine and more addictive than cannabis or LSD.

Try crushing up some No-Doz and snorting it, you'll get a surprisingly strong rush.

http://www.caffeinedependence.org/caffeine_dependence.html>>

Money laundering and tax evasion are still crimes so people would just pay their taxes (they finally could) and still make money from this "oldest profession". Think of how soon the deficit could be paid down. Throw in some drugs and you've got health care and schools and infrastructure. But nooooo!

Let's ban another plant!

Is Salvia the Next Marijuana?

By JESSICA GRESKO – 23 hours ago

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — On Web sites touting the mind-blowing powers of Salvia divinorum, come-ons to buy the hallucinogenic herb are accompanied by warnings: "Time is running out!" and "stock up while you still can."

That's because salvia is being targeted by lawmakers concerned that the inexpensive and easy-to-obtain plant could become the next marijuana. Eight states have already placed restrictions on salvia, and 16 others, including Florida, are considering a ban or have previously.

"As soon as we make one drug illegal, kids start looking around for other drugs they can buy legally. This is just the next one," said Florida state Rep. Mary Brandenburg, who has introduced a bill to make possession of salvia a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Some say legislators are overreacting to a minor problem, but no one disputes that the plant impairs judgment and the ability to drive...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iL07qPrDwTnT98gXva3EWcl0sxXAD8VBHBHG0

Fucking morons.

Well keeping prostitution illegal should at least keep underaged girls from being used as prostitutes.

The age of consent for women anywhere in the world to have paid sex with American men is 18, regardless of the age of consent in that country, so this applies already in the US.

In Nevada where they have legal brothels, the minimum age for women is 21, except for two counties where it is 18. In Northern Nevada the minimum age for men is 18 in Northern Nevada and 21 in Southern Nevada. (I have never been anywhere near Nevada, this is from Internet sources.)

Occasionally, very occasionally, I find myself in agreement with AKA Smith, and I do agree with her that men who use prostitutes under the age of 18 ought to be treated as pedophiles for deterrent purposes, if nothing else.

Having said that, nothing is as simple as it seems, and a few years ago I was acquainted with a young women of 14 who claimed she had about 750 paying adult sex partners. She was, as you might guess, heavily addicted to drugs, and this was how she got her supply, but if her story was not exaggerated and she had turned state's evidence, it would have been difficult to find prison accommodation for all the men concerned, many of whom may have been illegal aliens who didn't speak English and had probably not given any thought to the underage sex issues.

Now is as good of a time as any to post my Salon Ignore List. Salon does not afford me the opportunity of an ignore button. You are stridently accusing tina of slandering you as to your granddaughters, but any perusal of your posts both yesterday and today will make clear that you invited her charge by virtue of your own statements, which I found so appalling EVEN IF MADE IN JEST that you single-handedly hoisted yourself onto my ignore list. Do not expect any further reply from me. Utter tastelessness can get someone on my list. Here it is:

AKA’s Salon Ignore List

6Stringer

a_ignatius

arandi

Aycharaych

Brightstar 65

dataguyx

dick dworkin

Ellis Diablo

Elephantman

Ghingis Can

gneubeck

GoodCelery!

Elephantman

Hankster

h0tr0d

jeebery_wonkers

Jonathan

KcM

Madamfauntleroy

manos99

MereMortalMale

Nancianne

Parson Jim

pantanal

q8dhimmi

rupert c

shooter 242

Thrasher

tommydsz

tom payne

welcomerain

So, prostitutes don't kill people, HIV/AIDS kills people? Even leaving that aside, the very reason people have been bringing up exploitation, coercion, and abuse in regards to prostitution is that it presents itself as a matter of public good, of "one person imposing his will on another"?

So, maybe it's a question of degree. I'm unequivocally against gun ownership and genuinely conflicted on prostitution, so this is sympathetic to me. I'm just saying, a nuanced approach like that in regards to guns means that no one should be ridiculing the idea of prostitution being illegal.

No, it is not a question of degree, it is plainly a difference in kind. Reread my post if you must.

Nevertheless, even if one assumes it's somehow a difference of degree, surely you know that a difference of degree taken to an extreme (such as what we are discussing) becomes a difference in kind.

For instance, you can't say that the difference between a loving touch and an uppercut punch is a difference of degree by framing them each as different degrees of "touching."

Tina Schrier has done something I don't think I could accomplish: Maintained a cool head and intelligently argued her position for a 200-page-plus comments section. Bravo.

As for AKA Smith, I appreciate where you are coming from, and we seem to agree quite a bit on this one. I am a former libertarian too, and I am usually fully against issues of government paternalism, or the legislation of what people can do with their bodies. But like other libertarian issues, the people who hold the extreme view seem to regularly miss seeing the pitfalls of their position. If prostitution is legalized, there are many other questions that come up, and they can't be avoided. Many libertarian arguments are based on principles that are very sound when taken alone, but when applied to the real world just don't factor in the consequences of things.

Anyway..... Time to eat my salad...