I should mention that the Hells angels are far stronger an organization in Canada than anyone realizes. They own the cocaine trade in Canada, with big numbers and investments going into all kinds of pies now, legal or otherwise. In the end, their nothing but a bunch of drug dealers. That's all they are, and likely all they ever will be.

The feds need to pass legislation that removes the restrictions for surveillance of all well known crime organizations. What is desparately needed by law enforcement in this country is laws that open the door for open surveillance of known crime organizations without probable cause to do so. Quite simply, the courts need evidence. As well, search and seizure laws need to go much farther into the confiscation of legal businesses as well as illegal ones with known organized criminals. The federal government needs to do its share in these regards and is so far, doing nothing more than increasing tougher laws that fill our jails with victims (drug addicts) instead of the true oppressors (drug traders). This is where crime needs to tighten, but so far, the Cons are getting out the broad paintbrush in terms of increased penalties, even with the way judges are chosen. This strategy is all wrong and must be focused on organized crime, using the Hell's angels and asian gangs as the primary target for legislation that makes sense.

We spend billions upon billions of dollars judging and penalizing drug addicts while turning a blind eye to the real problem in this country... organized crime.

How shameless to hijack the tragic Montreal story and use it to promote prostition.

Agreed Brain:

There must some sidebar agenda as to why Gov'ts are so lax.

As you say, it is "organized" , which is quasi-corporate, these are not little ma and pa organizations...which implies the tentacles will lead to a head.

I seem to recall that the Quebec motorcycle gangs reached a "John Gotti" point, their arrogance and their nose thumbing at the law was their downfall. The Gov't was forced to act for many reasons, one of which was the " Who IS in charge ?" embarassment factor.

The Quebec Gov't apparently created dedicated Law Enforcement units working in conjunction with the Crown Prosecutors and started the sweeps. Just the existence of the hassle factor can be invaluable.

A so-called small "l" liberal western country like Canada should not include a "free for all" at the lowest common denominator as part of their social contract structure. Drugs are at the root of much of this and always have been. Its a no brainer.

Quite right, Maestro.

Affiliated gangs in Quebec aren't as sophisticated or established in any way shape or form as the grand daddy Hells angels. When the angels recruit numbers to the fold, the dealers that actually do their own stash are weeded out very quickly, or simply don't advance, becoming pawns for the dirty work. Those that do heavy drugs in the organization simply don't rise to the top, if they last at all. Its highly organized and all about the money.

Everybody knows that certain lifestyles kill people. Smoking cigarettes... alchohol... poor diet, lack of excercise, poor sexual habits, poor driving habits, we know what kills us. Its not a mystery. Nor should any of these lifestyles be used as an excuse. The only live once eat like a pig, drink like a fish and be supposedly merry for a tomarrow we die lie just doesn't cut it anymore. Its all getting very old.

Its going to take some major changes in federal legislation to see organized crime put in its place, as well as more education and awareness campaigns to put the brakes on this one. There is so much that the field of phycology can teach us on this one as well, but like I say, don't expect any help from this government or the next in the area of organized crime and drugs on the streets.

The reason why is that the Feds are more concerned with running a popularity contest than they are with results. Those few that do want results at the federal level beyond running popularity contests come from another generation and really don't have a grasp on what kind of legislation is truly needed to get bang for your buck results of any kind and until there is a moral shift in thinking at the federal level, streetworkers and shootings and a good deal of drug addicted homeless people will continue to plague our streets.

It sure would be nice if some long gun vigilantes started laying a bead on the "winged" ones driving their Harley's on the highway. Their annual run to the Kootenay's to pressure grow ops into selling out cheap offer a good route for likeminded individuals like myself to pull the trigger. 20lb propane tanks at strategic corners would work quite well, I think, although it would be less sporting, for taking a few out with just one shot.

Brain...gotta run,... but will continue this later.

However, what I find rather interesting is the somewhat dysfunctionl way overall society has evolved into has resonated into the criminal element .

I am fully aware of the neo -con "evil corporate" debates on the TYEE, but most documentaries on organized crime seem to imply that organized crime was the leading edge prototype of such organizationed corporate structure.

Loyalty , order, and silence was the THEN rule of the day.

Now the "Goodfellas" don't hesistate to rat each other out and cut deals with prosecutors.

However, this results in more criminal turnover and thus more voids to be filled by other criminals like displaced water.

Like prostitution, we know it exists, best controlled to a minimum as best we can. The various Gov'ts knew organized crime existed, but perhaps in the good old days having a few goodfellas in charge at least kept it under control.

Now it seems like its back to the frontier days, which may be part of the reason why we see what we see.....if you catch my cynical drift.

as a former employment counsellor i am wary of any move to "legitimize" the sex trade. being a sex worker should never be seen as a legitimate way to make a living. by definition it is explotive and dangerous. as stated the statistics from the netherlands show legalization of prostitution has resulted in a increase in prostitution and including child prostitution! however as the programs for women are being cut that those trapped in the sex trade do need protection. not providing protection and rights contiues the victimization of sex workers.

People should be free to do what they wish with their bodies, including taking drugs and getting money for sexual services. Get rid of the insane laws that prevent this and you get rid of most crime. If you want to jail people, jail the criminals and sociopaths who maintain the status quo, a status quo from which they profit immensely.

An interesting article because, unlike so many on this topic, it explores a variety of options and takes into consideration the views of many stakeholders.

Reading the article, I found myself nodding in agreement at a number of inherently contradictory proposals. By nature, I'm inclined to agree with anarcho

and support a Dutch-like solution.

On the other hand, the Swedish argument put forward,

is also compelling.

Upon reflection, it seems to me that all these solutions have merit because the problem has been ill-defined.

What is the problem? Health and safety? Crime? Self-esteem? Drugs? Poverty? Unemployment?

Until we answer that question, any number of solutions will do. Clearly, if health and safety is the issue, there's a solution for that. If crime, quite another.

So, let's define the problem before jumping to solutions.

This debate always overlooks one thing. We already have legalized prositutes in the form of escorts agencies. The city of Vancouver charges them a very large licensing fee.

I'm sure that just about every other crackhead, child diddler, and all out pervert would agree with you. Yes, they too, think that such laws banning prostitution and drugs are insane.

Unfortunately, the John's and the pimps and the crack dealers and the meth heads happen to be criminals and sociopaths who would love to maintain their form of status quo, of which they surely do profit immensely, albeit, at the pure expense to others, as well as their own mental, physical and emotional health.

I fail to see how getting rid of laws that are designed to protect citizens from predators as well as individuals from themselves, would do any good at all for society.

Anarcho, its all about what you feed yourself. If we think its healthy to watch porn all day and load up crack pipes and rent boys and girls at night, well, we are what we eat. I seriously don't see how more drugs and prostitution for more drugs helps society become better as a whole. What I do see are a lot of victims instead. The streets are full of them.

If all you are doing is trying to live up to your chosen name tag with your posts, thats one thing. But lets face it... a state of anarchy creates an environment of chaos that creates victims of which usually are women, children, and the emotionally sensitive (people with an actual emotional semblance of knowing the difference between right and wrong).

Amsterdam is considered a fun place because there are no legal restrictions on sex and drugs and generous profits are created by such lax environments in terms of what is socially and legally "acceptable". In other words, they are quite fine with pimping out the "free will" to party how one see's fit to make a buck.

But at some point, the question will have to be asked by anyone with any semblance of logic. "Is the red light district a place I want to raise my own children?" Do I want my wife or husband sitting in front of a window with a for sale sign on their ass? From another perspective, is it a place I wish to go to to "exploit" God's children? I seriously hope you do consider the free will of others to live a healthy life instead of the encouragement to shorten the lives of others including your own over the pursuit of mere selfish wants or "addictions".

Not to mention the cemetaries...

It is difficult to see how one might separate the safety issues raised by street prostitution from the issues raised by the continuing "War on Drugs" and the scarcity prices it creates.

The most vulnerable prostitutes are almost always addicted to drugs which are expensive. Which means they take even greater risks.

Even more importantly, street prostitution is part of a matrix of problems - homelessness, de-institutionalized mental patients, drug use and poverty - which leave people at risk for violence and disease. While there have been some strides made in dealing with this matrix - the Portland, needle exchange, safe injection site - the old social work solutions are not working.

We need to rethink how we actually address poverty with the objective of actually eliminating the problem rather than pushing into a dark corner and pretending not to see it.

You forgot the most important question of all. Education? And until we answer THAT question, the problem won't be defined, or solution found that is most needed won't be practiced. And for what its worth, every solution will have just one common denominator... abstain.

I've gone to too many funerals, buried to many friends who live by the motto "I'll try anything once!" Oh yah, what was that other stretcher a few of them used to say? "if it doesn't kill you, it'll only make you stronger." And am I bitter? You'd better believe it. I've lost a suitor, a potential wife to cocaine addiction who later died from aids. She ended up in Cottonwood, a place in Kelowna where terminals end up before they get buried. I'm not laughing, I'm taking it personally, and I'm not alone.

Love some of the comments. Separating morality from ethics seems to be a problem for lots of folks.

Would I want my husband/wife/daughter selling themselves? Not really, but I wouldn't want them to be a corporate lawyer either. What I (or you, you, or you) want for our families is our business, not the lawmakers'. Why is it legal for an uneducated but big, strong roughneck to risk his life in the oilpatch for big bucks, but a person without skills or training can't choose to use his/her body to turn a profit?

How do we protect sex workers? The same way we protect workers in other industries. With rules and regulations concerning safety in the workplace. How do they get that protection?

Organize, unionize, go on strike.

"And for what its worth, every solution will have just one common denominator... abstain."

Wish in one hand and spit in the other. See which one fills up first.

"but a person without skills or training can't choose to use his/her body to turn a profit?"

I meant 'as a sex trade worker' if that wasn't clear.

soouthdeltawalker:

If you eliminate everyone who prostitutes themselves, we'd have no more politicians for sure.

Percy:

I don't regard this a a promotion of prostitution so much as a recognition that it exists, and as such must be provided a legitimacy.

I took a 2-minute silence for the women:
Geneviève Bergeron
Hélène Colgan
Nathalie Croteau
Barbara Daigneault
Anne-Marie Edward
Maud Haviernick
Maryse Laganière
Anne-Marie Lemay
Sonia Pelletier
Michèle Richard
Annie St-Arneault
Annie Turcotte
Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz
and will do so every year at this time. It's the very least I can do......

Brain:

How do I know if I'm emotionally sensitive or not? Is it a standardized test?

Come on Brain. You're way too smart to be pushing this "abstinence will solve the problem" nonsense.

I'm sorry to hear that you lost someone you loved to addiction, but your remedies are unworkable and (to me) suffer from having your personal morality and life experience as the source of the solution.

BTW, the H.A. aren't just drug dealers. They're also murderers, extortionists, pimps and generally, cowardly fat old men who should know better. We definitely agree on that subject.

regards

It's called harm reduction. The kind of thing going on in the DES that Stephen Harper doesn't like, apparently, because he's from that demographic that thinks it's fine to tell others how they should live. I'm with Stump on this one. I'm not gonna try to stop my kid from riding his bike like a madman across country but I'll make sure, if I can, that he has a helmet to wear. You do the best you can and after that it's up to them. Which is why the drug war just makes no sense at all.

Until your kid or suitor ends up dead from a crackpipe, that is.

Do you seriously want us to believe that there isn't a difference? For what its worth, when's the last time you caught a ride in a car, truck or bus?

To compare equate exploitation with a "profession" is rather telling...

You mock the solution to the problem? Not working the streets is somehow considered unhealthy and safe? Abstainence from crime, from drugs, from poor self esteem, from unemployment, from poverty itself, is somehow considered unfit to consider? Your little quip there is quite telling of your version of mental masterbation.

We understood you. Children, teenagers and young adults should have the right to beef up their resume with work "experience", as you say. A persons ability to use their sexual organs is considered as a trade asset. We get it now. (I see your solution for employing the disabled and young now, I get it. Sounds like the baby Janes of the world are employable after all. Fiscally wise to do so, as they say)

Apologies for my rudeness. I do mean this sincerely, I really do. But to believe that children, youth and even full grown adults don't have a better or longer life to live, or more potential than to sell what was at one time considered as a sacred and holy union, tells all.

I like you stump, agree with most of what you say at times, and you've made some excellent points this past year. Some very wise points at that. But to condone the sale of sex is the next step to later stand in line and pay for it. Women aren't objects. And they have rights, even when they themselves, and people like yourself don't know or recognize what those rights truely are and for one, its a right to a better life. I highly doubt that you will find one ex-prostitute that would disagree with me.

When the "working mothers" get back to sanity and rise from their addictions and low self esteem by actually believing they can do better, in the end, they just want their kids back and the revisitation of anything decent they once had in their life. And some aren't so lucky. Some have been exploited since the day they were born, or end in a box before common sense dawns on them that they have a better choice in all this. And thats the trap with addictions, blinds one into thinking they have no choice... but its still there.

Make no mistake. 3 out of 4 are pure victims and the fourth hasn't been around enough to know what their true potential is. To legalize, support or participate in the sex trade is to condone more of the same. With this, there is no grey area. Its all black or white.

Yes, lets do nothing and it will all, just, go away. And everyone will live happily ever after...

Good post, Rick W.

Sorry, but I've found nothing in the world is black and white in my experience. It's all shades of grey.

For some sex IS a sacred and holy union. For others, a simple biological urge. I'm somewhere in the middle.

I would support almost any initiative that got women off the streets and off the drugs that keep them there. Keeping prostitution illegal can't do that. Keeping prostitution illegal is to throw away the women who do make the questionable choice to earn a living through sexual acts IMO.

I guess I'm more interested in a solution that works rather than one that fits my philosophy.

Surely you jest Brain

What is the difference between an actor that simulates sex in a movie (and gets paid), an actor in an x-rated movie that has sex (and gets paid), and a prostitute? How can the first two be legal and the third not?

Nobody is talking about using children as prostitutes. Don't characterize my position as such. That's just hyperbole. I'm not calling you Taliban-esque because you think the government has the right to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies to earn money. I could make the comparison, but I don't think that's what you mean. Let's keep it realistic shall we?

Stump:

I guess I'm more interested in a solution that works rather than one that fits my philosophy.

Stump, I'm with you on this one...

Recourse to laws has rarely solved anything. All it does is drive a problem underground and make it profitable to a host of individuals such as regular criminals, right-wing politicians and cops. Why is this so hard to understand?

G West:

It's the very essence of a society. Inspite of what some "individuals" think, there are virtually no individuals in this world who can survive and prosper outside of the embrace of society. We are interdependent, and it is what (for good or for not) has been the singular success of the human race. Funny though, that more more prosperous we become, the more niggardly we get.

What's wrong with lending a helping hand?

No argument from me, as usual RickW, I think you're on the right track.

I can't seem to convince the Prime Minister though - he still thinks the Safe Injection site should be shut down.

I wonder what his demons are?

Because your point is not true. The "Its called harm reduction" statement seems out of context, but that's what laws are for... to protect the public from individuals who either don't know enough or refuse to protect themselves from their own dangerous choices. Lets reiterate that it isn't just prostitution that is illegal, but the engagement of prostitution as well.

Take prohibition in the early last century. It worked. When the stats came in, people were simply living longer lives. The alternative, as this story clearly points out, and seriously, some of you should read it again, the alternative when legalizing prostitution or drugs or any other dangerous social behavior leads to a larger sex trade, major profits above ground and more disease. Honestly, is there a one of us that is willing to argue that prostution is healthy for any of its participants?

Take cigarettes as another example. The more accessible it is, the more people smoke, and the more people suffer from disease, die sooner, and bleed the healthcare system. The stats prove it. Statistics prove a legalized sex trade explodes the sex trade itself. And the cost? Try more diseases at all levels and a prevailing attitude that it is not only acceptable to sell your ass, but its acceptable to pay for it, creating more pressure's on the institution of marrage as an ideal to even bother to pursue.

I haven't even begun to talk about sexual addiction yet, or the correlation between prostitutes with bald privates, Hustler magazines spitting out articles of just how young children can be to accomodate an average "fit" and the correlations in the rise in child pornography. And yes, I have that right to talk about child pornography, its a part of it, the story goes there.

And I don't see smokers and drinkers getting stalked because they smoke or drink, but the obsessed sex addict is another story. Why do we regulate certain habits? Because if we don't, some of these same habits destroy us... because they are addictive. Drugs, food, money, sex, booze, power, prestige, fame... at some point, somewhere along the way, the question has to be asked. Again, it comes down to what we feed ourselves. Why do we pursue such destructive lifestyles? And when we ask that question and see the motive for what it is, it suddenly becomes black and white.

And should I preach and teach what God has to say from the ancestors of old? Must I verse you with the words of Isaiah, Jesus and Paul? Do you not know that your body isn't your's to defile but the lords to worship? Our bodies are living records of how we treat life itself on the most personal of levels. For the body is thy temple. And its on loan.

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven... its time we sent some of these counterfeit angels where they belong, instead of entertaining the ridiculous notion that legalizing drugs and prostitution will stamp out organized crime. It will just legalize it and they'll become Hells angels incorporated. We can't argue just for the sake of arguing. People are dying. The pic above should speak for itself.

Show me, please?
Prohibition in Canada was such a dog's breakfast of some on, some off that you simply can't make that kind of judgement about it - in my view.

The brain:

...creating more pressures on the institution of marrage as...

...about child pornography, it's a part of it, the story goes there.

...your body isn't yours to defile but...

...it's time we sent some of these counterfeit angels...

Corruption is;
a) West Van police
b) Van police
c) Willie Pickton
d) Richmond Fire Hall
e) Prince George police
D) Gordon Campbell in jail

** Just name it and it is all over the place.
*** If I was running the West van police I would give them 1 verbal, 1 written and 1 termination.

==== If I was the Prime minister of Canada 80% of BS would end like right now.

Prostitution: legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. The same goes for drugs, booze, cigarettes, and any other vice.

It should not be up to the government to decide what I do in my personal life, as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others. The government need not be The Babysitter.

A narrow view is sometimes the best view.

U.S. stat's are what I had in mind, G. I first heard of it in a Sociology 101, 15 years ago. U.S. stats concerning diseases related to heavy drinking shrank remarkably, and the links are there to show it. Prohibition lasted long enough in the U.S. to put out compelling stats to this effect. Something should be online to that effect. I'll take a look.

Spelling and Grammar police:
Wups! Sorry... :-) (spelling is a little off today as well)

I think I read some of that study as well. But, when I considered the unintended consequences of pushing alcohol under the counter, creating a black market which became organized crime and all the subsequent harm that's been the outgrowth of prohibition (not least of which the establishment of several fortunes I’d call illegitimate here in Canada) I don't think the case is very persuasive.

It's at least arguable that the mafia and the scourge of illegal gambling is an outgrowth of prohibition and I'd say the corrosive effects of that on American culture far outweighs any small short term positive gains from the health consequences of restricted access to booze.

In some ways it's kind of the other side of the same argument that I think one could make about the depression. I'd wager that automobile accidents and injuries were far lower between 1929 and 1939 just because people couldn't afford the gas to drive - let alone own a car.

Nevertheless, that would hardly make a strong case for another worldwide recession, would it?

Some diseases retreated but lead poisoning increased immeasurably, if you catch my drift.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/miron.prohibition.alcohol

This is the best link I could find on the subject. In spite of what was said about the effectiveness of alchohol prohibition in the U.S. from 1920 - 1933, my teacher in the sociology course I took at the time pointed out that regardless of what the stats said in terms of how much alchohol was actually being consumed, the stats concerning cirrosis of the liver speak for themselves.

There are a number of theories that went on to explain why such a large distortion of truth regarding the positive effects of prohibition were put forth in such a negative light.

Art Bullock (teacher at the time) went on to say that political opposition was mounting against prohibition so much so, that facts were clearly distorted to serve the notion that prohibition wasn't working, and that people actually drank more, not less, and that crime rates had gone up, not down. The stats indicate that this arguement was simply not true, although to this day, although the perception is largely otherwise.

Art went on to teach us that the main thing to note was that deaths by cirrosis of the liver went down, not up, and that the arguement that the U.S. population drank more and not less, was inconsistent with these statistics.

As the link reveals, cirrosis of the liver began to fall in 1908, not 1920. But there were factors that contributed to less drinking in this period, not more. Some states were going dry before 1920. As well, WWI had a noticable impact on social drinking and economic affordability. Above all, economics played a factor in consumption, especially in the pre 1920 era.

The clincher to Art's argument that alchohol consumption had dropped because of prohibition instead of rising, is the dramatic rise in cirrosis of the liver cases after 1933. As well, Art detailed the political arguements and pressures, arguements used by many anti prohibition lobbiests to this day. But the most compelling evidence for the merits of prohibition was the chart detailing cases of cirrosis of the liver and the true numbers to the consumption of alchohol. The stats simply do not lie.

It's the person and the personality that's prone to addiction, not the substance. Almost any substance and plenty of activities have their addicts. As you say Brain, we regulate to mitigate the worst these addictive tendencies might bring us, but we're not regulating prostitution, we're trying to ban it, and that hasn't worked yet and never will. So, on the one hand I agree with you. Let's regulate prostitution and mitigate the worst aspects of it. But prohibition is a gold mine for the criminal element. Why wouldn't we want to take this revenue generating activity away from criminals?

Please, please don't bring God and scripture into this argument. Need I remind you the God whose rules you quote felt it perfectly OK to impregnate another man's wife? I'm sure there's a commandment against that and some scripture one could quote to point out even the Lord has sinned.

Have a read on Judge Roy Bean.

And that, in itself is not true. Statistics, without a lot of context, are often misleading. I think it you check the aetiology of Cirrhosis of the liver you’ll find it is a very complex conditions with a difficult differential diagnosis. In fact, although in the public eye, cirrhosis of the liver is synonymous with chronic alcoholism; alcoholism is only one of several causes. Alcoholic cirrhosis usually develops after more than a decade of heavy drinking. Therefore, as your own data points out the supposed decline of cirrhosis began in 1908, 12 years prior to the beginning of prohibition. No cause and effect relation can be construed.

Furthermore, the period in question - 1920 - 1933- were also marked by the stock market crash of 1929 and the beginning of the Great Depression. Apart from the difficulty of making a connection between the onset of prohibition and the statistical onset of a chronic condition which can often take between 10 and 20 years of hard drinking to produce, it would seem to me that if the connection between drinking and cirrhosis were at all convincing, that the earliest signs of an increase in the data subsequent to repeal would be at least a decade after 1932.

I'd suggest that, if there is any connection between reduced alcohol consumption and positive health effects it might arise out of poverty. Speakeasies operated more or less openly from the earliest stages of US Prohibition - people with money could always get booze, as much as they wanted. If there was a reduction in the incidence of liver disease it is probably because fewer people, after 1929, had the wherewithal to purchase illegal booze and therefore consumption among some groups declined.

Further, Hepatitis B,C, and D are also significant causes of cirrhosis as is chronic diabetes and several other conditions unrelated to alcohol.

I’ve read the data from your example and see it makes many of the same points I have.

One other quick point that may or may not be germane is the effects of the mobilization for the Great War, 1917 – 1918 and the enormous impact of the 1918 -1919 Spanish flu.

Such things take great bites out of a particular demographic and it may be the attenuated effect of unrelated causes that led to the reduction in deaths from cirrhosis in the United States.

I’d suggest your teach was trying to make a point without the support of real evidence.

lazysupper:

Even if it the government (on behalf of the People) administering healthcare? Should it not then be ensuring that the people (who are both the shareholders and recipients) do the least silly things to require treatment?

Do we really need the gov't running around like an over-protective Mom telling us at every turn we're going to put our eye out?

I don't think so.

Canadian sex workers told the subcommittee that crossed the country last year they wanted decriminalization similar to New Zealand and much of Australia, where several states over the last 15 to 20 years have reformed their similarly outdated laws to allow legal brothels. They definitely do not want the Swedish style prohibition on paying for sex, which has simply driven the business there more underground and made it more dangerous for them. Swedish sex workers have been telling the rest of the world not to follow this path.
http://www.bayswan.org/swed/swed_index.html

Canada already has a very large de facto legalized sex trade. There are thousands of women in Canada who work as "escorts" or in "massage parlours", often tacitly licensed by cities despite the fact that most of the business is supposed to be illegal under Criminal Code sections concerning bawdy-houses and living on the avails of prostitution.
http://www.missingpeople.net/how_cities_%27license%27_off-street_hookers-june_16%2C_2002.htm

The Law Commission of Canada had a well-researched report on the subject.
http://www.lcc.gc.ca/research_project/03_erotic_9-en.asp
"Almost all the women indicate that one of the first solutions is decriminalization."

Canada is in a state of limbo where the existing laws have become largely meaningless through a lack of enforcement. Because Canadians gullibly believe the two-faced politicians and police who falsely pretend in public to abhor prostitution, while knowingly tolerating most of the sex trade, we have a work force of thousands of sex workers who are not protected by the same regulations as any other profession. Is it really that surprising that many of them have began speaking up and demanding decriminalization?

We have institutionalized the present dishonest and likely corrupt arrangement. Prior to decriminalization, inquiries in two Australian states found their plainclothes police had been routinely paid off by the nominally illegal prostitution businesses. I am amazed at the naive absence of suspicion regarding this set-up in Canada.

Quite simply, a dangerous underground economy results when prohibitions are placed on activities and transactions. ECON 101.

Prostitution: legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. The same goes for drugs, booze, cigarettes, and any other vice.

Correct. But, never mind "any other vice"; the same goes for most transactions between parties. We protect people by regulating. No cheating. No false advertising. No abuse. No unsafe conditions. No faulty or shoddy products and services. No exploitation.

brain:

Surely you're not about to argue that "people [DON'T] suffer from disease, die sooner, and bleed the healthcare system." here in BC because cigarettes are inaccessible. I have not seen a ban -- a prohibition -- on cigarettes in BC; they are "freely" available within the constraints put upon them by government regulation.

However, since you've brought up cigarettes, I'd like to propose that the fight against cigarette addiction was "won", not by prohibition, but by very effective public education programs coupled with supportive regulation. Canada, and particularly BC, must have just about the fewest smokers per capita in the whole world (I don't have the statistics -- just a guess on my part). Why? Prohibition? NO!

As British Columbians, we've just been convinced that smoking is not a very smart thing to do. Couldn't that model work for other "vices" as well? How about we start with unhealthy eating addictions?

Brain, your stats on prohibition would make sense if alcohol-related disease fell only in the US and not in other countries where there was no prohibition. You must test your theory by comparing the US stats with other countries like Canada, the UK, etc. I don't know the results myself, but I do know that alcohol consumption has declined in most countries regardless of the liquor laws in force. I suspect the decline has more to do with positive changes in economic and social conditions than any law enforcement.

grub
Don't have any world wide comparitive stats that are more recent than 2002 - WHO has a report that's supposedly comprehensive to that date,

But, you're absolutely right about Canada and smoking - it is an enormous success and a real victory for education and harm reduction strategies without actual proscription.
Here are the latest Canadian figures:

* The good news is that in 2005, the smoking rate for Canadians aged 15 and older dropped to 19% - the lowest level in more than four decades of monitoring smoking rates. In 1965, when monitoring began, an estimated 50% of the population smoked.

* In 2005, 22% of men were smokers, compared with 16% of women.

* At the national level, daily smokers are decreasing the number of cigarettes a day they are consuming: down from 21 per day in 1981 to 15 per day in 2005.

* In the 1970s, more than half of all teenagers age 15 to 19 smoked. The rate for teens dropped, but then began to climb again in the early 1990s, remaining stable at around 28% since the middle of the decade. In 2005, the rate dropped, to 18% of teens 15 to 19.

Still work to be done though:

* Since the 1990s, girls 15 to 19 have smoking rates that are higher than boys. In 2005, the smoking rate for both girls and boys 15 to 19 was the same, at 18%.

* Teens aged 15 to 19 who smoke consume an average of 11 cigarettes a day, down from 13 a day in 1999.

* The highest smoking rates are for young adults age 20 to 24 years at 26%, although greatly reduced from 35% in 1999.

G West

Thanks for the stats. Now the question: can we apply the anti-smoking strategy elsewhere? Healthy eating? Exercise? Re-cycling?

Rick W..thanks no one has ever responded to my postings...didn't think they were read and ha ha about your politician comment. i would never want to see a situation where a young woman or man-someone with low level of skills and education and possible sexual abuse being offered prostitution as a viable alternative..can you see it now "hey have you ever condsidered prostitution? looks like you have some transferable skills"...i know i'm being farsical but do we want a situation like in the netherlands?

grub
I think we can. But we have to be completely upfront about it and not play it like a bunch of crabs – sidling toward the problem - which is the usual way because the same kind of folks who sell the cigs are going to fight you every step of the way.

I've spent some time in Europe and there are drunks there too, but I've seldom seen - except in England of late - the kind of concerted effort to get pie-eyed that I often encounter here in Canada.
I think alcohol is going to be a major fight, as will healthy eating.

Recycling, not so much - the armies of folks out collecting bottles and cans these days indicates to me that we are making some real progress in that area - again at the grass roots level. I'd be happier if it was a government initiative because I'm not sure what's happening to the stuff once it’s bagged and baled.

Have you seen the film Manufactured Landscapes? There are some scenes of mountains of our garbage being pawed through by Chinese (I can't think of a better word for them) gleaners (that's a biblical reference for you) that makes me wonder if the output end of the recycling engine is getting plugged up pretty fast though.

It has to be a promotion that doesn't seem to pitch too high or low - even the smoking thing took a while to get it right; and it needs to start in public school.

True, but the charts don't take a steep dive until the 1914 on. Part of this is due to WW1 and part of it is do to states going dry before prohibition kicked in from 1914 on. As well, as you say, cirrosis isn't caused solely by alchohol. Nevertheless, a flatline during the 1920-1933 era at 7 to 8 people per 100,000 isn't far off from estimates of a nation cirrosis levels that doesn't drink at all. Point is, prohibition worked, regardless of the smears and attacks that have led the public to believe otherwise. People drank less and had fewer health complications which brings unique and startling truth to light. When one searches the net on the subject, we find endless links that say otherwise, which again is a distortion of truth caused by smears at the time that have lasted to this day.

Which brings up another point. Any form of prohibition will drive illegal activities underground, but not necessarily make them flourish... it still comes down to law enforcement.

Your logic to make sense at first glance, but as my sociology teacher back in the day states (as I recollect), "international statistics seems like the way to go in comparision, but it is by no means a benchmark to go by. France, for example, has a high rate of consumption, but its wine and their diet and genetics is different from other regions and so on down the line. In other words, the variables are different than the variables in North America. This doesn't mean to say that international stats are junk, but the changes of diet, social conscienceness, consumption levels and genetics need to be recognized.

Prohibition of alchohol is also relatively unique to the U.S. The best statistic's to go by are the before prohibition, during prohibition and after prohibition era's within the U.S." The stats of the effects of prohibition in area's of health during the wet and dry days in the U.S. are the biggest tell of all.

While there has been an effective public campaign against smoking, and more and more evidence has come out against the dangers of smoking coupled with major successful anti-smoking class action lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers, to say that there hasn't been a prohibitive factor concerning cigarettes, just isn't true, albeit, it's been targeted to age groups and public areas. The legal age to purchase cigarettes has gone up from 16 to 19 years of age, and WCB has taken progressive steps to ban smoking in enclosed public area's. These targeted prohibitions and media awareness has helped change the numbers around besides awareness and education campaigns.

I don't agree. And furthermore, neither does your source if you read him carefully.

And, you haven't even bothered with the negative effects of the black market and organized crime in the US or the creation of Canadian fortunes based on taking advantage of illegal behavior in the US.

Isn't that a bit like cherry picking the data to draw the conclusion you want to draw?

Prohibition was, in my view, a disaster and on balance it's a damn good thing it didn't last any longer than it did.

Have you read Darrell Huff’s little book? It is called How to Lie with Statistics. Mine was the 31st printing and I wager there have been at least a couple dozen more impressions since.

Has it ever occurred to you that your ‘teacher’ may have had an axe to grind? Not unknown in the social sciences, you know.

On a related note (back to the protection of women), I'm posting some information that was posted by our local's Social Justice Committee. I thought that some of you might be interested in this.

Join the Dec 10th Campaign
for
Women's Equality
and
Human Rights in Canada!

Conservative Government Trying to Silence Women’s Groups

Status of Women Canada
Urgent Call to Action

On September 25, the federal Government announced a 5 million dollar cut to the 23 million dollar budget of Status of Women Canada. On September 27, it announced that the Women’s Program will no longer fund advocacy and lobbying. These measures will dramatically weaken the capacity of the women’s movements to engage governments on law reform for women.

go to nawl.ca or canadianlabour.ca for more info

WHY DECEMBER 10th ?

December 10, 2006 is International Human Rights Day. It will also mark the 25th anniversary date of Canada’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Instead of celebrating this historic milestone, we will be mobilizing to ensure that Prime Minister Harper respects his own election commitment to uphold women’s equality and human rights in Canada. During the 2006 election campaign, Mr Harper stated:

If elected, I will take concrete and immediate measures, as recommended by the United Nations, to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to women in Canada. (January 18, 2006, [ http://www.fafia-afai.org/en/node/68 ]http://www.fafia-afai.org/en/node/68 ).

In 2003 the United Nations recommended that Canada double its efforts to:

- implement pay equity,
- support a national childcare program,
- enhance the Court Challenges Program;
- consult women’s equality-seeking groups regarding the preparation of Canada’s next CEDAW report

In addition, the Committee recommended Canada accelerate its efforts to eliminate the persistent and system discrimination faced by so many Aboriginal women, increase its efforts to combat high levels of poverty among particular groups of women, fund civil legal aid, effectively address violence against women, improve maternity and parental benefits, change immigration laws to respect the rights of live-in caregivers, and ensure a more equitable participation of women in the political institutions.

This campaign is important because we need to protect and advance the rights and freedoms that we have won after patient and determined struggle throughout the 20th Century. Women in Canada can not afford to have further setbacks and our country has the wealth and know-how to honour and respect women’s equality and human rights. It is a question of choices.

TO CONTACT US:

This is a sample letter that can be used to write to Mr. Harper. I hope the cut and paste works.

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa K1A 0A2

December 10, 2006

The Right Honorable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada

Dear Prime Minister Harper,

I/we am/are writing to express my concerns about the direction in which your government is taking us and how it is changing our country. More specifically, I am deeply troubled by the fact that that it is becoming increasingly difficult for ordinary citizens, and the groups that represent their concerns, to exercise their democratic rights.

As a specific example I would like to cite the recent changes made to the Terms and Conditions of the Women's Program at Status of Women Canada which will now prohibit funding for women's groups to advocate, lobby and carry out research on behalf of women. In the absence of a critical mass of women in either Parliament or the Cabinet, advocacy by women's groups has been a hallmark of Canada's democracy. The elimination of the Court Challenges Program is yet another example of how the rights of citizens are being eroded. It is clear that your government is not only shutting out women's groups but also environmental groups, anti-poverty groups and literacy groups. Has your government decided that addressing social justice issues and engaging with civil society is no longer necessary? This is not the Canada I believe in.

During the last election, you stated your commitment to promoting and improving women's human rights in Canada. On December 10th, International Human Rights Day and the 25th anniversary date of Canada's ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination, I stand in solidarity with women's groups across the country who are asking you to keep your promise, and govern on behalf of ALL women.

Sincerely,

The brain:

Prohibition of alchohol is also relatively unique to the U.S. The best statistics to go by are the before prohibition, during prohibition and after prohibition eras within the U.S." The stats of the effects of prohibition in areas of health during the wet and dry days in the U.S. are the biggest tell of all.

I lived in the downtown eastside for 11 years and remember the faces of a couple of the women who ended up at Pickton's farm - they used to work in front of our landlady's house on Cordova Street and in the back alley behind our place.

What I also remember is trying to understand the "circle jerks" driving around our block with baby seats in the back of their cars. How did those particular men end up there and not others?

I sometimes wonder what we could be doing that might help young boys not grow up to become johns. And how reducing demand might affect the sex trade market and working conditions.

Garf West said,

Talk about being on the “cutting edge” of things.

Correct. But, never mind "any other vice"; the same goes for most transactions between parties. We protect people by regulating. No cheating. No false advertising. No abuse. No unsafe conditions. No faulty or shoddy products and services. No exploitation.

Precisely.

Thanks for that spedteacher. Looks like an entirely appropriate letter and I'll print and sign a copy of a similar one ( a few changes are necessary or the recipient just thinks it's a form letter and ignores it - especially this recipient).

One hopes Harper might change, but I won't hold my breath.

Do as Brain suggests and find a way to make sex sacred in our society.

I don't know of any examples of societies to cite however.

I think sex for humans is necessary... some variant of that line of poetry, "the green fuse that drives the flower". Obviously, it is our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. I really have no answers on this topic other than to say what's supposed to be working, isn't, and more of it probably isn't the solution.

OK folks. See if you can help me help my cousin who is one of those working girls you've all been talking about. My cousin phoned my Mom's house this afternoon (last time we heard from her was in Oct. and before that 1.5 yrs. ago). She sounded upset and said that she really was ready to come home for real now and get clean forever. I'm guessing that something bad has happened to cause this phone call but I'll take it. She phoned at 2:00 pm and hasn't called again but I want to be ready. Here's the plan my Mom and I have come up with. Please feel free to offer any suggestions that you have for this plan plus any other ideas would be VERY appreciated. Some of you make think this is kind of harsh (I know I would have a few years ago) but we've been through all this before and are definitely ready to try the tough love approach.

We will set some parameters for my cousin.

There will be no drugs whatsoever. She can't take Tylenol for the pain of withdrawal as she has Hep C. What can she take that won't do further damage to her liver?

She has two weeks to get clean. In that time, my Mom will buy her all the candy or whatever else her body craves.

She will contact Social Services for help (monetary or otherwise). She will put her name in for detox and whatever other services we can find. She will not be left alone at anytime (her mother had Hep C too and my cousin stole her medication, jewellry, etc. to buy drugs). She will not give any of her "friends" from the street my Mom's phone number. There will be no contact with anyone on the streets because they will just try to lure her back as they have done before.

I'm going to contact the Drug and Alcohol Counsellor up here where I live and tell her I'm ready for the list of programs she's been preparing for me. My cousin has beaten the odds (so far) and has survived the streets for 13 yrs. She needs some kind of centre that will provide counselling as well as drug rehab. If anyone knows of a place servicing residents of Ladner I'd be very grateful.

After the two weeks is up, my cousin will help a bit around the house. Last time she came home, we all catered to her. This won't happen again once she's gone through the worst part (physical) of getting clean.

If she has any questions about her mother's death or wants other details like that (that's another long story I don't have time to get into), she will ask me. I'm going to play the "bad cop" since I live far enough away. My Mom will play "good cop" since she's there on a daily basis.

I'm going to talk to my cousin's stepdad and tell him it's time for him to step up to the plate (he's the reason why she ran to the streets in the first place) and ask him to pay for whatever long-term counselling centre we find.

That's all I can think of.

Now that I got all that off my chest ... you are more than welcome, G West. As you can see from my post above (and from others in the past), I have a vested interest in this topic. We all do what we can, right?

To his Coy Mistress

by Andrew Marvell

Had we but world enough, and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love's day;
Thou by the Indian Ganges' side
Shouldst rubies find; I by the tide
Of Humber would complain. I would
Love you ten years before the Flood;
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires, and more slow.
An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
But thirty thousand to the rest;
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.
For, lady, you deserve this state,
Nor would I love at lower rate.

But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found,
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song; then worms shall try
That long preserv'd virginity,
And your quaint honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust.
The grave's a fine and private place,
But none I think do there embrace.

Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,
And while thy willing soul transpires
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may;
And now, like am'rous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour,
Than languish in his slow-chapp'd power.
Let us roll all our strength, and all
Our sweetness, up into one ball;
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Thorough the iron gates of life.
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.

To answer something brought up earlier, there aren't any employment councillors urging people into the sex trade. I think the source of that was a ridiculous urban legend, supposedly about Germany.
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

Someone even told this false story during a subcommittee hearing last year in Toronto.
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=127159

Similarly, when New Zealand was considering decriminalization, an advertising campaign by a religious zealot organization calling itself the Maxim Institute used false "statistics" about Australia that had simply been pulled out of the air.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2005/sex-industry-in-nz-literature-review/part2.html

But that didn't stop MP (and former Calgary Police detective) Art Hanger from repeating their fiction, which seems to have been eagerly believed without any questions by some media in Canada.
http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/soundoff/story.html?id=28b75ce8-d331-4b75-8f7c-564e02bef5cf

SubHuman...i was being farsical and you spent so much time looking up those websites........

As long as being a sexworker means breaking the law, we will have problems!
To dream that sex for pay can be stopped is simpy stupid.
Then again we are a country that make strict laws and usually fail to enforce them.
Would it not be simpler to let life happen?
By now it is accepted that people may drink alcohol, maybe some day smoking pot will be generally accepted?
And maybe some day all the hypocritical old Ladies will find something else to bitch about and let sex happen as it does anyway?
In other words, let us eliminate laws that cannot be enforced!

Now that we humans have proved so "successful" in dominating this world of ours, we no longer require the genetic ability to "breed like rabbits", the way we did before we discovered the spear and the nuclear bomb.

So maybe it's time we fiddled with the ol' genome, and got rid of the sex drive, except for once a year or once a decade. Then we could go wild for a few days, then get back to business......

Jeez RickW, what the heck would happen to advertising?

Without the sex drive Madison Avenue would just peter … out. . . . . . . .

Ok I think we have gotten a little off topic. We are now talking about getting rid of an individual's sex drive. I think that the main topic is and still is how to protect sex workers not how to get rid of the agitator. Women, even now, are still subordinate to men. If you got rid of the sex drive it would not deal with the real problem. In other words if it was not sex then it would turn into something else...but that is a topic onto itself.

So, how do we protect sex workers? Are the raids that went on at brothels the answer? Are arresting the women and men that participate in these activities the answer? I do not think so. I believe that at the heart of this issue is that women are still allowed to be sexual objects for men's pleasure. Think about this really. Sex sells!

Women become objectified through media as well as other mediums. Women are no longer thought of as a complete package and become disassembled to please the viewer. This allows men to see women not as partners but as objects, which allows them to buy them for sex because they are not seen as human, but rather a commodity. Both men and women allow this to happen when they do not speak up about this and further perpetuate this notion of what it means to be a woman.

If the real problem is man's dominion over women, yes it would. If the real problem is poverty among women, yes it would.

We are not talking about diverting the sex drive. That has been tried since time immemorial and hasn't worked. We are talking about not having one for most of the year or decade.

Henry Kissinger said: "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." With no sex drive, could it be possible there wouldl be no strife at all?

And my apologies to Madison Avenue, G.West. But I've always been told that some sacrifices must be made for the greater good. Wait a minute! Did that come from Madison Avenue.......?

Possibly less, but look at neutered and spayed animals, they can still be very territorial, so there would still be strife. The good hunters still remain good hunters, actually can get more obsessed than ever. Either that or lay around getting fat. Humans are still animals, like it or not.

But at least we'd be rid of Madison Avenue.............

RickW, srfl
There's that, of course...getting rid of Madison Av.

As to neutering and its effects on power:

I doubt it, I did some research on eunuchs once upon a time. Snipping off the sex drive in those fellows didn't make them any less protective and aggressive when it came to defending their masters' interests in other respects.

Maybe made them more loyal and single-minded, in fact.

But that's another story. Interesting research subject though.

Prostitution has two faces. The one face that fills dozens of Yellow pages advertizing Escorts and Massage. The other is the street level horror show. Complaints against the trade are almost always focused on the latter. Who in their right mind would choose the second type? It exists because of poverty and addiction.

THAT'S what needs to be dealt with.

All the present hand wringing over prostitution diverts attention away from the real problem and serves to perpetuate the status quo.