Should Escorting be legalized?

[Bilbo]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

I have already said that I am quite in favor of a client who is infected with anything as a result of an escorting encounter and can prove that it came from there being allowed into the courts to sue for malpractice.

 

I am personally HIV Negative, though many of my friends are postitive. I would naturally announce to any clients who asked, and would announce to the public in general on my website (You know me, one of the Queens of TMI), if I were positive. So, no, I am not protecting my own business interests by taking this stance. Indeed, for either pay or fun, I quit coming inside anyone long ago. I have made a fetish out of watching each other cum, feeling it on our chests, etc. If you are this squeamish, may I advise you to do the same?

 

(I saw similar killjoys with similar arguments outlaw fireworks most places, in my lifetime, so that now Americans are supposed to congregate like sheep to watch someone else celebrate the 4th of July and their independence for them. But guess what? Though I still don't set them off myself, I still hear many of my neighbors doing so! We don't need more unenforceable laws. We need more freedom and the increased assumption that our neighbors are responsible beings - which will force them to actually be more responsible, in the long run.)

 

And what makes you think that I am in favor of requiring a license of any sort to do this kind of work? I most assuredly am not. And where are the many people who have always held that I am wrong when I say that instinct alone will not bring you the best sex? Do I hear a chorus of them agreeing with you that anything akin to continuing education is desireable? (I know you only used it as a metaphor - saying that something is akin to something. So did I.) Your argument here might convince me that there should be some sort of a mandatory safe sex class and test, but so far you ain't even got me to really go that far, bub.

 

Please do not ignore the example of the flebotomist. A slip of the needle and suddenly I've got whatever my flebotomist has, just as assuredly as unsafe sex will give me anything. Are flebotomists required to take health checks? I don't think so. Are they required to wear rubber gloves? I do think so. If I'm right, then, fine, require escorts to wear rubbers. (An old word for condoms.)

 

How often are you suggesting these health checks should be required? Weekly? Monthly? Please advise me on this one in specific terms.

 

And for Heaven's sake, are you unaware of the long standing problems with HIV testing and privacy? Many, many health care professionals have fought long and hard to try to get people to take HIV tests, and one of the best means that they have ever found is annonimity. And here you are asking men in one of the most discretion mandatory professions to give up that annonimity. Please reassure me that in a country where many feel that a conservative stole the presidential election you can truely feel that the spectre of isolation camps and all its attendant, smaller spectres have definitely been put to rest.

[+ deej]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>>No, as I have written here and on the other thread as have

>>others, the argument proceds from a view that all other

>>things being equal practicing the same safe sex practices

>>with an HIV+ escort is more risky than with one who is not.

>>How much less risky will vary according to the people and

>>practices, but it is clearly less risky a priori. That is

>>not to say that either activity is or will ever be risk

>>free, but that a client has a right to make an informed

>>choice.

>

>I really don't see how anyone can disagree with the above.

 

How about a real life example. I literally just got off the phone with a very good friend, who just got results from his most recent bloodwork.

 

He tested HIV-negative again. Great news, right?

 

By the standards set forth here, he is "a priori" the safer choice, yes?

 

He tested positive for Syphilis.

[ad rian]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>How about a real life example. I literally just got off the

>phone with a very good friend, who just got results from his

>most recent bloodwork.

>

>He tested HIV-negative again. Great news, right?

>

>By the standards set forth here, he is "a priori" the safer

>choice, yes?

>

>He tested positive for Syphilis.

 

I really want to let this go, but being a pompous prick and a part-time logic teacher, I will take the bait. Deej, this proves nothing. We are comparing two situations. In your world, we would not know whether escort A or escort B have any STDs, and would be choosing in the blind. So in your world, whether someone choses A or B, they would be at risk. In the world that I and others are suggesting we would have some information, at least more than in your world, and either Escort B with the syphilis would be cought in the test, hence we would not choose him, or we might opt for Escort A who is HIV+ but without syphilis. Or, we might just abstain from both. Do you see why a little information is helpful even on your facts. But recall, nobody is here arguing that in our world there would be no risk, just reduced risk. I am not sure why you have so much trouble with this, but I'll keep trying.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>I have already said that I am quite in favor of a client who

>is infected with anything as a result of an escorting

>encounter and can prove that it came from there being

>allowed into the courts to sue for malpractice.

 

LOL! Sue whom? How many escorts do you know who have enough money to pay all the medical expenses of someone who contracts AIDS from them? I understand that can run to hundreds of thousands of dollars. And that doesn't include loss of income and other economic damages that an infection could cause. Do you have that kind of money lying around? If not, what would be the point in suing you or any other escort who doesn't have it?

 

Of course escorts could try to get malpractice insurance. But no insurance company would issue such a policy without -- guess what? -- requiring regular STD testing of the escort.

 

 

>If you are this squeamish, may I advise you to

>do the same?

 

Please try to act your age and refrain from turning this thread into yet another name-calling festival. Although deej clearly wasn't up to it, I still have some hope that you are.

 

>We don't need more

>unenforceable laws. We need more freedom and the increased

>assumption that our neighbors are responsible beings - which

>will force them to actually be more responsible, in the long

>run.)

 

I'm afraid I do not see spreading a terminal disease as the best way of making people more responsible. Nor do I want people in my community to have the "freedom" to spread such a disease, not when I as a taxpayer have to bear the economic burden of caring for many of the victims.

 

>And what makes you think that I am in favor of requiring a

>license of any sort to do this kind of work?

 

I never said you were. But I do say you are naive if you believe that prostitution will ever be legalized without a system of monitoring the STD status of prostitutes. Licensing is a necessary component of any such system.

 

>Please do not ignore the example of the flebotomist. A slip

>of the needle and suddenly I've got whatever my flebotomist

>has,

 

 

What the devil is a flebotomist? My dictionary shows no such word. If you are referring to someone who performs phlebotomies, a slip of the needle will give you absolutely nothing of his unless the needle is contaminated.

 

just as assuredly as unsafe sex will give me anything.

>Are flebotomists required to take health checks? I don't

>think so. Are they required to wear rubber gloves? I do

>think so. If I'm right, then, fine, require escorts to wear

>rubbers. (An old word for condoms.)

 

 

Or they could just sterilize the needle before using it. But escorts can't really do that, can they?

 

 

>How often are you suggesting these health checks should be

>required? Weekly? Monthly? Please advise me on this one in

>specific terms.

 

I'm not the one drafting the legislation. No doubt those who do will take testimony from epidemiologists on this issue.

 

>And for Heaven's sake, are you unaware of the long standing

>problems with HIV testing and privacy? Many, many health

>care professionals have fought long and hard to try to get

>people to take HIV tests, and one of the best means that

>they have ever found is annonimity. And here you are asking

>men in one of the most discretion mandatory professions to

>give up that annonimity. Please reassure me that in a

>country where many feel that a conservative stole the

>presidential election you can truely feel that the spectre

>of isolation camps and all its attendant, smaller spectres

>have definitely been put to rest.

 

 

I can assure you of nothing except that if you are serious about wanting prostitution legalized, and you certainly have devoted lots and lots of words to that position on this message board, you had better start thinking seriously about the ramifications. If you imagine that such legislation will ever be passed without a regulatory regime designed to address the public health issues involved, you are living in a dream world. And that regulatory regime means no more anonymity. It means a mechanism that allows government to know who prostitutes are and where they work and what the state of their health is. If that is not what you want, you may as well stop clamoring for legalization. You won't get one without the other.

[+ deej]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>I am not sure why you have so much trouble

>with this, but I'll keep trying.

 

Don't keep trying on my account.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>>I am not sure why you have so much trouble

>>with this, but I'll keep trying.

>

>Don't keep trying on my account.

 

Let me try. What is the real disagreement here? You can't disagree that fucking someone who is infected carries more risk than fucking someone who isn't infected, whether condoms are used or not. You can't disagree that someone who recently tested negative is less likely to be infected than someone who has tested positive. So if an escort has recently tested negative, or if he has tested positive, or if he has never been tested at all, why would you in each case be opposed to letting the client know that? I don't know that you are opposed, but when you consistently bash people who argue in favor of disclosure you certainly create the impression that you are opposed to disclosure. If you oppose it, why do you? If you don't oppose it, why all the bashing?

[Guest jeffOH]

I ended a friendship with an escort who was not telling his clients that he's positive and was occasionally having unsafe sex with clients(by his own admission and confirmed by two mutual clients). That was nearly 3 years ago and he's still escorting.

 

My experience with HIV positive friends and acquaintances who DON'T tell their potential sexual partners that they're positive has been most don't want to ruin their fun nor do they want to be judged. Most were/are sex addicts and HIV didn't slow down their promiscuity.

 

My guess is that MOST clients would choose not to see an escort if they knew he was positive. They shouldn't be denied the right to make an INFORMED decision.

 

JEFF

[email protected]

[Bilbo]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

I am very much in favor of each and every escort voluntarily posting their HIV status (if positive). I am not in favor of them being forced to by any other means than the market place. And I am never in favor of passing one more law that will do what there are already laws on the books to do. Therefore, my idea of "sue for malpractice."

>

>LOL! Sue whom? How many escorts do you know who have

>enough money to pay all the medical expenses of someone who

>contracts AIDS from them? I understand that can run to

>hundreds of thousands of dollars. And that doesn't include

>loss of income and other economic damages that an infection

>could cause. Do you have that kind of money lying around?

>If not, what would be the point in suing you or any other

>escort who doesn't have it?

 

To get them out of the business. Everyone's health is his own lookout. But if you want back at the MF whom you think did this to you, have at it. In the meantime, the fear of such a happening should do much to keep any escorts like Jeff's erstwhile friend on the up and up.

 

 

>

>Of course escorts could try to get malpractice insurance.

>But no insurance company would issue such a policy without

>-- guess what? -- requiring regular STD testing of the

>escort.

 

Which - guess what? - would not be forced on them by the government. Which is what I'm resisting, not the testing itself.

 

>

>>If you are this squeamish, may I advise you to

>>do the same?

>

>Please try to act your age and refrain from turning this

>thread into yet another name-calling festival. Although

>deej clearly wasn't up to it, I still have some hope that

>you are.

 

Sqeamish is name calling? I certainly didn't mean it that way, any more than I would mean something derogatory by pointing out that someone gets motion sickness. Or did I?

 

>

>>We don't need more

>>unenforceable laws.

 

You didn't answer this point. Are you admitting that this law would not be enforceable?

 

Nor do I want

>people in my community to have the "freedom" to spread such

>a disease, not when I as a taxpayer have to bear the

>economic burden of caring for many of the victims.

 

I have never smoked. And how many decades has the Surgeon General's warning been on cigarette packs? Do I not pay extra taxes to help people with lung cancer? And, yet, do they not, some of them, reap huge court settlements? Still, I do not begrudge it to them.

 

I have tried to help Type A people calm themselves and take better care of themselves, both as a masseur and as an escort. Many of them turn around and make the same mistakes, rather than following my advice and example and making different ones. (We all make mistakes, we just try not to make the same one twice - as I say in my performances as Puss in Boots.) Yet, I do not begrudge tax monies spent on heart attacks and other signs of hypertension. Nor do I demoonize the sufferers that money helps.

 

>

>>And what makes you think that I am in favor of requiring a

>>license of any sort to do this kind of work?

>

>I never said you were. But I do say you are naive if you

>believe that prostitution will ever be legalized without a

>system of monitoring the STD status of prostitutes.

 

And you are naive if you think that I will get any kind of legislation that I can live with by caving in and telling myself no before the discussion with my opponents starts. Telling me no is their job, not mine.

 

>Licensing is a necessary component of any such system.

 

I don't agree.

 

>

>

>What the devil is a flebotomist? My dictionary shows no

>such word. If you are referring to someone who performs

>phlebotomies, a slip of the needle will give you absolutely

>nothing of his unless the needle is contaminated.

 

There are always at least anecdotal reports of blood letters (Can you find that phrase?) slipping and double poking, once into their patient and once into themselves.

 

>

>Or they could just sterilize the needle before using it.

>But escorts can't really do that, can they?

>

 

And here, of course, the analogy breaks down because it's not the needle the escort uses but the equivalent of the finger itself. Perhaps I should have started this out with proctologists?

 

>

>>How often are you suggesting these health checks should be

>>required? Weekly? Monthly? Please advise me on this one in

>>specific terms.

>

>I'm not the one drafting the legislation. No doubt those

>who do will take testimony from epidemiologists on this

>issue.

>

 

And from ordinary, concerned citizens with a good knowledge of law, such as yourself. If you cannot attempt to solve this problem at least to your own satisfaction, how can you expect the epidemiologists to do so? They are only human, and will also wish to excuse themselves from an unsolvable problem leading to an unenforceable law.

 

>>And for Heaven's sake, are you unaware of the long standing

>>problems with HIV testing and privacy? Many, many health

>>care professionals have fought long and hard to try to get

>>people to take HIV tests, and one of the best means that

>>they have ever found is annonimity. And here you are asking

>>men in one of the most discretion mandatory professions to

>>give up that annonimity. Please reassure me that in a

>>country where many feel that a conservative stole the

>>presidential election you can truely feel that the spectre

>>of isolation camps and all its attendant, smaller spectres

>>have definitely been put to rest.

>

>

>I can assure you of nothing

 

Were truer words ever spoken? Doesn't the government have more than enough information about each and every one of us already to endanger our democracy? (Power corrupts....)

 

except that if you are serious

>about wanting prostitution legalized, and you certainly have

>devoted lots and lots of words to that position on this

>message board, you had better start thinking seriously about

>the ramifications. If you imagine that such legislation

>will ever be passed without a regulatory regime designed to

>address the public health issues involved, you are living in

>a dream world. And that regulatory regime means no more

>anonymity. It means a mechanism that allows government to

>know who prostitutes are and where they work and what the

>state of their health is. If that is not what you want, you

>may as well stop clamoring for legalization. You won't get

>one without the other.

>

 

I can assure you that if I do not fight for what I want I most certainly won't get it. ("We must all hang together, for, if we do not, we shall surely all hang seperately." - B. Franklin)

[+ deej]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

I am not opposed to the testing and I am not opposed to the disclosure. Far from it! It just doesn't mean much.

 

I'm opposed to the assumption that someone who last tested negative for *anything* is still negative. That seems to be the default assumption here, otherwise there would be no differentiation between hiring a HIV+ escort vs. a "assumed to be" neg escort.

 

I find it laughable that guys won't hire a HIV+ escort who probably has good medical care and a low viral load, but will happily bump pussy with a "negative" escort who may have sero-converted yesterday and has an undetected viral load through the roof.

 

It's a false boundary.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>Do you have that kind of money lying around?

>>If not, what would be the point in suing you or any other

>>escort who doesn't have it?

>

>To get them out of the business. Everyone's health is his

>own lookout. But if you want back at the MF whom you think

>did this to you, have at it. In the meantime, the fear of

>such a happening should do much to keep any escorts like

>Jeff's erstwhile friend on the up and up.

 

 

My dear man, don't be ridiculous! If an escort is not deterred by the fact that what is he doing is a crime, why would he be deterred by the fact that he might be sued for a sum of money he doesn't have? That is absurd.

 

>Which - guess what? - would not be forced on them by the

>government. Which is what I'm resisting, not the testing

>itself.

 

What you are resisting is any meaningful system for holding escorts accountable for what they do. You don't want their actions to be criminal. You don't want government to regulate them. All you will allow is a right to sue that is meaningless. Which leaves nothing. Which is exactly what you want.

 

>>>We don't need more

>>>unenforceable laws.

>

>You didn't answer this point. Are you admitting that this

>law would not be enforceable?

 

 

Not at all. Are the laws regulating licensed massage therapists unenforceable? I assume not since you have complained bitterly about losing your license.

 

>Yet, I do not begrudge tax monies spent on

>heart attacks and other signs of hypertension. Nor do I

>demoonize the sufferers that money helps.

 

 

Well I do. We live in an era in which government must make difficult choices about spending on health care. It should do all that can be done to prevent irresponsible behavior that will exacerbate public health problems.

 

>And you are naive if you think that I will get any kind of

>legislation that I can live with by caving in and telling

>myself no before the discussion with my opponents starts.

>Telling me no is their job, not mine.

 

Consider yourself told. You are not going to find many people who will support your position, which is that prostitution should be decriminalized and that government should take no steps to deal with the public health issues involved.

 

>There are always at least anecdotal reports of blood letters

>(Can you find that phrase?) slipping and double poking, once

>into their patient and once into themselves.

 

If you are really into medieval medicine, I suggest you try leeches instead. Those of us who get our medical treatment from licensed physicians are aware that a regulatory system exists requiring them to take steps to avoid contamination, and we support it.

 

>And here, of course, the analogy breaks down because it's

>not the needle the escort uses but the equivalent of the

>finger itself. Perhaps I should have started this out with

>proctologists?

 

Perhaps you should just have stated what any of your analogies has to do with anything. Prostitutes don't have intimate contact with clients by accident, they do it deliberately. That is the whole point of hiring one. That puts them in an entirely different category from people in other occupations and requires a different regulatory regime.

 

>And from ordinary, concerned citizens with a good knowledge

>of law, such as yourself. If you cannot attempt to solve

>this problem at least to your own satisfaction, how can you

>expect the epidemiologists to do so? They are only human,

>and will also wish to excuse themselves from an unsolvable

>problem leading to an unenforceable law.

 

 

That is a ridiculous thing to say. Designing a system to monitor the health of people who may be carriers of a deadly and contagious illness is a problem that requires the expertise of epidemiologists and other health professionals. Saying that if ordinary citizens can't do it, it shouldn't be done is absurd.

 

 

 

>Were truer words ever spoken? Doesn't the government have

>more than enough information about each and every one of us

>already to endanger our democracy? (Power corrupts....)

 

 

Since you are currently engaged in a criminal occupation and are getting away with it, I would have to say the answer is "No."

 

 

>I can assure you that if I do not fight for what I want I

>most certainly won't get it.

 

You won't get legislators to buy into a system that leaves prostitutes unaccountable no matter what you do.

[Bilbo]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>My dear man, don't be ridiculous! If an escort is not

>deterred by the fact that what is he doing is a crime, why

>would he be deterred by the fact that he might be sued for a

>sum of money he doesn't have? That is absurd.

 

Well, now, most escorts, including myself, are neither brain surgeons nor experts on law. If I knew I could be sued into next decade and back, I would assume that a percentage of whatever I made however I made it would be given to the winner of the suit until it was all paid off, with possibly only bankruptcy - which would, of course, ruin my credit rating - intervening. You can probably tell me how wrong I am, which would only go to show you how wrong most escorts would be when contemplating such a thing. And, of course, the prevention is in the perception, not in the reality.

 

>

>>Which - guess what? - would not be forced on them by the

>>government. Which is what I'm resisting, not the testing

>>itself.

>

>What you are resisting is any meaningful system for holding

>escorts accountable for what they do.

 

Wrong! I am fully in favor of escorts being accountable to the market place.

 

You don't want their

>actions to be criminal. You don't want government to

>regulate them. All you will allow is a right to sue that is

>meaningless. Which leaves nothing. Which is exactly what

>you want.

 

How true. How very Libertarian of me, eh?

 

>>Yet, I do not begrudge tax monies spent on

>>heart attacks and other signs of hypertension. Nor do I

>>demoonize the sufferers that money helps.

>

>

>Well I do.

 

How very Christian of you - not. Wait, I said that wrong. I didn't mean to imply that Ethan would agree with you on this.

 

We live in an era in which government must make

>difficult choices about spending on health care. It should

>do all that can be done to prevent irresponsible behavior

>that will exacerbate public health problems.

 

Which is perhaps what it thought that it did, when the Surgeon General attached the warnings?

>

>>And you are naive if you think that I will get any kind of

>>legislation that I can live with by caving in and telling

>>myself no before the discussion with my opponents starts.

>>Telling me no is their job, not mine.

>

>Consider yourself told. You are not going to find many

>people who will support your position,

 

If I don't go looking, I can't find them. If I don't join in on the war for hearts and minds, I have in effect surrendered already.

 

which is that

>prostitution should be decriminalized and that government

>should take no steps to deal with the public health issues

>involved.

>

I believe in personal responsibility. You seem to believe in regulation, instead. Were you for V chips as well? And the web porn law the librarians had overturned?

 

>> Those of us who get our medical treatment

>from licensed physicians are aware that a regulatory system

>exists requiring them to take steps to avoid contamination,

>and we support it.

>

My hairdresser recently went to school and became a licensed flebotomist. But you couldn't find that word. Again, you might be able to convince me that escorts should take health courses sponsored by the government to train them in safe sex, and that if there is licensing that there should be things done - invading bedrooms? - to ensure that they follow them. (Can we take a break, here, dear client? The health inspector has just arrived to check my condom stocks.) But, that is partly for the sake of argument, since you still haven't convinced me of licensing.

 

>>Prostitutes don't have

>intimate contact with clients by accident, they do it

>deliberately. That is the whole point of hiring one. That

>puts them in an entirely different category from people in

>other occupations and requires a different regulatory

>regime.

 

Just how many problems have our beurocracies - um, regulatory regimes - actually succeeded in solving. Why don't we try some other approach this time in the hopes that we actually find something that works?

 

>

>> Designing a system to

>monitor the health of people who may be carriers of a deadly

>and contagious illness is a problem that requires the

>expertise of epidemiologists and other health professionals.

> Saying that if ordinary citizens can't do it, it shouldn't

>be done is absurd.

 

Yes, saying that would be ridiculous and absurd. Saying that ordinary citizens should attempt to think it out for themselves so that they can have a chance of telling if the experts are hitting the nail on the head or not, is only using plain old ordinary common sense. And, in today's medical world, where patient understanding and proaction rather than just doing whatever "the doctor ordered" is the more humane norm, those professionals probably hope that we will be coming to them armed with more than just symptoms.

>

>>I can assure you that if I do not fight for what I want I

>>most certainly won't get it.

>

>You won't get legislators to buy into a system that leaves

>prostitutes unaccountable no matter what you do.

 

If the government does mandate a comprehensive list of prostitutes, what is going to keep them from mandating a comprehensive list of prostitute's clients? And, pardon me if I am wrong, many people of wealth and power, like legislators, yes, exactly like legislators, hire prostitutes. Who wouldn't, I should think, like the idea of passing a law where they might be eventually forced into having put their own names on a list like that.

 

Please remember that I don't think that this kind of intelligent legislation, just officially letting the damn thing handle itself in a laissez faire marketplace, will happen within the next twenty-five or so years. No, I will be seventyfive or eighty, and I am sure that even I will have retired from this occupation for once and for all by that time. But I can foresee and work towards a time when the public's will, their hearts and minds, will allow legislatures to just quietly let this one alone at long last. Just as I am considering doing with this thread as Houston is now in Pride Week and I have things to go and celebrate.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>Well, now, most escorts, including myself, are neither brain

>surgeons nor experts on law.

 

I've noticed that. Repeatedly.

 

If I knew I could be sued into

>next decade and back, I would assume that a percentage of

>whatever I made however I made it would be given to the

>winner of the suit until it was all paid off, with possibly

>only bankruptcy - which would, of course, ruin my credit

>rating - intervening. You can probably tell me how wrong I

>am, which would only go to show you how wrong most escorts

>would be when contemplating such a thing. And, of course,

>the prevention is in the perception, not in the reality.

 

 

I can tell you that anyone would have to be a blithering idiot to believe that people are going to spend a lot of time and money prosecuting lawsuits against defendants who have no assets with which to satisfy a judgment against them. The deterrent effect you are imagining would work only on the truly, truly stupid.

 

 

>You don't want their

>>actions to be criminal. You don't want government to

>>regulate them. All you will allow is a right to sue that is

>>meaningless. Which leaves nothing. Which is exactly what

>>you want.

>

>How true. How very Libertarian of me, eh?

 

 

One thing I've noticed about libertarians is that despite their "principles," they still prefer to get their medical care from physicians who are licensed by state medical boards rather than from witch doctors, to fly on airlines that obey FAA safety regulations, and in many other ways to accept the benefits of the government regulations they pretend to despise.

 

>How very Christian of you - not.

 

 

Who said I was a Christian? I certainly didn't.

 

>We live in an era in which government must make

>>difficult choices about spending on health care. It should

>>do all that can be done to prevent irresponsible behavior

>>that will exacerbate public health problems.

>

>Which is perhaps what it thought that it did, when the

>Surgeon General attached the warnings?

 

Obviously not, since government has gone well beyond that to prohibit smoking in more and more places where people congregate.

 

>which is that

>>prostitution should be decriminalized and that government

>>should take no steps to deal with the public health issues

>>involved.

>>

>I believe in personal responsibility. You seem to believe in

>regulation, instead. Were you for V chips as well? And the

>web porn law the librarians had overturned?

 

If you believed in personal responsibility, you wouldn't be constantly complaining about your own arrest and prosecution. You knew you were breaking the law, you knew what would happen if you were caught, but instead of taking responsibility for your actions you constantly blame others.

 

And if you believed in democracy, you wouldn't take the position that it is okay for you to ignore laws that are supported by the vast majority of your fellow citizens.

 

>My hairdresser recently went to school and became a licensed

>flebotomist. But you couldn't find that word.

 

I'm not sure I would consider as a reliable source of information anyone who is crazy enough to believe that bleeding patients is still an appropriate means of treating illness. Rather than a hairdresser, most of us go to a physician when we need treatment.

 

Again, you

>might be able to convince me that escorts should take health

>courses sponsored by the government to train them in safe

>sex, and that if there is licensing that there should be

>things done - invading bedrooms? - to ensure that they

>follow them. (Can we take a break, here, dear client? The

>health inspector has just arrived to check my condom

>stocks.) But, that is partly for the sake of argument, since

>you still haven't convinced me of licensing.

 

 

You've got it backwards. I don't need to convince you or anyone else of anything. I'm not the one who has a problem with the status quo. You are. You're the one who wants change, so the burden of persuasion is on you.

 

 

>Just how many problems have our beurocracies - um,

>regulatory regimes - actually succeeded in solving.

 

 

Among others, they've succeeded in drastically reducing the poverty rate among elderly Americans, drastically improving access to health care for the elderly, drastically increasing household incomes, education levels and employment among black Americans -- want some more examples? Or do those things not count because they're not about gays?

 

>>> Designing a system to

>>monitor the health of people who may be carriers of a deadly

>>and contagious illness is a problem that requires the

>>expertise of epidemiologists and other health professionals.

>> Saying that if ordinary citizens can't do it, it shouldn't

>>be done is absurd.

>

>Yes, saying that would be ridiculous and absurd. Saying that

>ordinary citizens should attempt to think it out for

>themselves so that they can have a chance of telling if the

>experts are hitting the nail on the head or not, is only

>using plain old ordinary common sense. And, in today's

>medical world, where patient understanding and proaction

>rather than just doing whatever "the doctor ordered" is the

>more humane norm, those professionals probably hope that we

>will be coming to them armed with more than just symptoms.

 

 

Arguing that a system designed to monitor the health of people infected with a contagious disease should be designed by people who know nothing about epidemiology is like arguing that an airplane should be designed by people who know nothing about aeronautical engineering. Not many of us would care to fly in such an airplane. Not many of us would care to have an appendix removed by someone who has never been to medical school. But I guess there are some who think that ignorance is a virtue.

 

>If the government does mandate a comprehensive list of

>prostitutes, what is going to keep them from mandating a

>comprehensive list of prostitute's clients?

 

Nothing. And if prostitution is nothing to be ashamed of, why would you object to either list?

 

 

>Please remember that I don't think that this kind of

>intelligent legislation, just officially letting the damn

>thing handle itself in a laissez faire marketplace, will

>happen within the next twenty-five or so years. No, I will

>be seventyfive or eighty, and I am sure that even I will

>have retired from this occupation for once and for all by

>that time. But I can foresee and work towards a time when

>the public's will, their hearts and minds, will allow

>legislatures to just quietly let this one alone at long

>last.

 

 

The only thing that allows you to foresee that is your ignorance of how legislative bodies actually operate. They are incapable of leaving anything alone -- if they leave things alone, why would anyone need them? Do you really not get that?

 

You and others who clamor for legalization need to understand that if you get your wish the system that will result will probably not suit you any better than the one we have now. So you might as well knock it off.

[+ deej]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

<<I can tell you that anyone would have to be a blithering idiot to believe that people are going to spend a lot of time and money prosecuting lawsuits against defendants who have no assets with which to satisfy a judgment against them. >>

 

You mean like Tom Cruise suing Kyle Bradford for $100 Million? }>

 

(Sorry -- I couldn't resist.)

[Guest regulation]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

><<I can tell you that anyone would have to be a blithering

>idiot to believe that people are going to spend a lot of

>time and money prosecuting lawsuits against defendants who

>have no assets with which to satisfy a judgment against

>them. >>

>

>You mean like Tom Cruise suing Kyle Bradford for $100

>Million? }>

>

>(Sorry -- I couldn't resist.)

 

 

Please learn to resist; if you do, you'll avoid creating so many posts with factual or logical errors. In this case, for example, you left out the fact that Cruise's complaint -- a copy of which Butch Harris thoughtfully linked for us -- allows him to add other parties with far deeper pockets to the suit, such as the magazine that published Bradford's defamatory statements.

[+ deej]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

Typical, Reg. You post something that's plain wrong, someone points out that it's wrong, and you change the issue.

[ad rian]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>Typical, Reg. You post something that's plain wrong, someone

>points out that it's wrong, and you change the issue.

 

Actually, he is 100% accurate. Any lawyer would tell you that to sue the dep pockets of the magazine, he had to sue the penniless escort. That might create some disincentives for the magazine, but not much for the escort. Sorry, charlie. Legalization will require prudential health testing regulation, or forget it.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Why accept a health card requirement?

 

>>Typical, Reg. You post something that's plain wrong, someone

>>points out that it's wrong, and you change the issue.

 

You are being dishonest, deej, as you have on previous occasions when you could not find any other way to make a point that you thought would make me look bad. You thought that the Tom Cruise suit is an example of a case in which the plaintiff sued someone who has no assets. But as I pointed out -- and as you would know if you had bothered to read the complaint Butch linked for us -- the Tom Cruise suit is not such a case. You aren't honest enough to admit that, but everyone can see that it is true.

 

>Actually, he is 100% accurate. Any lawyer would tell you

>that to sue the dep pockets of the magazine, he had to sue

>the penniless escort. That might create some disincentives

>for the magazine, but not much for the escort. Sorry,

>charlie. Legalization will require prudential health

>testing regulation, or forget it.

 

Thanks for making the point so clearly and succinctly.