What do you think is the right prostitution laws for Canada?

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

The subject of this thread is "What do you think is the right prostitution laws for Canada?", not "Yet Another Thread on the subject of "The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!"

 

... Incall was essentially made legal in New Zealand in 1978 through a law governing massage parlours. Escorts were required to be registered with police and massage parlours were allowed to operate as brothels again so long as they were registered with police...

 

As previously outlined right here in this very thread by fortunateone, the legal situation in New Zealand prior to 2003 was very similar to that in Canada. Prostitution was not illegal, but soliciting, brothel-keeping, procuring, and living on the earnings were illegal. The Massage Parlours Act did not make anything legal that was previously illegal. In fact, anyone with a conviction under the prostitution laws was prohibited from working in a Massage Parlour for a period of 10 years. The intent of the act was to provide tools to the police to ensure that Massage Parlours were not fronts for prostitution

(sound like a country we're all familiar with?).

 

Scott, the exact article you link to states "police continued to raid brothels, streets and private residences of sex workers, right up to the day before the Prostitution Reform Bill was passed by Parliament."

 

... The current law was brought into effect in 2003 by a Labour Gov't (closer to NDP than Liberal) ... Since that time opponents of the law have pressed for repeal and if the NZ right wing party ever obtains power the NZ law is all but certain to be overturned...

 

The National Party has been in power in New Zealand for two years, since November 2008. National and Labour are the only two parties with governmental prospects. In the last election, National received 45% of the vote; Labour 34%. Next highest was the Green with 7%.

[masterowls 249]

Here is my idea for prostitution laws in Canada.1 license prostitutes. Any prostitute without a license should be subject to a lengthy prison term. Up to 10 years. This would make it unprofitable not to get proper licensing. 2. In order to prevent human trafficking, trafficking in women, make it impossible to get a license without proof of either immigration or citizenship for at least two years. This would make it difficult for traffickers to support the women long enough, so that it would become difficult to make any money and they would go into more lucrative business. I also support the establishment of red light districts within any major city along the model of Amsterdam, where if you are in that district it's assumed, that you are either selling, or looking for sex, so nobody is particularly offended by the fact that it is prevalent. This would make it much easier for the police to look after public order, and check licenses. It would also almost eliminate pimps, because the main function of a pimp, is to ensure the smooth operation, and safety of his girls, if the roles filled by the pimps are no longer required, they would very quickly become a dying breed.

[Andee 220524]

Here is my idea for prostitution laws in Canada.1 license prostitutes. Any prostitute without a license should be subject to a lengthy prison term. Up to 10 years. This would make it unprofitable not to get proper licensing.

 

That's a little harsh, don't you think? 10 years? C'mon, I could rob a bank and get less time.

 

I'm not saying licensing isn't a bad thing, but what kind of "requirements" would one have to meet to get said license. Would there be training, a test, would it be a municipal or provincial responsibility?

 

Mandatory licensing is not going to prevent the underground economy of prostitution any more than it prevents other underground economies such as private driving services (as opposed to taxis), Selling meat out the back of a truck (as opposed to grocers), etc. etc.

 

I'm not sure what the answer is, but whatever it is, the issue of those who think they can set up shop outside my window, or procure/force people to work as prostitutes and make a profit off same based on their own greed, still needs to be addressed.

[VedaSloan 119179]

Thanks for your comments.

Neither do I agree with street level prostitution which is mostly forced prostitution (by pimps or need to finance drug addiction).

 

SA, you are making generalizations. Street level prostitution is much more complicated and is certainly not all forced. The implication that all street workers are drug addicted is a stereotype! While I am not saying that drug addiction is not a problem for some workers, it cannot be applied to all street workers. Street level work includes working clubs and hotel bars--not just standing on a corner soliciting drive-bys. Some choose street level work because it is more transaction based and they prefer it to doing incall work which lends itself to more couch time.

 

And as Carrie Moon once pointed out to me in another thread, pimps can control indoor workers as well, including some who use CERB.

 

Additionally, the living off the avails charge was largely used to target family and friends of sex workers in order to get them to give up client lists, so much so that Ontario courts do not allow living off the avails to be used against family members.

 

I obviously support the New Zealand model.

[Guest s******ecan****]

The subject of this thread is "What do you think is the right prostitution laws for Canada?", not "Yet Another Thread on the subject of "The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!"

 

 

Simply because The National Party didn't make repeal of this legislation its first priority (see global economic meltdown) doesen't mean it will not eventually see fit to repeal it. They campaigned vigorously against it and the law does not enjoy widespread support in NZ. In any event the point of the NZ comparison is to demonstrate that the NZ law is not likely going to be "the right prostitution law for Canada" the title of the thread if I remember correctly. In addition it was also meant to demonstrate that the opponents of the NZ law propose the Swedish Model as the alternative.

 

Offering ones sober and logical prediction about the future outcome is hardly playing the role of "chicken little". I'm surprised anyone would invoke such an ad hominen attack.

 

I also firmly believe (and others are free to disagree but please without personal attack) that we were better off before the court challenge in the sense that one shouldn't let the "perfect" (in this case some sort of enlightened decriminlization) be the enemy of the good (our existing laws effectively allowing legal outcall conducted discretely).

 

Simply because I am pessimistic about the outcome doesen't disenfranchise my freedom to offer an opinion. Nor does it turn me into some panic stricken chicken running around predicting the end of the world......or is there some approved line of "proper thinking" that has recently been developed here on CERB that I am unaware of?

[Cato 160314]

I have to say that I agree with Scott's assessment. I don't think he's being unduly alarmist, at all.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

SA, you are making generalizations. Street level prostitution is much more complicated and is certainly not all forced. The implication that all street workers are drug addicted is a stereotype! .

 

I did say mostly .....which means not all ... as quoted in your post too!!!.

Yes I agree I am sure there are some who are neither forced nor drug addicts and generalization or stereotyping is not right.

Neither do I agree with street level prostitution which is mostly forced prostitution

 

The problem with street level prostitution (standing on a corner soliciting drive-bys) is not limited to forced or drug addiction but also the resulting harassments in the neighbourhoods, traffic jams (what is termed public nuisance) and the scenes which may not be proper to be viewed by children among other things.

 

 

 

I have to say that I agree with Scott's assessment. I don't think he's being unduly alarmist, at all.

 

I too agree with Scott's assessment. We have to be on guards as I said the coalision of left and right and religious zealots and likely some feminists in order to impose a backward law is very real and the least we can do is not to vote for one in the upcoming election and also if possible become active too as per what another valuable member and SP proposed in her Nominated thread (that it is too early to celeberate and we have to remain alert and if possible active). Voting "red" is the safest option, I believe.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Scott, my post was certainly in no way intended as an attack on you personally!

 

The facts I stated in my last post are a simple matter of record (although, as always, I certainly stand to be corrected on the facts if my sources of information are wrong). Presenting these facts did not constitute an attempt on my part to disenfranchise you, rather they constituted an attempt to clarify the NZ factual record -- as part of what I intended to be respectful and considered discussion.

 

So much for facts, which I assume are somewhat beside the point in this apology. Now on to opinion (yes, I also apologize for being long-winded):

 

The opinion that we are headed for a regression in the law (as a result of the current constitutional challenge) has been many-times expressed, by you and others, in the several threads that are specifically discussing that. I was hoping that here, this thread could instead continue to discuss (what I conceived to be) its original subject, as stated in (my interpretation of) the original title of the thread, which I conceived to be an invitation to discuss the substance of potential laws -- in effect, I interpreted "right prostitution laws for Canada" to mean "desirable prostitution laws for Canada".

 

I now see that your interpretation of the thread is from a somewhat different and no less valid angle, namely the prediction of which potential laws will be adopted in Canada. This interpretation would indeed make the current thread just another thread about the constitutional challenge, the same as all the other threads on that subject -- in that context, my hopes for a discussion of the substance of laws is dashed, and I have doubly-overstepped the bounds of acceptable posting etiquette in making a rude attempt to steer the discussion in the direction that had been making this a bit of a different thread from all the others.

 

(As an aside -- again I apoogize for blathering-on -- I do not know what the eventual outcome of the current constitutional challenge will be, so I have carefully avoided voicing a firm opinion on any of the predictions about it. I do encourage everyone to do what they can to influence the outcome towards an end result that will benefit, first and foremost, the safety and well-being of sex workers.)

 

Lastly, and most importantly, Scott, I see that my "Sky is Falling" phrase was too flippant in characterizing your position. Your citing of "chicken little" now reminds me, upon reflection, that there is an overtone of unreasoning hysteria (if you will) in the original fable that contains the "sky is falling" phrase. This is an overtone that I did NOT remember, or intend to apply to you. I respect your opinion on this (and all!) subjects too much for that. As I said, I don't know what the eventual legal situation in Canada will turn out to be when this all settles down. Whether your pessimism about the outcome is correct or incorrect, it would not be right to call it hysterical or unreasoning. Any implication otherwise on my part was not intentional.

 

Scott, I was rude to you. I wholeheartedly apologize!!

[Newton 714]

Okay back to the topic. I think the right law should uphold sex workers' charter rights and freedoms as well as allow practical accommodations.

 

If one is free to have sex with anyone, they should be free to have sex with anyone and get paid for it. As far as I see, sex work comes with the individual's right to their own body. It's legal and constitutional. Any attempt to ban it is unconstitutional.

 

Practically, many freedoms have externalities and require negotiation. Sex work is such a freedom. Therefore, certain discretions are necessary. Some penalties could be imposed if these discretions were violated. But the use of prohibitive fees and the criminalization of many aspects of the trade should be considered attempts to undermine sex workers' rights.

 

The work safety of sex workers is of course very important. And they are best protected if their rights are safeguarded instead curtailed. Removal of stigma and myths and stereotypes are more effective ways to protect sex workers because they would feel safer to report any violence to the police and the press.

[BootyLoving 2441]

Licensing / certification - you pick the name. Strickly speaking from Johnny boy's perspective. A mechanism to confirm that the individual is practicing on her own free will, without coersion.

 

I've not thought deep enough to have a solution, maybe politicians will come up with something. J/K.

[bloot 110]

I listened to Cross Country Check-up with the topic of ?Should prostitution be legalized??.

You can hear it here http://www.cbc.ca/checkup/main-blog/2010/10/03/should-prostitution-be-legalized/ if you desire.

 

This show proved to me that a real can of worms has been opened up and a sane answer is not likely to be the outcome, especially with our current government.

 

The problem is that the law will be driven by perception of the Canadian public. Every one that was in favour of making prostitution illegal, more or less connected prostitution to the following:

• Human trafficking
  
• Underage prostitution
  
• Drug use
  
• Violence against women
  
• The objectification of women
  
• Legalization would make it easier for the Robert Picton?s out there.
  

 

The feeling I get is that these people were not even aware of the state of the law prior to the recent announcements. For the record, I do not hold these views, I just want people to be aware of what they are up against. Really, there is no need to discuss them as they seem to be maritless on the surface.

 

More sane views provided no legal remedy but were strongly against prostitution as a legitimate business practice. These views point out stronger arguments pulling from other districts where legalization has been tried. They attempted to demonstrate that a ghettoization of sex workers (my words not theirs just trying to summarize) occurs as legal and illegal forms of regulated prostitution stratifiy. E.g. Ladies that pass their STD test vs. those that don?t; Clients that seek sex without protection and cannot be served by regulated means; An overall uptick on the use of prostitution when society is viewed to condone it through legalization that makes demand outstrip supply (claim is this provides an opening for organized crime causing increase in human trafficking). Safety for some but other are driven to be further marginalized and in greater danger from marginalized clients. I found this article that seems to echo some of these positions http://bigthink.com/ideas/24269.

 

I think there are some good points in these arguments, for which I have no remedy. I am forced to agree that there is no easy answer. I think the reason is that the acts of buying and selling sex are social acts that take place in social contexts that are very complicated and cannot be simply regulated by laws but must be viewed from a much wider perspective and include aspects that we as societies have been very poor at, namely the ability to look at the underpinnings of the serious issues that cause society problems; poverty, violence against women and children, lack of opportunity and a real lack of support for the substance addicted members of our society.

 

Laws should be developed to protect sex workers like any other working person in Canada. However, the issues society has with prostitution are not legal issues, they are really social issues and as long as governments decide that buying fighter jets are more important that child poverty or homelessness, punishing the weak and disenfranchised is always the easier answer than healing our social woes.

[HappyJay 154]

Yes, "by pimps" is of course the key to this phrase. There are plenty of laws besides "living on the avails" with which to prosecute true pimps: http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=165748#post165748

 

Sex Workers must be free to use their earnings to support members of their family, significant others, or anyone else of their free and uncoerced choosing, without criminalizing those they love and support -- and who in turn love and support them in a non-exploitative manner. Just like any other worker, and human being, can do so.[/B]

 

You are absolutely right!!!

[fortunateone 156618]

Licensing / certification - you pick the name. Strickly speaking from Johnny boy's perspective. A mechanism to confirm that the individual is practicing on her own free will, without coersion.

 

I've not thought deep enough to have a solution, maybe politicians will come up with something. J/K.

 

 

Places that use this (edmonton/calgary) sell specific escort licenses as a part of city bylaws. The sp can get a lower cost one that permits her to work in a massage parlour or with an agency, or an independent one. It, like any other business license, requires formal application, filling out a form, producing identification as proof of age, and under what name (or names) she will be working.

 

Failure to have a license and she will be subject to a fine, which is usually about the same amount it would have cost her to buy the license in the first place. I think the main drawback of city issued licenses are they are area specific and for residents only; many sps prefer to be able to travel and work, and it would be nice if there was an option for this. That would be primarily to avoid getting fined by city bylaw officers for working without a license that is.

 

In NZ, an escort does not necessarily have to get a license if she is working from home for instance, from what i remember. People who want to open a massage parlour or agency or have an incall with more than 4 sps have to undergo a criminal check. I doubt if that is required here.

[mod 135639]

The cities are not legally allowed to license "Prostitution" ... they license the term "Escort" and pretend not to know that a escort is a sex worker... This is abusing the power they have in a effort to "cash in" on escorting or more so to "discourage" people from working as a "escort" in these cities. (I suspect that it is more to discourage and police escorts than anything else).

 

It's a way for them to chase escorts out of the city... imagine if it was legal for them to "License" prostitution? Imagine if they have no limits on how they write these bylaws? Ladies complain about the 400.00 and even 1000.00 license fees for being an "Escort" and upwards to 4000.00 for the massage spas and agencies... could you imagine what they will "Justify" if they were allowed to license "Prostitution"???

 

Lets think about that for a second and consider what the cities have done already knowing very well that they are NOT legally allowed to have LICENSES FOR PROSTITUTION ....

- 10'000.00 yearly licenses for agencies

- Special Municipal tax property tax rate

- 1000.00+ Licenses yearly for each lady

- Requirements making it mandatory to work for agencies or brothels (Barrie has this requirement)

- Brothels zoned to the point that it is impossible to find a suitable location in the cities (They do this for strip clubs)

- Limits on words that can be used in advertising (Strip clubs often can not use "Nude" or other words in advertising)

- Limits on photos that can be used in advertising (No nudity in any photo)

- Police checks to be mandatory (Hamilton, Windsor and other places have this for strip clubs)

- Heath screen (STD/STI) tests weekly (Nevada has this)

- Random drugs tests (Pot or any narcotic screened)

- Logs required of all appointments (phone number, name and other contact information of each guy)

- Restricted hours of operation.

- Genital inspection on every appointment (Nevada has this)

- Etc...

 

really if you can think it up or find that some place does this already it will probably get put into these bylaws to make it as HARD (If not impossible) for someone to operate as a legal prostitute.

 

Can you imagine what the hourly rates will jump up to for all the guys?? Legal brothels are NOT cheap. Some guys complain of rates under 400.00 an hour... that is unheard of in legitimate brothels!! - This is why people will also NOT follow these bylaws and laws as they will just be way too restrictive and unconstitutional.

 

Can of worms? You all better be sending emails to your MP's!

[TGirl-Kay 7484]

Some thing that seems to have been over looked in the debate around the changes to Ontario's prostitution laws is the fact that there are male sex workers.

If you search on line or look in the back of any large citys alternative news paper you will find adds for Gay male escorts.

No one so far that I have heard has claimed that men are being exploited because of working in the sex trade.

Is it because many of the arguments against sex work fall flat when it's men doing the work?

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Editorial by John Lowman (cf. Johns' Voice) in the Vancouver Sun, 5 Oct 2010:

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Prostitution+imperfect+world/3624360/story.html

Canada's next move should be to make sure sex workers can conduct business in a safer environment

 

Last week, the Ontario Superior Court struck down three laws relating to prostitution, arguing that they violate a prostitute's right to liberty and security of the person. Some observers have hailed the decision as paving the way for decriminalization and harm-reduction approaches, others have lamented that it will expand trafficking in women and children. The Globe and Mail's editorial board denounced the ruling as unwarranted judicial activism: "Parliament is in a far better position to listen to all the evidence ... than a judge."

 

But Parliament already has listened to the evidence. After a comprehensive review of prostitution law, which included the testimony of 300 witnesses, the 2006 Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights unanimously agreed that "the status quo with respect to Canada's laws dealing with prostitution is unacceptable." Where the four federal political parties represented on the committee could not agree is how to change prostitution laws, which is why the "unacceptable" status quo prevails.

 

The harsh reality is that some 300 street prostitutes in Canada have been murdered or gone missing over the past 25 years. When a suit was brought against the Government of Canada claiming that prostitution laws facilitated this slaughter, the Ontario Superior Court had no choice but to determine their constitutional validity. If the court's ruling is upheld, Parliament's hand will be forced, as it should be in these circumstances. The slaughter of sex workers is a national disgrace.

 

Canadians would be forced to make a choice between the two legislative approaches that were presented to the standing committee:

 

- The radical-feminist model of prohibition first adopted in Sweden that decriminalizes the sale of sex while prohibiting sex purchasing, procuring and living on the avails. This is the model that Conservative MP Joy Smith is promoting in a private member's bill.

 

- The liberal-feminist model of harm reduction, such as the legislation in New Zealand, which recognizes the right of adults to engage in prostitution as long as they consent. NDP MP Libby Davies favours this approach.

 

How much would law-enforcement patterns change if Canada adopted the Swedish prohibition model? The pattern would likely be much the same as it is in Sweden, where almost all law enforcement is aimed at clients of street prostitutes -- which is why it is difficult to ascertain whether the Swedish law has reduced prostitution or merely displaced it from the street.

 

Indeed, in Canada since 1985, 93 per cent of all prostitution charges have been for communicating, the street offence. Communicating law enforcement would shift entirely to clients, but how would police enforce laws against off-street buyers? Set up bogus escort services and massage parlours to entrap them? Rely on "prostituted women" -- who under the law would effectively be treated as the equivalent of children and the mentally incompetent -- to testify about the source of their income?

 

If police did manage to enforce laws against off-street venues, would they merely displace prostitution back onto the street, which is exactly what happened in 1975 when Vancouver police closed the Penthouse and Zanzibar cabaret clubs, thereby precipitating the very street prostitution problem that led to the enactment of the communicating law in the first place?

 

What would happen to Downtown Eastside women given that the Conservative government is hardly likely to provide the resources necessary to fix the problems that propel the survival sex trade, such as addiction, poverty and the effect of colonization on first nations peoples?

 

Would retention of the bawdy house law endanger women who refuse to leave prostitution? Yes, because it would allow police to again lay bawdy house charges against an organization like Grandma's House when, in 1998, its proprietor allowed Downtown Eastside street-based sex workers to use the house to service their clients in order to protect them from a serial killer -- a fact that is not mentioned in VPD Deputy Chief Const. Doug LePard's otherwise frank analysis of how police failed these women.

 

There is no issue over which feminists are more deeply divided than prostitution. The radical-feminist analysis implies that women cannot gain equality and be free of male violence as long as prostitution exists. Against this view, advocates of harm reduction argue that women will not gain equality as long as their choices are curtailed by economic circumstances, men, or addiction -- or prohibitionists who claim that prostitution is a monolithic form of violence against women. Of course we should help women exit prostitution if they want to. But we should also devise law and policy that help to protect women who do not plan to exit prostitution. The radical-feminist agenda is one of the main obstacles to achieving that goal.

 

John Lowman teaches at the school of criminology at Simon Fraser University.

 

 

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

..........and the drug addicts should be put into mandatory detox and rehab. tough love!

Any addiction expert would tell you that forced rehab doesn't work.

[Guest s******ecan****]

Excellent article WIT

 

I have been on record about my pessimism as to the future so I won't repeat that here.

 

In my view the best law for Canada is an approach that acknowledges the reality that the Sex trade is time immemorial while balancing that with the fact that the Crown has a compelling interest to protect society (as much as possible) from abuses that are unique to this industry (primarily pimping and underage exploitation).

 

I feel the very different, but no less extreme moral arguments against prostitution offered by both the left and right, to be representative of the kind of doctrinaire thinking that arises out of the personal inadequacies of its most vitriolic proponents.

 

 

Were I to devise a law it would be one that addresses the following

 

- that the sale of sexual services between consenting adults is a matter of personal choice and is not by itself an act that is within the state's moral authourity or interest to prohibit.

 

- that sex workers and their clients deserve a safe enviroment and that regulations and laws neccessary to prevent; abuse, fraud, etc, and protect health, have their place in the sexual services industry the same as in other many other commercial industries.

 

- that specific laws governing and protecting society from certain dangers and criminal activity that are unique to the sexual services industry need to a part of any law(s) governing the safe and legal transaction of sexual services.

[mod 135639]

Any addiction expert would tell you that forced rehab doesn't work.

 

OF course they would say that it does not work as they see anything less then 50% as a fail .... but doing nothing? That works much less! At least they do see some results with forced detox (Especially with youth)

 

I suspect that it is considered a fail because it is never done right! No one has come up with a better solution (Mostly due to costs involved) and ignoring the problem is not working!!! Detoxing them and sending them back out into the streets with little or no support... of course that fails! The only people that helps is the drug dealers!

 

If you forced someone to detox you are helping them (Some people feel this violated the persons rights - I do not agree - you are indeed helping them) but if you just detox someone and send them back out onto the street washing your hands of it and saying "I did my job" of course it won't work.. maybe 1 out of 100 would not relapse after that. BUT! 1 our of 100 is that a fail still when we are talking about peoples lives (People who are not capable of making these choices in a intoxicated/addicted state of mind)

 

You have to dig deeper, counseling, assistance, show them a better life exists and help them achieve it!

 

Most importantly help integrate them back into society with a job, a home, a future!! Pushing them back into a life of poverty and crime it's obvious what will happen.

 

If you do all this and they still relapse escalate the help (Don't just turn a blind eye and give up) ... something like a long term rehabilitation hospital is needed to protect them and the rest of society. If someone has a death wish and tries to commit suicide they are placed in a hospital for evaluation... really is their much of a difference??

 

Harsh? Yes... but nothing else works!! It would cost a lot of money yes... and the politicians don't like to spend money on such things and ruffle the feathers but these hard choices need to be made. It's easier for society to ignore and it costs society a lot less $$ to ignore it so no politician want to touch that money pit.

 

Now I am talking about chemical drug addiction (Crack, heroin, meth, opiates, etc... and people who are being self destructive). Not a pot smoker or someone doing some recreational drug at a party. Youths abusing alcohol as well should be included in the mandatory detox and in some places in Canada they are doing this with some positive results.

 

People who are prostituting on the streets to pay for a drug habit need help (We all know that) This effects all of us as society see's drug addicted prostitution and "escorts" as all the same thing and it just stereotypes the entire industry as drug addicts! So it effects us all in many ways. No other source of income is available besides robbing/stealing/drug dealing/prostitution for these addicts as no one wants to hire a drug addict so they have little or no choice but to prostitute or deal drugs themselves. It's not prostitution that is the problem - if they successfully make streetwalking and prostitution illegal and removed it somehow from society these drug addicts would still find other (Much Worse) ways to support the drug habits.

 

I agree.. Often addicts do not want to be helped as the drugs are helping them cope with something or mask some horrible life they have... forced detox is not enough... you do need social structure and guidance.

 

Turning a blind eye and not forcing them to detox works a lot LESS than forcing someone to detox so anyone who says it does not work are looking at the stats sheets and not the human aspect!

 

1 out of 100 is still better then 0 !!

 

...but I agree it does not work well enough. It needs MORE... when your talking about saving lives and rescuing people who are not able to make their own choices clearly 1 our of 100 is not a fail in my books (Maybe on paper but that is 1 life... on human being... that you rescue!

 

I would like to see a solution that works on increasing that number.

[Newton 714]

Never did drugs so I don't know its impact. But does cold turkey work?

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

Never did drugs so I don't know its impact. But does cold turkey work?

Depends on the drug. It's very possible to die of withdrawal symptoms so detox should be supervised in a medical setting.

[VedaSloan 119179]

OF course they would say that it does not work as they see anything less then 50% as a fail .... but doing nothing? That works much less!

 

Rehab is complete bullshit. The way it is set up allows people to excuse their behaviour because they have "a disease." It's not going to work because the premise sucks in the first place. And forcing them--they won't even participate because they don't want to be there. This is why when they are deciding who gets the next bed in detox, they pick based on who they think will have the best chance of succeeding, not necessarily the person who needs it the most.

[mod 135639]

Well... it is illegal to use drugs already, it is illegal to do harm to yourself (and others) and we put people in mental care facilities when they are not able to live in society (when they are potentially harmful to themselves or others). I see no reason to not have stricter laws to help these people. Again.. doing nothing is not a solution and what they are doing now is not working too great. It's easy to say "that does not work" but it's much harder to come up with a plan that does.

[Guest s******ecan****]

Rehabilitation programs do not claim that all addictions are "diseases". Most addictions combine some form of chemical dependency with personal choices creating both a strong psychological and physical urge to continue the behaviour, beyond one's ability to stop it without some sort of professional intervention.

 

Addictions take on many forms from smoking, drug, drinking, hoarding, overeating, etc

 

It is also well established that at least in some people alcoholism is in fact a disease with a possible genetic component. This has been endorsed by the American Medical Association, a fairly conservative organization.

 

Also to simply assert that all Rehab is false or without merit flies in the face overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[masterowls 249]

Angela, 10 years would be the maximum, and only applied to repeat offenders. Yes it seems harsh, but the idea is to make it so prohibitively expensive, both in time, and in monetary terms, that no sane provider would work without a license. (Can you imagine 10 years of lost income) under previous laws, if a girl was arrested for the first time, she would often be out before the ink was dry on her paperwork. If we don't impose strict penalties for unlicensed sex workers, what incentive would there be for them to apply to become licensed? I'm not a monster, I'm just saying, we need to ensure that if Canada chooses this route, the penalties are stiff enough to make sure almost everyone complies with the rules, so that 10 years down the road the government can't say, "the licensing program doesn't work, let's re-criminalize prostitution as a whole."

That's a little harsh, don't you think? 10 years? C'mon, I could rob a bank and get less time.

 

I'm not saying licensing isn't a bad thing, but what kind of "requirements" would one have to meet to get said license. Would there be training, a test, would it be a municipal or provincial responsibility?

 

Mandatory licensing is not going to prevent the underground economy of prostitution any more than it prevents other underground economies such as private driving services (as opposed to taxis), Selling meat out the back of a truck (as opposed to grocers), etc. etc.

 

I'm not sure what the answer is, but whatever it is, the issue of those who think they can set up shop outside my window, or procure/force people to work as prostitutes and make a profit off same based on their own greed, still needs to be addressed.