h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

...for the same reason that you can legally shag at 16 but have to be 18 to watch people shagging on film. You can vote on the country's issues at 17 but have to be 18 or 21 to "enjoy" some of the "benefits" of this. You can crash cars and kill people at 17 but again have to be 18 to see this performed effectively on film. Church, state and the monarchy have allegedly been seperated in this country yet the head monarch is head of the church of england and opens each parliamentary session.

I think you're on the right track, JediSlider. If they're going to put the ten commandments in classrooms, all religions should be represented. Buddhism, Muslim, Pagan, Zorastrianism, all of them. In fact, I think it should be TESTED in schools. Classes should be devoted to the similarities and differences and kids should feel free to talk about it with the teachers. Kids in the class who believe different ways should be encouraged to share that with each other.

The Great Messages of all the worldwide faiths. If you're going to put one of them in there, you gotta put all of them.

In Sheffield (UK) there is a trial scheme being run as I type. It's restricted to one area at the moment and consists of a number of "licensed" massage parlours.

In reply to fenchurch's jerry falwell thing - only in america.

Yeah, religion should be less of an uptight thing. You know the first thing Fidel Castro did when he got control in Cuba? He gave the freedom of choice of religion back to the people, so they moved away from their previously enforced christianity to their true beliefs, from their cultures, and their african gods.

(p.s. can somebody read the thing i just wrote in aaaargh america, i want someone to back me up against this small minded prat.)

cheers, bugsy

pps, should i change my name?

As for prostitution, i agree that legalisation would sort a lot of things out, and make the government's attemps at controlling it a lot more effective.
The business is, by definition, however, a little depressing. I'd hate to be one of those girls (or blokes - there are male prostitutes) who had to have sex with whoever they could find, or were told to by this violent pimp authority figure, just to make a living, or support a drug habit.
It is interesting to see that the majority of prostitutes are female. This, i think, is an indication of the power women of today hold over men. A woman can have sex with whoever she likes, she can even charge for it. A man, however, has to put all his effort into getting any women at all, let alone getting them to pay to have sex with him. This is why, i think, gigolos have the image of being high class, because they have to be. A man will put up with a seedy prostitute, but a woman will not, if she can get something better for free.

Legalization of prostitution entails the legalization of all other so-called "self-crimes". Drugs, gambling and suicide all fall into this category. Legalizing one and not the others is simply splitting hairs. Each issue essentially deals with the freedom of a human to make decisions about and concerning themselves.

The "against women" thing is really weird. Seems to me that the Feminists who preach that are "against women"- unless they want to toe the line in the sand drawn by their puritanical leftist values, as much as "operation rescue" is "against women", unless they want to toe the line drawn in the sand by their puritanical rightist values.

It would seem to me that one would want the women to have a reasonably safe enviroment to work in, no matter how they choose to earn their bread- because, let's face it, not every woman is a rocket scientist, and not every woman wants to be a factory worker, and even those who may BE smart enough to be rocket scientists may choose not to.

It all comes down to this or that group of people trying to shove everybody into their same dull mold in pursuit of some utopian ideal. If one looks at attempts to implement utopias of the left or right one can see the horrors- in purely human terms- inflicted on those who just don't fit into the grand scheme of the party in power (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, etc.). One should realize there IS NO UTOPIA!

Bad things will happen- quite often to good people. It's as uncontrollable as the weather. Seems to me the smart thing to do would be to let people do what they wish (as long as they don't hurt others) and encourage conviviality rather than conflict in order to minumize violent, anti-social behavior. That is to say, the less conflict one has in one's life the pleasanter one will be in relations to others...

Just a thought.

Not necessarily. Drugs are proven to do harm to a person and be addictive. Sex is legal. I don't know about gambling, but I believe that having suicide be illegal is entirely stupid. Can't prosecute a dead person.

I take issue with the notion that "a woman can have sex with whomever she likes". This is not so! There are MANY women I would NEVER have sex with! Wheather they'd like to or not! I would not have sex with them if they PAID me for it!

GAAAAAACCCCKKKKK!

I think drugs should be legal. I'm idealistic, though, and tend to believe that if they were made legal people would then be able to excersise this in the privacy of their own home with fair control over themselves, therefore not putting anyone besides themselves in harm's way. I know this isn't going to happen.

Legalisation of certain drugs, namely Marijuana, should be done- it's like the parents who say you can smoke, as long as it's in the house. After a while the kids have had their kicks and there's no "we'll get caught" thrill, so it's over. Marijuana is a very dilute hallucinogen, just as caffine is a dilute amphetamine... but you don't see because constantly sucking coffee or tea maniacally...

Suicide, well Jedislider said it- can't prosecute a dead man, and if it was only an attempt, the person needs help, not more to worry about.

hahaha I was waiting for someone to say that

I know that's quite a nice, idealistic vision to have, but realistically it wouldn't work. We have to have laws because each country is such a densely populated body that it can't operate on morals, and ethics. There are such a diverse range of people that some, inevitably, will want to do things that will harm others in some way, whether it be taking drugs, selling sex, generally being violent, it will happen. The laws were originaly there to curb any such action, but this era is different to the one in which they were drawn up. The laws , or rather, the authority which enforces these laws, have to, not be more lenient as such, but turn these laws, these strict rules, into government guidelines, which accept the fact that these activities will occur, but there are good aspects to them as well, and a government controlled system would be safer for all concerned. Legalising prostitution would put it under government control, and they would therefore be capable to make it safer. The same goes for marijuana, although other drugs are, shall we say, a little scary. There should still be rehab programmes to let people get out of drugs if they wish, and training programmes, etc. to allow prostitutes to get out of the business if they wish.

That's my idea of utopia (reallistically, that is - if i was a politician. My real idea of utopia involves everyone being really cool, and hanging out taking safe drugs, and living on beaches, etc., but in reality, you have to accept that everyone isn't going to be cool, and go for second best.)

It may be true that many women can't get sex at the touch of a button, and yeah, my statement was probably a bit of an exxaggeration, but you see what i mean. Women are realy intimidating to men, especially in the nineties. Everything we do is to please them, and an activity like excessive drinking is considered a laugh if done by a woman, but slobbish and gazza - esque if done by a bloke. Women (in general) can take their business elsewhere a lot easier than men.

Bugsy, it's interesting that you imply, as a generality, that legalisation means government control: the government legislates on speeding, for example, provides penalties and restrictions, but people still do it. By the same token, however, the regulation of society by "morals and ethics", as you say, wouldn't work. Legalisation of prostitution doesn't necesarily mean better working conditions for prostitutes, or even a revision of attitude towards prostitution itself. Those things only come when people have been educated to think in terms broad enough to allow the ideas to be discussed rationally. The same problem applies to the drug issue - while legalisation is probably a good idea, nobody really knows what the consequences would be, and the discussion of the issue has been so morally loaded that no legislative body has been game enough to take a stab at finding out.

The "morals and ethics" bit is important, but as any philosophical ethicist will tell you - and as you yourself are willing to recognise - there is no universal (or even world-wide: this is the 'Guide to the Galaxy, after all) moral standard. This is where the issue of right-wing (or left-wing, for that matter) religious fundamentalism becomes so important. The more hard and fast the ideas, the less amenable they are to change in the face of evidence that they don't work. Some moral ideas are reliable (the concept of "honour" for example, is world-wide, and means pretty similar things to most people) but so general that they can't be applied with regularity or reliability in every situation. Rationalising the emotive and difficult ideas which fuel the morality behind the objections to something like prostitution (or drugs, or speeding, or bank robbery, whatever) should be the priority in getting people to accept and abide by the spirit of the legislation - which is the only way that the legislation can really be used to protect anyone.

You mis-understand, Bugsy- I'm by no means suggesting getting rid of all laws, merely the one's that are unenforcable and serve to do no more than create strife in the lives of their victims and put politicians in power by giving them ammo for a scare-war.

I'm not basing this opinion on any notion that "all will be well"- but on the notion that conflict and strife would be minumised by getting rid of "victimless" crimes like prostitution, and- yes- drugs. Sure, people are going to still do nasty things to each other, that's a given- I'm not promising *all* bad things will go away. However, if drugs were legalized- for instance- there would be no crack dealers out in my parking lot at night, and there would be many neighborhoods in which gang-bangers currently prowl with AKs and Uzis (to protect their heavy investment in drugs) which would be a LOT safer if people just went to the liquor store to buy their dope.

Things which are going on now in the "drug war" were exactly the things that were going on in the "booze war" during prohibition.

An interesting thing to note is that there was more underage drinking during prohibition than since it's repeal. It was common to find grade-school children drunk on their playgrounds during prohibition.

In other words, I'm saying it's pointless to try to legislate what are essentially personal choices and values.

"Victimless crime" is also an encouragement to corruption among those who are supposed to be enforcing the law (a man was killed by police in California when he went on his lawn to see why they were out there with a beer in his hand- they thought it was a gun. The reason they were there, however, was simply because they were hoping to find a plant or two and take away his million-dollar mansion! On another raid, for the same reason- no other evidence than a desire to aquire this man's property through "civil asset forfeture" laws- a man awoke at night when his door was kicked in, and grabbed a gun to go investigate why someone was breaking into his house in the middle of the night with the same results: the cops shot him dead!

The sheriff of a county just above mine was involved in a heavy cocaine-importation operation a few years back. He used his deputies to guard a local airport and distribute shipments for years before the feds caught him.

Not to mention what is essentially being turned into a slave-labour force in the penetentiarys (as running prisons is turned over to "private enterprise" and the prisoners are worked at below minimum-wage- yeah, they get the money which makes prison more tolerable than without- but one must ask, why should prison be tolerable? Why should people who've done no more than take a drug other than the one officially sanctioned (alcohol) be enslaved to the state?

On the subject of the social status of men and women in the 90's:

This is the one I had to think about harder, Bugsy (hence the delay in reply)- and, in general, I think much of what you have to say is absolutely true. Women do have more choices and less recrimination than men in the present times- in fact, I see a slow raising of a reverse double-standard and reverse discrimination at work in many social venues.

All I can say is, you have to stand up for what's right. When you've been wronged, just document the wrongs, gather evidence and opinions to show how you've been wronged, and most people will generally support you (male or female). Be aware there *are* "female chauvinists" (whom I tend to refer to as "feminazis") who will assert they have a right to trample all of yours in pursuit of some goal satisfying a set of psuedo-scientific rules laid down by mostly liberal-arts majors and lawyers who make that stuff up as they go along.

Your best bet is to frequent alt.feminisim, where you can find links to articles on the web as well as posted articles which detail what lies have been foisted on society by the radical feminists (who, by the way, swear that any woman who doesn't follow their dictates is "not a woman"). Interesting stuff, and will put you in touch with men and women who are against *ALL* discrimination and demonization of the sexes.

Just an odd rambling. There is legalized prostitution everywhere in the world ; it's called politics. So if Politics is legal why shouldn't prostitution be ?

Except in politics, you don't sell yourself, you sell out your country.
I see your point that legalisation wouldn't work much. I mean, the americans legalised guns, and just listen to baron shatturday's stories. It may be true that legalisation of prostitution wouldn't mean safer working conditions, but frankly, it should. As for getting rid of the crack dealers, it might, it might not. They could use their contacts in brasil to set up a legitimate shop, and there'd be no violence, like you said, but there'll always be a black market in everything. It won't be as attractive, or dangerous, but black market guns are cheaper. And you do't need a licence, so you can get as many as you like. Government guidelines may drive prostitution underground.

But, in holland, marijuana and prostitution are legal, and from what i've heard, it's a pretty groovy place.

Morals and ethics, yeah, yeah. How many people have those. To the official moralists (bbc presenters, politicians, etc.)drugs are evil. How many of us in the world take drugs? most of us. Look at richard bacon, for christ's sake. On reclaim the streets, all those people bunning it down like chimneys in front of the police. Weed isn't morally wrong to them. Like you said, it's a matter of opinion, because people see things in different ways. One person loves lsd, another tried it and had a bad trip. Getting rid of laws would be as bad as having dead straight laws that 'god says you have to do this, or you'll go to hell'. We need to find somewhere in between. Like i said, this is a modern era.
Religious fundamentalism is a liitle too much like blind obedience (call it left wing, but karl marx would be against that. Just like he'd be against stalin, and tianmen square.)

The (call them utopian if you like) government guidelines i speak of involve the same thing as you'd expect nationalisation of education to bring (open mindedness to ethnic cultures and views (did you know, until a year or two, it was compulsory top have a christian service in assembly) abolition of selection and capital punishment, etc.) A government board assigned to the area would constantly be dedicated to the task of improving the business, making it safer, etc. And the government would get all the money from it, to spend on schools, etc.

I'd just like to mention that stalin was only masquerading as a communist, and instead of the wealth being brought up, and refined , and grown by the people, , and then going to the government to be distributed back among the people, it kind of stayed in the government.

That isn't what marx was about. Castro is what marx was about. nationalised health, education, freedom of choice of religion, no racism, no homelessness, everyone has what they need, no corruption, no ruling class, a politician is as important as a plumber.

Go and read my article in aaargh america. There's a link on smiley ben's page, or mine. It's a subject i feel strongly about. I heard someone on the news last night talking about 'human rights violations' in cuba. They were referring to the fact that some people, probably american backed, just like batista, tried to stir up revolt against castro, and he, rightly, put them in prison. Anyone heard of the rosenbergs? A couple in the sixties who thought that if the americans were the only ones to have the secret of atomic energy, they'd abuse the power, so they gave the research to the russians, to even things out. They were caught, and put in the electric chair. Human rights? Where?

I've just realised i can do this.

http://www.h2g2.com/forumframe.cgi?forum=316&thread=14425