Prostitution and Drugs

[Stephanie]

Why am I not surprised that Hobbit and Archangel are in the same boat here. As usual, no proof, citing themselves and making absurd claims in the process.

Adults!

powerworm, and nuckie, You need to stop calling people out on the open board about your complaints about them.. if you all have a gripe about them, at least give them the chane to respond when their on the board. When they are speaking directly to you in a post then you can speak about them. Knock your shit off. Their not even here to defend themselves, if this makes you feel good about yourself, your looking pretty damm stupid in my book... Your both looking more like an

 

[Powerman]

powerworm, and nuckie, You need to stop calling people out on the open board about your complaints about them.. if you all have a gripe about them, at least give them the chane to respond when their on the board. When they are speaking directly to you in a post then you can speak about them. Knock your shit off. Their not even here to defend themselves, if this makes you feel good about yourself, your looking pretty damm stupid in my book... Your both looking more like an

I gave him a fair chance to respond while he was on the board. He called me a pot head which is completely false and he also threatened me. Did you even bother to read any of this or are you just taking his side because I'm the new guy around here?

 

[Powerman]

I say give all the drugs a drug addict wants and maybe they'll kill themselves off. (which you all don't think it matters where it will lead people, and then for them to find the money to support their habits, maybe they'll come and stick your lame asses up, rob your home, steal your car, kill ya for a few dollars) hell who give a damm, not you... And as far as prostitution, that say's it all, just what you all think of a women. :bat:

Don't jump to conclusions sweetheart. Think about what you are saying for a second. Right now people are doing the things you speak of such as robbing you, and commiting violent crimes because of their drug habbits. The fact that drugs are illegal does not change the demand for them. It does however make them more expensive which is why people rob you for drug money. If drugs were legal and regulated then you would kill off violent drug gangs. And as for the remark about what I think of women that's pretty silly to assume that. Once again, prostitution has been around since before biblical times. Making it illegal won't change anything. In fact it has been shown that legalized prostitution leads to less STDs because it is regulated and they must get tested frequently. Just because I want prostitution legalized it doesn't mean I'm going to start soliciting prostitutes. I think it is in very poor taste to do so and would never do it out of principal. But since people are going to do it anyway we might as well get some tax dollars out of it. So long as it is consensual, it doesn't harm others not involved in it. Prostitution rings also cause crime. If it were legal it wouldn't .

 

[Stephanie]

I gave him a fair chance to respond while he was on the board. He called me a pot head which is completely false and he also threatened me. Did you even bother to read any of this or are you just taking his side because I'm the new guy around here?

I've read every single post, and Pleeeessse so you were called a pothead,good grief I've been called a lot worse, and damm sure didn't stress out over a friggin name. Remember that saying, sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me. He threatened you with a keyboard, I don't belive I've seen any serious bodily harm done with that. Get a grip, knock it off and end this stupidity.... As I said before your dismissed. I am done, stick a fork in you.

 

[Powerman]

I've read every single post, and Pleeeessse so you were called a pothead,good grief I've been called a lot worse, and damm sure didn't stress out over a friggin name. Remember that saying, sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me. He threatened you with a keyboard, I don't belive I've seen any serious bodily harm done with that. Get a grip, knock it off and end this stupidity.... As I said before your dismissed. I am done, stick a fork in you.

I never said that I was offended that he called me a pot head. The fact that he just starts throwing it around and assumes I'm a pot head is just as testament to his stupidity and lack of substance on this board. Funny how you didn't address the whole thing about him threatening me. Not that I take that seriously either but that's not very mature. The fact that you are backing up someone who spews lies and scum isn't doing much for your credibility.

 

[Stephanie]

I never said that I was offended that he called me a pot head. The fact that he just starts throwing it around and assumes I'm a pot head is just as testament to his stupidity and lack of substance on this board. Funny how you didn't address the whole thing about him threatening me. Not that I take that seriously either but that's not very mature. The fact that you are backing up someone who spews lies and scum isn't doing much for your credibility.

But I've known that person a heck of a lot longer than you, and I have high regards for what he has to say. When you are here awhile longer and if you stop making yourself out to be someone special, then I'll maybe rate you as someone as I'd take seriously. As for myself, I'm not all that special, and I don't make myself as if I am :scratch:

 

[Powerman]

But I've known that person a heck of a lot longer than you, and I have high regards for what he has to say. When you are here awhile longer and if you stop making yourself out to be someone special, then I'll maybe rate you as someone as I'd take seriously. As for myself, I'm not all that special, and I don't make myself as if I am :scratch:

You hold someone in high regards who makes threats towards other people and makes things up out of thin air to support his arguement? That doesn't make sense.

 

[Stephanie]

Don't jump to conclusions sweetheart. Think about what you are saying for a second. Right now people are doing the things you speak of such as robbing you, and commiting violent crimes because of their drug habbits. The fact that drugs are illegal does not change the demand for them. It does however make them more expensive which is why people rob you for drug money. If drugs were legal and regulated then you would kill off violent drug gangs. And as for the remark about what I think of women that's pretty silly to assume that. Once again, prostitution has been around since before biblical times. Making it illegal won't change anything. In fact it has been shown that legalized prostitution leads to less STDs because it is regulated and they must get tested frequently. Just because I want prostitution legalized it doesn't mean I'm going to start soliciting prostitutes. I think it is in very poor taste to do so and would never do it out of principal. But since people are going to do it anyway we might as well get some tax dollars out of it. So long as it is consensual, it doesn't harm others not involved in it. Prostitution rings also cause crime. If it were legal it wouldn't .

What do we do with all these POOR souls,(DRUG ADDICTS) who can't or won't work for their money to buy all these legalized drugs? The same ones who are going to rob your house, shoot your ass to steal your car for a fix..... Should the taxpayers pay for their habit? I for one refuse to pay for a persons choice of habit, wether it be drink, drugs, gambleing, prostitutes. And as for you rightious answer that prostitutes have been around since before biblical times, how about we prostitute the men in the world? What do you say about that one? Don't the men have things to offer also, that can be used to prostitute..Right or no??

 

[Gunny]

What do we do with all these POOR souls,(DRUG ADDICTS) who can't or won't work for their money to buy all these legalized drugs? The same ones who are going to rob your house, shoot your ass to steal your car for a fix..... Should the taxpayers pay for their habit? I for one refuse to pay for a persons choice of habit, wether it be drink, drugs, gambleing, prostitutes. And as for you rightious answer that prostitutes have been around since before biblical times, how about we prostitute the men in the world? What do you say about that one? Don't the men have things to offer also, that can be used to prostitute..Right or no??

What's the going rate?

 

[Powerman]

What do we do with all these POOR souls,(DRUG ADDICTS) who can't or won't work for their money to buy all these legalized drugs? The same ones who are going to rob your house, shoot your ass to steal your car for a fix..... Should the taxpayers pay for their habit? I for one refuse to pay for a persons choice of habit, wether it be drink, drugs, gambleing, prostitutes. And as for you rightious answer that prostitutes have been around since before biblical times, how about we prostitute the men in the world? What do you say about that one? Don't the men have things to offer also, that can be used to prostitute..Right or no??

What about any of my posts says that I wouldn't allow men to whore themselves out as well? You are just going around drunkenly making assumptions now.

As for the drugs thing, I don't think you get it. The demand for drugs doesn't change whether or not it is legal. If it is legal it generates tax revenue and will reduce violent crime. In case you haven't noticed there is no shortage of idiots doing drugs right now. With the generated tax revenue the problem would pay for itself.

 

[Gunny]

What about any of my posts says that I wouldn't allow men to whore themselves out as well? You are just going around drunkenly making assumptions now.

As for the drugs thing, I don't think you get it. The demand for drugs doesn't change whether or not it is legal. If it is legal it generates tax revenue and will reduce violent crime. In case you haven't noticed there is no shortage of idiots doing drugs right now. With the generated tax revenue the problem would pay for itself.

If it is legal it generates tax revenue and will reduce violent crime? I think YOU are the one missing her point.

You state the demand for drugs doesn't change whether or not it is legal. Using the SAME reasoning, those that commit violent crimes to support their habits now, would STILL commit violent crimes to support their habits THEN.

Drugs, legal or illegal, are expensive.

 

[insein]

I guess you guys didnt read my post on the second page. I said next question. This could have saved you 5 pages of drek, lol.

 

[Gunny]

I guess you guys didnt read my post on the second page. I said next question. This could have saved you 5 pages of drek, lol.

There's a second page? Damn .....

 

[CivilLiberty]

What do we do with all these POOR souls,(DRUG ADDICTS) who can't or won't work for their money to buy all these legalized drugs?

You see, this is the kind of gross stereotyping that really does not "see" the actual issue.

The *cheap* drug of choice among those "POOR" "ADDICTS" is ALCOHOL



ALcohol is among the MOST DANGEROUS drugs we have. Alcohol kills 110,000 people a year just from health effect - In AMerica 2,000 people die from alcohol overdose. And homeless people beg in the streets for spare change to get a bottle of Tbird to stay plastered.

Yet we tolerate the very dangerous drug alcohol well as a society, with its above board regulation, and available treatment and education. Moreover, we learned from alcohol prohibition that trying to treat alcoholism with a prohibitionary law actually made matters worse. The same social failure of alcohol prohibition is present in the prohibition of most other recreational drugs.



http://www.DrugWarFAQ.com


Q: Aren't you ignoring the effects of drug-related crimes? What about the stoned people who are mugging grandmas because of their drug habits, to pay for their next fix?

A: Prohibition keeps the street price of drugs very high, creating excellent profits for the drug dealers, and desperation for the addicts, who commit crimes like muggings to find the money to buy their drugs. In Switzerland, where they issue heroin to addicts, the illegal drug trade has all but vanished, as has drug related crime.

Yes, drug addiction (including alcohol addiction and tobacco addiction) is a terrible thing. But if, post-prohibition, an addict can get his or her next dose for the price of a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of wine, it no longer becomes necessary for him to mug a grandma. Yes, he will still be an addict, and his addiction may well take a serious toll on his health or productivity, but he will no longer be a serious danger to the rest of society.

It doesn't matter whether you are for or against people using drugs. What does matter is that we need to lower the costs of drug use to society, not increase them. Spending over 45 billion per year on a policy that has not only failed, but makes matters worse, makes absolutely no sense at all.



Q: I've seen crime increase with alcohol use too, especially violent crimes like wife beatings, sexual assaults, shootings, etc., not to mention thousands of terrible accidents every year. Legalizing alcohol didn't stop the crime related problems it causes. Why do you want to increase those problems? Isn't it bad enough that we have people high on alcohol, causing problems?

A: This is an excellent point, and a "sticking point" for many people who might otherwise oppose prohibition. There is no doubt that a small percentage of the people that use alcohol abuse it. This is true of many drugs, and especially true of an extremely disorienting potentially addictive drug like alcohol.

However, if you study history, you'll see that the thirteen-year era of alcohol prohibition actually made matters much much worse. In fact, prohibition was an unmitigated disaster. Crime skyrocketed, corruption spread through government and police forces, gang violence soared, riddling our streets with bullets. Poorly distilled and unregulated "bathtub gin" blinded and killed people -- both "addicts" and "casual recreational users".

But most importantly, Prohibition did not stop people from drinking alcohol. While there was a drop in usage the first year, by the third year usage was greater than the year before prohibition. See this link for a handy chart:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

Our point? Prohibition policies are based on fiction. They destroy society by creating an environment of crime and corruption, as well as giving government "Big Brother" powers over the lives, recreational habits, and choices of all citizens.

And prohibition policies create vast bureaucracies. And the lies and propaganda which these bureaucracies must create and disseminate, in order to prop up their fiction, can cause aware and thinking people to develop a tragic deep and permanent distrust of the government, of the hardworking people in law enforcement, and of the political process.

Prohibition and the forces that support it are enemies of liberty and domestic tranquility. While there may be issues with the use, and sometimes abuse, of various recreational drugs like alcohol, those issues and those people that abuse should be dealt with directly, instead of creating an unregulated black market that feeds the mouth of crime. That is all prohibition has ever done, and will ever do.




ANdy

 

[CivilLiberty]

What's the going rate?

I recall reading that going rate for male prostitutes is, I believe, less than half the rate for women. Here in Los Angeles, a basic "straight lay" with a woman date is around $200. A "straight lay" is like an hour or less.

But considering what male prostitutes have to *do* I know I wouldn't want to be one.


A

 

[archangel]

Dimwit, just because I have acted doesn't mean that is my profession. You need a SAG card even if you act one time. But I guess you wouldn't know that, because you actually know nothing about anything.

however you are wrong once again...one cannot get a SAG card until they have X amount of experience and money paid for acting...I base this on the fact that I did a few small parts as a child...never stayed long enough in the business to qualify for a SAG card...maybe the rules have changed since that long ago dabbling...correct me if I am wrong and state the date this(?) change went into effect...thank you very much in advance of your response!

 

[archangel]

however you are wrong once again...one cannot get a SAG card until they have X amount of experience and money paid for acting...I base this on the fact that I did a few small parts as a child...never stayed long enough in the business to qualify for a SAG card...maybe the rules have changed since that long ago dabbling...correct me if I am wrong and state the date this(?) change went into effect...thank you very much in advance of your response!

Here I did it for you: You still need to obtain professional status before you can submit a application for SAG membership....see:
www.sag.org/sagWebApp/application;JSESSIONID_SagWet

 

[Nuc]

Here I did it for you: You still need to obtain professional status before you can submit a application for SAG membership....see:
www.sag.org/sagWebApp/application;JSESSIONID_SagWet

So what, I had an AFTRA card, they merged with SAG. That still doesn't mean I'm a professional actor. It means I have acted professionally. As you apparently have. There's a difference, or are you unable to grasp that? Anyway, who gives a fuck?

 

[archangel]

So what, I had an AFTRA card, they merged with SAG. That still doesn't mean I'm a professional actor. It means I have acted professionally. As you apparently have. There's a difference, or are you unable to grasp that? Anyway, who gives a fuck?

:cof: I guess that is about as close as I am going to get for an apology from you....you were wrong....sorry Charlie!

 

[CivilLiberty]

however you are wrong once again...one cannot get a SAG card until they have X amount of experience and money paid for acting...I base this on the fact that I did a few small parts as a child...never stayed long enough in the business to qualify for a SAG card...maybe the rules have changed since that long ago dabbling...correct me if I am wrong and state the date this(?) change went into effect...thank you very much in advance of your response!

If you look at my resume, you'll see I work in entertainment (read: movies) industry in Hollywood. I'm very familiar with SAG. Here are the eligibility requirements (any single one of the following example):



1) You qualify for a SAG card once you work in ONE SAG production with a principal/speaking part (i.e. not an extra).

2) You can also qualify by getting 3 days of work as a "background actor" (i.e. extra) in a SAG production, under the SAG agreement.

3) You may join if you are a member of an "affiliated" union, such as AFTRA for one year, with at least one paying job under that union.

4) You can be "Taft Hartly-ed" in, if a producer wants you in, he can Taft Hartly you into a SAG production. Related to this, you DO NOT need to be in SAG, nor join SAG for this first production, however, if you do another SAG film you MUST then join. (being in SAG prohibits you from working on non-SAG productions, so this is an important point.)

5) If you are working on a NON-SAG film/production, and that production signs the signatory agreement after you were hired, you are automatically eligible, and in fact in some cases you can join with no initiation fee (which is substantial).


Note: A "SAG" production means any film, TV show, commercial, or video that is produced as a signatory to the SAG agreement.



Andy