Prostitutes And Drug Dealers 'Add £10 Billion To UK National Wealth'

[salsafan 10]

Nope, no bullying issues seen by me. Salsa and I had a discussion a wee while back about Sandwiches of all things...you know...really important stuff

 

I ended up leaving the discussion, because her self-contradictions drove me up the wall.

 

I happened to comment on another post she'd been involved in (not directly at her) where she commented that I was upset because she'd 'Trashed' me on the sandwich thread and she thought it was funny...very school-yard behaviour...

 

Oh ! Now I remember who you are. Because it was soon after that you actually came online and did not side with what I thought was a more common sense thread. Because I did not take your side in that particular argument. You then threw your anger onto another thread. I remember who you are now.

 

Quite weird that is.

[ronthenekred 10]

Nope, no bullying issues seen by me. Salsa and I had a discussion a wee while back about Sandwiches of all things...

 

O mother of Jeezus, now you've done it..this thread is about to take on a long winded rant about sandwiches..I just know it, you watch.

[yellowperil 10]

Thank you for coming online.

 

 

Some men do not believe this though. It is as if they think that this is wanted even on the side of the women who end up choosing to do this. I know you know that there is a big difference between "need" to that of "want". I am not so sure if the menfolks here actually get this.

 

Most women I know want to be wanted by one man. It takes a lot of emotional power and so forth to suppress that and do what they do. It is not all that natural either to the woman. They are supporting the idea of a woman going against her desire to be with a loving man of her own choice and do what she does ? I don't get why they seem to think this!

 

 

I actually do think that there is a need actually. If a man is without sex, or without a partner to be emotionally connected to. Something happens to him psychologically. He may not feel as grounded and nor will he actually feel like he has a big purpose in life either. That is why you will see more men actually want this than not to support this. I read an article once before in the past regarding sexual relationships and the type that it exists.

 

There is a difference between aggressive sex to that of a loving relationship and sex within the realm of that. By offering this kind of sexual service, I fear that it will damage the guys more than they think it will. Cos they fail to see beyond the simple need which has not been met for a long time to that of what they personally dream and desire of. e.g. a committed monogamous relationship. Most you may find will just displace it onto something else. Rather than to actually acknowledge a relationship and its emotional and psychological effect that it has on himself.

 

It kind of worries me that there is a demand for this kind of thing in a Western developed country like the UK. Because it means that there is an awful lot of unfulfilled men in this country, and they do not know how to go about securing a steady and committed relationship at all. Also at the same time, they are not aware of their own behaviours, and that they may think they still need to "compete" aggressively, and is unable to acknowledge the need to focus and yet to also protect.

 

 

There should not be a need and a demand to begin with. The fact that there is, and the fact that people are now more socially mobile, and cannot find a partner to settle down with is possibly half the problem to begin with. As well as many others do not support one another, and people do not actually live and build communities any more, find work, and build up big network all attribute to this kind of "pic n mix" lifestyle.

 

The increasing number of dating sites is reducing the amount of this behaviour from happening.

 

You see. I do not try to drug myself. I feel all the emotions as I read those comments and let it wash over me, even though it angers me so much.

 

Yes, this is my suffering and I react to it. Even though some people think that this is wrong, when in reality, I am reacting to their words. Their ideas, in their own minds. Even when I do not know them. They do not see their impact on others, and they do not see themselves through the eyes of many others either.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 00:48 ----------

 

 

To be honest. I do not trust you. Simple.

now you are asking for validation from others than to actually accept the fact that I do not find you honorable, and nor do I trust you. End of.

 

Im not asking for validation, im asking if anyone else following this thinks ive bullied you or in fact acted without honour or been disrespectful towards you.

 

As you seem so sure i have not been fair with you you made me question myself.

Just wanted to know if anyone else saw what you see in my posts.

 

You neglected to address the "race card" issue by the way!

Have you realised you were mistaken in your interpretation of the comment?

Edited April 10, 2014 by yellowperil

[lilypiglet 10]

Oh ! Now I remember who you are. Because it was soon after that you actually came online and did not side with what I thought was a more common sense thread. Because I did not take your side in that particular argument. You then threw your anger onto another thread. I remember who you are now.

 

Quite weird that is.

 

I've not thrown any anger... Thankyou...

 

How does someone 'actually come online'?

 

I don't ask for sides, everyone has an opinion.

 

I don't involve myself with on-line 'Arguments'.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 01:12 ----------

 

O mother of Jeezus, now you've done it..this thread is about to take on a long winded rant about sandwiches..I just know it, you watch.

 

I'm so over it, I got bored halfway through the discussion!

[ronthenekred 10]

 

 

 

Im getting the feeling im hitting my head against a brick wall.

 

Imagine you're in a pub with palls having a pint and a bit of a debate over something..then imagine some lush standing next to you giggling and crashing your conversation with

terminology. ..gotta be funny..innit? Edited April 10, 2014 by ronthenekred

[turtles 10]

You raise a fair point. I would, however like to see some evidence that those idiots causing mayhem in UK hospitals on a weekend after clubbing are there SOLELY as a result of alcohol, and not the parallel ingestion of something rather more illegal and damaging. People are also violent and cause disturbances after the consumption of cocaine and heroin. Can you be certain that the police are being called out predominantly to alcohol related incidents?

 

Yes, they are both drugs. But they are both legal NOW. If we were to start our laws and society all over again from scratch, I would perhaps suggest we would never have allowed alcohol, but made allowances for cannabis (and maybe MDMA at a stretch). Problem is, we can't. I also believe the crime surrounding illegal drugs is significantly higher than that surrounding tobacco and alcohol consumption.

 

Crime is indeed higher, although I'd like to see the statistics for counterfeit cigarettes, the imports are quite high. It's only a crime because of our law though.

 

My family work in both the NHS and police, and there are incidents in relation to drugs (none regarding cannabis, apart from possession) but ask anyone who works in a hospital, especially A&E, the problems alcohol causes are ridiculous. A quote from Alcohol Concern, a UK organisation, "In Accident and Emergency Departments (A&E), 70% of attendances in the early hours and 40% of weekend attendances are caused by alcohol".

[ivanava 10]

Thanks for that Captain Obvious.

 

It took you a while but at least you finally got that which is obvious, law breaking is immoral.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 06:51 ----------

 

Yes, the likes of the following? Unless you disagree.

 

So is that just the people you happen to agree with, if you agree with someone you don't see a problem with them breaking the law, but if you don't agree with them you feel that their law breaking is immoral.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 06:54 ----------

 

Non, other than the humility of accepting how misguided you are.

 

There is nothing misguided about considering criminals to be immoral, they acted against societies laws for their own gratification which makes them immoral.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 06:57 ----------

 

Only because the drugs are illegal. Using your own definition if those drugs were legalised then crime would fall.

 

Drugs are addictive so even if they were legal many people would still thieve to fund their addiction, or are you proposing they should also be free.

[Cyclone 10]

A government is as good and great as the people who vote them in. Let the dirty laundry be aired then.

 

We spend as much as 3 billion on sex. Prostitutes. Who are these people that uses this kind of immoral service ? Has this never occurred to you ? Sex trafficking ? Things like that ?

 

We spend 7 billion on drugs a year. There are only 69 millions of us. Who are these idiots that have so much money to spend on drugs ? Who ?

 

Who the heck can stand up and say "I use cannabis" and expect others to see that person as a decent man still ?

 

Bring back religion and make church going compulsory ? A good idea, cos people are weak when on their own. They will use any vices to make them that life is all progressive and all pursuing.

 

I don't see someone as less decent because they use cannabis, no more so than if they drink alcohol or coffee.

And fortunately we enjoy freedom of religion in this country, including the freedom to realise it's all a load of rubbish.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 07:29 ----------

 

If you did not have regrets then you would not have used your anger about that towards me. Especially when I pointed it out towards you. You do not even seem to be able to connect the two.

 

Yes, I will still judge you as that is a moral value that you broke, so please do not preach about morality to me, when you do not preach those values to begin with. Because you had done so in the past. I so thank you.

 

You are talking on a thread of which drug is illegal, and you seem to think that your input would be valued? I am so sorry, but I do not see it that way either.

 

One hopes that the next generation wise up and do some good deeds and not like the current generation which had already fallen from grace. And the government that we have truly reflects that. We are too stupid to think, to learn for ourselves, and just keep on hitting that hedonism.

 

Nobody is angry at you, except perhaps for derailing another thread with your half baked rambling.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 07:31 ----------

 

I am just doing my bit for the country and fighting for true freedom. Freedom from harassment, freedom from judgments. Freedom of expressions.

 

No you aren't. You're telling everyone else what they must believe, and then getting all defensive when someone (everyone) doesn't agree with you.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 07:36 ----------

 

 

Drug dealing is thankfully already illegal for a number of excellent reasons - it contributes to crime, causes health issues and sometimes death, and serves no apparent "good" for the rest of society. I realise that smoking and drinking alcohol may also be subject to these judgements, and yes, I'm drinking a glass of white zinfandel as I type, however the degree of harm that is done by these two very legal drugs is manageable and more tolerable. I also realise that smokers draw away much tax payers money due to smoking related illnesses, however last time I checked (again, please correct me if I'm behind on this) the revenue generated by the taxes on nicotine products is far higher than the cost to the NHS. If you legalise drugs, are you seriously going to believe that the underground drug operations will stop? Of course they won't (in my view), so we'll just have a second "legal" set of drug dealers, sitting alongside the criminals, and I'd go as far as to suggest that if it were made legal, then people who perhaps wouldn't have started originally would actually begin doing it!

Drug dealing contributes to crime and misery precisely because it's illegal.

The degree of harm done by alcohol is far in excess of that done by cannabis, one drug that should be legalised.

What makes you think that the tax revenue on other drugs couldn't be in excess of their cost as it is for tobacco?

And yes, illegal sales will stop if legal sales exist, there's no profit to be made, so why continue?

 

As for prostitution, I am slightly disturbed by how many of you are claiming it would be ok as long as it's legalised and controlled etc.

It is already legal.

It needs to be less marginalised and thus made safer for all. Prohibition doesn't and can't work.

It is effectively the worst form of exploitation of women I can think of, and to claim that they are "willing" in some cases is rather disingenuous, as many of those women only turn to this form of employment out of sheer desperation.

 

A further issue I have with it is that it addresses the complete non-problem of men (I'm sure there are a minority of women) having their "needs" met, by exploiting vulnerable young women. Needs? How many of you would suffer if you didn't get any sex? I mean seriously suffer? None. That's how many. To claim that this industry provides a needed service is absolute nonsense. If someone is feeling a certain level of discomfort by having not experienced orgasm for a prolonged period of time, then they have the option of taking care of it themselves.

To claim that it doesn't provide a service is disingenuous, there's a reason it's called the oldest industry.

 

It seems to me to be a very damaging way for young women to earn money, and this is me harping about the "willing" participants - if we include the damage it does to those not willing, who are trafficked into the country, and forced to provide this kind of service, then it becomes a massively intolerable problem in my opinion.

Make it more visible and the trafficking can more easily be stopped.

One could make the argument that if it is controlled and regulated, then it would provide safe environments for the women, and ensure everything operates "above board", however, does this in turn reduce the levels of illegal trafficking and unregulated prostitution? I doubt it. I have to admit I wouldn't support the regulation and control of the industry at all - despite the safety it may provide for some women, it is, in my eyes, the single worst way of encouraging society to view women primarily as sexual objects, whose main purpose is to provide services to men.

It has worked else where. Like your opinion on drugs, it doesn't seem to be informed by evidence, but more by emotion. That's not a good way to set public policy.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 07:37 ----------

 

It took you a while but at least you finally got that which is obvious, law breaking is immoral.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 06:51 ----------

 

 

So is that just the people you happen to agree with, if you agree with someone you don't see a problem with them breaking the law, but if you don't agree with them you feel that their law breaking is immoral.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 06:54 ----------

 

 

There is nothing misguided about considering criminals to be immoral, they acted against societies laws for their own gratification which makes them immoral.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 06:57 ----------

 

 

Drugs are addictive so even if they were legal many people would still thieve to fund their addiction, or are you proposing they should also be free.

 

Law breaking wouldn't always be considered immoral. It's entirely possible for a law itself to be immoral and breaking it to be the moral thing to do.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 08:35 ----------

 

Im not asking for validation, im asking if anyone else following this thinks ive bullied you or in fact acted without honour or been disrespectful towards you.

 

As you seem so sure i have not been fair with you you made me question myself.

Just wanted to know if anyone else saw what you see in my posts.

 

You neglected to address the "race card" issue by the way!

Have you realised you were mistaken in your interpretation of the comment?

 

What you have to remember is that not agreeing with salsafan, or asking for any reasoning or evidence, is bullying and is lacking respect.

[ivanava 10]

 

Law breaking wouldn't always be considered immoral. It's entirely possible for a law itself to be immoral and breaking it to be the moral thing to do.

 

Which law do we currently have that the majority of UK residents consider to be immoral.

 

I would argue that if you disagree with the law you should campaign to change it, not just break it, by breaking it you are acting immorally.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2014 at 08:55 ----------

 

 

Bring back religion and make church going compulsory ?

 

You do know that religion can be traced back to the consumption of hallucinogenic drugs and without those drugs it is highly likely that the religions we have today would probably have never existed.

[Olive 10]

No it wasn't a threat it was the truth but I guess I should have put a smiley on the end.

 

It was kind of odd Mafya, to tell you the truth. The last thing I expected when I posted in praise of the neighbours, who no doubt have had their lives turned upside down by this, was for someone to pick up on my calling a bunch of crims "clowns"! I hope your friend develops a thicker skin, if his ego 's so delicate to object to being called a clown, I fear for him. I'm sure he has, and is being called a lot worse.

[Leather man 10]

Prostitutes And Drug Dealers 'Add £10 Billion To UK National Wealth'

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/08/uk-public-debt-ons-george-osborne_n_5109645.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

 

If this is the case then we would soon be out of debt if everyone turned to drugs and prostitution.

 

These are the kind of figures that always leave me thinking that economic growth isn't the best way to measure how well we are doing.

You're welcome

[sh3rb3t 10]

It needs to be less marginalised and thus made safer for all. Prohibition doesn't and can't work.

 

 

Sweden seems to have lowered their "supply" of prostitutes after bringing in legislation which penalises the men buying, i.e. the "demand". The following recent article from the Guardian claims that the number is now down to around 1000, from 2500 in 1998.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/11/prostitution-sweden-model-reform-men-pay-sex

 

 

To claim that it doesn't provide a service is disingenuous, there's a reason it's called the oldest industry.

 

I claimed it did not provide a NEEDED service - I agree it is indeed a service, however my claim was that it was not required.