XPost: bc.politics, can.politics, ont.politics   
   From: kalelfan@yanospamhoo.com   
      
   ""{>__"  aka "Pan" as I'll call the poster, wrote in message   
   news:m77iv.150415$yB7.98454@fx05.iad...   
      
   > On 5/28/2014 7:18 AM, KalElFan wrote:   
      
   Previous paragraph's context restored first! ...   
      
   >> ... also have all appropriate regulations to protect   
   >> communities, e.g., have zoning laws against street prostitutes   
   >> in residential neighborhoods or near schools, protect sex   
   >> workers from abusive pimps or johns by having even tougher   
   >> laws and penalties for that, likewise underage prostitution   
   >> and sex trafficking.  Also have health issues addressed through   
   >> licensing of sex workers and regular checks, and whatever   
   >> other reasonable regulation makes sense.  Use tax revenue   
   >> and any licensing fees or other revenues to fund the various   
   >> regulatory steps, and perhaps contribute to public service or   
   >> other programs that help people with addictions as with other   
   >> legal vices like gambling or alcohol.   
      
   So quite a fair number of suggestions there, including toughness.   
   But again, Pan clipped that.  One can assume Pan did so to make   
   it seem like he/she was making a fair point rather than the silly   
   straw man one that followed...   
      
   KalElFan wrote:   
   >> The Conservatives could come across as tough on this issue,   
   >> with an approach like the above.  But beyond the above they   
   >> should completely stay out of it.  It is not their business what   
   >> personal activities and transactions consenting adults engage   
   >> in.   
      
   And Pan responded with the straw man:   
      
   > They CAN'T "stay out of it".   
      
   The "beyond the above" part, which was set out in that first   
   paragraph that you snipped and I restored, set out the many   
   things they could do and still be both tough and respectful   
   of the Court's ruling.  They would NOT be staying out of it   
   and letting all hell break loose, they'd be clamping down   
   on the worst of it but still respecting the letter and spirit   
   of the Supreme Court decision.  They'd be regulating it in   
   an appropriate way.   
      
   The core failure (to abide by the ruling) will be if the Feds fail   
   to provide reasonable legal ways for buying sex.  If it's legal   
   to sell it, it's moronic that it's 100% illegal to buy it.  There can   
   absolutely be specific citcumstances under which it's illegal   
   to buy.  Street prostitution in residential neighborhoods, or   
   buying from a pimp rather than a direct transaction with a   
   seller for example.  But if all buyers under all circumstances   
   are criminals by definition, those 100% criminal buyers will   
   be even MORE dangerous to the sex workers who won the   
   Supreme Court ruling SPECIFICALLY on that issue.   
      
   Now, without clipping and changing the context, have fun   
   trying to refute what I've actually written.  Hint: you'll fail.   
   You have a chance to do better here, Pan! :-)   
      
   If the Feds take the attitude that you suggested in your   
   first post, with no legality on the buyer side just make   
   'em all criminals, the various organizations that worked   
   for the ruling ought to immediately file for injunctions   
   against that obviously moronic part of the law.   
      
   [snip rest of Pan's straw man]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)