The UK government today announced it is conducting a debate into the banning of escort websites.
Good to see they’ve got the important things in hand.
Good grief. When are governments going to realise that outlawing and prohibiting practices that cater to generic human desires, such as drugs and prostitution, forcing those who provide them into 'criminality', is a simply massive own goal?? (Pardon the World Cup-related pun.)
You'd think governments who've based their entire ethos on 'free market capitalism' would appreciate the power of 'market driven commodities'. Meanwhile, western rulers have spent decades fighting an unwinnable war to stamp out supposedly carnal desires from the human psyche: something that will never never EVER be achievable. You may as well yell at the sky for being blue.
But only certain carnal desires, and for certain people.
Hell, I can take a trip to Africa and go shoot a giraffe, if I pay enough. I can invest my money in companies that finance cluster bombs and military coups, and somehow be considered a pillar of my local community. I can spend my life through a haze of alcohol fuelled idiocy, as long as I don't hurt anyone else in the process. But apparently, according to Western values, wanting to have sex with someone beautiful (easing the hideous futility of life for a few brief passing moments) or being one of those beautiful people and wanting to use my God-given charms for fiscal advantage, is worse than wanting to murder and maim.
Not in my book.
Similarly, wanting to take a drug to ease the mundaneness of existence, or to stifle the emotional agony that often comes with the turf? Well that’s OK in the West, even actively encouraged: as long as it's the right drugs, that fund the right people.
Mobster rule
Ergo, all prohibition does is force otherwise law-abiding citizens under the umbrella of being supposed 'criminals'. And if they get caught and go to prison, what happens then? Not only do they then mix with other 'real' criminals, guilty of far more nefarious crimes, but their future prospects are so hampered by the black mark on their record, that the need for them to resort to criminal enterprise in the future is multiplied by almost infinite amount. It's a senseless cycle, and again, it’s unwinnable.
By making these commodities illegal, by definition that creates the need for a 'criminal underworld'. Eg: genuinely immoral and nefarious types creating order out of chaos, usually using violence and intimidation to enforce their status quo. Criminal king-pins who then in turn corrupt politicians and police by paying them off, to turn a blind eye. It's just another form of cliquey elitism, underneath the layers of onion.
When the U.S briefly tried the same prohibition with alcohol (eg: the white man's drug of choice), it gave rise to one of the most powerful criminal underworlds in modern history: that of Al Capone. Not a coincidence. The Americans quickly worked out it was a bad idea. And a bit before that, they trifled with Puritanism (which surprisingly also turned out to be a rather big no-no too).
Whereas, look what happens if you legalise drugs and prostitution.
Criminal underworld? What criminal underworld. Wiped out in a heart beat. There's no need for it. Sex workers would be protected, have rights. The quality of drugs and their strength could be regulated, and monitored. No more dirty hovels, dirty needles, no more exploitation, no more pimps and trafficking, no drugs gangs. It would protect people: people who are gonna do what they want any way. And instead of funding criminals, the proceeds of industries we all know are there (and thrive in every single country of the world) could then be taxed and streamed back into our public services. It would create countless jobs. It could literally revolutionise the funding of our society, and change countless lives for the better. It's nothing short of a win/win proposition.
And just imagine how much more effective our police would be, if their time was freed up from petty offences, and they were able to solely pursue serious criminals? (A notion I have no doubt many in the police would agree with.) It would be a force motivated by ethics and protecting society, rather than meeting targets and numbers.
Refilling Britain’s coffers
I'll be bold enough to say (not that I think a Tory government would ever do anything so wise and non-judgemental), if this Brexsh*t malarkey goes ahead, and our country plummets into economic isolation and greater poverty... for those absent trust funds any way... legalisation and regulation of the cannabis industry could well be one of the few things that'd save our asses.
Not only will millions of people probably and justifiably need the stress relief, trapped on the island of Little England, but a thriving and regulated 'coffee shop' scene (like that of the Netherlands and in Canada etc) would undoubtedly fill the UK government's coffers faster than you could say "pass me the bong".
“How deplorable!” some will cry. “What a totally unethical way to raise revenue.” No… no it’s not. And certainly far less so than a nation clinging to fiscal solvency by selling weapons to brutal murderous regimes in Saudi Arabia and Israel. Guff.
It’s amusing how supposed 'decent types' look down their nose at demographics who might smoke a joint, or visit/be an escort etc, affecting nobody really but themselves - but are happy hobnobbing with those who support political groups starving and marginalising vulnerable people. Groups that quite literally take money from the poorest among us, our children, and the disabled. But lo and behold, when it comes to matters such as prohibited drugs or the sex trade etc, watch them jump upon their moral high horse with the vim of a Frankish crusader. It's laughable hypocrisy. (Like Trump arguing he wants to “protect the children of Syria” by dropping bombs on them, and concurrently putting the unwanted Mexican ones in cages.)
“Chill Winston!”
One final thought. If half the rowdy drinkers in Britain switched to cannabis instead, I don't think it can be overstated how much of a ridiculously calmer and less volatile place Britain would be. Anyone who’s visited Amsterdam will tell you that. The only rowdy people in Amsterdam are generally the British lager louts in the bars. Prior to them getting stoned and/or laid.
OK, it’d arguably be a less productive place maybe, or slower paced. But only if you think the yobs I’m talking about are out there curing cancer. And/or that everyone in Britain is gonna start magically taking a drug overnight just because they can. (By that logic, I could potentially become a Viagra addict tomorrow! *Cough, splutter... I don’t need it of course.)
Or how’s about the fact that many don’t drink alcohol, even though it’s available in every crevice of Britain and the western world?
Kinda smashes the argument in one fell swoop.
No comments:
Post a Comment