Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right. – Laurens van der Post
Though prohibitionists will vociferously deny it, all prohibitionism is the same. Oh, they’ll throw out all sorts of bogus reasons such as “morality”, “decency”, “health”, “public order”, “national security” and of course “the children”, but in reality they’re all based in one thing: a busybody desire to control the private behaviors of others because they make individual prohibitionists uncomfortable. Many of my columns tagged “welcome to our world” clearly demonstrate this; just change a few words and Presto! an argument against porn, gay rights, immigration or even a woman wearing a certain article of clothing or selling her eggs for research becomes an argument against prostitution. The closest parallel is probably the expensive, rights-trampling,
unwinnable “War on Drugs”, and this article from the January 17th Huffington Post demonstrates it as clearly as anything I’ve ever seen. It’s called “How to Write a Clichéd, Unpersuasive Argument Against Drug Legalization” by Scott Morgan, and is a dissection of a (drug) prohibitionist article. Change a few words, and it’s equally applicable to those who support the War on Whores:
This piece by Manon McKinnon at The American Spectator is so perfect an exhibit in pompous drug war cheerleading that one can construct a fairly comprehensive crash course in bad drug policy writing based entirely upon its contents. Let’s take a moment to review some of the tactics on display here…
Step 1: Attempt to marginalize supporters of drug policy reform by claiming they are “pot heads.”
From the article: “Every so often, alas, the subject of drug legalization reappears. This time it is…one of many bad ideas from presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul and is cheered on by the usual fans, from libertarians to pot heads”…Since recent polling shows that half the country supports marijuana legalization, you’ll immediately offend many of your readers by ignoring their legitimate public policy concerns and dismissing them as a bunch of self-righteous drug addicts. Huge numbers of non-users are interested in improving our approach to drug policy, so name-calling is a quick way to alienate well-meaning people and prove that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Step 2: Frame legalization as a plan for “surrendering” or “giving up” and letting drugs defeat us.
From the article: “’Paul deserves full credit for endorsing drug legalization,’ writes Ms. Charen as she goes into all the reasons she thinks the U.S. should give up and give in to corrosive drugs.” This is a good way to show that you don’t understand the opposing argument. Supporters of reforming drug laws believe that the problems associated with drug use…can be better addressed [under legalization]…Referring to that process as a form of surrender will help to demonstrate that you aren’t listening and don’t understand even the most basic motivations behind reforming our drug policy.
Step 3: Insist confidently — but without citation — that no one actually gets in serious trouble for personal use.
From the article: “…the imagined wrongful incarceration of simple users (no — such prisoners have plea bargained down from major trafficking and violent crimes)” This is great for destroying your credibility, because examples of people being sent to prison for personal use are so numerous. A lot of people know someone who’s done time for drugs, without ever getting involved in “major trafficking and violent crimes,” so you can lose a lot of people quickly by speaking against their own experience…one of the main concerns people have…is that their own friends and family could be scarred for life by the criminal justice system…a minor marijuana arrest can [result in] lost employment opportunities, loss of public housing, child
custody, professional licenses, and…other serious consequences. By implying that a drug arrest is insignificant unless it involves jail-time, you can show everyone how little you know about the real impact of the policies you’re promoting.
4: Insist that illegal drugs can never have medical value.
From the article: “…medical necessity (banned drugs are not medicine)”…Many Americans have seen firsthand the benefits of medical marijuana in their own families, and public opposition to medical use has dwindled into near invisibility. Meanwhile, the federal government itself is growing medical marijuana for select patients and the DEA is trying to change the rules so that pharmaceutical companies can begin growing marijuana plants and making medicines out of them…
Step 5: Compare regulating drugs to legalizing rape.
From the article: “[If] Drug prohibition creates drug crimes, so legalize drugs and, poof, no more crime. However, it should be pointed out that no one makes the same argument for rape.” No incoherent anti-legalization rant is complete without a variation on this classic theme. You can appear instantly and fundamentally clueless by suggesting that all criminal laws are equally sound…the “why not legalize rape, then?” argument could be made in defense of any law, no matter how stupid and unjust. Demonstrate your demagoguery and total lack of perspective by mindlessly comparing marijuana users to rapists.
Step 6: Mention something bad that happened involving drugs and ask smugly whether legalization would have prevented it.
From the article: “Two small children were found that night wandering alone in the storm with no coats. They were trying to find their grandmother’s house with food and warmth because their own parents had passed out on drugs. Would legalization have helped here?” Another trademark of the typical drug war supporter is the habit of pointing out examples of the failure of our current approach and then incoherently citing them as arguments for continuing the policies that produce these outcomes. Insist that legalization must be proven to be the indisputable solution to every single existing social problem on the planet before being considered in any form.
Step 7: Close with a sweeping, apocalyptic generalization.
From the article: “And here are the words of sociologist James Q. Wilson who once put it: ‘drug use is wrong because it is immoral and it is immoral because it enslaves the mind and destroys the soul.’ Let’s not legalize that.” In your closing statement, you’ll want to double-down on outrageous claims that defy the knowledge and experience of the general public. Hyperbolic concepts such as slavery of the mind and destruction of the soul will leave you plainly and hopelessly divorced from reality. If executed properly, your conclusion should result in…everyone…wondering what your problem is and doubting whether you’ve ever actually met a drug user in real life…
I couldn’t have written a better primer on “How to Write a Clichéd, Unpersuasive Argument Against the Decriminalization of Prostitution” if I tried. The seven steps are almost exactly the same:
Step 1: Attempt to marginalize supporters of decriminalization by claiming they are “trafficking apologists” or “rape supporters.”
Step 2: Frame decriminalization as a plan for “surrendering” or “giving up” and letting the “exploiters” win.
Step 3: Insist confidently — but without citation — that “real men” never pay for sex and only damaged or coerced women sell it.
Step 4: Insist that sex work can never be consensual or therapeutic.
Step 5: Compare decriminalization to legalizing rape.
Step 6: Mention something bad that happened involving prostitution and ask smugly whether decriminalization would have prevented it.
Step 7: Close with a sweeping, apocalyptic generalization.
See what I mean?
One Year Ago Today
“Real People” is a look at people (especially politicians and prohibitionists) who promote their anti-whore campaigns by working to dehumanize the real people involved in sex work.
Which is just what Newt Gingrich did in a recent debate … by invoking the opium addiction in 18th century China – and how China was crippled by it. I almost fell off my chair when I heard it. He’s clearly ignoring the experience in Portugal, and in other MODERN DAY places around the world.
My boy Tom Brady lost yesterday – and I’m seriously depressed today because of it.
However, I know we can all celebrate soon, because I’m sure it’s just a matter of a few hours before the Indianapolis police inform us how many dangerous human traffickers of underage sex slaves were removed from the streets yesterday! I was half expecting that Indianapolis would be declared a “disaster area” and calls would go out for National Guard to build tent prisons to house all of the pimps of pre-teen sex slaves. I haven’t heard anything like that – so it must mean that all the preps the cops did there Indianapolis paid off!
THANK GOD FOR THESE BRAVE MEN!
/doIreallyneedasarctag?
He’s also ignoring the experience of Prohibition in the US.
The opium addiction in China also has a lot to do with Chinese Imperial mercantilist policy — gold was the only legally imported product from Europe… the Europeans discovered that they could get around the ban with opium.
Paraquote:
Nobody ever gets into serious trouble for personal drug use.
Translation:
No white people with money, aka The Real People, aka People Like Us, ever get into trouble for personal drug use.
Leave the race out of it. It’s more like few people with money, power or connections ever get into trouble for personal narcotics use. Race has little to nothing to do with it.
On second thought, let me revise my statements. Asians are even less likely to be arrested than Whites on average. Latinos(and Native American Indians and Pacific Islanders) and even more so Blacks are more likely to be arrested on average. It’s not racism. Follow the crime statistics. Asians commit less crime than Whites who in turn commit less crime than Latinos(and Native American Indians and Pacific Islanders) who in turn commit less crimes than Blacks. This is true of true crimes such as murder, manslaughter, stealing etc. You as an individual Black might be considerably less criminal than an individual Asian, but your own fellow Blacks are hurting you more than Whites or the police of any race when you are wrongly arrested. Stop blaming racism. Facts are facts. Truth is truth. Reality is reality. You can ignore facts, truth and reality but facts, reality and the truth will not ignore you. Deal with it for you have no other choice. I strongly sympathize for your plight, but someone needs to say these things to you preferably more and more people of your own race.
I’m a Gentile White man in his mid forties, but notice I said (East and South) Asians are better behaved on average than Whites. I’m of both Polish and Irish descent as well as Catholic and can assure you I look very Irish to almost everyone. There was a time in which the Irish were feared for their criminality because there were higher percentage of violent criminals among them. Now they are among the least criminal. You could say the same of Italians and Jews and others too. Read about or watch movies about Billy the Kid(born William Henry McCarthy in New York City in the USA of Irish immigrants) or Ned Kelly born of Irish immigrants in Austrailia. You could also read about the Draft riots of the American Civil war especially the riot in New York City in which most of the rioters were of Irish descent like me, but so were most of the NYC police and even the very U.S. Army’s (of mostly Irish descent at the time)69th New York State National Guard helped put down the NYC draft riot of 1863 with only 30 combat ready men left out of a thousand men who left to fight the Confederacy just after the bloddiest battle in American history known as the Battle of Gettysburg. The NYC draft riot of 1863 death casualty rates range anywhere from 500 to 1500. It was easily the bloodiest riot in American history. Many police and civilians died, and I’m not sure if any soldiers did or not. Martin Scorcese’s film, “Gangs of New York”, very very very lightly touch upon the 1863 NYC Draft Riot.
On third thought, most people here may have correctly guessed that I’m a Men’s Rights Activist(MRA) supporter, but not a MRA at all. However even I acknowledge facts, truth reality. Do you know why men are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and punished more for murder and other crimes? It’s because men commit more murder and other crimes than women. Do you like apples, how about them apples?.
Do you deny that a black person is more likely than a white person to be stopped by police, even minus any evidence of a crime?
Do you deny that a black person is more likely than a white person to be convicted of a crime, because it is assumed that the black guy is more likely to be guilty?
Do you deny that a white person, if convicted, is likely to receive a lighter sentence than a black person convicted of the same crime?
These, too, are facts.
This, too, is the truth.
This, too, is reality.
And facts, truth, and reality should no more be ignored when they point to the influence of racism than when they do not.
I don’t know about that but …
I DO KNOW – that my being a Master Chief in the Navy saved me from a lot of speeding tickets. Even after I retired … I had a license plate frame that said “Master Chief – US Navy” on it and Cops, after stopping me would just say (with a laugh usually) … “Hey Master Chief slow it down”. I know this happened at least three times and maybe four. One cop just said … “Hey Master Chief, nice to meet you – see you later.” And his tone said to me … “Hey man, this legal shit don’t apply to you and me bro – have a great one!”
I don’t get that any more though – because I grew my hair out. It seemed like a good thing to do to rebel – because I don’t THINK like most retired Master Chiefs.
I’ve been ticketed for speeding FOUR TIMES now (two don’t really count – as they were on a military reservation that doesn’t even report them to insurance).
I still have the license plate frame – but the Cops are no longer nice to me. One of them asked if I was a retired Master Chief – and when I said “yes” – he said … “Well, this is a different look for you huh?”
My hair is long – but I still dress nice and I’m clean – and I drive a fairly expensive nice truck made by a non-government owned auto company. When I paid one of the tickets – the young female deputies at the sheriff’s department liked me a lot 😀
Cuz one of ’em saved me $100 – and she didn’t even know I was a retired Master Chief. 😀
Livingston Parish … if you ever get a ticket there – DO NOT pay it by mail. The view inside the sheriff’s department is WORTH going in person to pay! 😉
I got a jury summons once and the view of the JUDGE was worth the trip downtown.
I didn’t get picked.
I used to smoke dope at uni. Everyone did. But when I went to work for IBM in 1986 I chose to never touch it again. In Australia you get a CRIMINAL record for “possession” and that bars you from entering the US from Australia. My entire career at IBM would be TOAST for having an ounce of dope.
By the way? Where I went to uni in Wollongong? It was well known that if you ran out of dope and were prepared to pay their inflated prices you could buy dope for the cops. They used to sell it out of the local station from what they had confiscated. We didn’t mind because they had wives and kids and a little extra money would help them. No one thought smoking dope should be a criminal act, especially the cops.
Number 5 and 7 reasons tie into what I keep repeating about true vice and true crime. A vice is the harm cause to oneself such as narcotics use, drinking alcohol or certainly engaging in prostitution. A crime is the harm one does to another such as murder, stealing and assault and battery. My response about the mother or grandmother being so intoxicated off of narcotics that her children or grandchildren died is the same could happen with alcohol or prescription medicine. Do you plan to prohibit those? I didn’t think so. We all know what happened with alcohol prohibition in the USA. It made a bad situation worse. Even many supporters of alcohol prohibition begged to remove the alcohol prohibition in the end for harm reduction. You could say the same about prostitution in that removing prostitution prohibition will reduce harm to all involved and even those not involved.
What specifically makes you say that prostitution is a vice? It would have to be a harm that is inherent to prostitution, not harm caused by opposition (legal or cultural) to it.
I personally believe that any sex outside marriage tends to decrease the ability to successfully pairbond with any other person. The more sex partners a person has tends to decrease the ability to successfully pairbond. I’m not saying this will happen. There certainly are people who can successfully pairbond and do after having many sex partners. I’m only stating the overall trend and corealation.
So in reality, it’s not prostitution per se that you consider a vice, but rather non-marital sex generally.
The idea that promiscuity destroys the ability to pairbond is questionable. It certainly can reduce infatuation; but that is a good thing, especially when attracted to an inappropriate individual. My maternal grandparents got married early based on attraction, and their marriage was a disaster.
Experience can help one identify a worthwhile person; it becomes possible to focus on character and other qualities. In other words, a more realistic view indepedent of biochemical delusions. An example here would be one of uncles – a regular client of prostitutes – who nevertheless married a woman who was not conventionally attractive, but was a good wife and mother to his children.
I think sex is best when it’s a bonding experience for it to be better in and of itself and to help people further strengthen their relationship. Masturbating into or with eachother is a lot of fun but it’s not making love. Engaging in prostitution is not the ideal way to have sex. I’m not saying prohibit prostitution because it is less than ideal like some fools because I know better. Engaging in prostitution can be very mercantile and mercenary. Even Maggie McNeill notes it’s not for most women. She’s right. It’s not for some men. I’ve read studies about divorce rates being higher for people particularly women who had a higher count of sexual partners previous to their marriage on average which I’m sorry to say I can’t find right now. This is not a copout. Whether people are virgins or have had many sex partners, most people don’t realize that marriage is at least 50% business and at most 50% romantic love. I guess many people like your grandparents didn’t know this either. For a good article by Ferdinand Bardamu, go to this address.
http.//www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/02/06/the-age-of-onanism/#comments
The self described misanthrope, Advocatus Diaboli, on post 10 of that article has interesting viewpoints about prostituion from a john’s perspective if you click through the link.
Let’s try again.
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/02/06/the-age-of-onanism/#comments
I have nothing against romance at all; in fact I think prostitution is a friend, not an enemy to marriage and long-term relationships. Where prostitution is widespread and accepted, it can help reduce affairs, hostile deceit and other assorted male mischief.
“Masturbating into or with each other” – I have read this kind of statement from neofeminists before, but I never expected to read it from a Catholic. The Catechism has always distinguished between prostitution and masturbation; they are not the same thing.
Of course prostitution is not for everyone. I support every person’s right to be monogamous, promiscuous, celibate, polyamorous, lesbian etc. Each to their own.
I would be grateful if you could find those studies about divorce rates etc., I know that there are both providers and clients who have excellent marriages.
In many parts of the world marriage is much more than 50% business.
The observations of Devil’s advocate (Advocatus Diaboli) are a bit cynical for my taste, but he is certainly closer to the truth than the deluded PUA types.
I totally believe that prostitution helps marriages; in places where whores are less readily available men have to rely on amateurs for extracurricular activity, with often-disastrous results.
It may in some cases and may not in others. In my own case I was a “good christian boy” and I was pretty sure I wanted to have a family one day so I was looking for my “wife” from a young age. I was actually naive enough to think at 14 that the first girl I fell in “luuuurrrvvv” with would grow up to be my wife.
So I did not chase girls around like my sports star brother did. I saw at a young age just how slutty girls were around the “sports star” type and I knew then I really didnt want a wife who was a slut as a teen. My view was that being with numerous women would LESSEN my ability to be with ONE woman the rest of my life which is what my religion was telling me was “good”.
Now…..30 years later? For me this was correct. Now I have dated a number of different women I am very much in the “variety is the spice of life” camp. There is no way I could have remained faithful if I had had this broader experience as a 18-22 year old. Maybe that is not so for other men but it is for me. I really like nice women. And even THAT is portrayed as “woman-hatred” by many western women.
I also find that women dont actually care about infidelity so much as they care about losing their meal ticket. Even though I was faithful I was given no respect and certainly no reward for it. So I tell young men faithfulness is not valued by women.
When my fav#1 and I were talking about marriage I told her I would not be faithful and her take was as long as I was paying the bills it didn’t matter one little bit. Indeed she would be pleased for me.
I don’t have access to any studies on the subject, but in my experience people with more sexual experience tend to have better relationships than those with less assuming their experiences were entered into with open eyes (rather than serial monogamy just to avoid being alone). And it is a known fact (though a study will need to wait until after I get home; I’m not comfortable researching under these conditions) that the women most likely to cheat are those “good girls” who are virgins at marriage and then later wonder what they missed and equate lust with love because they don’t have enough experience to know the difference. I also suspect it’s exponentially worse if they’re BOTH virgins at marriage.
That would be the experience I’ve seen in my own family and circle of friends from high school (of which there are A LOT – A LOT of current “ministers” that I knew growing up) – where issues of promiscuity and adultery are pretty much on par with serious drug abuse or bank robbery.
You could be discovered to be a covert member of the Ku Klux Klan and you’re totally “redeemable”.
But … stick that puppy someplace that has no wedding ring attached to it and you’re bound for hell boy!
No – but seriously … issues like adultery and pregnancy out of wedlock are much harder for people to recover from when they look upon sexual activity as something sacred.
Just had a cousin (who’s a minister) commit adultery ONE TIME with a high school flame (he’s in his forties now) … what a disaster! Wife kicks him out of the house – his own parents are slamming on him – his two kids are just besides themselves.
And guess what? Because he had “feelings” for this girl – he’ll be forgiven after a few years of hell with the family. If he’d just used a prostitute – it would have been considered TEN TIMES worse by his family! LOL
Problem is – I had to do CACO duty a few times in the Navy – and had to actually tell people their son or husband died in Afghanistan or Iraq. I consider those to be real tragedies …
People need to lighten up and realize that we’re not on this planet forever – and there’s plenty of suffering – no need to “concoct” it … it will find you eventually.
Step 5: Compare decriminalization to legalizing rape.
This is such a blatant variant of Godwin’s law that it’s just not funny.
Yes…I was staggered at that one too….smoking pot is the same as rape. Duh? There are TWO people involved in a RAPE and one of them is NOT agreeing to the contract.
The only way such a comparison could be valid is if somebody were FORCING another person to smoke pot.
This of course would be illegal no matter how legalized, decriminalized, and covered by major health plans Mary Warner ever became.
Ah Reefer Madness. Everyone knows of it but the people behind that piece of propaganda made more. They made movies on cocaine, alcohol, heroin and white slavery of course. If there was a movement against it, they made a scare film on it. Fitting with your theme of the article all the movies are exactly the same with just with the central, social evil being swapped out each movie.
The pretty blonde girl always ends up in prostitution at the mercy of her weed/heroin/cocaine/whatever addicted pimp and low life. Who started feeding her drugs just to pimp her. You can learn a lot about the prohibitionist mindset in those films. First and foremost is their paranoia of the true believer, followed by the opportunists who jump onto the paranoia to exploit it for their own benefit.
http://www.mamamia.com.au/relationships/street-sex-workers/
How many of the 7 steps does the above have?
[…] McNeill on prohibition in relation to drugs and prostitution: Though prohibitionists will vociferously deny it, all prohibitionism is the same. Oh, they’ll […]
Hi Maggie,
OT but did you see this? Apparently Welmer is asking the question about prostitution. As I have noted many times I think fathers of divorce and prostitutes have a common enemy, women wielding whiteknights in guvment to “protect the women and children” by oppressing those bad fathers and prostitutes.
I think there is good value in presenting your work to the MRA or “Mens” area in general. After all Gorbachev found your site via my linking you to the spearhead I believe. I promoted your site over there for a while…and funnily enough I am banned there now and will not post where I am not welcome. LOL!!
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/04/time-to-reopen-debate-on-prostitution/
In this interview Yuri Bezmenov points out that after 3 generations or so of brainwashing and conditioning most people are simply unable to perceive the truth no matter how much evidence is put before them.
This is the case today. Despite my brainwashing it is CLEAR to me that the FC judge in Ireland was a criminal right from the get go. Since WHEN did faxing a court document to the fax of a mans client in another country constitute “good service” of documents? Which is what this judge claimed. Then freezing bank accounts based on that “good service” having been deemed that I had the chance to respond? And demanding money with threats?
That this judge was willing to put his signature and his stamp on such nonsense made it clear to me inside 6 weeks that he was a criminal who feared no retribution from his guvment. So, clearly, the guvment was also a criminal enterprise. Sure, it came as a shock, but by december 2007 I was very clear that there was something deeply, deeply wrong in the legal system…but I was still wondering about the lawyers and whether they were in on the game.
People in the west are simply in denial about the criminality of their guvments. Sex workers are not. It seems sex workers are pretty clear that police are criminals and will criminal abuse sex workers far more readily than do the job they are being paid for which is to protect and serve.
“There are none so hopelessly enslaved than who who falsely believe they are free”. Goethe.
The other evidence I like to use of the criminality of guvments is the british money. Right there on the note it says “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of…” And it is signed by the chief cashier of the Bank of England. That makes it a PROMISSORY NOTE. It is NOT MONEY. This is obviously a fraud because what has happened is the BOE has stolen EVERYTHING of value and appropriated it to the “crown” and handed out these worthless promissory notes in return. It is IMPOSSIBLE to own ANYTHING in the UK (and USA for that matter) because there is NO MONEY in circulation. There are only promissory notes.
I ask men. If I PROMISE to pay you did I ACTUALLY PAY YOU?
They all answer “No”.
Then I say…If I give you this PROMISSORY NOTE did I ACTUALLY PAY YOU?
They all answer “Yes”
The brainwashing is very deep indeed.
Sorry, this is all pseudonym with no real email address, but I’m a pharmacologist working at a University myself, and I’d really rather not draw the wrong type of attention to my research (grant money is a tenuous thing).
But here is a point I want to make, how utterly bizarre I find it that on the one hand we have a veritable flood of books by neuroscientists and philosophers and journalists and everyone’s favourite Uncle on the topic of consciousness…but, the one way we know to alter consciousness in ways that can provide a strong contrast with the elements of “everyday consciousness”, the very tools that can predictably alter all manner of aspects of consciousness (from attention to the experience of meaning or salience, to perception of time and space…and so on), i.e., psychoactive drugs, are treated as evils so taboo that the very mention of them with even a hint of a positive use, is treated as a sign of moral insanity.
Kudos to Sam Harris on this issue BTW.
Lastly, I have to say, you must be a voracious reader. I learn so much from your blog. Thank you.
No need to apologize, Anonymous; my name is a pseudonym as well. Sadly, our culture is so sick that it inflicts severe penalties for unorthodox ideas, so often the only way those ideas can be presented to the public is under a cloak of anonymity. With the proponents of these ideas safely out of the clutches of those who would destroy them for the “crime” of free thought, the ideas themselves can be more freely circulated.
I’m a pretty voracious reader, and my retention rate is very high, but I’m also pretty good at research so whatever I don’t know or remember I can usually find. And you’re very welcome. 🙂
I was reading up on psychoactive drugs because I was writing a story. The girls in my story were going to take some drugs over the weekend for fun. I don’t have experience with drug-taking myself, but thought I should be able to do better than, “ooo, I see pretty colors!” or something like that, so I started reading, watching videos, and coresponding to people who have used said drugs. Now I’m wishing that MDMA and LSD were legal, at least for psychotherapeutic use. I know people personally who could almost certainly have benifited from the properly-supervised use of MDMA.
BTW, WTF happened to my spel-chekkur?
Reblogged this on Sable Aradia, Priestess & Witch.