The sooner society rids itself of repressive attitudes towards sex the better.

So many people have weird ideas about the most natural act that they were all designed for. Centuries of nonsense from religion and misplaced value judgements over it have caused untold damage.

I think that in the short term, yes we'd see high usage but not too significantly - given that illicit drugs are remarkably easy to get a hold of (even easier now than when I was a teen or in my 20s). To a degree that astonishes me.

I don't think we necessarily have to legitimise 'taking drugs' by making them legally available, anymore than we legitimise stupid drinking by making alcohol available.

Advertising should be restricted (possibly to the point of being outlawed), and of course we shouldn't be 'promoting them' to children.

The problem of weak willed and misled people probably has plateaued already, as arguably most peoples first experience is via a friend.

There is definitely a moral element - I don't really think making crack and heroin available is necessarily a positive for society, I think the individual health impact, on those who choose to partake, are outweighed by the cost born by those who don't (especially in poor areas).

Problem is that like booze in the 1920s, the illicit drug market has created a far bigger problem for society than drug addiction. Especially for people who don't have an interest - as they're the people tending to be the ones being robbed or otherwise f**ked over to finance peoples habits.

And that's an issue. A junky, with a heavy habit is spending around 100 a day on heroin, but to finance that is committing 300 plus in crime. On prescription the same heroin habit would generously cost about a fiver a day.

And yes, they could build up a bigger habit, but not by much more without dying (tolerance has a limit). Sure you could push yourself to a double habit, but much more than that would be fatal for the hardest smack head.

Hmmm. I'm not sure prostitution falls int that category.

Encouraging people to offer their bodies up for money seems a wrong step. I see prostitution as extremely degrading and self harming. Then there is the whole exploitation element which will be hard to lose.

Would we like our daughters to do it for a living?

There will always be prostitution but as a society, I think we can do better than embrace it in its current form. If one needs or wants to pay for sex then it is because one is a bit of a sad case. Surely people can aspire to something better.

Hmmm. I'm not sure prostitution falls int that category.

Encouraging people to offer their bodies up for money seems a wrong step. I see prostitution as extremely degrading and self harming. Then there is the whole exploitation element which will be hard to lose.

Would we like our daughters to do it for a living?

There will always be prostitution but as a society, I think we can do better than embrace it in its current form. If one needs or wants to pay for sex then it is because one is a bit of a sad case. Surely people can aspire to something better.

Why do you regard sex within as coming with a 'value' system? Isn't that connected to the baggage religion has given to us about it?

What we want for our daughters might not be what our daughters want or choose for themselves. It might be something they choose for a couple of years or whatever....it's about choice.....one of the rare aspects of feminism that most of us agreed with.

I do share some of your sympathies about encouraging people on more productive aspects of personality but human nature is human nature and surely we shouldn't be punishing and criminalising non violent people who are paying for a service.....both the workers and their clients should be safe.

I guess I'm saying that the state shouldn't get between consensual affairs between individuals if no one is being harmed.

I think that in the short term, yes we'd see high usage but not too significantly - given that illicit drugs are remarkably easy to get a hold of (even easier now than when I was a teen or in my 20s). To a degree that astonishes me.

I don't think we necessarily have to legitimise 'taking drugs' by making them legally available, anymore than we legitimise stupid drinking by making alcohol available.

Advertising should be restricted (possibly to the point of being outlawed), and of course we shouldn't be 'promoting them' to children.

The problem of weak willed and misled people probably has plateaued already, as arguably most peoples first experience is via a friend.

There is definitely a moral element - I don't really think making crack and heroin available is necessarily a positive for society, I think the individual health impact, on those who choose to partake, are outweighed by the cost born by those who don't (especially in poor areas).

Problem is that like booze in the 1920s, the illicit drug market has created a far bigger problem for society than drug addiction. Especially for people who don't have an interest - as they're the people tending to be the ones being robbed or otherwise f**ked over to finance peoples habits.

And that's an issue. A junky, with a heavy habit is spending around 100 a day on heroin, but to finance that is committing 300 plus in crime. On prescription the same heroin habit would generously cost about a fiver a day.

And yes, they could build up a bigger habit, but not by much more without dying (tolerance has a limit). Sure you could push yourself to a double habit, but much more than that would be fatal for the hardest smack head.