“Lawyers warn over lads mag’s sales”: why I think this is a bit daft.

Relating to the news article @

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/lawyers-warn-over-lads-mag-sales-082158770.html?bcmt_s=m#LOZihsS

There are 2 ways of seeing this: in the case of the employee they chose to apply for a job there and if such a thing is objectionable to them then they shouldn’t have: I'm a vegetarian - I therefore have to accept that if I choose to apply for a job in a supermarket I'm going to have to handle stuff from the deli counter whenever I'm asked to work on tills - I couldn't ask them to close the deli counter because I would find it objectionable. In this case I would have 2 choices, put up with it or find a new job: Such is exactly the policy I enforced on myself when I was working in a pub - I didn't refuse to carry steak to the customers because I found it objectionable, I accepted it was a part of the job – because I had been a regular there for a while the manager knew I was a vegetarian and made sure I could accept this before giving me an application form.
On the other hand I supported the smoking ban because I found it made the environment unpleasant, so a part of me wonders if not supporting this move is a touch hypocritical because it people asking for the environment they are in to be made more pleasant to them. It seems perfectly fair therefore to ask that 'lads mags' to be wrapped in the shop shelves with only the title of the cover showing.

The other issue regards to this is that of the sex industry: The sex industry will always exist; the more it is criminalised the more people will turn to the black market. All this action does is put sex workers in more danger than they are already in. Asking for the fronts of the magazines to be covered is one thing, but banning them from 'mainstream' stores just pushes the problem underground. It’s the same principle as drug over-regulation - except that now we have a government which is considering relaxing drug regulation criminal gangs will need a new source of income. My guess is they will start people trafficking if we over-regulate the sex industry. At least if the sex industry is allowed to be out in the open then it can be observed and its members protected. So although I respect the oppinions of the abolishonists who are against the existence of the sex industry because they see it as exploitative, the only effect that their actions will have will be to create a whole new problem for sex workers in that their actions are illegal and that as sex workers will find it harder to claim the protection of the law they will be more open to exploitation.