Prostitution to be legalized in San Francisco?
posted at 12:24 pm on July 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
San Francisco will shortly vote on a kind of de facto legalization of prostitution within city limits. While the state of California prohibits prostitution, the referendum would prevent city police or prosecutors from spending any money on enforcement of those laws. Even the often-outrageous mayor, Gavin Newsom, thinks this is a bad idea:
A measure that aims to keep prostitutes from facing criminal charges has qualified for the November ballot in San Francisco.
The measure, which qualified Friday, would bar authorities from spending money to investigate or prosecute prostitutes for engaging in prostitution.
This is the second time the measure has attempted to get on the ballot. The Erotic Service Providers Union — yes, prostitutes have a union in San Francisco — tried to get enough signatures in 2006 but fell short. They managed to convince enough people to sign it this time, and one wonders if they had to put a new meaning on “by hook or by crook” to do it.
Newsom objects to the measure as an impediment to investigating sex-trafficking crimes. It also might present a major challenge to state sovereignty. If California cities do not have to enforce state laws, then the entire notion of the sovereign state collapses. The California legislature might have to change jurisdictional laws to impose a state police force on San Francisco.
All prurient curiosity aside, this vote could present an interesting political challenge for Californians. If the state lets this stand, where does its sovereignty end, or even begin?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
CA has the trump card. State income tax.
Limerick on July 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM
This will tide us over until Japan starts rolling out the fembots in a few years.
Seriously, why is anyone opposed to two consenting adults engaging in a transaction?
Bill C on July 20, 2008 at 12:34 PM
It looks like the politicians want the exclusive rights to be prostitutes and resent any competetion.
DAT60A3 on July 20, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Not surprising. San Francisco has been the syphylitic sore on the upper lip of America for quite some time now.
kurtzz3 on July 20, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Bill C
This is just another example of people being more concerned about the morality of others than themselves. The safety argument for illegality is a red herring, it would be immensely safer for all involved if it was legalized.
Dr. Manhattan on July 20, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Aren’t laws like these passed for illegal immigration and marijuana all the time?
ninjapirate on July 20, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Combine this with the sanctuary city status and we have the first city in America where Sex Slavery will not be investigated. Good Thinkin’ San Francisco! This is why Libs shouldn’t be in charge of anything more complex than a birthday party. The unintended consequences are a doozy.
trubble on July 20, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Well, if it’s such a progressive idea, how come there’s a huge gender imbalance in the clientele?
Look, this is the district that re-elects Pelosi. What does that say about their judgement?
njcommuter on July 20, 2008 at 12:45 PM
“If California cities do not have to enforce state laws, then the entire notion of the sovereign state collapses.”
San Francisco has no problems not enforcing Federal laws. More Ukrainian sex slaves for the progressives to abuse!
Realist on July 20, 2008 at 12:46 PM
I think its proving more and more that San Francisco wants to be its only cluster**** of a state/country more then ever
Defector01 on July 20, 2008 at 12:48 PM
San Francisco.
That’s where all those out of work Code Pink ladies live, right?
Shy Guy on July 20, 2008 at 12:49 PM
As George Carlin once said: “If f***ing is legal, and selling is legal…why isn’t selling f***ing legal?!?”
madne0 on July 20, 2008 at 12:52 PM
“That’s where all those out of work Code Pink ladies live, right?”
Given what Code Pink ladies look like, it’s understandable that they want to import sex slaves…
Realist on July 20, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Throwing out the slippery slope argument? It’s freedom so what’s bad about it?
-Parades with Nudes
-Pot-in-a-Box
-Girls for Hire
-Boys for Hire
-No guns
-No pet dog for you
-Sanctuary for illegal immigrants
Gee, sounds like a great place to raise a family.
Limerick on July 20, 2008 at 12:54 PM
If they want to legalize prostitution, they need to take the Nevada/European approach–where there is regulation and inspection of brothels. Human traffickers aren’t going to follow the regulations and aren’t going to submit their Ukrainian slave girls to the doctor every year. Thus the cops can still go after them.
Merely decriminalizing prostitution in a major port city like this is just a green light for human traffickers.
Sekhmet on July 20, 2008 at 12:56 PM
And Hazelton can’t enforce what?
Speakup on July 20, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I have no issue with consenting adults, but what does this kind of legislation mean for the 3000 child prostitutes currently selling themselves in San Francisco? Is there a special exemption or funding for law enforcement to protect/investigate their cases?
JustTruth101 on July 20, 2008 at 1:01 PM
I think we can offer fellow citisens a better life than a life of prostitution.
William Amos on July 20, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Only insane democraps could rationalize that the above is a legitimate exercise of power. Moving from a representative republic to a pure democracy will lead to chaos. Mob rule.
Zorro on July 20, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Err… oh no? *shrug*
Dash on July 20, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I’d feel a lot safer if it were legalized and regulated. The state could tax it too. The laws aren’t going to stop the ‘world’s oldest profession’. . . but the government could work to regulate it to prevent transmission of diseases and such.
Really it is hard to prove. So you have sex, so you gave the person money. Who’s to say the money was for the sex? The money could have been a gift, and the sex was free as a ‘thank you’.
ThackerAgency on July 20, 2008 at 1:07 PM
It will pass because it’s not about those poor drug addled women. It will pass because the homosexuals in san francisco think no behavior should be restricted.
peacenprosperity on July 20, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Legalize it and regulate it. Make sure the ladies of the evening are healthy, non drug addicts, not abused and of age.
rbj on July 20, 2008 at 1:11 PM
The result of liberal San Francisco values plus turning your head the other way.
Once limited to places like Bombay and Bangkok, sex trafficking is now an $8 billion international business, with San Francisco among its largest commercial centers.
JustTruth101 on July 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM
They want legalize it so the politicians have a legal place to hang out (pun intended).
Wade on July 20, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Please be aware that this is a LIBERTARIAN backed initiative NOT a Liberal backed one.
The Initiative’s sponsor is California Libertarian Party activist Starchild. It was the Libertarians in CA who got this on the ballot.
Some Conservative Media, thankfully not HotAir.com, are getting the story wrong, and saying that this is a “liberal” effort.
Eric - Libertarian Republican blog
ericdondero on July 20, 2008 at 1:20 PM
[ PSST! There has been de facto prostitution in California throughout the 20th. Century which continues today. Hollywood's prostitution of
actresseswomen is the most vehemently recorded in that state. ]DannoJyd on July 20, 2008 at 1:21 PM
I imagine that SF has laws against human trafficking and slavery that they can enforce. Besides, the human trafficking story in the U.S. is very similar to the white slavery scare at the beginning of the last century. A problem mostly in the minds of the zealots who have hidden agendas namely outlawing prostitution and keeping men from marrying foreign women.
Again, consenting adults should be allowed to engage in any behavior they want as long as it doesn’t hurt other people.
Too many conservatives are closet nanny state lovers.
Bill C on July 20, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Stories like this remind me of Evan Sayet’s explanation of how liberals think. You should watch his speech if you never have, it’s excellent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
kc8ukw on July 20, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Let them secede for God’s sake already! The country would be better off!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 20, 2008 at 1:30 PM
And it’s closer than Vegas.
I mean… that’s awful!
Oh, and Bill C:
I imagine that SF has laws against human trafficking and slavery that they can enforce.
You don’t know San Francisco, do you? :)
Merovign on July 20, 2008 at 1:31 PM
As a right of center Neo-Libertarian, I can go along with it. we have way too much government in our lives now, and if Barry Fauxbama gets into the White House, the intrusion of government will know no limits…I’m very conservative on the economy and foreign policy, I just don’t like the government telling anyone what they can and cannot do personally. Less government is the best government….
adamsmith on July 20, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Dang, where’s the photo for this story?
I guess if it’s legal in the sticky streets of SF to masturbate in ass less chaps at an event sponsored by Miller Beer, it un-American not to be able to pay someone to do it to you?
Just another example of a job that Americans don’t want.
Hening on July 20, 2008 at 1:37 PM
I don’t do pay for play, but except for the already mentioned child prostitution and ‘other strange combination’ stuff I have always wondered how a pay for play industry could even survive in that town.
They have way so much free competition.
CommentGuy on July 20, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Barbie Boxer could oversee the government programs that legalizing prostitution would create. Finally, she will have something to do.
Christine on July 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM
…beside being an idiot, that is.
Christine on July 20, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Oh, bull. Pimping, pandering, solicitation after being informed you are hiv +, loitering for sex outside grade schools, etc., are all crimes that are prostitution based. Decriminalize prostitution than de facto you’ve decriminalized those crimes, too.
Blake on July 20, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Have the whores working hers,Pelosi’s and Feinstein’s blocks, and see how fast it gets criminalized again.
Blake on July 20, 2008 at 1:48 PM
While I don’t much care what these folks do in their own time, I do mind that people require me to pay for their idiotic behavior through AIDS research funding, health costs, etc. I’m tired of subsidizing immoral behavior.
Send_Me on July 20, 2008 at 1:56 PM
The offer and the opportunity have been there for a long time. Seems to me the problem is on the accepting side of the equation.
Oldnuke on July 20, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Yet another reason why to make it a point to scratch San Francisco off of your CITIES TO VISIT list.
Anyone who happens to stop by SF once they enact this idiocy is going to need at least 8 hot showers and just as many delousings.
pilamaye on July 20, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Treating prostitution as a regulated business would likely make it easier to restrict the activity to designated parts of a city and keep it off the streets.
Even with laws against prostitution police have kept street walkers out of the more affluent parts of cities and allowed it to go on in less desirable areas.
dedalus on July 20, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Legalize it? Are you crazy? What next? Legalize drugs? How about we just legalize anything that anyone wishes to do at any time with anyone else if it feels good go for it? No moral standards, no standards, nobody cares anymore!
C’mon! Grow up! San Francisco is becoming a joke but it doesn’t mean the rest of the country should buy into their crap!
sabbott on July 20, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Which makes it all the worse. Libertarians should be smart enough to craft a law to decriminalize or legalize prostitution in a way that will not interfere with investigations into human trafficking.
If someone wants to make a living off her back, I suppose that’s no crazier than some jobs I’ve heard of. I just want to be sure it is the individual choosing the job. Human trafficking violates the personal rights of the poor Natasha paying off her smuggler after answering an ad for maids back in the Ukraine.
Sekhmet on July 20, 2008 at 2:14 PM
She who we want to protect is she who the backers of this law want to exploit…it’s all about making money, and they don’t care who they have to hurt or use to do it.
JustTruth101 on July 20, 2008 at 2:22 PM
There’s no question that prostitution must be legalized. It’s also clear that human-traffik based objections are a red herring.
What’s very legitimate, however, is concerns about letting every city enforce only laws that they like. Sure, now these guys want to ignore the laws they (and I) dislike. But what happens when somebody else starts ignoring laws that we think are essential?
freevillage on July 20, 2008 at 2:28 PM
The government will legalize prostitution when they invent away to put a meter on the vajayjay so they can tax it.
TheSitRep on July 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Bring the whoars and johns out of the shadows to some type of legitamacy but run those nasty R.O.T.C. kids out of town on a rail.
JonRoss on July 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM
You forgot the most important thing:
-No Christians allowed or tolerated.
newton on July 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM
@ newton on July 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Is there such a glorious place?
muyoso on July 20, 2008 at 2:53 PM
On the bright side Harry Reid will be able to find a friend outside of Nevada and Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer (not to mention most of Congress) will feel less anxious and lonely about their job description.
viking01 on July 20, 2008 at 2:53 PM
@ sabbott on July 20, 2008 at 2:08 PM
What a crazy idea it is to get the government off of adults backs. We must return to puritanical times, where government holds strict moral standards over the heads of its citizens. Basically Saudi Arabia, but with christianity.
/sarcasm
Your idea sucks. If an adult wants to pay a person for sex, its NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, nor the governments. If an adult wants to smoke a joint, ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, nor the governments. Focus your attention on your own boring life, and stop trying to police everyone elses.
muyoso on July 20, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Nothing gets the ,er, frustrated, Leftoids salivating like the prospect of their first chance to finally get laid while stoned; all with the convenience of a credit card purchase instead of with that measly cash sum borrowed from the Title Loan place.
viking01 on July 20, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Attempting to prove that an act is ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ requires an accepted definition of ‘morality‘.
Philosophers, like Kant, and theologians have spent lifetimes attempting to discover this definition.
It should be obvious that every proposed definition of ‘morality’ has been, and will always be, opposed by those who reject the idea that their behavior should be subject to restriction or limitation.
rockhauler on July 20, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Again, folks. I have no objection if someone chooses to be a prostitute. Note the word “choose,” as in they had other viable options, and preferred to become a prostitute. Human trafficking is not just a distraction, it is a real problem.
If San Francisco wants to legalize prostitution, more power to them. There are ways to do this that don’t have inadvertent effects on investigations into real crimes against person and property.
Sekhmet on July 20, 2008 at 3:29 PM
All laws are based on morality, every single one. Morality is the holding human beings accountable to a standard of conduct.
The issue is not whether we base laws on morality, the issue is whose morality wins when making law?
Most of us agree on most issues of morality, examples: It’s morally wrong to take property that doesn’t belong to you. It’s morally wrong to take the life of another human being. It’s morally wrong for an adult to have sex with a child. It’s morally right to force citizens to contribute to the national defense under a system of taxation.
So it’s incorrect to state that laws shouldn’t be based on morality, because ALL laws are based on morality. The point of contentions is when reasonable people disagree on whose morality wins.
Those who want to keep prostitution illegal could just as easily say “don’t impose your morality on me.”
JustTruth101 on July 20, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Ok, so it gets the legalized. Does this mean that SF will have to provide vocational training, set up job fairs, offer unemployment benefits?
Limerick on July 20, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Really? OK.
1) Is it illegal in your town to climb up a dinner table and urinate into a vase from a distance?
2) What kind of sick people populate your town?
freevillage on July 20, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Because that’s what anyone in San Francisco honestly wants. More sex-slaves and people who run sex-slavery in their city.
freevillage on July 20, 2008 at 3:35 PM
I don’t get your point. What part of my statement do you disagree with?
JustTruth101 on July 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM
If prostitution is legal, it is possible to regulate it, at least in some part. If kept illegal, there is absolutely no control over it. Same as with anything, be it guns, drugs or alcohol.
I am very anti drug, yet feel they should be legal as well. Not only should adults be free to make bad choices ( as they already can with tobacco and alcohol) but if they are legal, the avenues of distribution could be regulated as well. Drugs and prostitution supply lots of cash that drive street gangs and mob behavior. Defunding those illegal enterprises will be a huge boon to our cities and go a long way to bringing peace and safety back into neighborhoods.
redshirt on July 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Attention to freevillage: see this comment:
That is a reasonable argument based on logic. Something you could learn from reading others’ comments is how to make reasonable arguments on point. Whether you agree or disagree is not the main point, but (after a common vocabulary) being clear and articulate is the basis for communication.
JustTruth101 on July 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM
was in SF about a year ago, did the tourist things, but not the subject here. was astounded at the number of homeless. they bother motorists and pedestrians, making things just generally uncomfortable. they are everywhere, like ants at a picnic.
is this new plan a jobs program, to put these folks to work?
billypaintbrush on July 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM
This approach would make all areas less desirable. Now drugged out hookers will be on every street corner exercising their rights of expression, with no drug or disease testing, education or anything. And every attempt to track down human trafficking will be met with drawn out legal battles about consent and state of mind.
pedestrian on July 20, 2008 at 3:44 PM
In my opinion, Newsome does not object to this as an impediment to investigating sex-crimes. As anyone who moves in the elite circles of SF society (not me but people i know) will tell you, Gavin is a minor-league Caligula who would screw a catcher’s mitt.
He objects to it because it is an impediment to his nascent campaign for Governor of California. SF is one of the most beautiful cities in the country, but its populated by the spiritually ugliest people this side of North Korea.
So, while “dont hassle the whores” plays well there, it is like acid mouthwash everywhere else in Cali except for a few precincts in West Hollywood.
Newsome supports whatever the freak show people want inside the city. If it is perverse, or radically left wing, or designed to shove a finger up the backside of the rest of the country, he is all for it.
But he is (just barely) sober enough a few hours of the day to realize that policies like stopping the cops from arresting street hookers and helping illegal alien drug criminals avoid capture by the Feds wont go over too well outside the Castro district.
Mike D. on July 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Oh I see. So if the state enforces your moral laws (”doesn’t hurt anybody else”), it’s ok, but if it enforces somebody else’s moral law (”prostitution is wrong”), they’re a “nanny statist”. Fuck you asshole. Unless you’re an anarchist people really need to shut the fuck up about the “nanny state” bullshit.
Darth Executor on July 20, 2008 at 3:51 PM
This is where you are wrong. In Las Vegas, it is legal, but the hookers know their limits and aren’t allowed in certain areas. The most important point is about diseases. Now there is no way to track diseases. If it were regulated, every hooker could get a license and be tested regularly as a requirement for the license. They could keep a log of their ‘Johns’ so that if one tests positive, they could inform the John so that he can get treatment and not infect someone else.
If it is regulated, the community would police itself and turn in hookers without licenses - that would ensure that every hooker would get tested for diseases.
I don’t like the morality of hookers. I wouldn’t want either my mother or future daughter to be hookers. But at the same time, it exists. People choose that lifestyle all the time. The money is good I guess. . . I would be scared of some John doing bad things to me so I think hookers are brave. . .
But the bottom line is that this is a victim less crime. So long as they aren’t spreading diseases (or having illegitimate children), they aren’t a problem. We can’t test them for diseases unless it is regulated.
ThackerAgency on July 20, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Attention to JustTruth101: write something meaningful first, then advise other people on logic.
freevillage on July 20, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Freevillage, I think he was hoping you would respond to what I said, rather than to what he had to say.
Please tell me where I am wrong.
Thanks for the kind words, justtruth, btw.
redshirt on July 20, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Interesting take on both sides of the argument. Even the left-leaning legalization proponent states it is dehumanizing and enslaving for the women engaged in the industry.
Note to freevillage: I see you don’t have an answer, which is fine. I don’t really care…I just wanted to expose your inability to make a point.
JustTruth101 on July 20, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Note to redshirt: I respectfully disagree with you on this issue, but I appreciate your logi…that’s what I like about most HA commenters…the ability to disagree civilly. I debate a LOT of libs (I am the token conservative at my school) so it’s good practice for me to see the other side of hot topic arguments, and i simply cannot read through the illogic of daily kos or huffington post…
JustTruth101 on July 20, 2008 at 4:04 PM
From Kant (see previous):
From Morality-definition:
harm done to others:
From the evidence presented, and from a lifetime of experience (a posteriori), a sane and rational person would conclude that one should refrain from participating in a ‘pay for sex’ act, and by extension should also refrain from indiscriminate promiscuous sex because of the harm it does to people, and society.
Thus concluding that a sane and rational person should refrain from this type of behavior, leads to the conclusion that a sane and civil society should also require individuals to refrain from this type of behavior.
It’s all here. You either get it, or you don’t, You either see it, or are willfully blind, perversely obstinate.
Recorded through out human history, you either practice the virtue of self restraint, or your society enforces some restraint upon you, or your society falls to the barbarians.
rockhauler on July 20, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Dude! It’s not even legal here in Vegas!
Mojave Mark on July 20, 2008 at 4:07 PM
ThackerAgency,
Prostitution is NOT legal in Las Vegas which is why the Bunny Ranch is located one county over. It’s only legal in certain counties and those don’t include Clark County (Vegas) or Washoe County (Reno). That’s why the Mustang Ranch is located 10 miles outside of Reno and over the county line.
Patrick H on July 20, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Thank you - what a great way to state the argument…even libs might be able to understand that…
JustTruth101 on July 20, 2008 at 4:10 PM
…and send them to the gynecologist once a month…
Entelechy on July 20, 2008 at 4:11 PM
1. It’s pretty bold of you to consider a living a world view that doesn’t include such things as “boring”. Also, as an ad hominem fallacy, it bears no meaning in this discussion.
2. You are right. The government has no right to affect things that are personal. However, I ask where you draw the line on this. When does personal behavior impact others? In the past three weeks, I’ve seen two people make the personal decision to drive drunk in the vehicle in front of me. Another example: Why did the bathhouses get closed down? Prostitution is a health-risk for the whole society, not just the individual. Smoking pot affects more than the individual as well.
3. These sorts of things do become my business, and the government’s, when people look to the government for help upon suffering the consequences of said behavior. Why should the government pay for AIDS research, for example? Unlike Lou Gehrig’s, Alzheimer’s, or Breast Cancer, AIDS is the product of a choice, spread by promiscuity and drug use. I’ll don’t have to worry about getting AIDS because I don’t take drugs and I have been, and always will be, faithful to my wife. Why should the government pay for any STD treatment? Why should the government pay for drug rehab? Why should the government pay for abortions? Why should the government have to pay for health issues related to smoking, drug use, promiscuous sex, homosexuality, behavior-induced obesity? Why should I, as a taxpayer, have to subsidize the irresponsible and immoral behavior of others, whether it be health related or their mortgage or not taking education seriously or whatever?
In a sense, you are right: it is none of my business. So, I ask that you don’t make it my business by making me pay the price for stupid behavior.
Send_Me on July 20, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Cities can make street prostitution illegal and restrict licensed businesses to the part of town they choose. They currently do that with legal adult establishments like bars, night clubs, strip clubs, and pornography shops.
Liquor is legal but cities restrict liquor licenses and there isn’t a problem with street vendors setting up across from schools to sell booze to children.
dedalus on July 20, 2008 at 4:12 PM
I presume that, since we’re talking about San Fransisco, male prostitutes are on their knees hoping to be included.
SeniorD on July 20, 2008 at 4:13 PM
You know, Dubai just sentenced a British couple to 6 years in prison for sex without being married. It’s a part of sharia, is that what you want?
Also, I support this on a public health issue, but are you suggesting that we need laws to criminalize homosexuality?
I guess I’ll be in the camp of ‘I don’t see it’ as it pertains to the business of the government. The sex act itself does no harm to society. Spreading diseases, other illegal activity that goes along with it might.
ThackerAgency on July 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM
JustTruth, it may surprise you that I consider myself very conservative with strong libertarian leadings.
I think that from a cost/benefit analysis alone drugs should be legal also. Yes, if legalized a result would be increased drug use. But take away the tens of billions spent fighting drugs, add the tax revenue from legal drug sales and you would have tens of billions again to spend on rehab, fighting street crime and antidrug marketing, i.e. the anti tobacco ads.
Exit question: If drugs and prostitution were made legal, how much of the revenue stream is removed to support street gangs and mafia type organizations? I know not all, but hopefully a fatal amount.
redshirt on July 20, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Patrick H on July 20, 2008 at 4:10 PM
I know it isn’t legal in that county. . . but they don’t have a problem advertising prostitution on the Vegas strip through catalogues of available prostitutes handed out for free at every street corner.
ThackerAgency on July 20, 2008 at 4:17 PM
You are making a case that we can only be a sane society if we require people to refrain from promiscuous sex? That would take a lot of police work.
dedalus on July 20, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Mr. Thacker
It is not the kind of act that does the harm, it is the self indulgence. Sex, robbery, murder, driving while impaired, gambling, the list of human activities roughly defined as ‘vice’, all have a commonality; self centered vs altruism.
You have sex with a prostitute not because you want to make her feel good, earn income. The side effects of engaging the prostitute are well documented, that is the harm that results.
rockhauler on July 20, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Wow, with all the condescension and name calling I had to go back and get my hip-waders before I could post a comment.
I think what San Fransisco is doing is wrong. They are a city within a state. They cannot be allowed to chose which laws to enforce and which ones to not enforce.
Debating the morality of prostitution is not what the article, or the post, was about. There is a name for people who insert irrelevant talking points: trolls.
Don’t feed the trolls.
Blarg the Destroyer on July 20, 2008 at 4:24 PM
That is an utopian worldview.
Could you please give me an example of such a society in history? Whenever society restrains itself in one way, it unleashes in another. Islam being an extreme example.
redshirt on July 20, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Why have humans invented religion?
rockhauler on July 20, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Yes, I am an idealist.
Apparently, I am also a troll..
rockhauler on July 20, 2008 at 4:28 PM
A number of posters here are missing the central point.
This issue is not about legalizing prostitution, as in NV, and requiring licensed brothels, health exams, etc.
This situation is one city (S.F.) trying to decide whether to ignore the current CA laws against prostitution and prevent any of the City’s law enforcement budget to be used preventing/prosecuting prostitution. Unregulated, unlicensed and likely diseased prostitutes will be allowed to peddle their wares without police activity if this is voted in.
In epidemiological terms, it’s kind of like hiring Hepatitis patients from a local hospital as cooking/wait staff in your restaurant, then complaining the Feds aren’t providing a large enough budget to come up with treatment for Hepatitis patients (comparing to AIDS, etc. And, I’m all for AIDS research, but you gotta look at the prevention side too!)
cs89 on July 20, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Wow, big question. Honestly, hadn’t spent much time thinking about it, but since you asked I’ll go with two reasons:
1.) To satisfy a need to know where they came from and where they are going after death.
2.) To reinforce the authority of the tribal leaders.
Many legal activities today are outside the bounds of some religions. One person’s religious or moral objection to gambling is not compromised by the state sponsoring lotteries to offset taxes.
dedalus on July 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Rockhauler, I never called you that.
cs89 I agree with you, they can’t legally do that, and they should be spanked down hard for trying. Most are commenting theoretically on the implications of prostitution law. I think we didn’t follow that line of thought because there is no disagreement that San Fran is going about it illegally.
redshirt on July 20, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Posing another trollish question;
Why have humans invented ‘marriage’?
Which will, perhaps, lead you to the idea of creating a stable society. Which will, I hope, persuade you that legalizing prostitution will destabilize society by incrementally dismantling restrictions on behavior, and incrementally dismantling the purpose of ‘marriage’.
rockhauler on July 20, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Actually, it doesn’t require that much police work at all, other than catching some folks in a park or something. All I ask is that the government stop subsidizing such behavior by paying for the consequences of it. Why should the government have to pay for STD research and treatment, for example? By paying for the consequences, hence subsidizing such behavior, the government is merely encouraging more of the same behavior.
I have enough of my own “junk”. Don’t make me pay for the “junk” of others.
Send_Me on July 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM
cs89, San Francisco is well documented on wanting to break the laws anyway. . . like not allowing military recruiting unless they openly promote homosexuality.
But legalizing prostitution will do nothing to ‘destabilize society’. Check out Craigslist under ‘anytown USA’ (or around the world for that matter). Click on the ‘erotic’ section then w4m and tell me how hard it is to find a prostitute since it is illegal and all. You don’t even have to leave your house. . . they’ll come to you.
It’s the ‘world’s oldest profession’. I’d prefer it be regulated because it is going to happen no matter what the law says. We need to be able to track and prevent STD’s from spreading. Making prostitution illegal does nothing to prevent the spread of STD’s Mr. Utopia.
ThackerAgency on July 20, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Give the man a cookie! That’s exactly the point I was making, with the addition that defunding vice enforcement would adversely affect investigations into human trafficking in a major port city. I’d have less objection to this if the city in question were Kansas City, Dallas, Dubuque, or somewhere off the coasts. A major coastal city refusing to enforce its laws is a signed, sealed, and delivered invitation for organized crime.
Sekhmet on July 20, 2008 at 5:04 PM
What you’re talking about is the greatest deficiency in US society today: lack of taking personal responsibility for poor choices, because the govt rescues them from the consequences of those poor choices by taking tax dollars from those who make good choices to pay for the programs.
JustTruth101 on July 20, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Again, how is this the government’s responsibility? If people wish to get prostitutes and share diseases with one another, fine. I have no issues with that. But, don’t use my hard-earned money to deal with the consequences. Instead, put that money towards diseases whose causes are devoid of choice.
Tell me, why should I have to pay for the choices of others?
Send_Me on July 20, 2008 at 5:06 PM
If it’s regulated, it’s taxed. You can use the taxes collected from the industry to pay for the beaurocracy (or the money not spent on law enforcement, jail, court time). If it is regulated, society is cleaner because we find people (prostitutes) with diseases before they spread it to other people (like maybe your kids).
Your hard earned money only gets wasted in the failed persecution of it. If it were regulated it wouldn’t cost you a dime.
ThackerAgency on July 20, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Right now we are paying 100% for the resulting damages. Legalize it, regulate it and tax it and you;
1 lessen the costs to society
2 generate some revenue to pay for some of the costs to society
redshirt on July 20, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Dang! I knew it! The evil gynecologist lobby is behind it.
peacenprosperity on July 20, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »