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]
Mr. Thacker (4:58) if you could produce the kind of prostitution described by Heinlein in “Time enough for love”, I would agree, perhaps even welcome it.
However, reading about Caligula, and others whom I can not recall by name from memory, I suspect that human behavior, specifically greed, envy, and jealousy, will sabotage your efforts, Mr Idealist.
rockhauler on July 20, 2008 at 5:13 PM
So how exactly will the police know who wants to be a prostitute and who doesn’t? How will they guage who is enjoying it and who isn’t? Are they going to rush in with flashlights and check under the hoods to see if the proper safety equipment is being used? Random spot checks if you will. What will we call the huge regulatory agency that will be created? I can see the first lawsuits now when the police bust a den of inequity and everyone claims to want to be there.
peacenprosperity on July 20, 2008 at 5:19 PM
And will emancipated youths be restricted from earning a living?
peacenprosperity on July 20, 2008 at 5:20 PM
you license each and every one of them. They do it with drivers’ licenses, they do it with pilots’ licenses, they do it with insurance licenses, doctors licenses, lawyer licenses. . .
licensing comes with provisions such as STD testing. Now how to decide whether or not someone wants to do it is something I don’t know. But knowing who they are is at least a start. Give them all a number. Do background checks to find whether they are illegal or not. Make them have monthly STD checks and keep a John log. I’d think knowing would be better than not knowing who they were in terms of policing it.
As for craigslist, any girl who wants to post there would need to post a license number or get arrested. Regulation would make it simpler and safer.
ThackerAgency on July 20, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Hi All!
It’s good to see a strong, reasoned debate in progress. It seems that while the sovereignty issue’s critical, it’s unfortunately moot - SF and LA already flaunt both state and fed laws considered “unpopular.” Sanctuary city status being the most famous case. We’ve already abdicated sovereignty.
More personally, haven’t we abdicated personal responsibilty through allowing a near-majority of Americans to grow up thinking that someone else should pay for the results of their actions through mandatory auto insurance (socialization of risk), “free” healthcare if you can’t afford it (socialization of affordability), social security (socialization of personal financial planning), and a miriad of other “socialism” concepts. Hasn’t this culminated in a Political Class that earns it living/wealth through paying for the consequences of our actions by taking money away from someone else? A political class that sounds and behaves in a way indistinguishable from the political class that in Great Britain that spawned the American Revolution?
Exit question: Why are we surprised by SF’s ballot, and wondering if it will be allowed to stand, should the measure carry?
Perfesser on July 20, 2008 at 5:25 PM
the ‘it’ being the policing of prostitution would be simpler and safer.
ThackerAgency on July 20, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Ya just gotta love democracy. If you want to start something, or stop it, all ya gotta do is get enough people to agree with you, get it on the ballot, and vote.
Then you can litigate the results, negotiate a compromise, debate the extent of the regulations, argue over the cost of funding the regulatory agency, hire enforcement officers, and count all the tax revenue.
In the case under discussion, as has been noted, should prostitution remain illegal, no problem. You will still be able to buy sex should you want to. All this ’sturm and drang’ all because a few people are inconvenienced.
Now that’s a troll, ya’ll bah
rockhauler on July 20, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Chalk it up to nice weather, plenty of places to pass out and the fact that SanFran has/had a program whereby once you were in the city for a week or two and could prove you were homeless, they started giving you a cash stipend and would provide shelter if you’d take it. Like putting out honey to attract more ants instead of Rid_x ™.
GeneSmith on July 20, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Some give licenses to illegal aliens.
peacenprosperity on July 20, 2008 at 5:31 PM
It’s really funny how the people on here for legalizing it use the arguement that the government shouldn’t be involved in peoples private lives. Then they talk about licensing it and taxing it and the government regulating it.
Libertarians are just liberals who are honest about not wanting to pay taxes.
peacenprosperity on July 20, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Holy moley! Talk about using Big Brother to secure our freedom of privacy.
peacenprosperity on July 20, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Government by direct-vote is a rotten idea. As corrupt as elected representatives often are, at least they’re not as ignorant as the general public. Should we trust San Franciscans to understand all of the consequences of allowing prostitution?
jgapinoy on July 20, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Should we trust San Franciscans to understand all of the consequences of
allowing prostitutionanal intercourse and anonymous sex?peacenprosperity on July 20, 2008 at 5:50 PM
But this ballot measure would specifically make that enforcement impossible. It is 180 degrees in the wrong direction for what you are recommending.
pedestrian on July 20, 2008 at 5:53 PM
you mean it isn’t already?
That’s pretty behind the times… for San Francisco, that is.
I would think that a place like that would be enthusiatic about making the immoral moral!
ToddonCapeCod on July 20, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Legalized prostitution. Sounds like a real family orientated city. /Sarcasm
I just have to wonder when an outlaw city like San Francisco gets a visit from the state police, and frog march the morons out of office.
byteshredder on July 20, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Rosie Palm is the union leader..
with her 5 advisers..
not like a ‘Guild of Seamstress’ that can’t sew if their life depended on it..
DaveC on July 20, 2008 at 6:25 PM
No, it wouldn’t. No one wants whorehouses (and they would have to set up numerous ones plus parking) in their neighborhood. Not every whore is going to apply and get hired at a whore house. They are just going to go down to their favorite corner and work. Also, guys are less likely to drive out of town to a whore house if they can find a streetwalker.
And the police work hard to keep it out of the “less desirable areas” as you label them because people who are not affluent have the right to live in crime free neighborhoods, too. Prostitution attracts gangs who like to rob them. No one wants to walk down the street looking at used condoms. People in less desirable areas also own homes and are not thrilled by seeing their property values plummet because of prostitution.
Blake on July 20, 2008 at 6:34 PM
If the San Fransickos were consistant, they’d make these lovely ladies put it out for FREE.
They hand (heh) out everything else in that town, why not this as well.
I mean, some wacko councilman has GOT to be railing about how it’s the civic duty of every whore to take care of the needs of the disadvantaged or something…
catmman on July 20, 2008 at 6:48 PM
1. I’m paying 100% for the resulting damages, which encourages more of the same behavior.
2. So, tell me, how’s that working out for the tobacco industry? I’m all for keeping tobacco legal, but the government should not finance their bad habit by paying for the known consequences of smoking or dipping. The same goes here: legalize prostitution if you want, but don’t expect the government to pay for it. The revenues gained from taxes would be minuscule compared to the billions it already costs us to care for these folks, not to mention the overhead of keeping the “Bureau for Keeping Prostitutes and their John’s Clean” open for business. The evidence for this principle is well-documented.
I’m not persecuting anyone. If someone wishes to behave in an irresponsible manner, I honestly don’t much care other than the sadness of seeing folks destroy their lives. Taxing it will never produce the revenues needed to care for these folks for the rest of their lives with STDs nor the created bureaucracies put in charge of such care. I’m still paying for folks who make the choice to live in flood plains, hurricane magnets, forest fire havens, etc. Do you honestly think that if we tax those choices then the government will “break even”? The government is not an insurance policy.
Rather than hoping the government will protect my kids from diseases, I’ll use my home to teach them to honor God with their bodies and to respect themselves and their future husbands/wives by leading a pure and healthy life.
Send_Me on July 20, 2008 at 6:53 PM
see, this is where you think that legalization of prostitution is a ‘bad thing’. Legalization merely allows a vehicle where you can keep society safe by policing the STD’s that are rampant. If you think making it legal is the solution, as I said, check Craigslist.
peace, I guarantee you I am more conservative than you are. My position on this position is to protect society. You aren’t honest to the point that you think making it illegal is stopping it. I don’t see drugs for sale on Craigslist. I don’t see any other ‘illegal activity’ for sale on Craigslist. . . but prostitution is rampant.
I think that the government should be concerned with the safety of society (diseases). Obviously they aren’t because they think we need to promote more homosexuality without educating on the hazards of diseases within the homosexual lifestyle choice. This way, we don’t waste the time on court cases of an industry that is everywhere. We can educate the Johns on how to check for a government license (meaning they have been tested and are disease free). If they don’t have a number, the Johns can turn them in without fear of being arrested themselves.
My ideas for legalizing another victim less crime is for public safety. Making it illegal isn’t working. But of course, it’s more important to hide behind the law *wink wink* where there is no over site to the rampant spread of STD’s within this profession to our society. We are holier than thou. . . prostitution must not be legal! Fill our jails with the hookers!
ThackerAgency on July 20, 2008 at 6:54 PM
ThackerAgency on July 20, 2008 at 6:56 PM
So if it’s not on craigs list it’s not being done?
I’d like to see how prevalent prostitution is in towns where the johns pictures are put in the newspaper. Prostitution is rampant because the law is not fully enforced. Every once in awhile the police round up a bunch of hookers, book em, give them tickets and send them back out to work. If all you libertarians want it legalized and out of control of the government, why do you keep talking about licensing and rules and regulations?
A quick fact of life; taboos, traditiona, morals, laws all developed out of a need to control stuff because when those behaviors become excessive it is harnful to the greater good. Despite what some would think, women being receptacles for money was not deemed a bad thing a 2500 years ago because everyone was a prude. Homosexuality wasn’t deemed a bad thing because 2500 years ago everyone was homophobic. Knocking up your sister wasn’t deemed bad because 2500 years ago everyone was a religious freak. The consequences of these behaviors are nearly always bad and if they aren’t then the practitioner dodged the bullet. Beliefs, traditions, taboos, morals developed out of real, practical necessity.
peacenprosperity on July 20, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Is not prostitution one of the oldest professions?
Hell Mary Magdalene was a ho if I recall my New Testament correctly.
That said…the current laws do not fix the problem (They have not for over 2000 years).
It is a safe bet that we will not rid society of prostitutes any time soon.
In the age of deadly illnesses like AIDS, I am actually for legalizing prostitutes as long as it requires a routine (say monthly) health check.
F15Mech on July 20, 2008 at 7:41 PM
You ask really tough questions. I’ve been married for about 5 years and sometimes I wonder why it was invented. I guess it forces my wife and me to be more patient with each other.
More to your point though, I agree that marriage is a stabilizing institution but there are and have been some cultures where marriage is very strong but mistresses are common. The societal importance of marriage has more consistently been about providing a nurturing environment for children and managing wealth than it has been about sexual fidelity.
dedalus on July 20, 2008 at 8:02 PM
North Korea.
aengus on July 20, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Acutally the police sometimes push it into less desireable areas. It has happened repeatedly over the centuries in New York City–as a neighborhood gets more affluent or prosperous the hookers get “relocated”. Specifically, I recall a few years ago having an office a few blocks from Bryant Park. The street had a couple of drug dealers and hookers. One of the drug dealers told me that he used to work in Bryant Park but after it was renovated Giuliani told the cops to clean it up. Whereupon the cops told the drug dealers and hookers to move a few blocks away and they wouldn’t be hassled.
dedalus on July 20, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Then you can pay for it. The reality is that if you are promiscuous, then you are likely to get an STD. If a person is that worried about it, then they can get insurance. Don’t come crying to the taxpayers, though. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. I honestly do not care about the nation’s AIDS problem. A promiscuous or drug-using person makes the choice, and they can deal with that choice’s consequences, whether that be a child or an STD.
Send_Me on July 20, 2008 at 8:31 PM
The family that lays together stays together.
The only problem with hookers in San Francisco is that unless they are gay prostitutes they will have no business.
MaiDee on July 20, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Will it protect illegal aliens for exploitation?
tlynch001 on July 20, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Heh! Thank You! :-)
But in case you guys don’t want to believe me, Google at least two things. “Teen Challenge San Francisco 2006″ and “Sand Francisco City Council resolution condemning the Catholic Church 2008.”
You will then not be surprised if San Francisco invests in hungry lions the next time Christians show up in full force…
newton on July 20, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Cut off all funds, State and Federal to ‘Frisco. The only things we should be sending to ‘Frisco is homosexuals and Illegal Alien crack dealers…
DfDeportation on July 20, 2008 at 9:07 PM
You missed my point. Allow me explain again…
Pain and simple hocker’s will always be around (They have been around since biblical times).
The problem is not going away no matter what we do.
That said there will always be unclean ho’s running around as a public health risk.
I say lets try to eliminate the health risk.
If that requires whores’s/sluts to be registered/tested then I am all for it.
BTW
For the record I don’t need to “pay for it”.
[sarc] The “supply of women I can use/abuse and then loose” is plentiful in my area. [/sarc]
F15Mech on July 20, 2008 at 9:26 PM
If they have to join a union, and have to post their license number at Craiglist, I’m sorry, but people like Eliot Spitzer are going to be bored–and then, poof, the whole trade will die off.
PattyJ on July 20, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Yep, prostitution, just like poverty, will always exist. No issue here.
Health risk to whom? It’s not bothering me any. Whether or not someone has AIDS, syphilis, or chlamydia has no bearing on my life. So long as blood is tested before blood transfusions, I don’t much mind.
Who would require testing? How often? Unless you require testing of all parties involved, men and women, before every act with a new partner, then calls for testing are pointless in terms of preventing the spread of STDs. Again, I don’t have a problem with any of this. Prostitutes and their pimps can chalk this up to the cost of doing business. My whole issue stems from asking the taxpayer to cover the bill or requiring my kids to get tested as part of a societal effort for cleansing our population of STDs.
With every jest, there is a hint of truth. Are you suggesting that the taxes collected from such “business” will cover the future medical bills, welfare for the prostitute and his/her children, WIC, more public housing I presume, etc.? That’s like saying the taxes paid by a smoker for cigarettes will cover their cancer treatments. My money is needed elsewhere besides paying for more of another’s stupid decisions.
Send_Me on July 20, 2008 at 11:21 PM
So now California gets a taste of what it does to Federal law (Immigration enforcement)…lovely.
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving state.
Wanderlust on July 21, 2008 at 12:21 AM
I’m against people charging for what should be a gift.
And even more for political whores trying to leech off the backs of the unfortunate.
profitsbeard on July 21, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Here is my .02
Because I think the topic of this thread is immoral. And I believe the State does not have a compelling interest to sanction and encourage immoral behavior.
Your good comment reminded me of the excellent points made in this book. Once I understood the author’s points, I relinquished any prior thoughts I had for a “pure democracy”.
I understand that you are adopting an argument rooted in pragmatic concerns.
But…could another person likewise embrace your pragmatic reasoning and approach a different issue, say, illegal immigration, and argue the same way, “well, we will always have illegal immigration due to Visa Overstays, therefore, the best thing is to just regulate it, have them pay a fine, give them amnesty, etc…..”
Note:
I have enjoyed reading your comments in the past. I am aware of your worldview. My comment is only directed at your Pragmatic Approach here.
ColtsFan on July 21, 2008 at 1:56 AM
Excellent point.
China. North Korea. Yemen and Pakistan might be up there as well.
Excellent point.
I believe Plato and others talked about the need to encourage virtue ethics in society, in part, to prevent the maddening descent into Socialism and mobocracy that naturally results when character and morality are divorced from public policy.
ColtsFan on July 21, 2008 at 2:33 AM
I think you are right.
George Gilder and others
have noted the fine points you have brought up, hence the rational need for traditional laws against prostitution…
And there are negative economic consequences emananting from the absence of these laws…
ColtsFan on July 21, 2008 at 2:45 AM
I have wrestled with Libertarianism a lot in the past. It has a lot of attractive features to it.
I disagree with it.
Libertarianism is ultimately dependent on a particular worldview and also an Ethical Philosophy.
It assumes a lot of “value-assumptions” towards government(i.e., ethical positions of the normative type) while at the same time professing that government should stay out of the value-assumption business.
ColtsFan on July 21, 2008 at 2:54 AM
Judging from your past comments, I thought your worldview would make it impossible for you to think prostitution is a victim-less crime.
Prostitution is not a victim-less crime.
ColtsFan on July 21, 2008 at 2:58 AM
I haven’t met a Libertarian who wants registration for prostitutes. Libertarians are merely classically conservatives (i.e. wanting government out of people’s lives) If wanting the government out of as many aspects of your lives as possible is ‘liberal’ then I have been supporting the wrong causes all these years.
I couldn’t care less if the legalized prostitution. There is no difference between paying a prostitute $50 for sex and spending $50 on drinks at a nightclub for a girl ‘looking for fun’ and having sex with her for 1 night only; which happens a million times a day.
The whore or the bar skank can have STD’s and a prostitute doing it for a living is more likely to take care of herself to keep her business in shape.
That said, SF once again goes about it in the dumbest way possible.
MannyT-vA on July 21, 2008 at 7:25 AM
Previous posters have been debating the logic, reason, and morality of this…but hey, this is San Francisco…where they abandoned these things long ago!!!
Next they’ll probably make prostitution mandatory on the theory that the city needs more revenue.
landlines on July 21, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Too bad. Now, we’ll never get rid of the politicians.
And how about the poor prostitutes, always being hassled over back taxes.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 21, 2008 at 2:13 PM
When you have a repesentative named Pelosi, it makes you wonder, what took so long?
volsense on July 21, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]