San Fran voters weigh decriminalizing prostitution

plasticbathmonki

CAGiversary!
Much to my surprise, this isn't generally supported in San Francisco. But I digress, what are your thoughts? Should it be a crime to practice the world's oldest profession? Would it cause a noticeable bump in the amount of human trafficking in the US?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93V4U0O0&show_article=1

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In this live-and-let-live town, where medical marijuana clubs do business next to grocery stores and an annual fair celebrates sadomasochism, prostitutes could soon walk the streets without fear of arrest. San Francisco would become the first major U.S. city to decriminalize prostitution if voters next month approve Proposition K—a measure that forbids local authorities from investigating, arresting or prosecuting anyone for selling sex.
The ballot question technically would not legalize prostitution since state law still prohibits it, but the measure would eliminate the power of local law enforcement officials to go after prostitutes.
Proponents say the measure will free up $11 million the police spend each year arresting prostitutes and allow them to form collectives.
"It will allow workers to organize for our rights and for our safety," said Patricia West, 22, who said she has been selling sex for about a year by placing ads on the Internet. She moved to San Francisco in May from Texas to work on Proposition K.
Even in tolerant San Francisco—where the sadomasochism fair draws thousands of tourists and a pornographic video company is housed in a former armory—the measure faces an uphill battle, with much of the political establishment opposing it.
Some form of prostitution is already legal in two states. Brothels are allowed in rural counties in Nevada. And Rhode Island permits the sale of sex behind closed doors between consulting adults, but it prohibits street prostitution and brothels.
In 2004, almost two-thirds of voters in nearby Berkeley rejected decriminalization. But proponents of Proposition K say their proposal has a better shot in San Francisco, which they believe is more sexually liberal than the city across the bay.
After all, the world's oldest profession has long been established here. During the Gold Rush, the neighborhood closest to the piers was a seedy pleasure center of sex, gambling and drinking known as the Barbary Coast.
These days, on certain corners, prostitutes sell their bodies day and night, ducking into doorways and alleys when police pass by. One recent afternoon in the Mission District, six prostitutes were plying their trade on a single block.
Police made 1,583 prostitution arrests in 2007 and expect to make a similar number this year. But the district attorney's office says most defendants are fined, placed in diversion programs or both. Fewer than 5 percent get prosecuted for solicitation, which is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail.
Proposition K has been endorsed by the local Democratic Party. But the mayor, district attorney, police department and much of the business community oppose the idea, contending it would increase street prostitution, allow pimps the run of neighborhoods and hamper the fight against sex trafficking, which would remain illegal because it involves forcing people into the sex trade.
The San Francisco Chronicle editorialized against the measure, saying it could make the city a magnet for prostitution.
If the proposal passes, "we wouldn't be able to investigate prostitution, and it's going to be pretty difficult for us to locate these folks who are victims of trafficking otherwise," said Capt. Al Pardini, head of the police department's vice unit. "It's pretty rare that we get a call that says: 'I'm a victim of human trafficking' or 'I suspect human trafficking in my neighborhood.'"
The proposition would also prohibit police from accepting federal or state funds for sex trafficking investigations that involve racial profiling. Such investigations often arise from raids on brothels that advertise as Asian massage parlors.
"We feel that repressive policies don't help trafficking victims, and that human rights-based approaches, including decriminalization, are actually more effective," said Carol Leigh, co-founder of the Bay Area Sex Workers Advocacy Network and a longtime advocate for prostitutes' rights.
But San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris said the ballot question mistakenly assumes prostitution is a victimless crime.
"The crime of prostitution does not exist by itself," Harris said. "Along with it come pimps, johns and other crimes that really impact the safety of neighborhoods."
If the measure passes, supporters say, prostitutes would not feel the need for pimps as protection. But opponents insist it would embolden pimps who trap drug addicts into prostitution by plying them with drugs.
"The proponents usually paint a fairly rosy picture of two consenting adults and a monetary exchange at the end," Pardini said. "They don't factor in the people that are being exploited and people that are being controlled, the ones manipulated both physically and chemically."
 
[quote name='plasticbathmonki']Much to my surprise, this isn't generally supported in San Francisco. But I digress, what are your thoughts? Should it be a crime to practice the world's oldest profession? Would it cause a noticeable bump in the amount of human trafficking in the US?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93V4U0O0&show_article=1[/quote]

If regulated properly, it isn't a problem.

Get a hooking license. Conduct business at your home or predefined location aka whorehouse. Have security and prepay everything. Take blood tests to verify a lack of diseases or drug use.

Human trafficking? That would be slavery, not whoring.

Exploiting underage children? Put an age requirement for a hooking license.

If everybody is consenting, I don't see the problem.
 
With the downturn in the economy, a more liberal society with less stigma on being a whore, and the wide availability of advertising sites like Craigslist and a myriad of social networking sites, I'd bet that the prostitution is going to go up in prevalence.

Girls with low education levels won't be able to find jobs (there's already a glut of them in Chatsworth and the half lives of their careers in porn are quite short). Those with higher education levels will also find it either hard to secure loans to pay for school or to pay back loans... driven by these forces, some will choose this option.


I would agree with legalizing prostitution, but would like to mandate certain standards. For example, I'd require monthly testing for gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphillis as well as compulsory annual or bi-annual physician exams (especially pelvic exams) to maintain one's license. Also, sex would be condom only, unless the customer is tested for the aforementioned diseases and recently examined by a physician... Moreover, the places where these act would be allowed to take place should be limited and should provide a safe working environment. Note: you'd still likely get HSV and every strain of HPV known to man, but such is life... and pelivc exams/pap smears should help reduce the sequelae...

...Unfortunately, with all these requirements, I'd bet that many people would still opt for the simplicity of Craigslist or a street corner...
 
[quote name='BigT']With the downturn in the economy, a more liberal society with less stigma on being a whore, and the wide availability of advertising sites like Craigslist and a myriad of social networking sites, I'd bet that the prostitution is going to go up in prevalence.[/quote]

I'd call the "oldest profession" more of a constant in society.

I would agree with legalizing prostitution, but would like to mandate certain standards. For example, I'd require monthly testing for gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphillis as well as compulsory annual or bi-annual physician exams (especially pelvic exams) to maintain one's license. Also, sex would be condom only, unless the customer is tested for the aforementioned diseases and recently examined by a physician... Moreover, the places where these act would be allowed to take place should be limited and should provide a safe working environment. Note: you'd still likely get HSV and every strain of HPV known to man, but such is life... and pelivc exams/pap smears should help reduce the sequelae...

...Unfortunately, with all these requirements, I'd bet that many people would still opt for the simplicity of Craigslist or a street corner...

That's a lot of red tape for a small government "stay outta my way" kinda guy.
 
Well I think the biggest problems with prostitution as it is now is disease and exploitation of women. If it were regulated well that could eliminate those (for the most part anyway). I still don't think it's a great idea as the exploitation would probably just change from an illegal one to a legal one.

Prostitution was actually probably bigger (or at least as big) in the past when people didn't really get arrested for it and it was pretty much accepted as something guys do (go to prostitutes, that is, not be them). Creating a legal atmosphere would probably increase its use from what it is now, but not much and hopefully in a safer way.

Still don't really know if it's a good idea...
 
Safe decriminalization sometimes necessitates regulation, the degree of which would vary.

Marijuana? Under 18, a no go, just like cigs.

Whores? Well, that one is a bit tougher. I'm one for a "Base attractiveness level" to get your license. I'd pay for a committee to keep the ones addicted to meth out of the game. You know, the ones without any teeth with the face that says "I'm 30 going on 65"?.
 
Reality's Fringe;5016055 said:
Safe decriminalization sometimes necessitates regulation, the degree of which would vary.

Yep. After norms for the business are established, it can be deregulated.

Then, ... the sex bubble.

Whores across the country will become billionaires by selling securities on their asses.

Deregulation from John McCain IV will pass. More deregulation will allow anybody to become a whore and make a good deal of money. Colleges will offer advanced training and degrees. People with MSBs (Master of Science-Bukkake) will earn 6 figure salaries out of school.

Then, the sex bubble will pop.

People will lose everything because their asses are literally worthless. Rich people rapidly becoming poor will beg the government to bail their asses out. Since the government consists of the whores' clientele, they enact legislation to tighten the ass market in exchange for a few more rights.
 
[quote name='camoor']I thought it was legal in Las Vegas - that doesn't count as a major city?[/QUOTE]

It is legal in Nevada, but not Las Vegas or other large cities.
 
:rofl: I always make sex bubble.
It's a great way to end the session. :cool:

--
Anyway.
This & Marijuana should go together. Both would help the economy and keep people out of jail..thus, saving money that way too.

But I agree there needs to be some strict guide lines to them--especially the prostitution.
 
[quote name='lilboo']keep people out of jail..thus, saving money that way too. [/quote]

And that is why weed and prostitution will always be illegal in most areas. There is big money in big prisons.
 
Definitely for it. Much better to have it legalized and controlled. Of course there will still be street walkers, but you'd think there'd be less market for crack whores when guys could go to a legal brothel that does regular STD testing etc.
 
I'm all for this one. With, of course, a healthy amount of our old friend bureaucracy involved.

[quote name='BillyBob29']We already have legalized prostitution, it's called "dating." ;)[/quote]
Weep, bride, weep, 'cause your husband's a closeted Marxist who thinks that marriage is state prostitution, so sometimes you'll have to fuck'm just to get 'im to shut up and go to sleep.
 
I'm not sure how I feel about this other than there has to be some sort of BMI limit, unless you are working at the fat chick whorehouse.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I'm not sure how I feel about this other than there has to be some sort of BMI limit, unless you are working at the fat chick whorehouse.[/quote]

I've seen a few documentaries about hookers. Frankly, most of them would be rejected by the "Lowered Expectations" dating service.
 
I have always failed to see why it's the government's place to legislate morality. If someone wants to pay for sex, the government has no business stopping it.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yep. After norms for the business are established, it can be deregulated.

Then, ... the sex bubble.

Whores across the country will become billionaires by selling securities on their asses.

Deregulation from John McCain IV will pass. More deregulation will allow anybody to become a whore and make a good deal of money. Colleges will offer advanced training and degrees. People with MSBs (Master of Science-Bukkake) will earn 6 figure salaries out of school.

Then, the sex bubble will pop.

People will lose everything because their asses are literally worthless. Rich people rapidly becoming poor will beg the government to bail their asses out. Since the government consists of the whores' clientele, they enact legislation to tighten the ass market in exchange for a few more rights.[/quote]:rofl:
 
heard this story on the radio ..and it made me laugh..the news anchor said that they want to give the police no money to go after prostitution so the police can go after drug dealers and "gangbangers" so the police will only go after you if u share a prostitute?
 
I live in the bay area and I have mixed feelings.

San Francisco is already sleezy enough with the Mitchell Brothers (the Disneyland for adults) and all the porn shops and such. The S&M street fair the article is mentioning is the Folsom Street fair. I used to live near by and basically its a sectioned off area where people walk around in leather and some whip each other in public. Strangely enough, it wasn't that shocking to me; I actually thought the people in that fair were well behaved and everyone was friendly to each other. It was strangely serene and outworldly...

Adding legal prostitution might be the straw that breaks the camels back in San Francisco though. It might be too over the top in terms of sleaze...I wouldn't complain if another city does it though (Oakland?) because San Francisco is too beautiful of a city....

I know I'm just rambling here but I'm kinda against it...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Definitely for it. Much better to have it legalized and controlled. Of course there will still be street walkers, but you'd think there'd be less market for crack whores when guys could go to a legal brothel that does regular STD testing etc.[/quote]

Yeah, but a horny guy with only $20 in his wallet probably would not appreciate the added overhead of a brothel... maybe Obama can provide tax credits to help the poor pay for hookers?
 
[quote name='BigT']Yeah, but a horny guy with only $20 in his wallet probably would not appreciate the added overhead of a brothel... maybe Obama can provide tax credits to help the poor pay for hookers?[/quote]

We could branch out the Payday loan places.

Check into Cash -> Check into Sex.

Charge 600% interest. One wild night out could be as expensive as a divorce without messy custody hearings.
 
i dont like this. personally i dont care if people want to pay for sex. but this keeps it dirty by making local law enforcement look the other way at street prostitution. if this were something that would legalize it, regulate and tax it, then SF could benefit with more tax revenue and clean up those wonderful SF streets.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i dont like this. personally i dont care if people want to pay for sex. but this keeps it dirty by making local law enforcement look the other way at street prostitution. if this were something that would legalize it, regulate and tax it, then SF could benefit with more tax revenue and clean up those wonderful SF streets.[/quote]

Cops look the other way at everything even if it is illegal. The Chief of Police in the neighboring town moves most of the drugs that flow through our area, both legal and illegal.


[quote name='BigT']Yeah, but a horny guy with only $20 in his wallet probably would not appreciate the added overhead of a brothel... maybe Obama can provide tax credits to help the poor pay for hookers?[/quote]

That would be a fun idea. If you make less than 30 grand a year you get a trip to the Bunnyranch twice a year.


fatherofcaitlyn's post was hilarious btw.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Cops look the other way at everything even if it is illegal. The Chief of Police in the neighboring town moves most of the drugs that flow through our area, both legal and illegal.




That would be a fun idea. If you make less than 30 grand a year you get a trip to the Bunnyranch twice a year.[/quote]

And Joliestjake's post was hilarious.:applause:
 
bread's done
Back
Top