San Francisco may be safe for prostitutes
 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/21/san....ap/index.html

Here's an idea: If you want to be "Safe" how about you get a job that doesn't put you in a position to potentially be harmed?

I haven't read the proposition in detail, but I think this could open up the floodgates for increased human trafficing (totally spelled that wrong! lol) & greedy guys bring in women against their will from other countries just to make them money to say the least.

Say Whaa!?
 

I was stunned into silence and my brain hit a glitch @ an annual fair celebrates sadomasochism

If it's regulated, I think it'll do exactly the opposite. Regulate it, bring it out in the open, have regular inspections, testing and disclosures, tax the heck out of it, etc. If regulated well, there will be much less incentive to do business illegally. By failing to regulate it, the floodgates are just as open, but we're doing little or nothing to combat it. So far, we have around 2 centuries worth of history in the country with prohibition in this area... and for that same amount of time, any enforcemtn has been a dismal failure. Perhaps it's time to do something different?

I'll be interested to see how SF pulls this off.

I feel the same way about [most] illicit drugs FWIW. I wouldn't go near drugs or hookers, but I think prohibition is completely futile at best, and at worst, forces women into situations where, because they are engaged in a prohibited activity are afraid to seek out help from law enforcement in the event of sexual or physical abuse.

I'm not quite certain what I feel about this.

I am definitely against street prostitution. If I come to work early enough, the pros will be out there getting their last johns of the night/morning. I've called the cops on them, too.

(Sidenote: A pro with a cane solicited me! Like, an old crippled ho! I mean damn, I can't even get the young, buxom hoes?)

Anyway.

Even though I oppose street prostitution, I am not against the notion of one adult paying for sex from another adult.

That said.... I think this particular proposition is a bad idea. I am never in favor of anything which prohibits prosecuting a crime. I mean, take one of those SVU situations... you got a pro who is arrested for prostitution who you could give amnesty to if she flips her pimp. (For example)

They need to save the money other ways.

I completely agree. I don't quite understand why prostitution is illegal in the first place. Drugs, I get, because of all the money the government is making.

I don't know - there's never really been an "efficient market" for prostitutes, has there? . . . I realize this is nerdy as hell, but it seems like 'regulation' could take on many forms, including the (unfortunate) craigslist.com variety.

Oh, I don't think there's any way to completely control it, but I do think that offering prostitution from legitimate, tested, regulated business establishments will drastically cut down on the sort of illegal prostitution which ends up getting girls killed and leaving 'Johns' with STDs.

I imagine folks who utilize the service won't stop being unsavory and generally slimeballesque, but as far as an 'efficient market' goes, I would assume that those principles would lie here, just as they lie just about everywhere else. I'm also quite sure that there would still be a significant amount of illegal prostitution, but the illegal stuff would be highly disincentivized due to readily available, legal, safer alternatives.

But then again, my life experience doesn't grant me much insight into this world, so perhaps some of my premises are fundamentally flawed.

these are pretty much my thoughts and feelings as well - decriminalizing prostitution will simply provide some legal outlets to a group of women (and men for that matter) who wouldn't otherwise have them. being able to ask the police for help in an assault case is vital, but right now, i'm sure many of them fear retaliation.

- m

It would really take a sea change in the way we view prostitution on a societal level for these effects to really take root - I'd love for this line of thought to be completely correct, but it seems like there's little incentive for a prostitute to "play ball" and fall in line with the system. Indeed, there's probably incentive for the prostitute to not follow (increased profits) - and unlike, say, business regulations, we have (like you pointed out) two centuries of evidence that any law enforcement repercussions will be of limited utility.

I guess I just doubt the john's willingness to call an agency and report a hooker for not following the rules, the hooker's trustworthiness in following mandatory-testing procedures (or their ability to self-regulate against the vigilante), the government's ability to tax/regulate it, and society's willingness to bring the act out of the alley and into the strip mall. It seems like all of those things have to happen for regulation to actually have the positive effects we'd like.

It's already working in areas of this country where prostitution is legal. As long as the prostitutes follow the regulations, all is copacetic.

Prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada, where "establishments" and prostitutes in them are all licensed with the county or state. They make good money and at least have someone who looks out for them. I think it should be legalized; it's a service job just like many others. Some people pay people to do their taxes, others pay people to do...other stuff.

Yes, and prostitution is still rampant throughout Las Vegas, even though it's illegal, because there is incentive for the prostitutes to work outside of the "Bunny Ranch" structure - you're giving an "upscale" (legal) option, and a low-end scummy option, only one of which actually utilizes the regulations/laws/etc.

This is my great macro-level fear about regulation - that it will lead to this sort of divide, which is only marginally better than the current system and would likely cost much more. I really have no fear of legalized prostitution in theory, and really support anything that takes government regulation based on limited morals away, but I think prostitution is a weird case that might not fit the idyllic foreshadowing.

Compare it to drugs - government regulation of the drug trade seems symbiotic. The government reduces its outlay on law enforcement, gains supply control, and on-point contact with users. The user gets cheaper and more reliable product. Society gets fewer unsavory drug dealers, at least in the ideal sense, and better ability to get problem users help. The only person who loses is the drug trafficker, who really doesn't have any control.

However, while the hooker will certainly reap major benefits from regulation, these may come at a cost (real or perceived) affecting the bottom line, where alternative setups will avoid that. The hooker has the control to choose whether to follow the system or not.

Additionally, it's not just the hookers that have to play by the rules - the johns have to, as well, or the market will certainly be met, and the john may or may not understand the benefits, either . . .

I think you are correct about this.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm voting NO on this. As liberal as I am, this is just flat out WRONG. I don't care that prostitution is one of the oldest trades in the world, that doesn't make it right. I love my city but this is sending out the wrong message about sex workers. It's NOT OK. :mad:

From my ballot:
Proposition K

"Shall the City: stop enforcing laws against prostitution; stop funding or supporting the First Offender Prostitution Program or any similar anti-prostitution program; enforce existing criminal laws that prohibit crimes such as battery, extortion and rape, regardless of the victim's status as a sex worker; and fully disclose the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against sex workers?"

What message is being sent out? I mean abortion is considered to be much more morally reprehensible than prostitution by many, yet we've legalized it. In fact, many of the justifications for legalized abortion are the same as for legalizing prostitution, among them, the safety of the participants, the government being able to help stop the spread of infections/disease, that the practice would go on with or without government intervention.

As liberal as your town tends to be in this area, prostitution seems to be an odd place to draw the line.

That it's ok to be a prostitute and that it's ok to be a prostitute without consequence.

You can't legislate morality. I mean, you can try, but it will never succeed.

It is going to happen whether or not it is legal, why not make it safer?

Sure, make it safer, just not in my city.

You'd rather for it to be dangerous in your city?

Ah, NIMBY! You've done me so good for so long!

All laws are legislating morality. On what foundation do you think they stand if not morality?

Couldn't we say that any crime is going to happen anyway, so why not make it safer?

Ideally, I think there has to be a compelling reason why the state is granted the right to restrict individual liberty when we make laws, but to pretend that most criminal law is based on something other than morality seems goofy.

It's already dangerous to be a prostitute.

The bottom line is I don't want prostitution to be legal in my city.

It wouldn't already be dangerous if it was already controlled, so why don't you want it to be controlled?

Also, why do you not want it in your city? I mean, it isn't like people would be forcing you to purchase or sell. It doesn't affect you and it makes it safer for the people who do purchase those services and those that sell them.

I have voiced here before that I think things that do not interfere with someone else's civil rights should be legal. This would include prostitution. Who is the victim in prostitution? Not the prostitute, not the john. Prostitutes are sometimes victims of their pimps as teen runaways, part of the slave trade, etc, but that would be greatly reduced if it were legalized. Besides the health benefits for participants (and therefore, reduced medical costs for tax payers), we could tax it.

Yeah, but any regulation you put in place kind of creates a black market in avoiding that regulation.

I don't really care about prostitution's legality at all. I wouldn't expect benefits from legalizing it and I don't think there are very many benefits to keeping it illegal.

I see your argument AGDee when we're talking about prostitution of the Eliot Spitzer-whore level. But when you think about street level prostitutes, associated drug use, and abusive pimps, it's a whole lot less a personal freedom argument and a whole lot more a public nuisance kind of thing, as well as maybe an unacceptable risk to the women involved, no matter how well regulated.

And I don't want the government involved in regulating prostitution.

The government is already regulating it by making it illegal. I think it would greatly reduce the street level issue.

Some women give it away freely, others charge for it. They are all at risk. It's not illegal to be promiscuous, so why should it be illegal to charge money for it? Just things to think about.

It does affect me. I grew up here. I pay taxes here. I donate to FREE/low cost services these prostitutes use. It's MY city and I want it CLEAN. I and my fellow San Franciscans have EVERY right to that.

What's the problem with that? How would you like it if this happened in your city?

We're mixing metaphors here - you mean "CLEAN" like "MORAL" and she means it like "SAFE."

Well, since prostitution does happen in my city, I would have the reservations listed above, but would be cautiously optimistic that it's a step toward a better life for everybody involved.

Then again, I don't think buying sex is immoral, just a poor use of resources (shots and a gym membership are cheaper).

To me regulation is a whole lot more involved that merely prohibiting it. Are you going to have OSHA rules, pay workman's comp? Who tests for STDs and documents results, and who verifies that woman working are within whatever rules make it safer? AND then you still have all the issues related to what happens when people break whatever regulations exists.

I don't think women who "give it away freely" are associated with most of the issues of street prostitution, for whatever reasons.

But as I said, I really don't have a preference on legality or illegality. I just don't expect much societal gain from a change.

No it doesn't affect you, (maybe it does in the MOST INDIRECT way.) (And by the way, San Fran is one of the safer metropolitan cities.)

Prostitution does happen in my city. Prostitution happens everywhere. If it was decriminalized (not legalized, just not a prosecutorial offense anymore), I would be glad that the city wasn't wasting my tax money and police time to try to keep the city moral.

Yes, it does affect me directly. My family lost someone to being a hooker and not only did it affect me, it affected members of my family.

Quite frankly I think hookers, pimps and ANYONE who solicits their "services" is trash. Simple as that. I have no sympathy for people who choose this lifestyle (not forced).

from the San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/election/races/2008/11/04/

Proposition K Legalize Prostitution
Choice Votes %
Yes 94,870 42.0%
No 130,752 58.0%
100% of precincts reporting Updated 11/06 9:30PM

I guess San Franciscan's have some moral fiber left in them.