San Francisco may be safe for prostitutes

[texas*princess]

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

SAN FRANCISCO, California (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.


A sex worker who goes by the name of Violet stands at a San Francisco, California, bus stop.

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.

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.

[XSK_Diamond]

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

[Kevin]

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.

[Senusret I]

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.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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 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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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 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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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 . . .

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[NinjaPoodle]

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.

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?"

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by NinjaPoodle

but this is sending out the wrong message about sex workers. It's NOT OK.

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.