San Francisco may be safe for prostitutes

[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.