It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

San Francisco Weighs Decriminalizing Prostitution

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

San Francisco Weighs Decriminalizing Prostitution


www.breitbart.com

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Eesh.

Hard to say where I stand on this one. On the one hand, I know that if I lived in such an area, I wouldn't want to see folks on every corner flaunting that with no worry of consequence. It would be like living in a cesspool of immorality IMO.

But on the other hand, if every jail cell is being overstuffed and law enforcement is investing all of their time and resources into prostitution / John busts, and less time going after violent criminals, then perhaps its something to consider.

I would, however, expect some sort of restraint to be shown, and perhaps have "districts" or specific areas that were the only areas allowable, and not have this explode to every street corner.

Thoughts?

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
why should the government tell me i cant have an interaction with another consenting human being?

prostitiution is the oldest business on earth.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
It's about time.

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, and use the money for something beneficial to the city as a whole.

Then do the same thing with marijuana.

In other parts of the world, the taxes from such activities pay for things like better education and public roads and such.

Besides, women (myself included) have used sex to get what they want forever. My husband may not want to always do things my way, but when something really matters to me... I know how to persuade him. For some reason, sex seems to make men more agreeable. May as well use that knowledge to your advantage.

A lot of men are willing to pay cash for sex. May as well use that to your advantage, too. Then, as I stated above, regulate it and tax it to use it to the advantage of society.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
If they do it: Bravo!

The only things that bring the violance and disease to prostitution is the fact that it is illegal. In places where legal brothels are allowed to operate, the girls are clean, pick their clients and the the rates of STDs are so low as to be statistically irrelevant.

Get rid of the crime and you get rid of the pimps...easy as that.

It is sad that whenever I see a 'don't legalize prostitution' argument, it adresses the violance and crime associated with illegal 'walking'. Ignore the issue and spew some moral sense of superiority masked in concern.

There is no real concern for these girls, only catch-phrases and spin and some inflated sense of outrage over something which is misrepresented/demonized.

I get flack for this position all the time, but it's alright: I have the actual statistics and sociology/criminology studies to back me up.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHypnoToad
 


Seriously I agree with you .Even though I am a christian and I do not approve of what they do for money but they are going to do it anyway so yeah legalize it regulate it and for sure make them pay their share of taxes like we all do and make it a business ...since it already is anyway and their tax dollars could help instead of them just getting off not having to pay taxes like so many others do .We own our own business and we had to be all legal with all the red tape ..so no reason why they dont have to do it that way ..
They legalize everything else (Alcohol,Porn,Abortion,Cuss Words in Music,Violent Video games etc ) so why not ....and yes might as well legalize maryjane too ...I mean it is way healthier for people than Prescription Meds and Alcohol are ..And that would also free up the cops to go and get serious crimes taken care of ..



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
On the one hand, I know that if I lived in such an area, I wouldn't want to see folks on every corner flaunting that with no worry of consequence. It would be like living in a cesspool of immorality IMO.


No, where it is legal in the US, it is legal only in brothels and 'bunny ranches'. Why people don't do the research before they bring out the 'on every corner' argument is beyond me.

Cesspool of immorality? Please. There are actual issues out there besides who has sex with who.

Guys have been legally buying sex in this country for years: It is called dinner and a movie.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by spines
 


Wrong. I have been in areas of certain cities where prostitutes were OPENLY flaunting their wares, and we're not talking on some back-alley street. I have seen women in Vegas and in Hawaii standing right out on mainstreets where people with kids (myself included) are listening to these gals quite GRAPHICALLY promote what they are doing. So you are not at all correct, and you yourself are in need of doing some research it appears. Not EVERYONE subscribes to the "quiet, behind-closed-doors" methodology you describe.

And that was my point-If it DOES take place in site-specific areas, and does not spread out with blatancy, then to each their own. My concern is that it doesn't delve beyond that point.


[edit on 21-10-2008 by DimensionalDetective]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 10/21/0808 by spines]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
So you are not at all correct, and you yourself are in need of doing some research it appears. Not EVERYONE subscribes to the "quiet, behind-closed-doors" methodology you describe.


Those in Las Vegas are not within a county where it is legal, hence the illegal 'walking'.

Check it out.

edit: I like you, and your posts. So don't wax intellect at me until you do some research on the issue and adress my point, rather than the realities of illegal prostitution (which is not in question here).

I know that street walking happens, I am saying that when you legalize prostitution, you get rid of most of the dangerous walking and the moral fiber of the world doesn't fall apart.

Your examples of Vegas and Hawaii are moot to my argument, considering it is still illegal there and the brothels do not get to exist. The difference between prostitution where it is legal and where it isn't is huge.

I am simply saying that where it is legal, the industry gets to be an industry and alot of people get to live much better lives.

[edit on 10/21/0808 by spines]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by spines
 


I guess you keep missing my point as well. I've already said that IF this is confined and kept in order, then I have no problem. Did you not read that?

THAT is my concern, that it DOES follow a structured protocol like the examples you give. I have not seen enough data either way yet on this S.F. resolution to come to a decision on whether it does keep this confined, or whether it loosens the reigns completely. Do you get what I'm saying?



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


I do, and kind of feel like an ass for arguing a misunderstanding.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by spines
 



Hey, no worries man. And I DO get the point you're making, and it is a good one at that. We have enough nonsense and waste of resources going into prosecuting these folks, while more violent criminals and dangers are running the streets. It's time to prioritize, to be sure.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Prostitution was decriminalized here in New Zealand and I have no problem with this fact . My only advice would be for local councils to upgrade there zoning laws in advance to avoid brothels opening in the likes of residential areas and so on . Now we just need less focus on speed cameras and more on gangs and we will be right but that is another story .

Cheers xpert11 .

[edit on 21-10-2008 by xpert11]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Good for San Francisco.

Prostitution if regulated properly can be a good stream of tax revenue, help keep crime down and protect the working girls who are very vulnurable.

I've seen prostitiution upclose, a very close friend was an "escort". On more then one occasion she was assaulted by a "client" with no recourse to the law.

It's time the government stopped wasting tax payer money on trying to regulate morality. TAX IT!



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Prostitution should be completely legal. Adult humans don't need to be regulated by a government about who they can sleep with when it is all consenting.

Similarly, marijuana should also be completely legal. It's a friggin' plant that grows from seeds!!! How can a government enforce upon people that they can't grow a plant in their own yard???

Governments are a disgrace.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Hard to say where I stand on this one. On the one hand, I know that if I lived in such an area, I wouldn't want to see folks on every corner flaunting that with no worry of consequence. It would be like living in a cesspool of immorality IMO.


cesspool of immorality you say? Sign me up asap. It looks like someone finally got my letters!

I think its ridiculous that our country worships one vice (greed/money) over all others (drugs/prostitution/etc). It should be obvious that by demanding one vice (money) for another (drugs/sex) will only improve our economy. I happen to believe a thriving economy has an inverse relationship to preoccupation with morality.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Saw that in the Chronicle yesterday as well.
I live just north of SF.
No other hand about it, prostitution is STILL the world's oldest profession.
I don't really care either way since I can't imagine myself paying for sex with another human being...or at all, for that matter...trade...maybe.

I tend to lean towards less legal action for non-violent or otherwise unharmful practices by individuals mainly because of the failure to adequately curb other kinds of crime and not only that, but I think some cops really tend to get into their work and I have a feeling that if we had less guys focusing on an arena that is all about sex that these cops aren't getting or allowed to have and more guys focusing on dangerous and truly destructive crime, they might be a little more effective.

Anyways, if you've ever been to SF then you'd know there's a neighborhood around Castro street that is predominantly and overtly proud of homosexuality. Down Market street a ways and then a little bit north, you'll find a busy intersection at Broadway and Kearney which is essentially the red light district of SF among some other backstreets and alleys...depends how low you wanna go.

Apparently there is a difference between legalization and decriminalization which is a fairly interesting topic in itself. More on this particular subject and recommended reading for anyone curious about an insider's perspective might wanna check this girl out:
Kim Nicholini

One other thing I'd like to ask some of you who are so concerned that decriminalization of prostitution in SF would lead to a flood of immorality sweeping accross the nation: Where's your faith in people's ability to organize themselves into groups and associations? I think people should step back for a minute and really think about how they sound around here when they immediately ask "what if this happens" and "oh, but if you do this, then that'll be more likely to happen"...why not try it and see? If it doesn't work, just go back to what you were doing before.
Remember whore houses? Those're where the whores are. Keep your kids away from there if you don't want em "infested with immorality". Sheesh, people, get a grip and stop trying to control every damn thing.

They had a project not too long ago, or a proposal for a project where they were going to try out an idea that would allow bicycle riders to run stop signs and red lights without any legal penalty...just to test the waters.
To me, that sounds waaaaaaaay more dangerous to me than decriminalization(not legalization, mind you) of prostitution.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by 4N6310]



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join