Quote :

" Smoker4 makes a valid point about whether the current problem is so endemic as to whether it could really get any worse (i.e., whether decriminalization could really bring any further harms which cancel out the gains from freed-up police resources)"

that's a fatalistic attitude. things can ALWAYS get worse.

there are many situations with women who are, in a sense, "forced" into prostitution. once they become conditioned by their "benefactors", their only hope for breaking the cycle is via police intervention and social service connections that are made.

few exceptions to this are when a woman is particularly strong willed or otherwise enabled.

but for the most part, so many of them are beaten down so completely, and strung along on such a thin line of survival, that they cant act on their behalf and just degrade into an existence marked by addiction, disease, and eventually a slow messy death.

want to be pragmatic? this shit is highly expensive to the taxpayer. Regional trauma center ERs are their primary care providers.

I'm convinced that decrminalization can only make this worse. theres just no way throwing a few more caseworkers at the problem will even begin to compensate for the increased impunity which the traffickers in human misery will operate.






[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 7:29:21 PM

Quote :

"But even on the balance, trading regulations like these, even acknowledging for mission creep, is still better than having prostitution being totally illegal. Liberty still wins out on the balance. "

I guess if a generation grows up knowing prostitution is legal, but knowing that prostitutes aren't regulated and may be dirty whores, it can't end up worse than things are now.

But if prostitution had been legal, at some point people would demand regulation.

10/26/2008 7:33:51 PM

^^I can't speak for Smoker4, but I believe his point is that the market may have reached saturation - i.e., the point about exacerbating harms through issues like trafficking, etc. That is, pimps and such operate brazenly out in the open now - i.e., his point is how much is decriminalization really going to exacerbate the problem. In other words, has the problem reached a "saturation point."

I'm not entirely sure I agree with his contention - I think that it's possible to get worse. However, if we assume saturated conditions - i.e., where the supply of new workers coming in is enough that certain issues like trafficking are not notably expected to increase - his point is whether on the balance decriminalization is still a net gain. (i.e., is the current regime doing anything about the problem right now vs. how much worse do the problems actually get?)

Like I've said, though - I strongly feel that decriminalization is half-assing it. Even if we make the generous assumption that things overall don't get any worse, we're only attacking the problem at the margins. It is, at best, a marginal improvement (if any at all) - namely one of law enforcement priorities.

Much like marijuana decriminalization, really.

Quote :

"I guess if a generation grows up knowing prostitution is legal, but knowing that prostitutes aren't regulated and may be dirty whores, it can't end up worse than things are now. But if prostitution had been legal, at some point people would demand regulation."

Okay, but let's put a fine point to this - does it get any worse than the status quo we have right now? If no, it's still a net gain - at least until the point where some jackass proposes making it illegal again.

[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 7:45 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2008 7:43:14 PM

marijuana decriminalization has virtually no effect on the social fabric, crime stats, or health care costs. it has no perpetrators or victims. it doesnt destroy families or ruin careers and livelihoods.

10/26/2008 7:47:46 PM

Quote :

"marijuana decriminalization has virtually no effect on the social fabric, crime stats, or health care costs. it has no perpetrators or victims. it doesnt destroy families or ruin careers and livelihoods."

I would argue that decriminalization does nothing to solve the problems of the black market - that is, the money is funneled to unsavory interests who use it to further their own criminal ambitions.

In that sense, it most certainly can ruin lives and livelihoods by empowering a criminal underclass. Demand goes up but the underlying problems associated with it remain constant.

So, in essence, we are looking at the same problem - it's a nice way to free up police resources by recognizing that the transaction itself is not the problem, but the consequent harms that come around the trade in it. But it's still half-assing the issue.

[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 7:51 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2008 7:50:48 PM

^^^

Quote :

"I guess if a generation grows up knowing prostitution is legal, but knowing that prostitutes aren't regulated and may be dirty whores, it can't end up worse than things are now. (i'll add this requires at least 1 generation of this policy for this to be true)"

[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 7:53 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 7:53:13 PM

^ But that's my whole objection to your point. It's not going to get any worse, and on the margins, things are generally better.

I'm willing to accept some mission creep backwards if the overall direction for freedom is a positive one. And again - even if some folks call for greater regulation later, this is still on the net a gain over the status quo.

10/26/2008 7:55:11 PM

no way.

heres a real world example in seattle.

theres a chain of strip clubs in seattle (and a few more other cities on west coast) owned by some sicilian familiy with mob connections and lengthy criminal record. father and son both have done time for murder, racketeering

the dancers there have to pay a large "rent" to dance each night. if they don't wind up covering their stage rent in tips and lap dances for that night, then they go in the hole. the club economics is such that only the most popular dancers can make a decent wage on a regular basis.

the rest have to improvise. out and out prostitution occurs there on a regular basis. for so many of the dancers its the only way they can make money.

most of them had no intention of ever prostituting themselves. many are young, single mothers trying to survive, not having any real marketable skills of industry value. topless dancing, while perhaps not a socially esteemed profession, is legal and a woman in many venues can make a livable wage for herself and feed her children.

once they got connected into these clubs the pressure became implicit that if they werent a top stage performer, they would have to have sex for pay or quit.

the only way this became known to seattle residents in general was through repeated police raids that were reported in the media.

decriminalizing prostitution -- declawing the vice police -- will give these sleazy club operators and others like them free reign to work their "girls" as they see fit, without consequence.

your libertarian theory is nice and clean. until you apply it to real world problems. this is what most people recognize, and one of the main reasons the L-party will continue hover around 0.3% of the national vote.

10/26/2008 8:11:37 PM

^^ i know that's what you're saying, I posted that to indicate I was agreeing with you.
^ that seems more a problem with those particular scumbags. Most strip clubs (I would guess, I don't know) would not encourage prostitution, as their aim seems to be.

[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 8:16 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 8:15:27 PM

it depends on the level of law enforcement.

guys go to strip clubs with hard cocks and fistfuls of cash.

how many times are they going to leave frustrated and how many times are they going to come back.

demand is definitely there. supply is there, or easily could made to be there.

all a club owner needs is to foster a climate where there is an ability provide the connection.

because if a dancer has her lap dance revenues increase from $25 to all of a sudden getting $200 or more... the club owner is NOT going to allow that kind of $$$ to flow without inserting himself as the middleman and getting a cut.

the pressure is going to be either to prevent it at all times or allow it all times. allowing it in piecemeal adds complexity for economic and legal issues.






[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 8:27 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 8:23:48 PM

^ interesting...

You clearly have a grasp of strip club dynamics

10/26/2008 8:26:46 PM

10/26/2008 8:28:17 PM

Quote :

"the problem will still remain, but instead of fearing police intervention, the thugs and the pimps will have almost free reign."

What if they decriminalized prostitution but kept pimping illegal?

10/26/2008 8:31:15 PM

heres an indepth report on the Seattle strip clubs in question

"WoodFellas: Frank Colacurcio and His Million-Dollar Empire of Flesh"
Seattle Weekly July 09, 2008

http://tiny.cc/ktfYm







[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 8:39 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 8:35:41 PM

Quote :

"your libertarian theory is nice and clean. until you apply it to real world problems. this is what most people recognize, and one of the main reasons the L-party will continue hover around 0.3% of the national vote."

I think you are once again misreading my position.

The transaction of sex between consenting adults for money is not the problem. The problem is the market that surrounds such naturally gravitates toward violence and exploitation. Pimps, etc.

Let's look at the case you present. Why do the strippers end up involved in prostitution? Why do we have, in effect, a "company store" arrangement? Why is prostitution the default means of recovering the difference?

You laid out the dynamics yourself.

Again though - I agree that at best, piecemeal solutions like decriminalization are improving things upon the margins at best, and at worst exacerbating the problem. The main point to take home is that decriminalization does not solve the social harms of prostitution in the way that legalization can. Depending upon your set of assumptions, it may make the problem worse, or things may stay just as crappy (i.e., assuming "saturation"). Therefore, your absolute best case scenario under decrim is marginal improvements. It's not really ever solving the problem.

Meanwhile, on your last point, something tells me that "most people" don't even know of libertarian theory, much less bother to understand it. Most people don't even bother take anything more than a superficial consideration of the issues. So your snide little swipe there falls a bit flat. Not to mention it being a little undeserved.

10/26/2008 8:45:09 PM

it makes me feel smugly superior when I can snidely dismiss out of hand political/economic philosophy I don't agree with.

does that make me a bad person?

10/26/2008 9:06:31 PM

When it's completely ungermane to the conversation and unwarranted at that... yes, yes it does. It makes you kind of a jerk.

10/26/2008 9:14:48 PM

10/26/2008 9:16:01 PM

Earlier on pretty much anything that could cause sexual arousal (other than a naked wife) was illegal in America.

Now we have copious amounts of free porn online, so much that you can surf all the time and rarely see the same picture. We also have a huge dildo and sex doll emporium right on western blvd in between a bunch of restaurants and fast food places. We have legal strip clubs, and open prostitution on craigslist.

It should be pretty clear the direction in which we are heading. As soon as male birth control (like a pill or something non surgical) comes along its all over with.

10/26/2008 11:01:35 PM

Quote :

"I'm convinced that decrminalization can only make this worse."

I'm a little confused as to how criminalized prostitution is any better. What advantages exactly does it provide to these women who are being coerced? It seems to me that when prostitution is illegal, they are caught between a "rock and a hard place" -- the police on the one hand rousting and demanding more information from them, the pimp on the other threatening them with their lives.

Shouldn't decriminalizing prostitution actually eliminate the "low hanging fruit" that makes it easier for police to entrap Johns and take in hookers, versus going after the ring leaders? Why does decriminalizing lessen the police's power in this instance rather than refocusing it on the actual systemic problem in greater depth?

Also aren't many of these women involved in a hard-core drug trade that is the target of law enforcement efforts?

Quote :

" Look, I think if you look at this from the perspective of public health, it's not incredibly intrusive to have regulations such as regular STD screenings, etc. "

Honestly I think these "public health" arguments are nonsense. Religious nuts used them for years to help justify sodomy laws and anti-homosexuality statutes. It's a well-established fact that HIV is disproportionately prevalent in many gay populations which could be construed as a "public health" issue, but would anyone suggest requiring all gay people to be "regulated" in this way? And how is that different from these prostitutes who, by and large, are also just another high-risk population?

You can use concepts like "public health" to justify lots of infringements on personal liberty and the government prying into the lives of individuals. Overall the question is whether or not people have a basic right to privacy where the bedroom is concerned -- regardless of the reasons why they entered the bedroom to begin with.

10/27/2008 1:39:24 AM

Why not go for the Swedish approach? Only criminalize buying sex.

10/27/2008 1:45:10 AM

Quote :

"Honestly I think these "public health" arguments are nonsense. Religious nuts used them for years to help justify sodomy laws and anti-homosexuality statutes. It's a well-established fact that HIV is disproportionately prevalent in many gay populations which could be construed as a "public health" issue, but would anyone suggest requiring all gay people to be "regulated" in this way? And how is that different from these prostitutes who, by and large, are also just another high-risk population? You can use concepts like "public health" to justify lots of infringements on personal liberty and the government prying into the lives of individuals. Overall the question is whether or not people have a basic right to privacy where the bedroom is concerned -- regardless of the reasons why they entered the bedroom to begin with."

Here's the thing - I completely agree with you on the first half of your point. These arguments have been used to justify a whole host of bad laws, up to and including the one we're talking about.

But my point is, they also justify relatively benign things like employees washing their hands in the food service industry. I don't find that particular regulation particularly intrusive - the gains far outweigh the burden. Yes it's un-libertarian and all, but it's essentially a prophylactic approach which costs little and generates large benefits.

Now, if the proposal for public health said, "Okay, since employees washing their hands is such a great idea, we should make it mandatory for everyone to do it," then I think most people would agree that this crosses the line. By a lot.

Similarly so with sex laws. It would pretty brazenly cross the line (and yes, it historically has been done) to try to impose public health "constraints" on private conduct. But what about an activity that goes on in public, i.e., a regulated profession?

To put it another way - one of the major objections to sex work - beyond simply moral - is the public health argument. Regular STD screening would appear to blunt that argument.

So to go back to the issue - when it comes to a commercial transaction, are public health requirements truly that much of a nuisance to professionals? (Especially in light of the far more restrictive laws we have now?) I get your argument about privacy behind bedroom doors, which is why laws prohibiting prostitution shouldn't exist in the first place, but is it not also a commercial transaction as well? In that sense, why should public health be a non-issue compared to say, food service?

10/27/2008 7:32:23 AM

Since STD exposure form sex workers would also involve indirect pathways of exposure to people not patronizing the sex workers there is a good argument for imposing health regulations on it. Given the high rate of infidelity in America, you're protecting a lot of unknowing partners from indirect exposure by requiring regular STD screenings for sex workers.

I'm sure almost anyone would stop their "big brother" arguments if their mom got aids from their dad enjoying his dirty untested hookers. It's true that it's not government's place to keep you from risking your own life if you so chose, but it does have a place in protecting people from the stupidity of others. It's the same idea behind the handwashing laws- since you don't know your food was contaminated with e coli until you're in the hospital with kidney failure. Similarly, you don't know the person you've been fucking supposedly exclusively for 10 years has HIV until you get a disturbing call after your next physical.

Leaving this kind of thing to the market is ridiculous. Read The Jungle if you think the free market forces will work to keep your food, hookers, and workplaces clean and safe. Yeah, to some extent market forces will create some avenues for people to obtain things that are as clean and healthy as regulations help make them today. Unfortunately those hygienic standards wouldn't be the norm, they'd be a premium. That and they'd come out of publicized death, outbreaks, and widespread fear. Maybe some people can accept a few thousand dead from easily prevented diseases in the name of the purity and goodness of free markets and small government. I'd wish they'd be happy playing Russian roulette in their own basements than with my cheeseburgers and my hookers.

I can see the logic to the argument that legalizing prostitution without also regulating it could make things worse. If only that legalizing it could increase the number of pratrons- which increases the number of secondary exposures to STDs. Whether or not decriminalization would improve the lives of sex workers in the long term, in the short term they still have the same number of STDs among them tomorrow that they did today. Still, I can't see any way of arguing that such increased risk from legalization would be anything but marginal and come anywhere close to outweighing the benefits. You'd still do away with a lot of the pimps and the fear prostitutes have of going to the police when they're in trouble. So, even without health regulations it's still probabaly a net benefit to a city with a decently sized unground sex-worker population.

That does not however excuse the morons who crafted this initiative. It is lazy and irresponsible to decriminalize prostitution without putting some basic public health regulations in as well. There is absolutely no excuse for not including some of the basic STD screening requirements that many other areas with legalized prostitution require. It's just sloppy, lazy, short sighted half-governance.

[Edited on October 27, 2008 at 9:28 AM. Reason : ]

10/27/2008 9:09:20 AM