I have mixed feelings about this approach. On one hand, I could care less if the citizens of San Francisco want to legalize prostitution. However, I just get this feeling that the approach they're taking, decriminalizing prostitution instead of legalizing it, is a halfassed measure that will not improve or may even aggravate the situation. Given the public health considerations, issues with sex trafficking, and some of the violent crimes surrounding the trade, prostitution, if legalized, should be regulated to ensure the safety of all participants.

Given that we've done the general prostitution arguments many times, I would like to discuss the merits of the San Fransisco Proposition K specifically, especially since it could be a model for communities who wish to legalize the trade but are unable to due to state laws.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/05/BAQ01387OA.DTL

Quote :

"San Franciscans have voted for free citywide wireless, banning handguns and impeaching President Bush. Now the question is whether residents, no strangers to groundbreaking ideas, think the world's oldest profession should be considered a crime. Proposition K would effectively decriminalize prostitution in the city by barring the Police Department from investigating and prosecuting it. The measure is being alternately hailed as a human rights landmark or a misguided venture that will turn San Francisco into a playground for sex tourists and pimps. Prop. K is far from the first attempt to decriminalize prostitution in San Francisco - a city task force recommended the move in 1996 - but the reaction to it has been visceral. It's triggered a court fight over ballot language, drawn swift condemnation from Mayor Gavin Newsom and District Attorney Kamala Harris, split Democratic and Green party officials alike, and caused a heated debate over whether it will help or thwart investigations into the $8 billion global sex trafficking industry, in which San Francisco is a major hub. The measure was endorsed by the local Democratic Party but opposed by some who are open to legalizing prostitution. They say the measure is flawed because it doesn't require HIV testing, set requirements on the location of brothels, limit street prostitution or address programs to assist prostitutes who want leave the business. Backers of the measure, which include sex worker advocacy groups, say it will cut crime and protect prostitutes from assault and rape because they could report crimes without fear of being arrested. "When I worked as a prostitute in the city, I was raped, and I wasn't able to go to the police," said Carol Leigh, now director of Bay Area Sex Workers Advocacy Network. "As prostitutes, we do contribute a lot. We also support our families. Why are we sitting ducks out there with no security?" Backers say the measure, which needs a majority vote to pass, also will reduce sexually transmitted diseases and save the city millions of dollars spent annually on prosecuting prostitution. Opponents contend human trafficking will run unchecked, leaving women and children in sexual bondage, while crimes such as drug dealing, assaults and robbery will surge in neighborhoods. "The danger of this measure is that it's definitely a wolf in sheep's clothing," said Heidi Machen, president of the City Democratic Club. "It promises to protect the very people it will end up hurting. The pimps and traffickers will have a free pass to San Francisco." Backers call such arguments a scare tactic. The measure requires authorities to enforce existing laws that prohibit coercion, extortion, sexual assault and other crimes regardless of whether or not the victim is a sex worker. "It's their sex-negative, shame-based propaganda around prostitution," said Maxine Doogan, who describes herself as an erotic services provider. "They conflate prostitution with drug addiction. They conflate prostitution with child sexual assault." The measure would deny funding for the city's lauded First Offender Prostitution Program, commonly known as "john school," or any similar program. In the current system, men who have been arrested for soliciting a prostitute attend a class on prostitution and pay $1,000 in exchange for the district attorney's office dropping the misdemeanor charge against them. Additionally, the measure would prohibit the Police Department from accepting any federal or state funds to investigate alleged trafficking victims using racial profiling. The upshot, according to prosecutors, is that the measure will cripple human trafficking investigations, which almost exclusively arise from prostitution arrests during raids on brothels that often masquerade as Asian massage parlors. Backers contend that Prop. K will actually spur trafficking investigations by freeing prostitutes, their co-workers and customers to go to police without retribution if they suspect wrongdoing. "The likelihood people are going to come forward and do that would be pretty low," argued police Capt. Al Pardini, who heads the vice unit. "Most of the people we encounter engaging in a business transaction with a prostitute generally like to maintain their anonymity." Proposition K What it does: Would decriminalize prostitution in San Francisco, deny funds for the First Offender Prostitution Program commonly known as "john school," and forbid the city from using state or federal funds that involve racial profiling to identify human trafficking victims. Supporters: Erotic Service Providers Union, San Francisco Democratic Party, Harvey Milk Democratic Club, La Raza Centro Legal. Argument in support: Will improve safety for sex workers, reduce sexually transmitted diseases and save the city millions of dollars spent annually on prosecuting prostitution while still requiring enforcement of laws against sexual assault, coercion and other crimes. Opponents: Mayor Gavin Newsom, District Attorney Kamala Harris, Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club Argument against: Will turn San Francisco into a safe haven for sex traffickers and pimps, creating more violence and other crimes, hampering trafficking investigations and damaging quality of life in neighborhoods."

10/22/2008 2:03:53 AM

i am for the legalization of prostitution, but i think this is a poor way to go about it. proponents aren't adequately addressing human trafficking, for one.

why should the measure prohibit the police from investigating trafficking victims? racial profiling is bad but i think the ends certainly justify the means when you're dealing with enslaved human beings.

if the measure is really to protect prostitutes, it should include a framework for regulatory oversight.

10/22/2008 2:22:22 AM

I agree with both of the above. Decriminalization isn't bringing prostitution above-board or dealing with the very real ancillary issues which have caused lawmakers to make it illegal in the first place - like public health, workers' rights, and issues involving human trafficking.

All decriminalization does is says, "Well, we're not going to make this an issue anymore." Which, while good on theory in the sense that it commits less scarce police resources to what would otherwise be a private transaction between consenting adults, ignores the fact that while prostitution is still illegal, many of the problems inherent with it still stick around: abusive pimps, sex slavery, practicing in unsuitable areas, etc.

This is just one of those things you don't half-ass. Nevada got it right. (Of course, this on the same ballot with other such measures as "impeaching President Bush" and so forth - obviously, SF has no regard for the scope of laws...)

10/22/2008 2:28:31 AM

^Luckily, I suppose, most ballot initiatives don't require any thought or effort on the part of lawmakers or officials and can be initiated by signed petition. Unfortunately, these petitions are often sent out in the hands of contract workers who are grabbed off the street and paid per signature. Sometimes the political firms hired to do the signature collecting are themselves sources of incompetence and fraud.

Low worker standards and incompetent contract employees are why we heard so much about ACORN and a dishonest firm is why several initiatives in Arizona may end up being stricken from their ballot. And yes, I chose those examples to emphasize that incompetence and dishonesty crosses the aisle just as well as sweaty handshakes and pork-grease-soaked bailout bills.

As far as stupid ballot initiatives go, my point is that they're so easy to get on ballots in some places that they don't necessarily serve as proof of incompetent CURRENT officials. It does show that people who wrote laws governing these ballot initiatives lacked the language comprehension of a chipped brick. They were obviously unable to grasp that their inane sentences eventually piled up to form convoluted paragraphs that, if read in order, were absolutely stupid fucking laws.

I'm trying to figure out who authored the text of the initiative, but it's really kind of muddy as far as who actually supports it. There's a decent looking hooker they seem to use as a spokesperson now and then but it seems like almost every official in SF is against this particular initiative for the problems you guys just mentioned.

[Edited on October 22, 2008 at 3:15 AM. Reason : ]

10/22/2008 2:58:02 AM

Quote :

"All decriminalization does is says, "Well, we're not going to make this an issue anymore." "

Agreed. Just because it's no longer enforceable doesn't mean that its legal. How do you regulate the trade? What sort of standards are there for managing and enforcing contracts without resorting to the traditional violent approaches? After all, if its still an illegal service, can you establish a legally binding agreement for the execution of an illegal activity, even if its not an enforceable one? I don't know if this makes their lot any better.

I wonder if this approach continues to make the purchase of sex illegal (a la, the Swedish model where the sale of sex is decriminalized, but the purchase is still a crime). The impression I'm getting is that its not since the SF goal appears to be legalization versus the apparent Swedish goal of curbing the trade.

Quote :

"As far as stupid ballot initiatives go, my point is that they're so easy to get on ballots in some places that they don't necessarily serve as proof of incompetent CURRENT officials."

Agreed. California is notorious for how easy it is to pass a wide range of laws via ballot initiatives. Its a double-edged sword: on one hand, it gives the people an ability to push through measures that they may feel their legislature is ignoring. Yet on the flip side, California is in a budget crisis in part because a huge percentage of their budget is already committed by said ballot initiatives (something like 50% I believe).

10/22/2008 6:12:06 PM

I think it would be great for the police to be able to concentrate on violent crime rather than dealing with prostitution.

Given that... terms like "sex worker" and "Erotic Service Providers Union" sure makes the whole endeavor sound pretty drab.

10/22/2008 10:10:02 PM

Meh

10/22/2008 11:50:04 PM

This seems like it would do more harm than good. Nevada's laws seem to make more sense in regards to prostitution.

10/23/2008 1:00:21 AM

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, it is between two consenting adults, so I can see the argument for legality. On the other, it does demean women, treating them as objects to be bought and sold, and countries where prostitution is completely legal, crime is still associated with it and other problems popup (sex-trafficking, underage, etc).

10/23/2008 1:11:48 AM

shit dog...we live in america...demeaning women is in our blood

10/23/2008 1:13:52 AM

I now worry my little sister will be sold as a sex slave in San Francisco. Dammit, why don't policymakers make props and laws airtight? Fuck.

10/23/2008 1:15:52 AM

Quote :

"other problems popup (sex-trafficking, underage, etc)"

I'm pretty certain we already have these problems.

10/23/2008 1:18:34 AM

and this will certainly help haha

10/23/2008 1:23:26 AM

^^ I think that's why Nevada restricts it to brothels- you can regulate and inspect brothels more easily than you can streetwalkers. Of course, it doesn't eliminate the drug/sex-slave trade that you get with the pimps, coke, and runaways. Still, it gives people who would get into that trade a way to do so in a cleaner safe environment and gives johns a place to go that doesn't rely on predatory pimps.

Any legalization of prostitution has to include help for abused addicts and runaways (some of which are adolescent boys, not just women and young girls.) With legalized prostitution, it might also be wise to increase the penalties on johns and pimps since they would then have legal alternatives.

10/23/2008 1:23:47 AM

Quote :

"I'm pretty certain we already have these problems."

Well, yeah... but in Germany and the Netherlands sex-trafficking of underage girls exploded after prostitution was legalized. Now, their may not be a correlation, it could just be coincidence. But if you legalize prostitution you would dramatically increase demand of prostitutes, and if supply can't keep up, which I doubt it could, then you would see a rise in sex-trafficking etc.

10/23/2008 1:27:20 AM

so who in san francisco does this help? i'd guess only straight women

10/23/2008 1:28:11 AM

Quote :

"But if you legalize prostitution you would dramatically increase demand of prostitutes, and if supply can't keep up, which I doubt it could, then you would see a rise in sex-trafficking etc."

I think the fairest comparison that could be made would be to Nevada - do we find these problems to be endemic there?

Furthermore, ways I can see easing this problem are making the transition in and out of the field as simple as possible; also, diverting what scarce resources we've been diverting into enforcing prostitution laws into investigating cases of human trafficking.

But the fact remains that sex trafficking is a problem now, even without a legalized market. I can't say whether the labor/demand would reach an equilibrium under a completely legalized market, but decriminalization seems to be practically begging for an increase in trafficking, in fact - the labor is still not legal (and thus, discouraging legitimate players from entering), yet the penalties are lower (which means demand may increase).

Decriminalization is just a really, really bad way to deal with this problem compared to outright legalization.

10/23/2008 1:39:26 AM

Quote :

"But if you legalize prostitution you would dramatically increase demand of prostitutes, and if supply can't keep up, which I doubt it could, then you would see a rise in sex-trafficking etc."

Nevada called, it wants its strawmen back.

10/23/2008 1:40:14 AM

This is actually a really tough problem.

I'm gonna have to be principled. If a fully consenting adult wants to sell their sex then they should be allowed to, and if the only way to achieve that is through decriminalization then so be it.

Human trafficking is a tremendous problem, and it will require massive, continuous, and cooperative international efforts to extinguish. If the article is true, and human trafficking investigations arise exclusively from prostitution arrests during raids on massage parlors, then we really fucking suck... I kinda assumed we were a little more advanced than that now.

In terms of all the other issues, prositution is the world's oldest occupation profession. I think it's quite fitting it remain unregulated. It's almost poetic. Fuck at your own risk.

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 2:24 AM. Reason : ]

10/23/2008 2:17:58 AM

i hate that wording("the oldest occupation")

10/23/2008 2:20:18 AM

Quote :

"If a fully consenting adult wants to sell their sex then they should be allowed to, and if the only way to achieve that is through decriminalization then so be it."

It's not the only way, though. That's kind of the root of this discussion. Decriminalization, as opposed to the Nevada Model of legalization & regulation, leaves many of the harms inherent in prostitution - namely, the fact that it's still not a legitimate labor market.

It's a half-assed solution which may operate on principle, but doesn't actually solve the social problems inherent in criminalizing prostitution that it's designed to solve. Only legalization can do that.

10/23/2008 2:24:10 AM

^^Changed it for you!

^I thought it was the only way in San Francisco cause the state won't legalize it. ?

I sincerely doubt the proposition will pass any way.

10/23/2008 2:26:12 AM

Ok, if your argument is that the only way to change it in SF is through decrim, then fine. Your argument there holds.

I'd still argue, though, that this is really something where the state law itself needs to change, as while this is good on principle, doesn't really solve the social problem it's designed to solve.

10/23/2008 2:27:36 AM

thanks for changing it, but i dont like profession either...i dont consider it an occupation or profession...or job...or anything like that

10/23/2008 2:28:22 AM

They perform a service for money. How is that not a job (or profession)?

10/23/2008 2:30:12 AM

lol "a service"

10/23/2008 2:33:21 AM

Oh, see I thought the use of the word "job" was funnier.

10/23/2008 3:52:38 AM

I couldnt care less about prostitution being legal or illegal...however something tells me this is going to end badly for SF if it passes.

picture early-eightes Times Square on speed.

10/23/2008 10:18:36 AM

Quote :

"^I thought it was the only way in San Francisco cause the state won't legalize it. ?"

Yep. San Francisco apparently took this route because state law bans prostitution. Therefore, the only way that they could stop enforcement is by decriminalizing it for SFPD; I don't think this stops the California Bureau of Investigation from prosecuting prostitution however.

Also, I seriously doubt the rest of the state is ready to legalize prostitution.

10/23/2008 4:12:58 PM

I live in SF so I actually voted on this last week. I voted yes. Mostly I agree with the idea in principle of legalizing (or 'decriminalizing' to similar effect) prostitution.

As to the human trafficking arguments and such: I agree with the statements that this law changes little except to enable prostitutes to go to the police. It's nice to talk in theory about the effects this change would have on pimping; the opposition goes so far as to say SF would become a "safe haven."

A safe haven? Seriously? Look, when I walk through the Tenderloin, I don't exactly see pimps and hookers cowering in fear.

This is typical SF city politics. God-mayor Gavin Newsom acts like he is the source of all magnanimity in the world and without his august wisdom, everything will fall apart. The reality is that the city does a scandalously bad job of regulating anything, much less prostitution, except perhaps plastic bags and smoking in bars. Anyone can walk down Geary St at night and see the naked truth.

I read a report of a homeless woman, addicted to crack, who whored herself out and when she refused to pay up the pimp burned her alive. Are the opponents of this measure arguing that the police would fail to get involved in such circumstances? And that gives me how much faith in the SFPD as an institution, much less the God-mayor?

Also to those comparing us to Nevada: no dice. San Francisco is a densely populated city of about 800,000, roughly the size of Durham. Nevada is a massive desert of 110,000 sq miles with a few population centers. I'd think our enforcement capacity here somewhat different, especially given that prostitution is often localized to various bad neighborhoods and is particularly rampant among so-called 'hard-core' homeless who are famously visible.

So -- I support legalized prostitution in principle, through whatever means. Effective city administration and law enforcement are surely different matters for the city to deal with.

10/26/2008 2:44:35 PM

Quote :

"Also to those comparing us to Nevada: no dice. San Francisco is a densely populated city of about 800,000, roughly the size of Durham. Nevada is a massive desert of 110,000 sq miles with a few population centers. I'd think our enforcement capacity here somewhat different, especially given that prostitution is often localized to various bad neighborhoods and is particularly rampant among so-called 'hard-core' homeless who are famously visible."

I'm not quite following your argument, here - could you explain a little more? Is your point that Nevada is more diffuse, and therefore enforcement of prostitution (as illegal) would be more difficult (given the broader area under which it could operate), or that the enforcement of a "above-board" prostitution industry would be easier in Nevada given the relative lack of population density?

I mean, either way, it's nice in principle that SF would stop enforcing a law prohibiting a transaction between consenting adults, but it just feels like decriminalization doesn't really address the harms of the black market in the way that legalization does.

I get the idea of this from a cost-benefit analysis scenario - i.e., enforcement fails to stop prostitution (and thus its concurrent harms) anyways, and therefore enforcement largely targets what would otherwise be "legitimate" transactions in a different legal regime. Therefore, instead of spending resources upon this, police can focus upon other issues.

I mean, I get that. I think the worry though is in exacerbating harms by easing upon one side of the equation without addressing the other (i.e., prostitution as a regulated industry).

But let me see if I understand your point - is it therefore your contention that given then widespread prevalence of prostitution even while totally illegal - and given the flagrant abuses that go with it - 1) "Decriminalization" couldn't make the harms much worse than they are right now, and/or 2) Given the density and scope of the issue, "illegitimate" transactions (such as abuse, exploitation, etc) would still go on even under a legalized/regulated regime (i.e., the Nevada Model) and the enforcement capacity toward this would still be limited.

Am I understanding your point correctly?

[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 2:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2008 2:55:22 PM

Quote :

"S T D's"

10/26/2008 3:04:39 PM

^^

Well, I think principle matters so I'm not going to say I voted 'yes' purely because of a costs/benefits analysis. I have a pretty visceral opposition to laws against prostitution -- they're only a small step better than sodomy laws in my book. Of course you can always try to justify laws against consensual sex (on whatever terms) with "public good" arguments, but as a general rule I try never to do that. It's been used to abuse people's basic rights for too long (especially gay people). And of course, we have to factor in basic freedom in the costs/benefits equation -- if we stop pimping/human trafficking/etc at the cost of basic rights, then have we really gained?

But overall my point was broader than this issue. SF lacks an effective city administration; we haven't had the benefit of a Rudy Giuliani to clean the city up. The two points you put forth are fairly accurate -- I don't think decriminalizing will hurt so much, and I think if the police were run effectively, we could (and should) still crack down on pimping, trafficking, etc. For such a small city I don't think the administration has a viable excuse for failing at this basic task.

Still, even if you told me trafficking would increase twofold with legalized prostitution, bar none, I'd have a hard time voting 'no'. It's an issue of values -- I just don't think the government should be in anyone's bedroom. Period.

[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 3:11 PM. Reason : foo]

10/26/2008 3:09:34 PM

I feel pretty strongly that prostitution should not be allowed without any regulation.

I mean lets say a hooker has AIDS, but continues to prostitute. That is pretty disgusting to think about, is it not? I saw on Cops where the seargants go out looking for prostitutes and they can tell you the ones that have AIDS and are still working. Sometimes they bust a John letting one in his truck and tell the guy while they write him a ticket and hes like.

As much as I hate beaurocracy, this is an area where some would be needed. I guess it could be compared to buying booze during prohibition, since it was illegal and production was not monitored people often died from toxic liquor. Or when people buy illicit drugs off the street and end up with a fatal dose because someone fucked up making it.

The vices need regulation. Maybe an outright ban on them is wrong, but allowing them outright is not going to work either.<]

10/26/2008 3:18:49 PM

on the face of it, i think this initiative is a terribly bad idea

(and its why i generally hate the initiative process that is prevalent on the West Coast. any knucklehead can craft an initiative -- no matter how retarded -- get the required signatures to put it on the ballot, then it becomes up for a popular vote. )

there's obviously no consideration of the woman here. its purely about allowing some groups to profit under the increased unregulated sex trade.

it's a Pimp's dream.

i dont have a problem with legalizing prostitution, but decriminalizing it without oversight will only cause more problems.

10/26/2008 3:40:39 PM

^^Your point is okay, but your example betrays it. The unsuspecting johns and the AIDS-infected prostitutes were all operating illegally. That scenario was going down when it was a criminalized activity, and they were all still engaged in it.

Unless the argument is that scenarios like that will increase under decriminalization, I think we can safely decriminalize it and have things remain pretty much the same. Don't get me wrong...things are fucked up, but they'd be no different than before (except, of course, the risk of arrest).

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that your first sentence is wrong, but your last sentence is right, and if it can go either way, why not let it go the way of decriminalization?

^How will it cause more problems?

10/26/2008 4:18:02 PM

^

because most prostitution is not your high-end Park Avenue Hookers, who have a fantasy life like Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman".

much of the day-to-day prostitution is street-level trick pulling where the women are typically started out as young teens victimised by sexual/phyiscal abuse -- often at the hands of a family member or someone close to the family (e.g., the mother's string of boyfriends)

they usually become hooked up with an abusive pimp who keeps them physically dependent through a combination of fear, assaults, and/or drug addiction.

prostitution is NOT some Milton Friedman fantasy land where entrepreneur independently work within framework of market demands.

attempting to deregulate it by decriminalizing it, only serves to remove the ability of law enforcement to track down the pimp and the johns, and give (at least in theory) the woman connection to services that can help her escape an abusive cycle of dependence.

I am in favor of legalizing and regulating. as that would actually protect the woman. merely decriminalizing it sweeps it under the rug.






[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 4:34 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 4:32:39 PM

^I'm familiar with the realities of prostitution. In my perfect world, it wouldn't exist.

I'm just not clear on how decriminalization will lead to more problems (in a real world way). I see it on paper. But, in the real world, I don't think prostitutes benefit in any way from the way the system is set up now. They have less access to police protection because of the criminal nature of their job. They get arrested repeatedly, go through some program, and eventually wind up in prison. And pimps have been reliably escaping the law since forever.

Legalizing it and regulating it would obviously improve the life of the prostiute, but it doesn't seem to me that decriminalization would make it that much worse than it is now. And, if we're to accept your ideas about the way things work now "in theory," then we could also assume that "in theory" decriminalization would shift the focus of resources from law enforcement/prostitution to social welfare/prostitution.

10/26/2008 5:14:43 PM

Quote :

"I have a pretty visceral opposition to laws against prostitution -- they're only a small step better than sodomy laws in my book. Of course you can always try to justify laws against consensual sex (on whatever terms) with "public good" arguments, but as a general rule I try never to do that. It's been used to abuse people's basic rights for too long (especially gay people). And of course, we have to factor in basic freedom in the costs/benefits equation -- if we stop pimping/human trafficking/etc at the cost of basic rights, then have we really gained?"

I actually agree with you on this point. My larger issue is it feels like it's a half-measure which while on principle is a good thing, it doesn't really cut to the root of the problem which ostensibly justifies the law. I suppose the argument can be made that it would free resources to do that, which is fine and all - on the balance, if prostitution is already pervasive as you describe, you're probably right - it probably can't make things much worse, thus given the cost savings, is probably still good on the balance.

I mean, I understand that SF is essentially hamstrung - the initiative is trying to correct a bad law (i.e., laws against prostitution) but lacks the authority to really do it correctly (above-board).

Even if the second point stands, however - that is, that they lack the organization and resources to maintain a legitimate industry and drive out "illegitimate" players, it still seems like this should be the goal. Which I realize is, unfortunately, not politically tenable.

So, perfect acting as the enemy of the good and such.

Quote :

"Still, even if you told me trafficking would increase twofold with legalized prostitution, bar none, I'd have a hard time voting 'no'. It's an issue of values -- I just don't think the government should be in anyone's bedroom. Period."

No, I agree with you, and I'd probably reluctantly vote "yes" too. Reluctantly because I think this is an imperfect solution.

Quote :

"prostitution is NOT some Milton Friedman fantasy land where entrepreneur independently work within framework of market demands."

Okay dude, you say this, and while perhaps your goal is not to slam libertarians, dude. Libertarians - like Milton Friedman in fact - have been the ones arguing that the conditions of a black market in labor are what fosters the abusive conditions you describe - poor conditions where women end up effectively as chattel of a pimp due to assaults, etc. Bringing that labor market above board would largely do away with the market in pimps, namely by giving sex workers legitimate legal protections and workplaces.

10/26/2008 5:37:20 PM

I was picking (perhaps unfairly) on Friedman as icon of libertarians, becasue this is the sort of argument put forth by proponents of the initiative: that women should be free to enter into entreprenurial endeavors without goverment attempting to execute moral legislation against their bodies and their free will... and such and such and so forth. we know the drill.

and okay, so Friedman would then, I presume, support legalization with regulation? um, well, probably not so much for the regulation.... right?

so, then Friedman must just plain be for out-and-out legalization?

my point is that legalization, without regulation, would effectively leave the weaker (women) prey to the stronger (pimps), and that decriminalization without regulation would only be a half-measure to that "goal"

i have no reason to believe police enforcement of anti-violence and anti-exploitation laws would in any way be more effective under libertarian policies than current. i suspect it may be even less effective.

in any event, legalization without regulation is not necessarily any better than the current policy of criminalization with the purported goal of rehabilitation, and may be worse... with decriminalization a half-measure.

Although i'm still considering Bridget's argument that decriminalizing would free up resources for services. services that would definitely not exist in Friedman's "perfect world"





[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 6:49 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 6:42:51 PM

Quote :

"in any event, legalization without regulation is only somewhat better than the current policy of criminalization with the purported goal of rehabilitation. decriminalization without regulation will be just as bad as current condtions, maybe even worse. "

I can't see how it could possibly NOT make things worse.

Tacitly allowing something so inherently risky, that affects the public's health at large, can only cause more problems.

At it may free up resources in the short term, but I could easily see those resources being diverted to health issues in the long term.

Regulation doesn't solve the resources problem though, because it takes quite a bit of overhead to regulate something like that too.

10/26/2008 6:48:08 PM

Quote :

"okay, so Friedman would then, I presume, support legalization with regulation? um, well, probably not so much for the regulation.... right? so, then Friedman must just plain be for out-and-out legalization? my point is that legalization, without regulation, would effectively leave the weaker (women) prey to the stronger (pimps). "

Again with the strawmen. It's like you just can't resist when it comes to libertarians.

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.

Likewise, let's look at the problem again. Why do women end up with pimps who inevitably exploit them and their labor? Typically, for reasons of protection from other pimps/gangs, guaranteed operating territory, and protection from assaults/unruly customers.

Now, let's take a legalized environment. I don't see regulations requiring work in registered brothels as overly intrusive, but again - let's look at the problem, here. Why don't sex workers do this now? Because the law forbids it.

So, virtually the only resort is enlisting with a pimp - the next marginally better alternative than facing the wrath of other pimps, abusive customers, organized gangs, etc.

In essence, even without regulations - which I would still argue aren't terribly objectionable (and I'm certain even Friedman would prefer over the current system) - your options for mutual legal protection and aid are much greater.

The regulations proposed fall into two categories - public health, which I don't think anyone who doesn't have a problem with health inspections now has a general problem with, and worker protections. We can quibble over the details over the latter of these, but the fact is, the black market arrangement we have now forbids any kind of beneficial cooperation / arrangement among workers that provide security and fair wages and instead result in seeking protection from thugs - thugs who in essence keep away other thugs.

10/26/2008 6:50:34 PM

^^ sorry, i edited my statement while you were responding:

Quote :

"in any event, legalization without regulation is not necessarily any better than the current policy of criminalization with the purported goal of rehabilitation, and may be worse... with decriminalization [merely] a half-measure."

i think we're mostly in agreement.



[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 6:51 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 6:50:57 PM

okay DrSteveChaos,

it's apparent that you are a breed of libertarian that is thoughtful and willing to compromise on the nature of government. in my (limited) experience such libertarians are in the minority.


i know a bunch of libertarians who will call you a socialist of some stripe or another.

they dont wear berets but they shoot a lot of guns and talk philosophically about militias and spend a lot of time in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho.

maybe they are more anarchist than libertarian?

and then there's the parent's-basement-dwelling, comic-book-store-working, beret-wearing "libertarians" who parrot everything these "patriot" or "strict constitutionalist" types post

i'll have to say, that i prefer your type.

10/26/2008 6:57:24 PM

Well there's minarchists and anarchists. I'm more of the former.

But the fact remains - we're quibbling over tiny details in comparison the general scope of the problem. The fact is, making prostitution illegal causes serious social harms, despite the harms it's design to solve.

Which and how many regulations we place upon a hypothetically legalized industry is just tiny in comparison.

It's all about priorities.

10/26/2008 7:00:36 PM

okay, i agree with that.

but i still dont think decriminalizing is going to help. I think it will hurt.

because the fact is, the "services" that criminalizing purports to effect for first time offenders, or rehabilitation programs for repeat offenders... we all know this doesn't work very well,

marginally increasing these services as a result of freeing up already stretched resources (from decriminalizing) will not help the problem any more.

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

the only way to effect meaningful change is legalization and strict regulation. i guess we can agree or disagree on the type and amount of regulations.

but i believe we're in agreement on the larger point, that legalization is the only solution.





[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 7:10 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 7:09:22 PM

I think so. 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), but the issue remains - I think we're all in agreement that decriminalization is half-assing it, and doesn't really solve any problems other than mis-allocating police resources.

Legalization is really the only way you're going to actually solve the problems associated with prostitution.

10/26/2008 7:17:11 PM

Quote :

"Again with the strawmen. It's like you just can't resist when it comes to libertarians. 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. "

This is a little irrelevant to this thread, but this demonstrates the problem with libertarianism.

It wouldn't take long for regulations like this to creep in to the point where you have our gov. of today.

People fundamentally are not libertarian, otherwise there'd be more countries around the world today that follow these ideals. Libertarianism is like trying to jam a square peg in to a round hole, just like communism would be, or anarchy would be.

10/26/2008 7:18:46 PM

Quote :

"It wouldn't take long for regulations like this to creep in to the point where you have our gov. of today."

I don't think that's necessarily the case.

Look, I take your point at face value that people are frequently not libertarians. They feel it necessary for whatever reason - moral or economic - to meddle.

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'm okay with that, even if it isn't Libertopia.

10/26/2008 7:23:30 PM

[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 7:29 PM. Reason : dp]

10/26/2008 7:28:48 PM