DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum San Fran considering decriminalization of prostitution

SAN FRANCISCO — 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.

"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.

Even in tolerant San Francisco — where the sadomasochism fair draws more than 400,000 tourists and a pornographic video company is housed in a former armory — the measure faces an uphill battle, with much of the political establishment opposing it.

Some form of prostitution is already legal in two states. Brothels are allowed in rural counties in Nevada. And Rhode Island permits the sale of sex behind closed doors between consulting adults, but it prohibits street prostitution and brothels.

In 2004, almost two-thirds of voters in nearby Berkeley rejected decriminalization. But proponents of Proposition K say their proposal has a better shot in San Francisco, which they believe is more sexually liberal than the city across the bay.

After all, the world's oldest profession has long been established here. During the Gold Rush, the neighborhood closest to the piers was a seedy pleasure center of sex, gambling and drinking known as the Barbary Coast.

These days, on certain corners, prostitutes sell their bodies day and night, ducking into doorways and alleys when police pass by. One recent afternoon in the Mission District, six prostitutes were plying their trade on a single block.

Police made 1,583 prostitution arrests in 2007 and expect to make a similar number this year. But the district attorney's office says most defendants are fined, placed in diversion programs or both. Fewer than 5 percent get prosecuted for solicititation, which is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail.

Proposition K has been endorsed by the local Democratic Party. But the mayor, district attorney, police department and much of the business community oppose the idea, contending it would increase street prostitution, allow pimps the run of neighborhoods and hamper the fight against sex trafficking, which would remain illegal because it involves forcing people into the sex trade.

The San Francisco Chronicle editorialized against the measure, saying it could make the city a magnet for prostitution.

If the the proposal passes, "we wouldn't be able to investigate prostitution, and it's going to be pretty difficult for us to locate these folks who are victims of trafficking otherwise," said Capt. Al Pardini, head of the police department's vice unit. "It's pretty rare that we get a call that says: 'I'm a victim of human trafficking' or 'I suspect human trafficking in my neighborhood.'"

The proposition would also prohibit police from accepting federal or state funds for sex trafficking investigations that involve racial profiling. Such investigations often arise from raids on brothels that advertise as Asian massage parlors.

"We feel that repressive policies don't help trafficking victims, and that human rights-based approaches, including decriminalization, are actually more effective," said Carol Leigh, co-founder of the Bay Area Sex Workers Advocacy Network and a longtime advocate for prostitutes' rights.

But San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris said the ballot question mistakenly assumes prostitution is a victimless crime.

"The crime of prostitution does not exist by itself," Harris said. "Along with it come pimps, johns and other crimes that really impact the safety of neighborhoods."

If the measure passes, supporters say, prostitutes would not feel the need for pimps as protection. But opponents insist it would embolden pimps who trap drug addicts into prostitution by plying them with drugs.

"The proponents usually paint a fairly rosy picture of two consenting adults and a monetary exchange at the end," Pardini said. "They don't factor in the people that are being exploited and people that are being controlled, the ones manipulated both physically and chemically."
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20081021/San.Francisco.Prostitution/

Quote:

---

Proposition K has been endorsed by the local Democratic Party.

---

I'm shocked. The party members should read that article and see that prostitution is not a victimless crime.

I didn't read the article but just want to throw out there that I'm all for legalizing it.

Definitely seems like in these times of budget crisis, that the money could be much better spend enforcing more pressing laws, than setting up stings to catch prostitutes.

I'll read the entire article later, but by scanning the first few paragraphs, I agree that sex slavery would be a problem. Anyone doing things against their will isn't a good thing...and it needs to be stopped. But, if they know where the problem is coming from (Asian massage parlors) then they know where to concentrate their efforts. I still say let the woman with the red light in her window do what she pleases.

Sometimes, many times, it isn't a case of being hard up....it is simply wanting to avoid the protocol usually involved in a normal relationship.

I think you could find that for free...but, maybe not. Either way, I have no problem with it.

Quote:

---

I still say let the woman with the red light in her window do what she pleases.

---

I see your point, but I don't think a city like SF is the place for this, with all the immigrants, runaways, drug addicts, etc. that can be victimized while taking away an effective tool to prevent it.

Well, that is your moral compass. Some people feel the same way about strippers. I think prostituting yourself or going to one is kind of gross, but that's my opinion.

It should be legalized. And that would put a lot of pimps out of business. Women wouldn't need them.

As for using the excuse that legalizing it would stop them from looking for sex slaves and whatever, that's silly. If they suspected anything from these legalized places you could go in there and inspect or investigate whenever you wanted. It would, in fact, make it easier.

Let me ask you this, do you think that legalized prostitution would lead to increased drug use in women? I ask this because I think that most prostitutes use drugs in order to get themselves through what has to be unpleasant experiences.

It's also against my morals, but just like smoking pot, I don't think it should be against the law.

I don't know, but then again, I think that drugs should be legalized also. My guess is that the type of person who would sell themselves for money to complete strangers might also be the type of person to do other things that aren't necessarily good for you.

Calm down...you are going to the far extreme in your interpretation of my comments and how you want to apply examples.

First....I am not saying people wouldn't have normal relationships...lol

You want love, you look for your mate. You want sex, you go get it.

I think one of the distinctions between males and females is females associate love and sex in a much closer relationship than do males. Most men don't equate sex with love, and one can be separated from the other. it's two different deals.

Thus the comment about not wanting to go through all the protocol...wining, dining, chit chat, courting...whatever you want to call it....just drop the $100 they were going to spend one way or another and get what they want at that moment.

It's all a moment thing for guys. No romance, no love.....just sex.

I for the most part agree with you...I am totally against prostitution. BUT.....it isn't the world's oldest profession without reason. Every effort to stop it has failed. I just think that in the SF case it's a terrible idea to legalize it for the reasons mentioned....it will create more problems than it solves.

Actually, they say they are not making it legal, it will still be against the law in California, it's just they won't be required to enforce it as they do, setting up stings and such. Therefore, blatant public prostitution would probably still get you busted.

Quote:

---

Clip from: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93V4U0O0&show_article=1
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.

Even in tolerant San Francisco—where the sadomasochism fair draws thousands of tourists and a pornographic video company is housed in a former armory—the measure faces an uphill battle, with much of the political establishment opposing it.

Some form of prostitution is already legal in two states. Brothels are allowed in rural counties in Nevada. And Rhode Island permits the sale of sex behind closed doors between consulting adults, but it prohibits street prostitution and brothels.

---

Like all strippers are just doing it to pay their way through college?

LOL....OK........LV is also full of crack whores.

Fair enough?

You can try to rationalize it all you want, it doesn't make prostitution okay.

Try asking any ex-prostitute what it did to her physically, psychologically, and emotionally....and whether or not she was able to live a productive life afterwards, and contribute anything to society. I mean seriously, what would this woman do for a living once she got older? How is it possible for her to have a healthy relationship with a man, either during her stint of prostitution or afterwards?

Again, I realize that I'm making a moralistic argument here, but you seem to come across as though there's nothing wrong with prostitution at all....that if men want to buy sex, then it's perfectly okay for them to do it as often as they want.

Betcha wouldn't think it would be okay to legalize if it was your wife/daughter/niece who decided to do it for a living, would you?

Geez, and to think that Winslow feels like a piece of meat.

1st) Who says only men are going to buy sex? Sounds sexist to me

2) Are you really saying every prostitute ever has regretted what they have done? Did you interview them all? Or are you are stereotyping without any kind of facts to base it off of?

Quote:

---

1st) Who says only men are going to buy sex? Sounds sexist to me

---

As Ballpeen pointed out above, women can usually get in an instant if they want it...not so true with men.

Quote:

---

2) Are you really saying every prostitute ever has regretted what they have done? Did you interview them all? Or are you are stereotyping without any kind of facts to base it off of?

---

No, I'm sure there are some that don't regret it....they are the ones who are milking the welfare system since they don't have any job skills.

Mothers were told not to let your babies grow up to be cowboys either.

Turning prostitution into a legal profession, takes a lot of it off the streets and turns some of it into a business, that pays taxes BTW.

You ever watch the Bunny Ranch specials on HBO? Those girls enjoy what they do.

Quote:

---

LV is also full of crack whores.

---

You can say that again!

But you keep bringin' 'em home.....

If we turn prostitution in a bonfide career choice, then we as a society are telling our daughters that it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do. How can we argue otherwise? After all, it's not illegal anymore.

Simply put, I think that that for future generations, it would change the way that society in general views sex and what one perceives to be a "healthy relationship" with the opposite sex.

I just don't understand how we can turn a morally indecent activity in a legitimate profession.

Do you think a stripper is a bonafide career choice?

And if you think making something legal makes it something everyone should do, I'm not sure I can follow you...

They're not having sex (or at least they're not supposed to be).

Uh ... yeah!

So it's okay then, in your eyes, for people to tell their daughters that's a great job to have since it's legal and all.

And no, I did not know these people because I was a hooker. Far from it.