Zelaron Gaming Forum

Zelaron Gaming Forum (http://zelaron.com/forum/index.php)
-   News and Events (http://zelaron.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=334)
-   -   Prostitution to be legalized? (http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47291)

D3V 2008-10-22 07:12 AM

Prostitution to be legalized?
 
Quote:

Proposition K, on ballot next month, would decriminalize prostitution

Proponents say it would free police to focus on other crimes

Many officials oppose the idea, saying it would make city a haven for prostitutes

Measure would make it tough to tackle trafficking, police official says
This is some great news. I think finally as a country, we can start moving forward with more legislation like this. Some claim we are just going to become more socialist, blah blah blah blah. This would be a great move as it really would free police to focus on issues that actually matter. If San Fran can pass this legislation then possibly other cities would follow suit. It's about time i'd say. After stuff like this gets passed then before we know it Marijuana will be legalized and our country can finally chill the 'F' out.






http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/21/san....ap/index.html


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/US...itution.ap.jpg

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO, California (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.


A sex worker who goes by the name of Violet stands at a San Francisco, California, bus stop.

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 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 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. 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 solicitation, 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, the district attorney, the police department and much of the business community oppose the idea. They contend that 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 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 that 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 that 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."

What is you all's take on it? Is it a good idea to leagalize prostitution or would it be better to try and keep these hood rats off of the street? You are allowed to pretty much sell your body for anything else, but if it involves somebody getting off then it's illegal. I just don't get it.

!King_Amazon! 2008-10-22 07:31 AM

My opinion is that as long as the prostitute is willing, there's nothing wrong with it. The good thing about legalizing it is that you can regulate it a bit better. For instance, in Nevada I believe, prostitution is legal but I think you have to get STD testing done on a regular basis. I can't remember specifics, but basically, since it's legalized, they can more easily regulate it and make it safer.

The people who would be against it are most likely the same people who are against things like sex education, because they can't put their morals aside and see that, while these things are "morally corrupt" to them, it's still in the interest of society to do things like this. Legalize prostitution and you can make it safer for the prostitutes, by requiring STD testing and maybe stuff like extra strict laws against assault on prostitutes or rape. You effectively fix the problem of girls being in dangerous situations, and you prevent the spread of STDs. Same with sex education, if you teach kids about sex and about ways to prevent pregnancy/STDs, they're less likely to get pregnant and spread disease. Same with marijuana, if you legalize it, you can more easily regulate the flow of it to consumers, possibly preventing minors from getting it (like cigarettes.) I know as a kid it was easier for me to get pot than it would have been for me to get cigarettes.

So basically it's a recurring theme. People are going to be prostitutes whether it's legal or not, kids are going to have sex whether you teach them about it or not, and people are going to smoke pot whether it's legal or not. In every case, these things can be legalized (well, not sex education, but you know what I mean,) making them easier to regulate. This is why I'm for the legalization of victimless crimes. You could probably argue that prostitution isn't a victimless crime, but I would argue that by making it legal, you could make it a victimless crime, by reducing the spread of STDs and by reducing the violence against prostitutes.

D3V 2008-10-22 07:34 AM

Wholeheartedly agree. I think it's about time too, especially with Marijuana. I wish I could get some good statistics on it, but I know the Jail system holds like 85% of drug users/dealers in them. Legalize marijuana and i'm sure a huge chunk of the jail populous will free up some of our money being poured into the system.

!King_Amazon! 2008-10-22 07:37 AM

Not to mention the money that is spent every year on the drug war, not to mention the potential market for hemp products that we're missing out on, not to mention the heavy taxes the government could put on marijuana...

The list goes on and on, and thus is why anyone with half a brain understands that marijuana being illegal does more harm than good.

Anyway, I don't wanna turn this into a discussion about marijuana. I'll just go into an epic rant about that. Prostitution!

D3V 2008-10-22 07:39 AM

Prostitution is only illegal because of the far-right bible thumping crowd. It's another control tactic over women telling them what they can and cannot do with their body. (Men can be whores too, but not nearly as easy).

!King_Amazon! 2008-10-22 07:43 AM

The same can be said for pretty much any victimless crime. Victimless crimes, by default, are things that are considered "morally" wrong, and that's why they're illegal. Normal crimes are illegal because of other people being endangered or negatively impacted by the crimes, but the same isn't really true about victimless crimes, and quite often, by making the things illegal, you cause people to be endangered or negatively impacted by the crimes.

Which is more dangerous, going out and finding a drug dealer to buy pot from, or going to your local quik-e-mart and buying some like a pack of cigarettes? Similar cases can be made for prostitution and sex education (which, now, seems a bit off topic because it's not a crime, but I think it fits the theme of the conversation.)

Kazilla 2008-10-22 08:20 AM

I didn't read your post but, there was a comedian that said, "If selling is legal, and sex is legal, then why isn't selling sex legal".

WetWired 2008-10-22 01:04 PM

Except that they're not going to control it, because they're not making it legal, they're just preventing arrest and investigation. If anything, they're making it worse because now they can do whatever they want since they don't have to worry about being caught. I think that Nevada's law makes much more sense than Proposition K.

-Spector- 2008-10-22 01:24 PM

Wow, I'm all for sex education K_A but I don't agree with this.

D3V 2008-10-22 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WetWired (Post 657705)
Except that they're not going to control it, because they're not making it legal, they're just preventing arrest and investigation. If anything, they're making it worse because now they can do whatever they want since they don't have to worry about being caught. I think that Nevada's law makes much more sense than Proposition K.

How do you think Nevada started off? They have to make it illegal to have investigations before moving onto newer, updated legislation.

Asamin 2008-10-22 03:38 PM

As I once heard:
"Fucking is legal and selling is legal, so why isn't selling fucking legal!!!!???"

D3V 2008-10-22 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asamin (Post 657728)
As I once heard:
"Fucking is legal and selling is legal, so why isn't selling fucking legal!!!!???"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazilla
I didn't read your post but, there was a comedian that said, "If selling is legal, and sex is legal, then why isn't selling sex legal".

Am I the only one that finds it ironic neither one of you read this thread. Lulz.

Jessifer 2008-10-23 09:34 AM

I can see your points of view, but in my eyes decriminalizing it would be like telling your daughter or sister or whoever "Hey, it's alright to be a hooker and be looked at as less of a woman and more of a toy." Also, I'm aiming this towards those prostitutes that stand on a corner and such. I have less of a problem with professionally run brothels.

As a side note, sex ed and prostitution are two entirely different subjects and should not be lumped into the same category.

!King_Amazon! 2008-10-23 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessifer (Post 657763)
decriminalizing it would be like telling your daughter or sister or whoever "Hey, it's alright to be a hooker and be looked at as less of a woman and more of a toy."

I think it's more like saying "it's alright if that's what you choose to do." I don't think it would encourage them to do it. People make similar arguments against legalizing marijuana, saying that it would basically be like telling kids it's alright to smoke pot, but I really don't think that's the case. People tend to do whatever is "forbidden," thus is why prohibition not only does not work, but makes the problem worse.

Just the same, people make the argument that giving kids condoms or teaching them about sex tells them that it's alright for them to have sex. Once again, this isn't really what's happening. People are going to do these things (Get/be hookers, do drugs, have sex) regardless of whether or not these things are illegal, and making them illegal only makes the problem worse, by putting a drain on our economy, straining our jail system, and essentially making people more likely to do these things.

WetWired 2008-10-23 11:01 AM

Indeed, the first step to placing control on something is to make it legal. You can't make laws to control something that the law says shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Wed-G 2008-10-23 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WetWired (Post 657776)
Indeed, the first step to placing control on something is to make it legal. You can't make laws to control something that the law says shouldn't be happening in the first place.

I knew somewhere in this thread that George Carlin would come up. Shame on you all who used it without remembering who it came from.

R.I.P.

D3V 2008-10-23 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessifer (Post 657763)
I can see your points of view, but in my eyes decriminalizing it would be like telling your daughter or sister or whoever "Hey, it's alright to be a hooker and be looked at as less of a woman and more of a toy." Also, I'm aiming this towards those prostitutes that stand on a corner and such. I have less of a problem with professionally run brothels.

As a side note, sex ed and prostitution are two entirely different subjects and should not be lumped into the same category.

This brings on a new argument. It's basically you need to teach your kids right from wrong, and having sex for money is wrong. Doesn't mean it should be illegal.

!King_Amazon! 2008-10-23 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessifer (Post 657763)
I can see your points of view, but in my eyes decriminalizing it would be like telling your daughter or sister or whoever "Hey, it's alright to be a hooker and be looked at as less of a woman and more of a toy." Also, I'm aiming this towards those prostitutes that stand on a corner and such. I have less of a problem with professionally run brothels.

As a side note, sex ed and prostitution are two entirely different subjects and should not be lumped into the same category.

Another thing. Many "moral" types claim that homosexuals should not be given the same rights as heterosexuals because it teaches children (and people in general) that it's "normal" to be gay.

I would assume you disagree with them, though.

gruesomeBODY 2008-10-23 08:50 PM

I can def see 13 year olds buying for sex now






















just joking god.......

Grav 2008-10-23 09:17 PM

Ron Paul 2008

D3V 2008-10-23 11:02 PM

18 years old before you can buy sex wouldn't be unreasonable.

Asamin 2008-10-24 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 657735)
Am I the only one that finds it ironic neither one of you read this thread. Lulz.

I only didn't bother because I am not supposed to post on here but and sneaking it anyways and my parents were coming downstairs. And by the way, mine was better quoted then kazilla.

WetWired 2008-10-24 07:14 AM

Except that they aren't investigating or making arrests for prostitution, so you can buy or sell sex at any age, because they can't investigate it.

Grav 2008-10-24 07:46 AM

This is decriminalizing (NOT legalizing) on a local level, right? The state/feds can still enforce laws at those levels, similar to what happened in Denver with marijuana. Basically the city is saying "we don't want to spend money from our tight budget on busting prostitution."

D3V 2008-10-27 03:46 PM

I still fail to see the big deal with selling sex.

D3V 2009-10-23 09:52 AM

This all boils down to, the government shouldn't be able to tell you to do with your body. Plain and simple.

Mdselctr 2009-10-23 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 657639)
...This would be a great move as it really would free police to focus on issues that actually matter.

What exactly are issues that actually matter? Why
do they matter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessifer (Post 657763)
...to be a hooker and be looked at as less of a woman...

Your idea of a person (who gets paid for sexual
favors) is a part of this imprisoning internal
dialogue arising from your own memories and
off-hand experiences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WetWired (Post 657776)
Indeed, the first step to placing control on something is to make it legal. You can't make laws to control something that the law says shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 657849)
18 years old before you can buy sex wouldn't be unreasonable.

Why have rules at all?

Quote:

Originally Posted by !King_Amazon! (Post 657653)
____ being illegal does more harm than good.

Arguably, by making ____ illegal you encourage
fearful people (and those induced by abusive
parents) to look at someone "who does ____" as
belonging to their customary label. The irony is
that these labels are not the true sense of
someone-who-does-something or does not.
Making something legal but being fearful of the
government accomplishes nothing. Murder the
government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 683488)
This all boils down to, the government shouldn't be able to tell you to do with your body. Plain and simple.

Or just do away with government because people
aren't as stupid as they would like to believe.
Local Militia Signup.




Because why take medicine just to function in
society?

Skurai 2009-10-24 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mdselctr (Post 683506)
What exactly are issues that actually matter? Why
do they matter?

---
Your idea of a person (who gets paid for sexual
favors) is a part of this imprisoning internal
dialogue arising from your own memories and
off-hand experiences.

---

Why have rules at all?

---
Arguably, by making ____ illegal you encourage
fearful people (and those induced by abusive
parents) to look at someone "who does ____" as
belonging to their customary label. The irony is
that these labels are not the true sense of
someone-who-does-something or does not.
Making something legal but being fearful of the
government accomplishes nothing. Murder the
government.

---
Or just do away with government because people
aren't as stupid as they would like to believe.
Local Militia Signup.


---

Because why take medicine just to function in
society?

Without rules, there is no law.
Not just law, but justice.
Who is to define justice? Humans can barely define themself. Yet, in the end, Good and Evil are real. We cannot define them, because Serpents like you wrap around out heads and whisper the lies of Tartarus unto us.

You say "Why have rules" and many say "Why listen to others, you can't be free that way", but in reality, submission is the Key.

Who are you to command what is greater than you, if you cannot submit to it first? No. We do not even submit to ourself.

Being that it was Illegal did not make the prositutes free, and making it legal forces them to submit... and yet... they will not be free. What is this?

The Answer is obvious. The Serpent is playing with words. Using the Hangman's reverse and acting like it is it's forward. Touche`, Serpent, but do not think you have won. Messiah, Trinity, and Jehova will finish you.

Release your army of succubus, and your Mother of Harlots. I shall not faulter.

D3V 2009-10-26 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mdselctr
What exactly are issues that actually matter? Why
do they matter?

I would say crime where a victim is involved. It matters because for society to function correctly, people trying to mess up the system have to be placed in a cube with other people who try and mess up the system to think about what they've done.

Quote:

Or just do away with government because people
aren't as stupid as they would like to believe.
Local Militia Signup.

No. We don't need to get rid of government, we need some sort of rule, we need rules, but not old fasioned rules, we need transitional, lucid rules that can clearly be comprehended and clearly changed once the public deems so. The system we have now is pathetic.

Skurai 2009-10-26 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 683543)
I would say crime where a victim is involved. It matters because for society to function correctly, people trying to mess up the system have to be placed in a cube with other people who try and mess up the system to think about what they've done.

But isn't it true that in some cases (robbery, and a few times murder), the person either needed the money or was a victim to problems the other person caused?
Though it's true that many times this isn't the case, isn't still possible... there's no way we can identify justice, at least right now...

Mdselctr 2009-10-30 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 683543)
... to be placed in a cube ... to think about what they've done.

You obviously think that's a good thing. For a
country to exist its wars have to be won, its
military has to be fitted with weapons, and its
excusers have to be allowed to survive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D3V (Post 683543)
... we need transitional, lucid rules that can clearly be comprehended and clearly changed once the public deems so. The system we have now is pathetic.

So fill the basketball up with more air? Even if
the government had a greater democratic influence,
people cannot make good decisions. Get rid of the
game and the culture it belongs to. Even if the
public would decide when it should change its
laws--and according to how it so desires--any
system that is an extension to the one currently
cannot change without a considerable amount of
violence.

Skurai 2009-10-31 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mdselctr (Post 683753)

cannot change without a considerable amount of
violence.

Are you implying we use the priestess charisma to build an army, and rebel? Brilliant!

S2 AM 2009-11-01 05:06 PM

Won't be long before people are complaining about it being taxed

Skurai 2011-09-21 10:04 PM

I believe rich people should be taxed more.

kaos 2011-09-22 10:48 AM

There's ways around it. And everyones happy.

Skurai 2011-09-22 02:25 PM

Nobody should be taxed.

!King_Amazon! 2011-09-22 02:40 PM

You should try to play Sim City without taxing your citizens or using cheats and see how well that works out for you.

Skurai 2011-09-23 05:30 AM

It is hilarious.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is best seen with your eyes open.