?

Log in

No account? Create an account
socks and cat

sort of legalized prostitution

I was not aware, until tonight, that San Francisco has a proposition that would require that cops not arrest prostitutes. Prostitution would still be illegal, but the cops would not be enforcing the law. According to an article about this:

"Proponents of Proposition K say it would free up $11 million that the city’s authorities spend each year arresting prostitutes."


For the record, I'm all for legalized prostitution but only if it regulates the sex workers. Legalized prostitution should mean required testing ever 3 months and a license to prove you have had all your regular tests. I think every girl on the street without a license should still be arrested. I think it should also divert the $11 million previously spent on arresting prostitutes to subsidized rehab programs for addicted prostitutes. Because I think the only people who should be selling sex are those that have a choice, not those that have to because it's the only way possible to pay for their drug addiction. Maybe I'm idealistic, but I'd like to think there are some clean and sober prostitutes out there who are putting their earnings into a mortgage, their 401k or their kid's college fund.

Comments

They arrest the customers all the time. Cops pose as street walkers and then bring them into a hotel room where cops are hiding and waiting in secret to arrest them.
I'd just like to mention that drug addicted prostitutes aren't the only ones out there -- there are also women who are victims of human trafficing, who are *forced* into it under threat of violence or death.

I think it's for those women that this proposition is meant - where the prostitute is a victim of circumstance and the johns/pimps are opportunists.

I otherwie agree that people should have a choice - I just wanted to make the point that drug addiction isn't the only reason people are out there untested.
I am aware of human trafficking. San Francisco is currently using health code laws to crack down on them, since prostitution laws aren't working. There are a ton of "massage" places where foreign women are forced to live and service 10 or so men per night. They are never allowed to even leave the premises. These establishments are being busted regularly for not having licenses and for having illegal residents in a commercial establishment. But that's all they can do right now. For some reason, they are not able to use prostitution laws to free them.
It's a really interesting proposition on the ballot (I live in SF and will get to vote for/against it). I love that it makes the law such that prostitutes would not be unfairly discriminated against in cases of abuse or rape (where they were the victim).

BUT, that said, as I understand it, the law would give no regulations at all regarding prostitution. No required testing, no licensing, nothing like that. So I probably will not vote for it simply because it is a poorly written piece of legislation. Which is a shame, because I think prostitution should be legalized...with the regulations you have pointed out perfectly in your post.
I agree completely.
I don't really know how I feel about legalizing prostitution. I do wonder if the risks of prostitution as an illegal activity keeps more women/girls from doing it out of fear. If that is the case, then I think it is a good thing to keep it illegal.
I actually know a handful of girls in SF who are prostitutes, but they are of the "$300 an hour, $2000 for the weekend" variety. (I used to dance with them.) And they do have 401ks and at least one has invested in real estate. The couple I've talked too about the proposition plan to vote against it for the reasons you all have stated: It's an incomplete piece of lawmaking that doesn't address the whole problem.

I think it's telling when actual prostitutes don't think a law protecting them is worth voting for. Something needs to be re-written there.