Prop K: San Francisco tries to legalize a real treat

[nixium]

I talked to someone in Amsterdam about this.

The reason it was legalized in The Netherlands is because of lots of human trafficking and abuse women suffered, especially since it's a port and sailors used to bring women from all around the world.

So instead of a harmful underground economy, they decided to legalize it, and protect the women, as well as tax them.

Like the way they handle drugs, this is done very efficiently. Each prostitute - the PC term is sex worker - is self employed (like a message therapist). She gets a license from the government, and rents out a room and can charge whatever rate she wants. There's even a union "the red thread". The police protect her instead of hunting her down. In fact, the red light district is the safest in Amsterdam, because of heavy police presence. She can choose her clients and can 'serve' them on her terms. Further, she also gets insurance. An STD (like AIDS) for example, is grounds for disability payments.

Amsterdam hasn't burned to the ground. Further, for people like Duwelon who assume that girls are instantly going to become prostitutes and give up other professions, it doesn't work like that. While prostitution is very lucrative, most girls give up in 2-3 years, because it's a very taxing profession - mentally and physically. Duwelon, I don't think you know about women very well; no girl would prefer prostitution when she has the option of a different profession (unless she likes being a prostitute, which is probably rare). What the dutch have done is provide protection for women who'd take it up anyway and risk being abused. Plus they can now tax them. I really don't see what's wrong with this scenario.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: nixium
I talked to someone in Amsterdam about this.

The reason it was legalized in The Netherlands is because of lots of human trafficking and abuse women suffered, especially since it's a port and sailors used to bring women from all around the world.

So instead of a harmful underground economy, they decided to legalize it, and protect the women, as well as tax them.

Like the way they handle drugs, this is done very efficiently. Each prostitute - the PC term is sex worker - is self employed (like a message therapist). She gets a license from the government, and rents out a room and can charge whatever rate she wants. There's even a union "the red thread". The police protect her instead of hunting her down. In fact, the red light district is the safest in Amsterdam, because of heavy police presence. She can choose her clients and can 'serve' them on her terms. Further, she also gets insurance. An STD (like AIDS) for example, is grounds for disability payments.

Amsterdam hasn't burned to the ground. Further, for people like Duwelon who assume that girls are instantly going to become prostitutes and give up other professions, it doesn't work like that. While prostitution is very lucrative, most girls give up in 2-3 years, because it's a very taxing profession - mentally and physically. Duwelon, I don't think you know about women very well; no girl would prefer prostitution when she has the option of a different profession (unless she likes being a prostitute, which is probably rare). What the dutch have done is provide protection for women who'd take it up anyway and risk being abused. Plus they can now tax them. I really don't see what's wrong with this scenario.

Amsterdam is trying to shut down its red-light districts at some point. I dont think it is going to be the same as it is now for very much longer.

I dont see why they would shoot themselves in the foot as far as tourist $$$$ for the economy goes...

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...who-behave-952479.html

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Butterbean
I don't condemn people ...

Count me as impressed.

Plagiarism?

He's some kind of tool - just haven't figured out which yet.

Actually what he said was quite insightful and intelligent. Most don't see what he just explained. I know he is not the most liked person on these forums but I am truly impressed with what he has written here. I honestly didn't think he had that in him.

 

[nixium]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: nixium
I talked to someone in Amsterdam about this.

The reason it was legalized in The Netherlands is because of lots of human trafficking and abuse women suffered, especially since it's a port and sailors used to bring women from all around the world.

So instead of a harmful underground economy, they decided to legalize it, and protect the women, as well as tax them.

Like the way they handle drugs, this is done very efficiently. Each prostitute - the PC term is sex worker - is self employed (like a message therapist). She gets a license from the government, and rents out a room and can charge whatever rate she wants. There's even a union "the red thread". The police protect her instead of hunting her down. In fact, the red light district is the safest in Amsterdam, because of heavy police presence. She can choose her clients and can 'serve' them on her terms. Further, she also gets insurance. An STD (like AIDS) for example, is grounds for disability payments.

Amsterdam hasn't burned to the ground. Further, for people like Duwelon who assume that girls are instantly going to become prostitutes and give up other professions, it doesn't work like that. While prostitution is very lucrative, most girls give up in 2-3 years, because it's a very taxing profession - mentally and physically. Duwelon, I don't think you know about women very well; no girl would prefer prostitution when she has the option of a different profession (unless she likes being a prostitute, which is probably rare). What the dutch have done is provide protection for women who'd take it up anyway and risk being abused. Plus they can now tax them. I really don't see what's wrong with this scenario.

Amsterdam is trying to shut down its red-light districts at some point. I dont think it is going to be the same as it is now for very much longer.

I dont see why they would shoot themselves in the foot as far as tourist $$$$ for the economy goes...

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...who-behave-952479.html

True. The "Christian democrats" in power are trying their best to stop it. Also, there's some pressure from the EU, since other countries haven't legalized it. However, the person I talked to mentioned that at some point, there would be a backlash, and it's never really going to go away. So far, I believe the size of the district has been reduced by around 50%.

Also, the red light district is the most visible sign of prostitution. There are a lot of sex clubs and escort services which will probably never get shut down.

 

[Thump553]

Unless I'm not understanding it fully, it will be a piece of cake for a half decent attorney from some special interest group to defeat this proposition. Prostitution is a crime as defined under STATE law. A locality cannot supercede a state criminal law unless the state law specifically permits this.

Odds are great too, that there some state law setting forth what the police powers are, and that statute mandates enforcement of the law.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Like all complex moral issues this one is not easy.

In a perfect world there would be no prostitution, no women who would have any need for money or men not having good loving sex.

What we have, however, is a world full of sick and desperate people. If we could fix that this problem maybe wouldn't exist.

In the mean time we have to manage the world as we find it as best that we can. The more we try to cure our evils with laws and punishment the worse we make the world, it seems to me. The greater we emphasize evil the worse people feel. Sickness and hate thrive best where there is repression, it seems to me. Remove the lid and the coke foams up and spills everywhere at first but later goes flat. Legalization, in the long run, it seems to me, will be required as we grow up and heal the world.

How do we discern good without measuring it against evil?

My life experiences have shown me that sometimes when one asks a question one is making a statement rather than asking and before any answer can arrive the person first has to see he already has one in mind that he or she needs getting out in front first.

So instead of just answering is some fashion as best I'm able, can I get your views, if any, on the matter? What do you feel about this?

Certainly.

I accept that there is objective good and evil, true and false, because if there isn't, we can't make any moral pronouncements of any kind. I believe that sometimes evil is committed for no understandable reason.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Unless I'm not understanding it fully, it will be a piece of cake for a half decent attorney from some special interest group to defeat this proposition. Prostitution is a crime as defined under STATE law. A locality cannot supercede a state criminal law unless the state law specifically permits this.

Odds are great too, that there some state law setting forth what the police powers are, and that statute mandates enforcement of the law.

You are correct. Much like the Medical MJ laws in this state, they arent technically legal. Marijuana is banned under federal law. When they raid the Clinics, it is DEA, etc.

All this is going to to is lower the level of "local" enforcement, much like they do with illegal immigrants.

As prostitution is illegal under state law, and not federal, I cant imagine state agencies coming in to take over prostitution enforcement. We just dont have the $$ right now.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Atreus21


Certainly.

I accept that there is objective good and evil, true and false, because if there isn't, we can't make any moral pronouncements of any kind. I believe that sometimes evil is committed for no understandable reason.

Who said, 'Judge not that yee not be judged.' What if we can't make any moral pronouncements? What is your problem with that? Why do you need moral certainty?

When I was younger I set out to prove the existence of good. I failed spectacularly because I destroyed, in the process, additionally, everything I held sacred and believed.

I came to the conclusion that good and evil are the same, relative values invented by men. There isn't any truth at all, only the 'cold benign indifference of the universe' as it were.

The result of that was a gigantic depression, the deepest feeling of hopelessness that I can imagine, total despair, universe and everything I held sacred totally without any meaning.

Perhaps you need meaning to prevent something like that?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Weaker families, the potential for increases in STD's, young women taking up a life as a prostitute instead of a real rewarding profession, the fact that it's a SIN, all should tell the people to reject it. It is CA though so I expect it to pass. You watch though, CA is going to decline in almost every imaginable metric the longer time goes on.

:music:

When I look back upon my life
It's always with a sense of shame
I've always been the one to blame
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common, too

It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a sin
Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to
It's a sin

At school they taught me how to be
So pure in thought and word and deed
They didn't quite succeed
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common, too

It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a sin
Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to
It's a sin

Father, forgive me, I tried not to do it
Turned over a new leaf, then tore right through it
Whatever you taught me, I didn't believe it
Father, you fought me, 'cause I didn't care
And I still don't understand

So I look back upon my life
Forever with a sense of shame
I've always been the one to blame
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common, too

It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a sin
Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to - it's a sin
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin

:music:

 

[Vic]

Jesus' view on adultery (including prostitution):

John 8:1-11

1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group
4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11 "No one, sir," she said."Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

 

[OCGuy]

A little religion-speak is ok, but if someone starts to pass a basket around in this thread, i'm leaving.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I'm all for it. Legitimize it, clean it up and tax it.

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.

My naive take:

Sex tourists, maybe...but that's how consolidated red-light districts can form, keeping everything in one, more easily enforceable area. A red-light district does provide its own source revenue and commercial opportunity for the city. Pimps? No. Sure, some enterprising ex-pimps might try to make a business out of it...but they won't be "pimps" anymore. They'll be business owners. Paying the girls and reporting taxes, providing required (hopefully) health and background checks on employees and clients, etc, etc... The whole "protection" aspect of what a pimp provided will be obsolete (of course I'm sure bouncers will still be present). Of course, heavy enforcement of regulations by authorities would be required. But that administrative overhead should be more than offset by the tax revenue.

Also, the same people who are pimps often are, or associate with, drug dealers. Remove the illegal aspect of prostitution and you hopefully remove/prevent a good number of drug deals simply by de-association. The rest can hopefully suffer more pressure, arrest and conviction from PD since the vice teams can be re-focused on the drug trade and gang activity.

Then of course there's the benefit of having much better practices for the prevention of spreading STDs.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Weaker families, the potential for increases in STD's, young women taking up a life as a prostitute instead of a real rewarding profession, the fact that it's a SIN, all should tell the people to reject it. It is CA though so I expect it to pass. You watch though, CA is going to decline in almost every imaginable metric the longer time goes on.

I'm sure that's how the Amish think about you, but then again they're driving around in horses and buggies. California might not share your irrational fear of sin, but it's sure a bigger economic powerhouse and technological center than your run-of-the-mill backwater red state.

Irrational fear of sin? The only reason we have any social problems at all is because of "sin". Any society that abandons Judeo Christian values will inevitably fall into a mire of social problems that make it just plain dangerous to live in. Do realize i know my audience, I'm just stating my beliefs.

Interestingly, the only countries that do NOT have legalized prostitution are Islamic ones...
All Western Judeo/Christian countries have legal prostitution.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Butterbean
I don't condemn people - I discern what I see objectively. I am allowed to see Hitler is evil - to not do so would be psychotic. The problem would be if I egotistically puffed up over someone's failing - enjoying their issues as a way of giving myself a boost by puffing up emotionally in ego self satisfaction. There is a distinction between judgment and discernment. Even judging yourself can be wrong - if instead of seeing your faults you inflate in anger and condemnation of yourself. That's because its playing God to even judge yourself and that can set you in conflict with yourself. As you say it can be a person is condeming others emotionally to try to make up for the inferiority/self condemnation they have.

Love as Jesus spoke of is not the emotional love of the Renaissance. The Greeks had seven different words for love. When Jesus said "love your enemy" he didn't mean hug and kiss them. The love in that case was "agape" a more spiritual love. if his words had been translated as "dont hate your enemy" it would be closer to original meaning. A reason for that has to do with self defense. Evil wants people to hate it because that' how it gets inside people. Mean and cruel people generally became so at the hands of other mean and cruel people who caused them to fall into hate. That's a trauma in a spiritual sense and it causes people to grow from a side of their nature not organic to them.

It was Paul I believe who said "the good I want to do I cant do - the bad I dont want to do I do - therefore I know its not I who do the bad but the sin (or false) nature that dwells within me". Hes basically talking about addiction and a compulsive conditioned nature that is not really him - as the child he was in his heart at birth ( Jung also spoke of a "false self"). A lot of biblical stuff is just psychology but the churches made it all poofy. "Salvation" has been made otherworldly and it can be but it also meant escape from a false nature in this world.

A way to do that is to let go of the angers because resentment is a hypnotic emotion that sustains trauma and blocks objectivity and a return healing. "Forgiveness" is in many ways for the benefit of the forgiver and not the forgiven. Even hating and struggling with your own problems can make them worse. Once you (or anyone I mean) can step back from problems and see them with a gentle remorse without struggle or condemning most issues will clear up on their own. I quit smoking like that - poof - just went away no withdrawls.

Now one needed element is an honest look at self and others. We all inherit various flaws (i dont mean genetics) as humans. The issue is the denial because thats ego and ego is like playing God and sets one up for conflict. Indeed, we can feel inferior for say being put down at home and getting upset - and then try to compensate with achievements - but since thos efforts are egotistical we can feel more empty because of the success then the acclaim which can make one feel really lost.

So I would agree its not people who are evil but what gets inside them. Then if a person sees that and feels remorse (blessed are those that mourn bla bla) its a sign of a good attitude. If a person defends the error in themselves its essentially siding with the error to preserve ego or the false self.

I dont look at individual prostitutes, crooks, gays, alcoholics etc and say 'you are a bad person" with a sense of ego superiority because deep down anyone of them might be better than me (but I dont try to judge that one way or another). In fact, I see a lot of those things as related to problems that can block those people from reclaiming whats inside them (not that I see it as my duty to liberate them).

It can happen that a person can be driven further into denial if people use them for judgment. However a person can also see errors innocently and still people will project a bad intent in order to sustain a rebellion (often compulsive). In any case people still need to hold on to their own roots at some point. One Jesus story has him insulting a woman. She asks him for something and he says "you dont feed the dogs before the children" (she was gentile). She could have taken offense but instead said even dogs can get scraps etc. He praised her for her ability to transcend any ego reaction. Likewise people here can think I am insulting them on some deep level when emotionally I dont care what they are into one way or another. If they insult me back thats not such an issue either and they might be fine people deep down.

I don't like Obama politically but I can see where hes a hurt kid on some level and not really bad person at all.

Count me as impressed.

Uh... it would be impressive if it wasn't based on a false premise. The Greeks considered agape, or unconditional spiritual love, to be a much greater (not lesser) form of love than Eros, or mere physical love. How BB twists this ideal of true love into merely "don't hate" speaks volumes...

Three specific Biblical examples (admittedly pulled from wiki) are:
- 1 John 4:8, "Theos ein agape" or "God is love." I don't think any Christian would argue that God is merely "don't hate."
- The Greatest Commandment, Matthew 23-37:41, "'Love (agapao) the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love (agapao) your neighbor as yourself.'" Who here would argue that Jesus was saying we should just "not hate" God with all our heart, soul, and mind?
- And the example BB uses from the Sermon on the Mount, "You have heard that it was said, 'Love (agapao) your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love (agapao) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?" Once again, "don't hate" not found.

What is found is that Jesus taught a belief in a profound form of unconditional spiritual love, far greater than that possible with any mere physical love. This also explains why many early Christians, especially Paul, were also chaste aesthetics, who rejected sex and eros as a distraction from the greater love of agape.

 

[Vic]

How did I forget 1 Corinthians 13? It literally defines the Christian view of love, and every instance of the word love in this chapter in the original Greek is agape. I dare BB or anyone to say that love here would be better translated as "don't hate."

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

[extra]

Well this sucks, I read the headline and thought from the letter maybe they were going to try to legalize Ketamine! Lame, just prostitution.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
How did I forget 1 Corinthians 13? It literally defines the Christian view of love, and every instance of the word love in this chapter in the original Greek is agape. I dare BB or anyone to say that love here would be better translated as "don't hate."

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

This must be right. There is only love.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Weaker families, the potential for increases in STD's, young women taking up a life as a prostitute instead of a real rewarding profession, the fact that it's a SIN, all should tell the people to reject it. It is CA though so I expect it to pass. You watch though, CA is going to decline in almost every imaginable metric the longer time goes on.

Tell me if i'm wrong in any of this, i was raised in the faith so i'm fairly sure nothing of what i am about to say is wrong, but if it is, please tell me what.

1. ALL sins are equal in the eyes of God

2. YOU want to legislate based on sinful behaviour

What should be the punishment for fornication? Lying? Not loving God?

Do you see how ridiculous it gets when you try to institute sin into law or do i need to go on?

There is a GOOD reason why religion and law are separate in every first world nation and why women are burned alive in countries where it's not.

But you don't get that, all that matters to you is YOUR interpretations of WHAT sins are acceptable and which are not, none of it is based on the Bible, you simply want to judge others because you're such a piss poor excuse for a human being yourself.