It's nothing new for an industry to complain that new government regulations are bad for business, but when the complaints are coming from the adult film biz, and the regulation in question is a new law requiring performers to wear condoms, people stand up and take notice. On Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council voted 9-1 to approve an ordinance that would deny film permits to adult video companies that don't require their actors to use condoms. Predictably, many industry leaders were up in arms. . . . .
The Ultimate Effect
Some critics argue that a mandatory condom-usage law would actually make performing in adult films more risky. According to industry experts, many customers, particularly those in other countries, won't watch safe-sex movies. Alexandre Padilla, a professor of economics at Metropolitan College of Denver, argues that the council's decision wouldn't end no-condom sex in movies, but would drive it underground, where it would be hidden from the oversight both of L.A. regulators and the porn industry's current self-policing system:
Movies featuring no-condom sex would not only still exist, but those actors and actresses would no longer be required to participate in the industry's HIV testing program, increasing the risk of an HIV outbreak in the industry and the population at large. One need only look at prostitution to see what happens when an industry operates underground.If Padilla is correct, the council's decision might have several unintended -- and dire -- consequences for the city. Los Angeles is one of the more expensive locations in the country -- there are several similarly sunny, urban alternatives where the cost of living (and, not incidentally, of operating a business) is far cheaper. For an adult film industry in search of a less restrictive business environment and a more attractive cost of living, Florida, Nevada, or even Louisiana may be calling.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/01/...6pLid%3D128578
