Making Prostitution Legal

This is why we must push for Decriminalization not Legalization. The govt already dictates enough of our lives, we don't need them in between our sheets too. Originally Posted by River Song

Decriminalization won't work in the USA because it's a nation governed by Judeo-Christian beliefs which coddle a viewpoint that prostitution is a dirty sin that has to be eradicated,,,Furthermore, prostitution is considered the victimization of women,,,The idea is that women who sell their bodies to men are doing so because they are coerced in some way or form, either by force or by economic situation,,,It's also believed that decriminalization will widen sex trafficking and underage prostitution (pop culture has sexualized underage people),,,New Zealand's problem with sex trafficking and underage prostitution problems are attributed to the decriminalization of prostitution,,,Sweden has decriminalized the sale of prostitution but has criminalized the purchase of it,,,This has reduced the demand for the service which of course also reduced the supply,,,Legalization will improve the working conditions and make the business safer but at what costs to personal freedom and to monetary value. It's not a debatable issue to say that prostitution is generally considered an eye sore by most people and that is the problem.

.....
It's not a debatable issue to say that prostitution is generally considered an eye sore by most people and that is the problem. Originally Posted by TheCat'sMeow

I've noticed a few eye sores in the Houston welcome forum.

I've noticed a few eye sores in the Houston welcome forum. Originally Posted by GlobeSpotter

^^^^^They will notice something about you as well.

It's not religion as much as it is How to Control(tax) the money. Also politicians don't want that law passed on they're Legacy

......
politicians don't want that law passed on they're Legacy Originally Posted by maineblame

What needs to happen,....is some bsc whore take her state laws all the way to the scotus and bust what the states do as unconstitutional.

It's her body; her rules right?

It's not religion as much as it is How to Control(tax) the money. Also politicians don't want that law passed on they're Legacy Originally Posted by maineblame

It is about religion,,,If they wanted to collect more tax through the legalization of prostitution, then they would have done it by now,,,Controlling the tax money from prostitution is no different than controlling the tax money from other legit sources; it's all political. Politicians don't want to pass the legislation because it means that they won't get re-elected.

Who will be gaining more, is it the provider or the john ? Originally Posted by ECCIE2NDAVE

Never thought of it, I'd say the provider.

More importantly, civilization and society.

Decriminalization won't work in the USA because it's a nation governed by Judeo-Christian beliefs which coddle a viewpoint that prostitution is a dirty sin that has to be eradicated,,,Furthermore, prostitution is considered the victimization of women,,,The idea is that women who sell their bodies to men are doing so because they are coerced in some way or form, either by force or by economic situation,,,It's also believed that decriminalization will widen sex trafficking and underage prostitution (pop culture has sexualized underage people),,,New Zealand's problem with sex trafficking and underage prostitution problems are attributed to the decriminalization of prostitution,,,Sweden has decriminalized the sale of prostitution but has criminalized the purchase of it,,,This has reduced the demand for the service which of course also reduced the supply,,,Legalization will improve the working conditions and make the business safer but at what costs to personal freedom and to monetary value. It's not a debatable issue to say that prostitution is generally considered an eye sore by most people and that is the problem. Originally Posted by TheCat'sMeow

It's not religion as much as it is How to Control(tax) the money. Also politicians don't want that law passed on they're Legacy Originally Posted by maineblame

It's about Religion and Taxes and Politicians not having the fortitude to sponsor decriminalization initiatives since it does not really affect any significant voting constituency. With P4P having moved almost completely online the "eye sore" of streetwalkers no longer exists for all practical purposes.

San Francisco nearly legalized a few years back ... it was a ballot initiative, but was vigorously opposed by law enforcement, not because it was major source of crime, but because of how it would affect department budgets.

Much like Canada, the US may eventually evolve to the decriminalizing.

It's about Religion and Taxes and Politicians not having the fortitude to sponsor decriminalization initiatives since it does not really affect any significant voting constituency. With P4P having moved almost completely online the "eye sore" of streetwalkers no longer exists for all practical purposes.

San Francisco nearly legalized a few years back ... it was a ballot initiative, but was vigorously opposed by law enforcement, not because it was major source of crime, but because of how it would affect department budgets.

Much like Canada, the US may eventually evolve to the decriminalizing. Originally Posted by StinkyFingers

The politicians don't have the fortitude to sponsor the DIs because it DOES EFFECT a bad election outcome,,,The people aren't going stand for it and will raise hell to their local politicians,,,The hobby moving nearly completely online is a major concern because that's where the underage minors and organized crime rings are congregating,,,LE opposed the ballot because it knows that prostitution IS A MAJOR SOURCE OF CRIME,,,A great number of prostitutes have active substance abuse problems. What is a better way to make a pipeline from supplier and buyer than through a whore addict?

The U.S. will never decriminalize prostitution,,,At best, it will follow suit like Sweden and criminalize the purchase of whores, reducing the demand for it which in turn will decrease the supply of whores. More Johns are being hauled off to jail and are having their names and their pictures posted on the media wall of shame to send a message to existing and potential Johns, don't engage in the purchase of whores.

.....

The U.S. will never decriminalize prostitution.
..... Originally Posted by TheCat'sMeow

One more time, you stoopid whore. Federally, prostitution is legal. It is not possible for the "U.S." to decriminalize it.

The solution to state lawmaking, as opposed to the scotus solution I proposed above,...is to elect lawmakers that will change your states law. Get them elected, then they'll have no fear of not being re-elected.

Out of curiosity, which state do you live in?

One more time, you stoopid whore. Federally, prostitution is legal. It is not possible for the "U.S." to decriminalize it.

The solution to state lawmaking, as opposed to the scotus solution I proposed above,...is to elect lawmakers that will change your states law. Get them elected, then they'll have no fear of not being re-elected.

Out of curiosity, which state do you live in? Originally Posted by GlobeSpotter

It's not legal or illegal in the eyes of the federal government because it does not have any say in the matter constitutionally,,,Under the 10th Amendment, states are solely responsible in the legalization or criminalization of prostitution,,,However, the federal government can regulate it if it falls under interstate commerce, for instance the Mann Act,,,Therefore, it is possible for the "U.S." to "decriminalize" prostitution but not necessarily to the full extent of the Constitution by repealing the Mann Act,,,These lawmakers you speak of don't exist because the constituents that do all the voting won't elect them to office,,,Like I said earlier, the problem is the mindset of most people,,,What's the number one job of the politician besides being elected?,,,Getting re-elected. A politician that passes an unpopular law is going to be scrambling for another job when his term is up.

BTW, "U.S." is not only the federal government but is also the United "States",,,Whenever we speak of law in the U.S. we always have to bring in state's rights into the conversation by default. As usual, you jumped the gun too soon.

It's not legal or illegal in the eyes of the federal government because it does not have any say in the matter constitutionally,,
..... Originally Posted by TheCat'sMeow

.....
Therefore, it is possible for the "U.S." to "decriminalize" prostitution..... Originally Posted by TheCat'sMeow

More double talk. But, how could the feds decriminalize something that, "in their eyes" haven't made illegal?

More double talk. But, how could the feds decriminalize something that, "in their eyes" haven't made illegal? Originally Posted by GlobeSpotter

You can't see the forest for the trees,,,The federal government WANTS TO FEDERALLY CRIMININALIZE prostitution but the Constitution prevents it to fully comply with its intent,,,Therefore, the way around it was to pass the Mann Act and let the states do the rest in-house,,,All the states except most of Nevada have actively enforced prostitution laws,,,I doubt that that will change in the near future,,,The Mann Act can be enforced even if a person is brought to a "free" state, such as Nevada, from another state for criminal sexual activity,,,The prosecution and convictions of those (Nevada case) that engage in the behavior described in the Mann Act prove that a federally enforced prostitution law that overreaches "state rights" as long the requirements are met DOES EXIST in the law books of the U.S.,,,Prostitution has been made technically illegal in the federal sense of the word but the federal government won't admit to it. If PoPo can't get you at the state level, then they will get you at the federal level.

Legslizing The Hobby would benefit everyone on both sides of the P-F-P transaction.

My only hope for this is to vote for Bernie Saunders. He is the only one out there who is liberal (or libertarian) enough, besides maybe Rand Paul, who would ever consider that.liberal

....
........who is liberal (or libertarian) enough, besides maybe Rand Paul, who would ever consider that.liberal Originally Posted by ICU 812

My position could be considered similar.

People are often surprised at my liberal views for how conservative I am. I'm often so far right...that it becomes left.

What it really means is the person has more of a libertarian position than they would care to admit to...because they want to pick and choose where government should be involved.

That's me. I prefer government involvement where safety and capitalism/business rules are needed. But otherwise, government can stay the fuck out.