make it legal

I think with all thease states going broke it time to make it legal you know the oldest job in the world the one that wont stop. Maybe put a 10% tax on it. Thoughts please.

I most definitely agree with your suggestion. Regulate the industry and place a tax on the activity. Put the enforcement on those that practice the hobby outside of the regulated parameters. Have providers obtain monthly checkups. Allow for sections of town to be zoned for the hobby (like an old hotel or apartment building) that have specific facilities in each room for hygiene - to be inspected four times a year. License providers and facilities. Collect federal and state, FICA and Medicare withholding along with a tax per session. Allow the providers to work as employees with the house collecting a daily rent not to exceed 10% of the proceeds collected per session (to be withheld along with the other taxes).

Countries in which the hobby is legal and regulated (i.e. the Netherlands) have not, to my knowledge, been visited with plagues of locusts or blasted into radioactive glass by the wrath of God. But legalizing the hobby makes far too much sense for our duly elected representatives ever to actually do it.

Cheaper...I think your preaching to the choir in this group.

I'm with y'all on this. I brought up the discussion on a long gone site about a year ago. Funny how many providers were against it.

B.S. Don't legalize it and tax it. Just legalize it. We have enough taxes...too many in fact. And for the cops who are reading this who are on the vice squad: shame on you for contributing to the infringement of American liberties. You people are filth! If you break up true crimes, such as prostitution in which children are involved, or in which people are forced into it, then fine. Otherwise, you are a waste of taxpayer dollars and only continue to serve the police state. Honestly, if you are a cop, do you really think it should be a crime to pay an adult woman who willfully wishes to commit such an act? Feel free to PM me with a sock account. I'd really like to know.

When you allow the government to regulate something then you are allowing the government to determine how it will be practised. Imagine the government not only legalizing prostitution but regulating the practice. At first things are grand; no stings, no arrests, guarantees of healthy providers, and safety for the providers. After awhile someone will say that we should confine this practice to a block or a single building. What if a provider wants to freelance or to work comfortably outside of their home? Do they get arrested or face a double fine? Later someone will say everyone should be required to charge the same price (as they do in Germany). So Jackie and Elena would have to charge the same amount as Brenda (a skank and cheat as anyone who knows is aware) or face fines and imprisonment. What if a customer insists on paying extra... is that illegal? Maybe some politician decides that sex is only the missionary position and no others. It may be legal but you can only do it in the proscribed manner or face a fine. It will become about money and control again.
Anything that can be regulated by government can be abused by government. Legalization yes, regulation no!

^This + 1776

Unfortunately, there are so many "bible thumpers" out there that outnumber those who either support the hobby or don't care one way or another, that finding state representatives and state senators with the courage to propose legalizing the hobby will be very difficult. And, it would be difficult for government entities to legalize an activity that is currently considered illegal without providing some justification for legalizing the activity. And the fastest and easiest way is to provide some economic benefit to the government entity legalizing the activity.

For example - casino gambling. For the longest time, casino gambling, or any kind of game of chance was considered illegal in all states other than Nevada. Once lawmakers (first in New Jersey, then throughout the country) saw the economic potential of gambling, they decided to make certain games of chance legal - first racing (dog and horse), then the lottery, then slots and finally table games. The state takes their cut of the casino's profits and everyone plays.

This is why legalization without regulation will never happen. There has to be some kind of economic benefit to the state to overcome the objections of those who oppose the activity.

JD, you made a good point about rates.

As much as I'd love to sit here and type out 10 paragraphs, its summed up pretty well from a site I love to visit.

Here's the link and please scroll down to the "Pros and Cons by Category."

http://prostitution.procon.org/

It covers everything about making it legal.

Thank you for the link, MsElena. May I say I love your mind, and one day, I hope to love your body, too!

The side covers a lot of interesting arguments. Of course, I'm slanted in my opinion, but it really seems to me that most of the 'against' arguments stand while prostitution is illegal and would mostly falter if it were illegal. Being a christian, I occasionally want to slap Bill Maher for preaching atheism, I'll concede that most of the argument and enforcement is religiously motivated.

Still, I have to give credit on some of the 'against' points:

STD risk: True, a woman isn't going to quarantine herself for twelve weeks between appointments, so there will always be a certain risk. But there are other recreational activities where you risk your health: rafting, skydiving, jet skis,...hell, you could get seriously injured or killed riding a bike. That's where waivers come in.

Criminal element: At first I rolled my eyes at this, but when you consider the ties many strip joints have to organized crime, I would not doubt such criminal ties would remain to a greater or lesser extent.

Moral branding: Men and women who are in any legal sex trade may be accepted from a revenue standpoint, but will not be accepted the same as a doctor or a lawyer. There will always be someone who has strong moral judgement (funny how they usually don't judge themselves by the same standard).


IMHO, I think it should be legalized. It will be taxed. Those taxes should be used for health and oversight of the industry. Will it happen? I'm thinking it might move into the area like casino gambling: slowly and beginning in other states.

I used to live near Chicago, and I wonder how many 'floating brothels' are there. You pay to get on a boat, it goes into international waters, then whatever happens is unenforceable. Anybody know about that?

I used to live near Chicago, and I wonder how many 'floating brothels' are there. You pay to get on a boat, it goes into international waters, then whatever happens is unenforceable. Anybody know about that? Originally Posted by Badboy_71

Gives new meaning to the term "pleasure cruise" - wonder if that's what Gilligan and the Skipper would be doing if they were around today.

Who says they weren't back then! They had Mary Ann (GFE) and Ginger (PSE).

Who says they weren't back then! They had Mary Ann (GFE) and Ginger (PSE).

Originally Posted by Badboy_71

Point well taken.

I used to live near Chicago, and I wonder how many 'floating brothels' are there. You pay to get on a boat, it goes into international waters, then whatever happens is unenforceable. Anybody know about that? Originally Posted by Badboy_71

Lots of people have thought about that, and basically the conclusion is that the value of being "legal" is not enough to offset the enormous cost of operating such an endeavor. Ships are not cheap to own or operate. The ship would have to be registered in a country where prostitution is legal. Interestingly, this is already the case for Holland America Lines, flagged in The Netherlands, however even they do not condone prostitution on board. They also don't allow drug use on board. I can't imagine they would prosecute someone if caught, though.

Barefoot Cruise Lines used to advertise in Penthouse all the time (not sure if they do still), and they openly cultivated a "swingers" lifestyle. Most cruise lines, though, are more interested in the "family" lifestyle, much like Las Vegas lately.

Besides the cost of operating a ship, you have the logistical issues. Weather would have a big impact -- a seasick client is bad, a seasick provider is worse. It wouldn't be very discreet when you have to dock to let on or off passengers, and it would not be very convenient for customers to wait for boarding times -- and what do they do once they are done and have to wait to get back to shore? If the boat stays permanently offshore, the company would have to run shuttles back and forth. International waters in this case would probably be 24 miles, the same as for gambling (called the "contiguous zone" it was extended from 12 to 24 miles by Clinton in 1999). That means it would be at least an hour each way before you could get to humping.

Since you mentioned Chicago, I'll also point out that the entirety of the Great Lakes are in either US or Canadian jurisdiction, and laws of those countries would apply. Casino cruises on the Great Lakes depend on the laws of the state or province in which they are sailing.

The concept would make more sense if it were a multi-day vacation cruise with a selection of available providers on board. Still, discretion would be an issue, as would cost. It would be much more like vacationing in a country where prostitution was legal as opposed to simply visiting a brothel. And of course there would need to be diversions for those times when you aren't having sex.

A similar plan, called Sea-Code, was to register a cruise ship in the Bahamas and anchor it three miles off Los Angeles. That means that programmers (mostly from India) who could not get an H-1B visa to work in the US could work on that ship, since the Bahamas have no visa requirements. Because of a loophole in territorial agreements, there is only a three-mile exclusion for employment visas, which solves many of the logistical issues. I haven't heard of them lately and the most recent information I could find was from 2005.

In general though, it is probably way more cost effective to be illegal on land than "dubiously legal" at sea.