Prostitution Laws, let your voice be heard

[flamesfever]

nm

[strombad]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sad post is sad.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by GGG

Any statistical backup to the statement most prostitutes dont have pimps or drug problems and like the work. Per the link below 80% of prostitutes would like to get out. Trying to frame it as just another profession is false.

http://sex-crimes.laws.com/prostitut...ion-statistics

There is likely a small portion of people who enjoy their chosen jobs but the majority are trapped in a cycle of abuse, drug use, and poverty. This is why Harm Reduction has to be the goal of all laws.

The problem with legalization is that it increases demand for prostitutes. This in turn increases the number of trafficed prostitutes and Legal Prostitutes. Legalization offers more protection however studies linked in this thread have shown that the increase in demand dwarfs the effect of increased protections and increases human trafficing.

So while an engineer may be selling his or her brain legalizing engineering doesnt lead to an increase in human trafficing.

Assuming that those statistics are accurate, that is depressing, but I'm talking more about sex workers in the U.S. and Canada who don't work the streets. I have a feeling that those stats would look very different if you excluded street prostitution (which no one is saying is a good thing) and prostitution in third world countries (which isn't particularly relevant to the discussion).

And I wonder what percentage of people in other jobs would prefer to change careers but can't because of money. Among my law school buddies, it at least matches the 80% figure that the article notes for prostitutes. Of course, legalizing lawyers doesn't cause an increase in human trafficking, but I'd be very curious to see if legalized prostitution in one jurisdiction causes a net increase in trafficking, or if it just causes the traffickicking to be redirected there from the surrounding jurisdictions. Maybe that study has already been done, but if so, I haven't seen it.

[GGG]

I would likely agree that for the percentage of sex workers who actually choose to do it probably would benefit from legalization. And in a world without side effects its probable the right answer.

I don't see redistribution of sex workers as likely though as an increase in demand without constraints on supply leads to more supply. And there are ample poor destitute women in poor countries willing to do anything for a promised better life so supply would likely keep up with demand.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would never be on board with the legalization of harder drugs beyond grass, especially the more devastating drugs like heroin and oxy and crack and coke. I would prefer that we just take people arrested for manufacturing and selling them and throw them off of a cliff over a pit of rusty rebar, society doesn't need those type of parasites (The sellers).

I'm not picking on you specifically, Captain, because you're not the only one who feels this way, but I find this to be a highly irrational line of thinking. Your argument appears to have two different components to it, so I'll try to do deal with each separately.

I would never be on board with the legalization of harder drugs beyond grass, especially the more devastating drugs like heroin and oxy and crack and coke.

This argument itself has a couple of different parts to it, but at it's foundation, the argument appears to be that coke, heroin, oxy (which is legal so not sure why it's included), etc. are more harmful than weed. Substances that are more harmful than weed should be illegal.

The problem with your stance, however, is you do need to put forward what exactly you are considering as the harmful properties of these substances. If we're talking about the development of physical addictions then, yes, heroin and oxy likely fall into that category, but cocaine is much more of a mental addiction and is closer to the habit-forming category that marijuana finds itself in. It actually scores lower on addiction charts than both alcohol and nicotine.

Your stance considers opioids and stimulants but fails to account for a whole host of other recreational drugs, such as hallucinogens, dissociatives, and club drugs, many of which when taken responsibly pose health risks that are no more severe than those associated with a night of heavy drinking. It seems to me that if the risks are equal, it seems a little absolutist to demand that people get their rocks off in ways that only we deem to be acceptable. What if someone hates boozing but loves rolling? Are those people criminals?

I'm assuming you're also alluding to the potential for overdosing when referring to the "hard drugs." Again we find issues when we start breaking these drugs down into their appropriate categories. Overdoses are very rare in most of these drugs. With the exception of opioids, overdoses most generally tend to occur when people mix these drugs with alcohol. Sure, someone could take a whole gram of MDMA to themselves and have a really bad time, but that's like saying someone who drinks 60 oz of rye is going to have a bad time. It's pretty self-evident.

Okay you say, but what about the people who do overdose on these drugs by themselves, or start tweaking like crazy? Well this actually has as much to do with the criminalization of these drugs as it does the drugs themselves. You see, since something like cocaine isn't regulated, the cartels tend to put a whole bunch of nasty stuff in with it in order to maximize profit. Then, during the transportation of cocaine, the product is "stepped on" (has more nasty cutting agents added it to it) at pretty much every stop. By the time it arrives to the average consumer most "cocaine" actually only contains about 20% cocaine. The rest is usually a combination of laxatives, baking powder, caffeine, and levamisole (which is some really nasty stuff). The ironic part is, these cutting agents are usually 100% legal.

The same can be said for MDMA. Pure MDMA powder is not generally known for causing cardiac arrests, dehydration, etc. However, when mixed with a whole a bunch of stimulants and pressed into "ecstasy" pills, bad #### tends to happen.

This doesn't even begin to take into account the number of people who avoid seeking medical attention when on these drugs due to their legal status. Unless you have a real hard-on for seeing junkies in the pen instead of addiction treatment, it seems odd to me how anyone can fathom that criminalized substances are better for society.

I would prefer that we just take people arrested for manufacturing and selling them and throw them off of a cliff over a pit of rusty rebar, society doesn't need those type of parasites (The sellers).

That's great but it's pretty naive and also ignores much of the social context surrounding who sells, why, etc. The people who get arrested for dealing are usually the low level types, and there are thousands of poverty-stricken individuals for the mid-level types to recruit. Even if you catch a mid-level guy, odds are he's a just a runner, and the cartels have enough money to recruit 10x as many of those as the police can catch. If you actually want to stop the flow of drugs into the country, you basically have 3 options:

1. Convince the various governments of South and Central America, various parts of Asia, etc., to let you wage all-out war on the cartels and hope they run out of bodies and money faster than you do.

2. Implement better social programs so that the lower and mid-level guys aren't forced to turn to criminal pursuits to feed themselves, etc., although this likely involves tax increases and I know how you right-wingers are big fans of those.

3. Legalize and regulate the production of drugs within our own borders. Tax the revenue and spend it on number 2.

4. Continue with the status quo, bury your head in the sand and convince yourself that we're not wasting piles of resources fighting for temperance principles from nearly 90 years ago.

[rubecube]

And then I was all like "Yo I had no time to write my paper this weekend. Can I have an extension?"

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by SebC

Street prostitution is not legal, unless you've figured out a way to do it without public solicitation.

Well, I'm tempted to say that you're exactly wrong--because it is the solicitation that is illegal and not the prostitution. But I do see your point, which I take to be that most street prostitution does not comply with the law because at some stage it involves solicitation.

The difficulty is that street prostitution is one of the clear policy outcomes of our present regime. It's much easier to crack down on a "bawdy-house" than it is to bust prostitutes who work mostly in their clients' cars.

But it is important to be clear: prostitution, including on the street and in the context of an "out-call" to a client's residence (also quite dangerous) is legal. What is illegal is "keeping a common bawdy-house," which means that the safest form of prostitution for sex workers is actually the only one that is specifically unlawful.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, I'm tempted to say that you're exactly wrong--because it is the solicitation that is illegal and not the prostitution. But I do see your point, which I take to be that most street prostitution does not comply with the law because at some stage it involves solicitation.

The difficulty is that street prostitution is one of the clear policy outcomes of our present regime. It's much easier to crack down on a "bawdy-house" than it is to bust prostitutes who work mostly in their clients' cars.

But it is important to be clear: prostitution, including on the street and in the context of an "out-call" to a client's residence (also quite dangerous) is legal. What is illegal is "keeping a common bawdy-house," which means that the safest form of prostitution for sex workers is actually the only one that is specifically unlawful.

The solicitation clause does make street prositution illegal, particularly since inside a vehicle is considered a public place for the purposes of this law (as long as the vehicle is in a public place). So I'm not entirely convinced that our laws increase street prositution's prevalence, since outcall is the only legal form of prostitution.

I do agree with you that the bawdy-house rules are harmful, and would like to see them dropped. Although in certain areas they seem to be unenforced or the lawers have figured out workarounds - in Edmonton the "massage parlours" openly advertise their locations, which I think think would get you busted in Calgary.

[GGG]

What if we made the sale of prostitution legal but left buying and pimping illegal. This way it allows the police to have an easy charge against trafficers and allows prostitutes to have protection from their clients by the police without fear of being charged.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by GGG

What if we made the sale of prostitution legal but left buying and pimping illegal. This way it allows the police to have an easy charge against trafficers and allows prostitutes to have protection from their clients by the police without fear of being charged.

Sorry, if you can 'sell' prostitution but not 'buy' it...you've got the same problem. It should be legal for 2 (or more) people to exchange a service and money for each other, if both (or all) people are willing and the service is legal. It's really not that hard.

Prostitutes need to be protected from exploitation, that's what the laws should be looking at.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

What if we made the sale of prostitution legal but left buying and pimping illegal. This way it allows the police to have an easy charge against trafficers and allows prostitutes to have protection from their clients by the police without fear of being charged.

As WhiteTiger said, if you make buying illegal then you push the trade into the shadows where it is difficult for prostitutes to protect themselves. Furthermore, if you accept the moral aspects of selling, then it follows that their is no moral grounds to criminalize buying.

As for pimping, the current "living of the avails" clause makes it technically illegal for prostitutes to have bodyguards, drivers, accountants, spouses etc. A narrower clause may avoid these pitfalls, but still causes problems. For example, a business person may have the capital and skills to be able to create a safe working environment that a prostitute could not by herself. Why shouldn't he be allowed to profit from an activity that is deemed legal? As long as there is no coercion, then we must assume that people who form a business relationship do so for mutual benefit, and preventing them from doing so denies them that benefit. We already have laws against abuse, trafficking, etc., so what does an anti-pimping law accomplish?

[undercoverbrother]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/top-five-co...tution-1435448

US and Canada on the list

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

As WhiteTiger said, if you make buying illegal then you push the trade into the shadows where it is difficult for prostitutes to protect themselves. Furthermore, if you accept the moral aspects of selling, then it follows that their is no moral grounds to criminalize buying.

As for pimping, the current "living of the avails" clause makes it technically illegal for prostitutes to have bodyguards, drivers, accountants, spouses etc. A narrower clause may avoid these pitfalls, but still causes problems. For example, a business person may have the capital and skills to be able to create a safe working environment that a prostitute could not by herself. Why shouldn't he be allowed to profit from an activity that is deemed legal? As long as there is no coercion, then we must assume that people who form a business relationship do so for mutual benefit, and preventing them from doing so denies them that benefit. We already have laws against abuse, trafficking, etc., so what does an anti-pimping law accomplish?

Can we agree the goal is net harm reduction? In a vacuum I think your argument makes sense. The key point being the prostitutes are free from coercion. To me this includes poverty, drug addiction, mental illness, previous abuse, and actual coercion. The vast majority of prostitutes don't want to be prostitutes and fall into one of the above categories.

So while a minority of prostitutes who have chosen the profession might be better off based on your argument the remainder aren't.

The big change by making selling legal and buying illegal is that prostitutes will be protected by the police instead of persecuted by them

[GGG]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Sorry, if you can 'sell' prostitution but not 'buy' it...you've got the same problem. It should be legal for 2 (or more) people to exchange a service and money for each other, if both (or all) people are willing and the service is legal. It's really not that hard.

Prostitutes need to be protected from exploitation, that's what the laws should be looking at.

The majority Prostitutes are exploited with every transaction. Legalizing the exploitation and increasing demand isnt really helping anywhere it gas been implemented

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Can we agree the goal is net harm reduction?

Generally yes, although we should also question to what extent to which people have the right to harm themselves. Liberty, in a sense, is the right to harm oneself.

Originally Posted by GGG

In a vacuum I think your argument makes sense. The key point being the prostitutes are free from coercion. To me this includes poverty, drug addiction, mental illness, previous abuse, and actual coercion. The vast majority of prostitutes don't want to be prostitutes and fall into one of the above categories.

So while a minority of prostitutes who have chosen the profession might be better off based on your argument the remainder aren't.

The big change by making selling legal and buying illegal is that prostitutes will be protected by the police instead of persecuted by them

This is where we differ. If a person in a third world country goes to work in a sweatshop, they aren't doing it because it makes their life worse. They're doing it because they perceive it to be a net benefit for them. That's not coercion, that's a choice.

Let's say a woman is deperate for cash, has daddy issues, and is addicted to drugs. She decides to become a prostitute. Who's to say that if there was no demand because we're criminalizing clients, she wouldn't be a thief instead? Would her life be better? I'm not sold that taking away options from the destitute is harm reduction - though I will obviously say that legalizing prostitution is in no way an appropriate substitute for proper social services.

But to go back to your question, I don't just support legalization from a harm reduction perspective - I also support it from a personal liberty perspective. My general view is that one person's freedoms should end when they infringe on someone else's. Neither buying nor selling sex infringe on other people's rights, so they should be legal. I also believe that well-designed regulations could reduce net harm better than the current system or the "nordic model" (which is effectively what you've proposed, where everyone involved but the prostitute is a criminal).

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/top-five-co...tution-1435448

US and Canada on the list

Could those stats be any less precise?

According to Crimes Against Children research Centre (CCRC), the numbers of juvenile prostitutes within the United States range from 1,400 to 2.4 million

I have no idea what percentage of sex workers are working involuntarily, but it sounds like the experts don't either.

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't see redistribution of sex workers as likely though as an increase in demand without constraints on supply leads to more supply. And there are ample poor destitute women in poor countries willing to do anything for a promised better life so supply would likely keep up with demand.

You're likely right that supply would increase to meet demand, but how much of the increase in demand is really just a redistribution that leads to a redistribution of supply? As undercoverbrother's post indicates, sex tourism is a huge factor in the increased demand in Brazil and Thailand, though it's probably not a factor in the U.S. or Canada, so I can't draw any real conclusions from that.

My suspicion, though, is that any increase in demand in jurisdictions where prostitution is legal is largely offset by a decrease in demand in surrounding jurisdictions. Would demand for prostitutes in Amsterdam decrease if the Netherlands outlawed it? Of course, but I bet the demand would increase in Brussels. Would there be any net positive from that?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by gargamel

My suspicion, though, is that any increase in demand in jurisdictions where prostitution is legal is largely offset by a decrease in demand in surrounding jurisdictions. Would demand for prostitutes in Amsterdam decrease if the Netherlands outlawed it? Of course, but I bet the demand would increase in Brussels. Would there be any net positive from that?

The likely answer, as it usually is in economics, is that substitution effects are weaker than the initial effect that causes the substitution. In other words, if the Netherlands instituted a ban, it would increase demand in Brussels but total demand (globally) would drop.

Now would this be a net positive? It's probably only a net positive if you ignore the producer and consumer benefits that prostitution creates. Effectively, what the opponents or prostitution generally do, in order to have legalization fail a net benefit test, is assign a negative "impact on society" value to the transaction that is not justified by economic science or dismiss the positive value that the transaction creates (i.e. the "economic coercion" argument). Or they simply do not do a net benefit test at all. This is not to say that real externalities do not exist - but the assumption that paying for sex is inherently bad is contradicted by the willingness that people have to buy and sell it.

[gvitaly]

I am (slightly) against making prostitution legal. I really do want this line of work to be safer for the women(and men) that work in it! I am just worried that making it legal will increase both supply and demand. As a legal job it will attract quite a new group of women into it. Women that will think it is a 'quick and easy' way to make money. At a younger age women will be more likely to enter this industry(because society now thinks its okay), and as a result ruin their entire life. Maybe I would be less worried if there would be a higher legal age associated with prostitution, 21 instead of 18 for example.

Some women will still be forced into it, even if it is legal. Now if the demand for the services goes up as a result of no repercussions to the clients, there will have to be an increase in supply. How will this supply increase is yet to be seen.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I am (slightly) against making prostitution legal. I really do want this line of work to be safer for the women(and men) that work in it! I am just worried that making it legal will increase both supply and demand. As a legal job it will attract quite a new group of women into it. Women that will think it is a 'quick and easy' way to make money. At a younger age women will be more likely to enter this industry(because society now thinks its okay), and as a result ruin their entire life. Maybe I would be less worried if there would be a higher legal age associated with prostitution, 21 instead of 18 for example.

Some women will still be forced into it, even if it is legal. Now if the demand for the services goes up as a result of no repercussions to the clients, there will have to be an increase in supply. How will this supply increase is yet to be seen.

It sounds like most of your concerns are based around the negative stigmatization of sex. If it's legalized, and a woman likes sex...it IS a very fast way to a woman to make some money. Why, unless we view sex as negative, bad or in some other poor light, would this "ruin their entire life"? It shouldn't. The fact that people like sex, like having sex, and want more sex shouldn't be a 'bad' thing. If they are able to get a lot of sex, paid or 'given'...it shouldn't be a problem.

I think what we need to adjust here is societies attitude towards sex in general.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

It sounds like most of your concerns are based around the negative stigmatization of sex. If it's legalized, and a woman likes sex...it IS a very fast way to a woman to make some money. Why, unless we view sex as negative, bad or in some other poor light, would this "ruin their entire life"? It shouldn't. The fact that people like sex, like having sex, and want more sex shouldn't be a 'bad' thing. If they are able to get a lot of sex, paid or 'given'...it shouldn't be a problem.

I think what we need to adjust here is societies attitude towards sex in general.

My concerns are not based on viewing sex as a negative. I view sex as something of huge value, and I think that such a work line will completely ruin or devalue the experience for the person involved.

I think enjoying sex doesn't involve only the mechanics of touching certain places... I think that the partner makes a huge difference in whether the person enjoys it or not. I really think that a person that just enjoys sex(regardless of the partner, or how its done) is a misconception brought to us from the porn industry. I am sure such people exist, just not very many. Also, if you consider the amount of partners per day, the fact that a lot of them will be selfish, and/or tell the prostitute to do things outside of his/her comfort zone you will see that very little joy will be involved. This is the part that I think might be traumatic in a young person's life.