legalize us
and for a variety of reasons. It is about morality not decriminalization. To legalize prostitution is to say to the men of this country "Sure, you may have relations with someone other than your SO or Wife and pay for it". Sound ridiculous? It does.It is just as assinine as Bush stating that instead of teaching safe sex in school, teach abstinence, because teaching safe sex only encourages kids to have sex.
To legalize prostitution is to make it harder to control sexual slavery in the US. And before anyone gets on their high moral horse about that, it goes on...everyday in this country...you know it as well as I do. Those AMP's aren't ALL run by the happy mamasan. Not ALL of those girls are thrilled to give you a HJ or a BJ. They have to. End of story.
To legalize prostitution opens the doors for more political and religious warfare. Where do you draw the line? I would rather see the women of this country be allowed to do as they please without fear of incarceration. But with all things, it would come at someones expense. No law is fool proof.
It is a quagmire at best.
there would be no way to monitor it, not to mention the riff raff looking to make a quick buck.
That got me thinking that if these Indian tribes can run gambling operations on their land where it's illegal in that state. Why not brothels?
I have been thinking in the same line for years. Here in San Diego, there are plenty of these Casinos. Could it be for political reasons brothels have not been opened?
... The series of compromises that allowed Indian casinos was structured because neither side wanted to risk taking the issue to court. The Indians (and the bent-noses who bankrolled them and run most of their casinos) didn't want to risk having a court decide, "Hell, it's Indian land, but it's still subject to California law!" The state didn't want to risk hearing the court say, "Yeah, they're not really part of California, so they can run casinos and whorehouses if they want to, and they don't have to pay you dick!" So we have the situation we have now, which gets periodically adjusted to allow for more slot machines and higher tax revenue.
The Indians will never push for brothels, because commercial pussy is, compared to gambling, an infinitesimally small-profit enterprise. (Ladies, what was YOUR highest-grossing day? How many mill are we talking about? LOL.) The Indians are raking in the bucks on gambling, and will NOT upset the applecart by suggesting legalizing prostitution, especially when they'd make more dough by persuading the state to let them have a few more slot machines.
Those "bent noses" you refer to are probably involved in prostition at some level or have I been watching to many Godfather movies? Harrahs? Bally? Trump? Why not Larry Flint or the guy that owns Penthouse or Playboy or porn film moguls. I'm on the east coast so I don't know much about California politics.
even though the latter are legal ALMOST all over Nevada -- except in Clark and Elko counties, where Las Vegas and Reno are located. As for California, it's still an illegal business all the way.
Elko is in Elko county. Reno is not. I've been stranded in Elko, and yes I can direct you to the brothels...
Well, there is something in Washoe County hehe, but next to nothing in Elko. a couple of Casinos, a couple of brothels, and a couple of mining camps to support them. That's about all you'll find in Elko.
Well, on reason is that it's quite possible the Feds would use something like the Mann act against the ladies and hobbyists as they left the reservation.
Making prostitution a crime makes it more likely that persons will be inappropriately exploited because the profession is hidden.
-- Modified on 3/29/2005 4:31:03 PM
A hidden industry is more likely to abuse persons without retribution than a transparent industry.
If the answer were cut and dried, it would have already been decided. There are good reasons for and against.. the question is one of power: Who has it at the time the issue comes to a head.
I think we know the answer to that question, currently. Of course, I don't really think the issue has come to a head yet.. more and more Europe is starting to legalize prostitution.
US will follow eventually, I'd imagine.
Personally I'd like to see it 'decriminalized' in the sense that the government isn't telling you it's OK to do what you want with your body, but more in the sense that they STOP doing it. I don't think the government should have any say in the matter.
It is legal in Nevada only if the population is less than 250,000. That is why it is illegal in Reno and Las Vegas. The population thing may be a problem for the Chicken Ranch and Sheris Ranch in Pahrump (60 miles from Vegas) as their population is expanding. There was an article over a year ago that said that because Pahrump got a Walmart, the town is showing that it is becoming big and the brothels will have to go.
True, but Pahrump's growth has taken it to about 30,000 people. The local residents are VERY happy with the taxes paid by the brothels, and almost lynched a local politician that brought up the idea of shutting one down.
They are not really "in the city", but in some communities (Elko for example) they are almost downtown. Many of the rural Nevada towns exist only because of the tax revenue generated by the brothels. It's funny how one sided the decision gets when it's put "a brothel and a school" or "sorry, we can't afford to educate your children".
I agree, Lass. I think the best thing we could hope for, is to decriminalize prostitution.
Legalization invites unwanted regulation.
Keep the laws on the books, but don't enforce them. To an extent, with high-end prostitutes, this is what is already happening now, depending on your location in the US.
"Legalization invites unwanted regulation. Keep the laws on the books, but don't enforce them."
In other words, keep a law on the books that allows an arrest at any time, depending on the inclination of the officer, but hope it’s not enforced. Trust but don’t trust. Depend on apathy?
-- Modified on 3/29/2005 10:47:56 PM
If a law is not applied uniformly then it's unconstitutional.
So if the anti-prostitution laws were routinely ignored by all LE then any subsequent prosecution should be very difficult. The defense attorney should have a decent shot at getting it thrown out because the law is not being applied equally to everyone.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I just play one on message boards)
-- Modified on 3/30/2005 12:19:07 AM
Kind of like the laws against speeding.
Yes, it happens.
The police have a great deal of leeway on how far they desire to enforce the law. In effect, law enforcement policy is a form of regulation. As a rule, the police will go after streetwalkers, brothels, agencies, and indies -- in that order. Any bias by the police against one form of prostitution becomes a de facto regulation.
If prostitution is legalized, of course it will be regulated -- just like doctors, lawyers, plumbers, and beauticians are regulated and licensed by their trade associations. I wouldn't even be surprised if some states eventually require a specialized college degree before getting a courtesan license! Seriously, the most effective means the state has to regulate prostitutes is to get the prostitutes themselves to elect a board to regulate their own industry. Actually, I think the public might go along with legalization if every prostitute also doubled as a counterintelligence informant to guard against terrorist organizations. (If the feds had had an extensive prostitute network before 9-11, I think thousands of lives would have been saved...)
The real question isn't that of legality, but who is doing the regulating. Should prostitutes regulate themselves, or should legislators, or should police do it as they presently do? As it is, I'm not favorably impressed with the working conditions in Nevada brothels. If prostitution were legalized, there would need to be a better model than that!