The lady was specifically referring to prostitution, not national politics. And, as I said, prostitution is a state issue; the federal government never arrests a hooker or a john unless it's on some other charge, usuall tax evasion for the hooker and interstate misuse of the mails or telcomm system.
I'm afraid you'll have to take your political agenda elsewhere. You are right though about some Americans being dumb. Some can't even read simple English.
Rather than fret about being arrested etc why not channel or that energy into getting prostitution legalised. You guys must be about the last country in the developed world who still view prostitution as a crime.
Thankfully I am in Sydney and it's perfectly legal. Couldn't imagine how difficult it must be to work in the US. You have my sympathy!
While not unsympethetic to legalization, please see today's stories concerning the attempt to legalize prostitution in the Czech Republic and other Euro-countries. Not everyone is Amsterdam or Australia. Is it legal in the U.K.; Sweden; Norway; Spain; Italy; Israel; JapanBrazil; Argentina; Chile? There are good reasons for both sides of the question and I doubt that civilization suffers any detriment of enjoys any gains from legal prostitution.
It is, though, pursuant to our federal approach, a state by state issue. It is not a question for Congress. Nevada allows prostitution. Other states - and their citizenry - have opted not to do so. Any state could choose to legalize prostitution if it wished. Clearly, the voters are not demanding it, not even in California or New York where there are few evangelicals or red-necks.
Thus, Madam, your contention about our nation's backwardness is, in a word, wrong.
Au contraire, mon frere.
We are one of the most bass ackward places on the planet. We claim to be free- but this place is actually becomnig a police state.
The average american voter is pretty dumb- just look at who we vote for....
no country can have a buffoon for a leader and claim to be right all the time.
Did not work for Italy under Mussolini- doesn't work now for us!
The lady was specifically referring to prostitution, not national politics. And, as I said, prostitution is a state issue; the federal government never arrests a hooker or a john unless it's on some other charge, usuall tax evasion for the hooker and interstate misuse of the mails or telcomm system.
I'm afraid you'll have to take your political agenda elsewhere. You are right though about some Americans being dumb. Some can't even read simple English.
In certain places. It is illegal in Las Vegas because of the population density there. I think that it also may be illegal in Reno. it is legal in some of the smaller population areas that surround those two cities.
I agree with your assessment to legalizing prostitution would not accomplish much, the only benefit that I see would be that providers could call the police to have them deal with lout clients.
In Nevada, it is allowable (but not necessarliy allowed) in counties with a population under 400,000. But it is all changeable by the legislature which, of course, is my point. Prosititution is not federal. It is a state by state choice of the electorate.
Our government reflects the voice of the people who, mostly, say no thanks to prostitution. Had we men not decided to give women the right to vote, you can bet prostitution would be legal in many more states.
Therefore, sister providers, it's your gender's fault. The men would vote overwhelmingly for legalization. It's your sister ladies who don't want you to ply your trade.
And that Down Under Sheila: Take note of that.
-- Modified on 5/13/2004 12:11:43 PM
Oh bollocks it's my gender's fault! A couple of points -
In most instances, the 'legalisation' of prostitution is not required, simply it's decriminalisation - and that does not require a vote from anyone, particularly given it's a state issue.
When prostitution is not illegal a couple of things happen. Firstly, and most pertinently, the money to be made my organised crime to a great extent evaporates, as do the kickbacks to local officials. Secondly, it becomes easier to control its spread into urban areas (via local planning laws) and the sex workers can be covered by social security, insurance etc. and, as you rightly pointed out, they can access without fear the same protection from assault, theft and harassment that protect other workers. Thirdly, more tax is collected by the IRS. Fourthly, the level of drug use (particularly heroine) amongst sex workers declines and therefore drug related theft also declines.
De-criminalisation is a big win for everyone. The workers, their clients and the local community. Of course, if you are a mobster, not such a great outcome.
While I think decriminalisation makes sense, many of Emma Bond's claims aren't necessarily true, according to the following article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1215900,00.html
Specifically, decriminalisation seems to cause an expansion of the illegal side of the business. Read the article for more info.
and I don't agree with the conclusions they have derived from their evidence. There was very little baseline data about the size and makeup of the market prior to decriminalisation so difficult to measure whether there has been and increase in certain areas or not. I agree with their comments regarding the increase in illegal immigrants working in the area. However, note that the collapse of the s.e. asian economies co-incided with the decriminalisation of prostitution in Australia and some European states. To say that decriminalisation has lead to an increase in the exploitation of illegal immigrants is as logically correct as saying that decriminalisation caused the collapse of the s e asian economy. In short, correllation does not causality make.
"It is, though, pursuant to our federal approach, a state by state issue."
Well, yes and no. We have constitutional law (e.g. the Bill of Rights) that keep the states from being able to have certain types of laws. For example, Nevada can't have a law that requires all newspapers to be approved by the government prior to publication.
A constitution amendment along the lines of "The right to do anything that does not harm or defraud another person, shall not be infringed" (or something like that) would be national way to combat this problem (and many other problems as well).
Of course, that's a REAL fantasy, even more far-fetched than mere legalization. 
With the current administration and the Moral Majority it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Put pressure on your legislature and if they decline VOTE THEM OUT. Allow it to be taxed and then bankrupt states will be a thing of the past, and Police can go after more important crimes.
Oh yes, I just remembered, Multiple marriages are illegal in the USA but in Utah it seems too be overlooked a lot. Now that seems to be creeping into northern Arizona and Southern Montana.