You don't have to ask it 3 times. I can read and have an attention span longer than 15 seconds.
Comparing being a hooker to driving a car is ridiculous at best. If you want to have an even comparison, you could say that having sex is not illegal, but having sex for money is. Driving a car is not illegal. But driving under the influence, or using your car to hurt someone is.
The health department is not the police. The authorities who check health cards are not state police. I addressed that in the other post. State monies for drug addicts are used to treat drug addiction even though narcotics use is illegal. The funding of a program to curb the dangers of illegal activity doesn't make the illegal activity somehow legal. That is a fallacious argument.
So I answered your's. Now, here's my question: What part of article 268 do you not understand?
CAPITULO III CODIGO PENAL DE BC
ULTRAJES A LA MORAL PUBLICA
ARTICULO 268.- Tipo y punibilidad.- Se aplicará prisión de uno a siete años y de veinte a cien días multa:
I.- Al que fabrique, reproduzca o publique libros, escritos, imágenes u objetos obscenos y al que los exponga, distribuya o haga circular;
II.- Al que publique por cualquier medio, ejecute o haga ejecutar por otro exhibiciones obscenas;
[b]III.- Al que de un modo escandaloso invite a otro al comercio carnal.[/b]
That doesn't say it's ok if it's not in public, it doesn't say it's legal in certain areas. It is illegal per state law. Your argument of selective enforcement is only valid in a practical sense, but not in a legal sense. Like I've always said, you can say the chances of getting charged with this are slim, but you can't tell me this doesn't exist in the penal code because I'm reading it right here.
Try and refute what's in the penal code. I want to see this.