Does it mean decriminalization mean that the providers would not be prosecuted but that they would also not enjoy certain legal protections, like labor laws, etc.,?  Or are hobbyists the only ones who would really benefit?

What does it all entail?

That is where the laws against sex for pay are nullified.  It's true they would have no protections under the labor laws, but many legal trades do not, including consultants and no one seems to feel that is a problem.

Legalization implies that laws will be enacted to regulate and perhaps even license providers.  The providers I've spoken to feel that they regulate themselves just fine, thank you, and that this would end up costing them (and you and me too by extention) with things like license fees and other bureacratic trappings.

(I almost forgot to add:  still not a lawyer)

-- Modified on 10/26/2007 1:06:40 PM

A good example of decriminalization is the way the anti prostitution laws are enforced in Rhode Island.  The law prohibits soliciting for sex in a public place but says nothing about meeting in private and exchanging money for sex.  Originally it was an oversight by the state legislature when they passed the law and there is a movement to have private meetings included in the statute.  The present law doesn’t say it is alright to exchange money for sex in private, but it doesn’t prohibit it either.  Think of it like this:  There is no law that says you can’t wear tennis shoes on Sunday, but there is no law that says you can either.  Decriminalization is definitely the best way to go.  As a matter of fact, I would rather have it the way it is now rather than have it legalized.  I am not familiar with other jurisdictions but in Los Angeles and other large cities in California LE does not enforce anti prostitution laws where the meeting occurs in private unless there is a complaining party.

are there other states where laws read the same?

If this gets out, it should do wonders for little Rhody's tourist industry.

... does anyone know where Rhode Island is?

That's quite interesting.  However it does point out a flaw and one of the main reasons it will be very hard to get laws which do not target and abuse women who voluntarily work in the sex trade.

Which is as the article notes, sex slavery and human trafficing.  How can that be enforced?  Therein lies the problem.

Who has an answer everyone can live with?

Sigh,
TS Jamie

-- Modified on 10/27/2007 2:11:10 AM

Copied from Wikipedia

Originally, prostitution was widely legal in the United States. Prostitution was made illegal in almost all states between 1910 and 1915 largely due to the influence of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union which was influential in the banning of drug use and was a major force in the prohibition of alcohol. In 1917 the legally defined prostitution district Storyville in New Orleans was closed down by the Federal government over local objections. Prostitution remained legal in Alaska until 1953 (though not yet a US state), and is still legal in some counties of Nevada.

Up until the religious right took hold everything was fine.  Figures.  They just want everyone else to be a miserable as they are.

Sigh,
TS Jamie

raining down upon Rhode Island at the current moment.

Hmmmm, maybe allowing men to find sexual pleasure with willing women is not the end of society after all.

What I found amusing is that it was Democrats who were pushing to contain sex for pay.  I wonder if they were just trying to even the playing field for their ATF's up in Massachusetts?

A friend of mine worked at Home Depot and noticed that a fair amount of independent contractors worked there too.  Despite their "freedom" they still needed the health plan [which is a great one by the way], esp. if they had families.

Maybe providers make enough to cover health costs out of pocket.  I'd like to hear from providers about that.

I'm not advocating for legalization or decriminalization, I'm trying to understand the issues involved.

What works for one or a few providers will not necessarily work for the majority.  Nothing will work for all, but a viable solution should at least try to consider that we don't know what we don't know.  I'm especially suspicious of panaceas.

I cannot say categorically that there is no downside, but I sure can't think of one.

I travel to many countries where the hobby is not illegal, and I have not seen any downside. It hasn't destroyed the fabric of marriage, it seems to do just fine is most extremely religious countries, as long as it's between consenting adults, I can't see a down side.

just because people want them to be.

Personally I like to see all of this against the larger fabric of humans struggling for advantage.   If you can regulate things just right, you can get the best price.  And ANY changes can upset the balance of all the vested interests.

Jamie, What you point out is correct but you missed one very important and truly horrible criminal enterprize that flourished 100 years ago. That is the white slavery trade which was very active in our country at that time.

The new book, "Sin in the Secound City" by Karen Abbott, focuses largely on Chicago and the area known as the Levee District but is a real eye opener as to what was very common around the turn of the century in many major US cities.

It involved the actual sale of young women and even girls. They were usually, but not always, immigrants. The purchasers were what ammounted to slave traders. The women were sold to these purchasers by men called panders who then resold them to bordellos.

There were many private groups who made this the reason of their existance. Most were church related but not all.  They were able to expose what was going on, and by public outcry, forced local, state and federal governments, after years of looking the other way, to address the abhorent plight of thousands of young women.
Out of those efforts came the prostitution laws we have today. Maybe an over reaction and certainly statutes that should be changed to fit 2007 rather than 1907.
Get the book for the details. Its very easy to read, almost like a novel in part. It will definitley detail for you a social situation which existed that hasnt been, shall we say, highlighted much, over the past 100 years for reasons that will be clear after youve read the book.

-- Modified on 10/31/2007 11:19:26 AM

The difference between "legalization" and "decriminalization" is like a parking ticket.

It is not criminal to park in front of a fire hydrant, but you can be fined.

To legalize is like Nevada (sans LV and Reno).

To decriminalize means the cop writes her a ticket, and she does not risk jail if she pays the ticket.

If prostitution were decriminalized, she still could not do it legally, and hence does not have any legal protection. The lady and the hobbyist still benefit since the punishment would not include jail.

on the contrary I have heard some big cities in Cali have dirty busts where LE dates the provider and then arrests her after a sex act has actually occurred.

I meant to say I have heard many times from many sources  about these dirty busts in Rockville, MD,Northern Virginia ,Dallas Texas, Miami beach, Florida. I am going to start a thread and see what is going on in this country.