Althouse: Proposition K.

October 31, 2008

Proposition K.

It sounds like a cross between breakfast cereal and hemorrhoid ointment, but it's a ballot proposal that will essentially legalize prostitution in San Francisco.

29 comments:

Host with the Most said...: You mean it's not already legal in San Francisco?; 10/31/08, 9:49 PM
TMink said...: I thought it was proposition K Y.

Sorry.

Trey; 10/31/08, 9:51 PM
Palladian said...: Ahh, San Francisco! What a great place to live, what with the garbage and drug-addicts and hipsters and the earthquakes and the rich socialists. Why not add legal prostitutes to that paradise on Earth? Hell, knowing San Francisco, I'm surprised that the proposal isn't for government-supplied prostitutes. Hasn't Judge Reinhardt found a basic human right to State-subsidized prostitutes yet? I'm sure he will when Obama nominates him to the Supreme Court.; 10/31/08, 9:53 PM
Palladian said...: "I thought it was proposition K Y."

Knowing San Francisco, I'm surprised it isn't.

I'm with Host, I'm surprised that it's not already legal. I mean, it seems so old fashioned, the notion of prostitutes, in a place that has a city-sanctioned event that features fellatio and fisting practiced on the streets in broad daylight.; 10/31/08, 9:56 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: “This is not cute. This is not fanciful,” Mr. Newsom said, standing in front of the pink-on-pink facade of a closed massage parlor in the Tenderloin district. “This is a big mistake.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjY2pG7uf7c; 10/31/08, 10:09 PM
Geoff Matthews said...: The poor and minorities are disproportionately represented in prostitution. Prostitution can also be a hostile work environment. So, once it is legal, wait for there to be government regulations, union drives (imagine what unionized prostitutes will look like), and above all, memoirs.; 10/31/08, 10:16 PM
Bob said...: First there will be an intial euphoria around this new sign of progress and "spreading the wealth". But then reality will seep in. The city elders will start with the rules, permits, and licensing. Unionization will take hold to prevent victimization by "management". EPA will need to create dozens of new workplace rules. Enforcement officials will be hired, trained, and operate. Forms and reports will need to submitted to track activities. A standard set of service charges will be enacted, similiar to cabfares, due to complaints from clients on price fixing. The courts will be clogged due to cases alleging broken contracts, substandard service, bait and switch marketing, etc. The FBI & IRS will conduct investigations and expand operations to ensure revenue & tax collections after media coverage of prostitutes failing to report large incomes. And "management", formally pimps, getting obscene profits and bonuses. Then San Francisco will facilitate SBA loans and create taxfree zones to build the sex industry. Neighboring municipalities will race to embrace this new industry and its jobs & promised tax revenue. Municipal bonds will be sold to fund taxbreaks given for sex firms willing to relocate.

So in about a decade, two cops in a patrol car will be on the lookout for a john and prostitute getting it on in an alley - because they are doing it illegally.; 10/31/08, 10:18 PM
TMink said...: John wrote: "The poor and minorities are disproportionately represented in prostitution."

As are addicts and people who were sexually abused as children.

Trey; 10/31/08, 10:24 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Human Trafficing has always been a problem in The City. This would make it far worse.; 10/31/08, 10:25 PM
Buford Gooch said...: Well, Yahoo is laying off 1500 workers here in the Bay. It would be nice if this passes and they have another high pay/low work position available just a few miles north.; 10/31/08, 10:26 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: two cops in a patrol car will be on the lookout for a john and prostitute getting it on in an alley - because they are doing it illegally.

That alley better be well lit and accessible

http://www.ada.gov/; 10/31/08, 10:30 PM
blake said...: OK, I'll say it: "Good."

Gov't's got no business outlawing it.; 10/31/08, 10:37 PM
dannyboy said...: I'm sorry but with the abundance of cootch out there, unless you look like Qusimodo or Obama, if you have to actually for some tang you're a fookin loser.; 10/31/08, 10:46 PM
dannyboy said...: I meant to say pay for it. My typing is off. It was a long night at the pub,,go ahead, open my wrists; 10/31/08, 10:48 PM
Palladian said...: "unless you look like Qusimodo or Obama, if you have to actually for some tang you're a fookin loser."

Are you kidding? You know how many Obama supporters would give it up in a second if the Messiah wanted to screw them? I'm gay so I'd be after the male Obamabots. If I looked just like Obama I could fuck dozens of different gay (and straight) boys a night. For the straight guys, the takings would be even better.; 10/31/08, 10:53 PM
Synova said...: I didn't, you know, need that picture in my head.

And yes, California is weird in a lot of ways and it doesn't always break toward ultra liberal. The argument for legalizing prostitution is the same for drugs and other vices... making these things illegal makes them worse. The general human misery they cause is joined by criminal violence.

From a libertarian sort of view, something being legal should not not not imply that the legal thing is healthy, good, or right... just that it's legal. Unfortunately the majority of Americans function under the assumption that our laws ought to reflect morality, what is bad for us must be prohibited and what is good for us must be compelled.

I wish more people would try to get the message across that this isn't a healthy way to think about government.

Even in San Francisco, I'd be surprised if this passes. But it's not necessarily a bad thing, even if prostitution remains a bad thing.

What is really damaging, I think, is the attendant insistence that "sex work" is liberating, or even neutral. It's not.; 10/31/08, 11:28 PM
blake said...: On the other hand, Syn, sometimes it's just work.; 10/31/08, 11:32 PM
William said...: And why should only the rich get to fool around with $4000 per hour hookers? Can't there be some kind of sex stamp program so that the poor and the marginal can get quality trim for once in their life?... Why do Marxists only wish to redistribute boring things like money? Cannot a civilized people find a way to equitably share cheap sex and Bruce Springsteen tickets?; 10/31/08, 11:32 PM
blake said...: Well, William, I think when you spread the legs around, it's good for everyone.; 10/31/08, 11:40 PM
BJM said...: Ah gees, how will we be able to tell the hos from the Pols?

Oh.

Never mind.; 10/31/08, 11:40 PM
dannyboy said...: Are you kidding? You know how many Obama supporters would give it up in a second if the Messiah wanted to screw them?

Now that you mention it you're right. The old Eddie Murphy routine still holds true. He said he got into show business to get pussy because if Jimmy Walker can get laid he'd be fuckin everyone.

Well I'm a sad state of affairs on the guitar and kareoke but I can lick my eyebrows and that still can draw a few and not just the skanks.

Ok a few are....; 10/31/08, 11:52 PM
Wince said...: Don't worry.

No matter the outcome, I'm sure a "happy ending" will follow.; 11/1/08, 12:16 AM
Revenant said...: Hopefully the measure will actually pass. Then the police could focus on investigating the crimes so many opponents of prostitution CLAIM to care about -- slave traficking, rape, fraud, abuse, child molestation, etc.

Right now the police focus on consensual prostitution because prostitutes are a good source of bribes and sex. San Francisco has no shortage of real crimes to investigate.; 11/1/08, 12:36 AM
Daryl said...: I would be in support of this, but it prevents the city from cracking down on illegal immigrant prostitution. It specifically prevents the city from taking federal funding for that purpose.

That, it seems to me, promotes the exploitation of women and organized crime. I must recommend voting AGAINST Proposition K, even though prostitution should be legal in many instances.; 11/1/08, 1:29 AM
dbp said...: “This is not cute. This is not fanciful,” Mr. Newsom said, standing in front of the pink-on-pink facade of a closed massage parlor in the Tenderloin district. “This is a big mistake.”

Heh, he sounds exactly like those people who oppose gay marriage.; 11/1/08, 6:54 AM
TMink said...: I would have thought that the city would have legalized and taxed marijuana before legalizaing prostitution. What will happen to the STD rates? I know I know, the prostitutes will be required health screens. But I am guessing the prostitution trade will not be too hip to the whole follow the legal requirements thing.

Trey; 11/1/08, 9:36 AM
Robert R. said...: I fail to see the big deal about this, one way or another. Especially with Nevada not that far away.

It does look like San Francisco is possibly on the way to becoming Amsterdam West. The country will survive though. And who knows, one municipality experimenting might give us relevant information about whether keeping laws in place as they are is a good thing.; 11/1/08, 10:35 AM
Shawn Levasseur said...: Some of the fears behind the opponents of this seem overwrought. Most of them involve minors and human trafficing.

Investigating the abuse of minors, rape, statutory rape, sexual assault, smuggling and employment of illegal aliens all still would we above board.

This would just make the sex workers who are not involved in other crimes out of the criminal class, and better able to enjoy the protections of the law instead of fearing law enforcement.

Realistically, however. This only applies to local law enforcement. Look for the State of California to pick up the slack.

To "essentially legalize" is not the same as actually legalizing. Every technicality that can be used will be used so long as the laws against prostitution are still on the books.; 11/1/08, 12:10 PM
former law student said...: A passion for accuracy makes me spoil Ann's sport: This city/county initiative is Measure K, not Preparation :) K.

The Drill Sgt. is absolutely correct: Sex worker trafficking is serious in SF. My friend the public interest lawyer tells me many women are eligible for T-1 (human trafficking victim) visas.; 11/1/08, 6:23 PM