Prostitution Vote

Berkeley, CA has an initiative on the ballot to legalize prostitution. It's just symbolic: because of state law, a win won't make prostitution legal, but it also directs the police to give "low priority" to anti-prostitution enforcement.

Comments

[Xavier]

If this were in any other city I would strongly support it, but I think having Berkley on our side is likely to do more harm than good.

[Swamp Justice]

I live Berkeley and will vote YES for this. The prostitution zones are VERY well known. I've seen homemade signs there that say something like "Every dollar spent arresting prostitutes is a dollar stolen from our schools." I think the result is good, though this message seems to be (intelligently) targeting the leftist Berkeley audience. 🙂

[Ruthless]

Xavier,
People and cities that take the lead for social change are usually a little frightening to the rest of us... even US.
'Twas ever thus.

[Mark S.]

Berkley? Wouldn't the local womens studies academics have a fit about this?

[Margaret Mead]

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

The prostitution zones are VERY well known

Are the workers from further south, or are they whores of Mensa? Just wondering.

[Swamp Justice]

Mark S: in Berkeley and San Francisco, the local women groups are STRONGLY in favor of "prostitutes rights". They like prostitutes, but not prostitution. They are upset that the local police fight prostitution's supply side, arresting prostitutes but not johns.

[Warren]

An unenforced law is a long way from legal. A free black market can get really ugly. Don't expect things to improve if this passes.

[Swamp Justice]

Most of the prostitutes in Berkeley are from Oakland, working the border between the two cities. If the johns won't go the prostitutes (in ghetto Oakland), then the prostitutes will come to the johns.

[Mark S.]

"They like prostitutes, but not prostitution. "

Isn't that something like supporting the ownership of automobiles, but banning driving?

[Ken Shultz]

The Lonewacko Blog,

Okay, you got me. In the half second it took for my critical anayalsis reflexes to kick in, my other reflexes clicked on your link. In a momentary lapse, I thought that maybe, just maybe, there might be a...eh hem...women of mensa...web site.

[Douglas Fletcher]

"Wouldn't the local womens studies academics have a fit about this?"

Why, are they afraid of the competition?

[The Lonewacko Blog]

'The Whore of Mensa' is a Woody Allen short story.

A friend who I believe was a fan of those videos at the previous link told me - I can't verify this of course - that the opening shot in the tapes was shot at UCB.

Here's another fun link that involves UCB coeds.

[Hanah Metchis]

"They like prostitutes, but not prostitution. "

Isn't that something like supporting the ownership of automobiles, but banning driving?

I think it's more like loving the sinner, but hating the sin.

[Ruthless]

Hanah,
You are an instant hit on Hit.
And with that opening, your name fascinates me.
Please direct us (I'm sure I speak for many) to a more complete bio of you, and I promise never to stalk you (I speak for me only.).

[Kevin Carson]

Warren,

An unenforced law also is a big step in the right direction.

The same principle applies to the federal war on drugs. State/local pot decriminalization, medpot, etc. laws don't prevent the feds from enforcing their own laws. But they do mean that the feds will no longer have "drug task forces" to fight most of the war for them. The federal government will have to use its own personnel and money every time somebody is arrested for having a reefer in his sock.

[thoreau]

Along the lines of what Kevin's saying, here's what I've always envisioned for a step toward drug legalization:

Say that a state repeals its ban on some currently illicit substance, but the state acknowledges that a federal ban is still in place. So, the state and local officials decide to enforce the federal drug bans the way they'd arrest, say, people guilty of other federal crimes. Every day around the state thousands of drug offenders are dropped off on the doorstep of the local FBI field offices. "Here, YOU take care of this mess!" is the attitude.

I wonder how long it would take for the FBI to request fewer deliveries. Or how long it would take for the feds to sue the state and demand that it reinstate the ban. I know that H&R posters could go on at great lengths about how such a suit would have no legal grounds, but since when have the feds backed down just because the facts aren't on their side?

[Ruthless]

Quoting Dear Abby: Wake up and smell the coffee.

There will never be any "steps" toward drug legalization... either the hoi polloi will realize they own their own bodies... or they won't.

[Mona]

So far, I like Hanah. She's smart and innovative, and her ideology seems on par w/ sane libertarians. You go girl!

--Moma--

[thoreau]

and her ideology seems on par w/ sane libertarians

I read this comment and nodded to myself in agreement. And then I realized 2 things:

1) That it seemed perfectly reasonable to evaluate a writer based on her ideology.
2) That "sane" is actually a necessary clarification when evaluating a libertarian writer.

I like Mona's posts, and I've enjoyed what Hanah is posting this far, but man, we are a rigid bunch here, aren't we?

[brooklyn dave]

Hooray for Berkeley even if the vote is only symbolic. Unfortunately the place does have a reputation in the minds of many people. Would folks look at a vote like this any more seriously if it were happening in Anaheim?

[c]

I know you guys dropped the "unenforced law" theme a few posts ago, but I wanted to add that -- in a general sense -- "unenforced" law as a mechanism for liberalization is a very very dangerous thing. What it does is put the enforcement of something in the discretion of some individual police officer, chief, or prosecutor. The opportunity for abuse here is just too great.

What the legal system needs to do is to recognize pervasively lax enforcement as a valid legal defense.

[iconoclast]

Damn you, lonewacko. Put NSFW on your links!

Some of us are too hung over for the critical thinking skills required to be at work and not follow links while reading a thread about legalizing prostitution.

[mobile]

They like prostitutes, but hate prostitution ...

Is that like "I am against the war, but I support the troops?"

[Gertha Flatulents]

Symbolism in Berkeley? I am shocked. What happened to all the feminists over there? Isn't prostitution objectifying women or something.

[Douglas Fletcher]

"I like Mona's posts, and I've enjoyed what Hanah is posting this far, but man, we are a rigid bunch here, aren't we?"

Nah, you're just a horny little bastard.