BF2S Forums Prostitution: should it be legal?

ghettoperson wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

It is legal...

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/2290/picmainfx8.jpg
Name: Angelina Johansson
Age:     21
Weight:     54kg
Height:     5'9
Hair Colour :     Brunette
Desciption:     Elegant, refined and poised – Angelina has walked the catwalks from Milan to Moscow. With impeccable taste, impossibly long legs, and a sexy mane of brown hair – she is an ideal consort to men whose pleasure and pursuits take them to exotic locations, high level corporate events, and the best restaurants.
Rate:     $2,000 / hr

At $2k an hour you can take her places?! Surely just one weekend trip somewhere would set her up for life? Or are you only charged for secksi time?

EDIT: And it's not as if you can pretend she's your girlfriend, as to be able to afford her, you would have to be far, far older than 21.

She wont get the full $2,000 an hour. There is tax, then the company she works for will take a cut (or take it all and just pay her a salary). She is also not a street walker you pay for an hour fuck in a cheap hotel room, but an "escort" you'll usually hire for a longer period of time which in most cases will reduce the rate per hour.
ie. 1 hr = 2k
24 hrs = 17k
48 hrs = 22k
1 week = 45k
4 weeks = 90k

Prices also range from anything from $400/hour to $10,000/hour (from what I've seen).

As for being able to afford it... There are plenty of rich young people around, or go on a business trip and get them to pay (to keep their employees happy) while there and claim it back on tax as a business expense.

A few points:

1. It's already up to the individual state. Prostitution is not a federal crime. Only certain counties in Nevada have chosen to legalize it, though.

2. As strange as it sounds, the descriptions of the regulatory requirements makes it sound very much like the food service industry (cleanliness, health standards, random inspections, etc). Not sure that the amount of money it brings in would pay for the governmental oversight required.

3. There is serious concern about the human trafficking aspect of it. That--and only that--is the reason the military makes it illegal to "engage" with a prostitute overseas. While proper oversight would mitigate many aspects of that, as KM said, the oversight in other industries hasn't kept up with the illegal immigrant problem...so why would we expect this one to be any different? It goes back to whether the government could make enough in revenue to properly fund the oversight agencies.

Which brings it back to this: The business case would have to justify it. And, IMO, in order to provide enough revenue to the state to pay for adequate oversight plus make a decent amount in tax revenue over and above that (to justify the legalization), in addition to the increased cost of doing business (health checkups/treatments, etc), either the profit margin would drop dramatically, or prices would skyrocket. Could very easily lead to a black market for prostitution that would circumvent most of those reforms.

FEOS wrote:

A few points:

1. It's already up to the individual state. Prostitution is not a federal crime. Only certain counties in Nevada have chosen to legalize it, though.

2. As strange as it sounds, the descriptions of the regulatory requirements makes it sound very much like the food service industry (cleanliness, health standards, random inspections, etc). Not sure that the amount of money it brings in would pay for the governmental oversight required.

3. There is serious concern about the human trafficking aspect of it. That--and only that--is the reason the military makes it illegal to "engage" with a prostitute overseas. While proper oversight would mitigate many aspects of that, as KM said, the oversight in other industries hasn't kept up with the illegal immigrant problem...so why would we expect this one to be any different? It goes back to whether the government could make enough in revenue to properly fund the oversight agencies.

Which brings it back to this: The business case would have to justify it. And, IMO, in order to provide enough revenue to the state to pay for adequate oversight plus make a decent amount in tax revenue over and above that (to justify the legalization), in addition to the increased cost of doing business (health checkups/treatments, etc), either the profit margin would drop dramatically, or prices would skyrocket. Could very easily lead to a black market for prostitution that would circumvent most of those reforms.

Revenue / taxes shouldn't be a problem. Prostitution is a multi-billion dollar industry. Prices would possibly rise, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It would certainly eliminate street whores, and help fight the petty crime that revolves around those.

I agree that a black market for prostitution would most likely be a result, but that could be handled relatively easily. I mean, it's not like whores and their "customers" are hard to track down.

From my point of view, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Legalize it. Porn is legal, and it's essentially the same thing. People are paid for having sex.

B.Schuss wrote:

Revenue / taxes shouldn't be a problem. Prostitution is a multi-billion dollar industry. Prices would possibly rise, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It would certainly eliminate street whores, and help fight the petty crime that revolves around those.

I agree that a black market for prostitution would most likely be a result, but that could be handled relatively easily. I mean, it's not like whores and their "customers" are hard to track down.

From my point of view, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Legalize it. Porn is legal, and it's essentially the same thing. People are paid for having sex.

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that no government at any level in this country can do anything for anything approaching a reasonable price. It would be contracted out for an exorbitant rate or would result in a behemoth of a bureaucracy...either way, ridiculously expensive to implement in a way that would provide the level of oversight Turq is getting at.

Ty wrote:

Speak for yourself, it's legal here.

B.Schuss wrote:

I agree that most government agencies lack efficiency ( among other things ). However, even if Prostitution continues to be illegal, that law will also have to be monitored, and enforced by government agencies, at considerable cost, with no money coming in.
I mean, who do you think is paying for those cops chasing hookers down Melrose Avenue now ? 
You, and your tax dollars...

If prostitution was legal, at least part of the law enforcement costs would be coming back in via taxes.

Those cops are already paid for. As there is no organization established to provide oversight, one would have to be created. People would have to be hired and paid. Facilities would have to be established (either built or bought)...etc.

However, on the flip side, the vice squad could pretty much focus on other things (drugs and such).

Nah, you couldn't tax child molesters, the catholic church would go bankrupt..

Kmarion wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that no government at any level in this country can do anything for anything approaching a reasonable price. It would be contracted out for an exorbitant rate or would result in a behemoth of a bureaucracy...either way, ridiculously expensive to implement in a way that would provide the level of oversight Turq is getting at.

I agree that most government agencies lack efficiency ( among other things ). However, even if Prostitution continues to be illegal, that law will also have to be monitored, and enforced by government agencies, at considerable cost, with no money coming in.
I mean, who do you think is paying for those cops chasing hookers down Melrose Avenue now ? 
You, and your tax dollars...

If prostitution was legal, at least part of the law enforcement costs would be coming back in via taxes.

Maybe we should legalize and tax child molestation as well. Laws should not be created around the idea of enforcement cost. Convicts are usually required to pay for court cost, or are at least subject to working for the state in some specified manner.

Bad analogy.  I shouldn't have to say this (but of course, I will), but child molestation laws are in place to protect minors, who would not be able to protect themselves.  Anti-prostitution laws are a remnant of the so-called blue laws that were put in place drawing on a strong religious moral background to determine legality.  If prostitution were legalized and regulated (and taxed), workers could be tested for safety, and workers as well as facilities could be monitored to determine the status of the workers (thus getting control and ended the "sex-slave" trade you still occasionally hear on the news).  Control the whorehouses, control the pimps, control the girls.  You will develop a safer enviroment for these tradespeople to conduct their work as well as a safer experience for their customers and the general public.

imortal wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

I agree that most government agencies lack efficiency ( among other things ). However, even if Prostitution continues to be illegal, that law will also have to be monitored, and enforced by government agencies, at considerable cost, with no money coming in.
I mean, who do you think is paying for those cops chasing hookers down Melrose Avenue now ? 
You, and your tax dollars...

If prostitution was legal, at least part of the law enforcement costs would be coming back in via taxes.

Maybe we should legalize and tax child molestation as well. Laws should not be created around the idea of enforcement cost. Convicts are usually required to pay for court cost, or are at least subject to working for the state in some specified manner.

Bad analogy.  I shouldn't have to say this (but of course, I will), but child molestation laws are in place to protect minors, who would not be able to protect themselves.  Anti-prostitution laws are a remnant of the so-called blue laws that were put in place drawing on a strong religious moral background to determine legality.  If prostitution were legalized and regulated (and taxed), workers could be tested for safety, and workers as well as facilities could be monitored to determine the status of the workers (thus getting control and ended the "sex-slave" trade you still occasionally hear on the news).  Control the whorehouses, control the pimps, control the girls.  You will develop a safer enviroment for these tradespeople to conduct their work as well as a safer experience for their customers and the general public.

Hey rock star , I intentionally used an extreme analogy for illustration. The premise stands, laws should not be based around enforcement cost.

As far as your picture perfect controlled environment.. see this post.

imortal wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

imortal wrote:

Bad analogy.  I shouldn't have to say this (but of course, I will), but child molestation laws are in place to protect minors, who would not be able to protect themselves.  Anti-prostitution laws are a remnant of the so-called blue laws that were put in place drawing on a strong religious moral background to determine legality.  If prostitution were legalized and regulated (and taxed), workers could be tested for safety, and workers as well as facilities could be monitored to determine the status of the workers (thus getting control and ended the "sex-slave" trade you still occasionally hear on the news).  Control the whorehouses, control the pimps, control the girls.  You will develop a safer enviroment for these tradespeople to conduct their work as well as a safer experience for their customers and the general public.

Hey rock star , I intentionally used an extreme analogy for illustration. The premise stands, laws should not be based around enforcement cost.

As far as your picture perfect controlled environment.. see this post.

As to your first, comment:  oops, my bad.   As to the second, I do not think it will, would, or could be a perfectly controlled enviroment.  Please note I said "safer," and not "safe."  It would not be perfect, but wouldn't even just an improvement be better?

I don't think it should be legalized simply because it costs too much to enforce; however, it should be legalized since it is an attempt to use criminal law to regulate morality as well as that it could be used as a potential revenue source.

I understand. You seem to get it.  Like I said before it's not necessarily that I am for or against it. Some people just think this is a simpler issue without consequence.

konfusion wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

konfusion wrote:

Eh, not a big fan of prostitution or the professional porn business

-konfusion

You prefer amateur porn?

I suppose... I don't like the idea of paid sex. Mainly because you're paying for another human being to do (almost) whatever you want for a certain period of time, and I think sex should be above that. But eh, I do sort of hold sex on a pedestal, so I shouldn't even be in this thread.

Prostitution is ethically wrong imo, as (to me) it seems close to slavery...

-konfusion

Ahhh , but you see, when you are telling them what they can't do you are resembling the master slave relationship as well .

Dilbert_X wrote:

The business case would have to justify it. And, IMO, in order to provide enough revenue to the state to pay for adequate oversight plus make a decent amount in tax revenue over and above that (to justify the legalization), in addition to the increased cost of doing business (health checkups/treatments, etc), either the profit margin would drop dramatically, or prices would skyrocket. Could very easily lead to a black market for prostitution that would circumvent most of those reforms.

In the states/countries where its legal these issues just don't arise.
Health checkups aren't so expensive - if they are just charged as and when rather than out of taxation then its up to those involved if they want to do it or not - they can work out if the business case flies themselves and not wait for the govt to decide for them.

But that circumvents the whole concept of regulation. If it's regulated, they don't get o just get check ups "if they want to do it or not". That monitoring activity is the cost I was talking about, not the cost of providing the check ups. I made the assumption that the check ups would be paid for by the business, as they are for all other regulated businesses that require medical check ups (like food service).