Finding a pro-deregulation stance in the media is often tough, but when if it suits some far out cause against societal norms, don't rule it out.
Sunny Hostin, CNN "American Morning" legal analyst, examined the pros and cons of a San Francisco ballot measure to be voted on next month called Proposition K. The measure would decriminalize prostitution.
But Hostin said there was a case, not for decriminalized prostitution - which reportedly will save $11 million in municipal police spending - but for legalization, which she claimed would "boost the economy in these economic times."
"I think the more valid argument would be legalizing it because I've spoken to a couple of people in San Francisco about this - a couple of voters and what they're saying is, ‘Why not legalize prostitution because then brothels will be taxed, prostitutes will be taxed and that will boost the economy,'" Hostin said. "And in these economic times, this is the one time I think this sort of proposition in San Francisco could, could be passed."
Hostin confused "boosting" the economy with increasing tax revenues. Legalized prostitution, if taxed, would boost the government's tax receipts, but that is not the same as economic growth. The economic activity would still be occurring - whether it was decriminalized and untaxed or legalized and taxed. But, Hostin said the economic boost wasn't a "valid argument" for decriminalization alone, even though there would still be this "economic growth" occurring.
"So, is it a valid argument for decriminalization - I don't think so," Hostin added.
The argument that the legalization or decriminalization of prostitution would be any economic boost isn't necessarily always true either. The state of Nevada, where prostitution is legal, regulated and taxed in 11 counties as Hostin proposed, is suffering very tough economic times. Unemployment is at a 23-year high of 7.1 percent and expected to hit to 7.6 percent in January. As far as tax revenue, the state is facing an $898 million and has had to cut spending by $1.2 billion with more cuts expected.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What's next?
October 23, 2008 - 11:19 ET by TASS71Are they going to decriminalize lying and whining in politics next? Geez...
....hang on a sec...
I wish I could vote yes on this
October 23, 2008 - 11:34 ET by shawn228but I cannot, I live about 45 miles out of San Francisco. One thing I totally agree with republicans is why does the government have to interfere in these cases?
If SF votes yes, they can take the power away from the pimps.
He's got my vote
That would be a mistake
October 23, 2008 - 14:02 ET by mbuelThis is another case of unintended consequences.
Yes illegal prostitution caused the rise of the pimps... but the answer (without changing other social welfare laws in the government) is not to legalize it. If they do, I can almost count the days until they start doing what Germany is doing to women and forcing them into prostitution as a "job" in the unemployment office.
It will happen here. We are heading down the same moral relativist social welfare route.
What's the difference between a desk job and a bed job really?
Palin has accomplished great things, while Obama has continued to make empty promises that the world owes you a living.
Lol mbuel
October 23, 2008 - 14:20 ET by shawn228I believe you are far reaching here. The people of San Francisco will give unemployement benefits to illegals and with the liberal attitude of women in SF, do you honestly think that will ever ever fly?
Come on now
He's got my vote
not at all dude.
October 23, 2008 - 16:26 ET by mbuelIt's already happened in Germany.
By replacing the pimp that uses and abuses women for sexual sale, the government takes place of the pimp through the legalization of prostitution.
The best way to deal with the pimp is to punish him more severely. And to help prostitutes get out of the trade.
Think about it this way. One could say that theft from homes is going to increase within this new recession. Should we ban people from protecting their property so that the thiefs can steal without getting themselves hurt?
Just because someone commits illegal behavior regardless of it's current legality, is not in and of itself a good argument to legalize said behavior.
It's just another example of moral equivalence... that the woman who works in the office is just as moral as the woman who sleeps for money.
The man who hammers iron, is just as moral as the man who robs his house.
mbuel
October 23, 2008 - 16:37 ET by shawn228I agree with you about punishing pimps. I also do not believe the USA government will ever condone forcing somebody into prostitution. Exotic dancing and porno actress's are legal now as well, have you ever heard of someone denying unemployment to somebody that will not take those job's?
Maybe not all prostitutes want to get out right away, there are many that actually enjoy their job. I'm talking about the street corner ones, I'm talking about the ones that advertise on Craigslist and the internet. Why make something illegal what someone chooses to do for living. Not everyone is forced into this trade.
He's got my vote
When you get into it
October 29, 2008 - 16:21 ET by mbuelThe problem is large government... With the already bloated government, giving the government more power and regulatory control, will eventually lead down the same slippery slope that Germany is practicing... to deny that is the case is simply hubris.
Until we get back to limiting the powers of government, granting US more rights vis a vie regulatory response is simply granting the government more power and control over how we excercise those rights.
exactly what does palin or
October 23, 2008 - 15:24 ET by patmac49exactly what does palin or obama have to do with prostitution in sf being legal..i might be a bit slow so someone will have to hold my hand on this one..
That's my signature/
October 23, 2008 - 16:18 ET by mbuelno txt.
no smoking, no drinking
October 23, 2008 - 11:39 ET by JIMMY1660no smoking, no drinking while fornicating!!!
how does one collect taxes from street ladies!!!!
HONOR SYSTEM???
allow me to love America
First came the miners, then came the whores
October 23, 2008 - 11:47 ET by Rackie"how does one collect taxes from street ladies!!!!"
Ladies? Jimmy, this SF we're talking about. It's all about the "boys."
Where is NOW?
October 23, 2008 - 11:39 ET by Anchor89Where are the women's groups such as NOW? Don't they think that prostitution and pornography objectifies, demeans, and victimizes women? What does San Fran Nan (Pelosi) think about this? Where are all the eager reporters to interview the Speaker about this? Does she think this is a good idea? Why or why not? If it is a good idea, does she support legalizing prostitution nationally - to help, er, stimulate the economy....
Why stop with legalizing prostitution? What about legalizing all drugs? Imagine the tax revenue!!! You could probably pay for Medicare from the heroin tax revenues alone! What does San Fran Nan think about that idea? I bet there is a long list of previously criminal activity that could be legalized to reduce the police workload and raise city revenues. I just want to know where San Francisco will draw the line and why.
For journalists who just don't get it: Bias and Balance is often more about what you don't report than what you do report.
ms speaker gives up winery to be a pimp
October 23, 2008 - 11:44 ET by JIMMY1660allow me to love America
i like the idea of street girls, however the city fathers, have chased away the military guys who would support this cash cow.
open arms for the military, i think not. until now!!!
Ms Speaker will now be the Madam.
Nothing wrong with prostitution
October 23, 2008 - 11:45 ET by shawn228the thing wrong with it is because they are too afraid to go to the police if their pimp beats them.
With this law, they can go to the police if they are beaten or initimidated, why would it be yours or anyone elses business if 2 consenting adults decide to fornicate for exchange of money?
As far as your drug points goes, I would decriminalize marijuana, but not hard drugs, because you can die from hard drugs. With marijuana you are in danger of giving more profits to Frito-Lay
He's got my vote
Trade school
October 23, 2008 - 12:06 ET by RackieSince younger girls and boys could demand higher fees for their sex services they could be taught this newly legalized trade in HS. Their less attractive or more squeemish classmates could become involved in the marijuana trade. Cool!
Well Rackie
October 23, 2008 - 12:12 ET by shawn228I;m concerned for individual freedoms, but at the same time I am all for protecting out children.
I'm sure you are trying to be sarcastic with your post, but to answer your question, no one under the age of 18 should be allowed to do this.
He's got my vote
Come on Shawn
October 23, 2008 - 12:20 ET by cocodrieLighten up and have a good laugh. Don't be silly,
crocodie
October 23, 2008 - 12:28 ET by shawn228Lol , I do not believe I came across as snarky, but If I did I apologize. I was simply saying I support this issue, but at the same time I believe in protecting our children and wait till they are 18 to decide what they want to do with their lives.
He's got my vote
Shawn
October 23, 2008 - 13:05 ET by cocodrieI'm in a good mood today. You have to let an old man have a little fun. God bless you and may He take a liking to you. I mean that and you were not snarky.
Rackie
October 23, 2008 - 12:17 ET by cocodrieI;m laughing so hard I can't breathe. Would you extend it to the lower grades, say maybe part of show and tell?
Pelosi
October 23, 2008 - 11:52 ET by ShanghaiRayWell I suggest if they do, they put Pelosi in charge of it because she has been very good at screwing the American public til now. With her in charge she will at least have earned her title: Madam Speaker.
change?? taking my social
October 23, 2008 - 12:13 ET by JIMMY1660change?? taking my social secuirty and giving it to someone who is an illegal, or someone who has not added to the fund. is that the change we are talking about. No change for me, thank you.
Change-?? Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, al Monsour, influencing BHO's decision on world problems, no thank you!!
allow me to love America
CNN Experts
October 23, 2008 - 11:43 ET by ShanghaiRayWell this is one time that I can believe CNN because they are experts at whoring themselves out to the highest bidder and instead of having Johns they have Baraks and Saddams.
Not prostitutes; they are
October 23, 2008 - 11:45 ET by motherbeltNot prostitutes; they are "sex workers."
This will be just another source of revenue for the state.
Once it happens, like with cigarettes and alcohol, do you suppose they will start to regulate it?
Cigarettes have to have a health warning. Ditto alcohol. Do you suppose "sex-workers" will be requried to provide warnings about STD's, including HIV? Be licensed by the state? Required to report for annual exams and display a certificate of health? Each of which will require paying a fee, of course.
What do you suppose they'll do mb?
October 23, 2008 - 11:50 ET by BlondeMake them tatoo it on their....oh never mind!
Only in San Fran. Such a beautiful place with such whacked out denizens.
In his own words (19 seconds): This man is qualified to be VP?
Hey, that gives STOP signs
October 23, 2008 - 12:00 ET by bassndudeHey, that gives STOP signs a whole new meaning.
State
Tax
On
P____
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I thought they were ladies
October 23, 2008 - 12:03 ET by cocodrieI thought they were ladies of horizontal refreshment.
cocodrie
October 23, 2008 - 12:08 ET by RackieThe other pause that refreshes.
Sex worker Warnings list
October 23, 2008 - 11:57 ET by Rackie1 Carries only $5
2 May cause health problems
3
4
5
6
A study in democracy
October 23, 2008 - 11:49 ET by KC MulvilleThere are two steps in this argument.
Remember, the Bill of Rights is a vote-based document. It only obligates us because we voted to allow it to obligate us. And if anything can be voted in, it can be voted out. If the consent of the governed is the essence of democracy (and I think it is), that consent goes both ways. The Bill of Rights is still an agreement among the people. If the people decide they no longer support freedom of the press, by the same democracy that allows you to legalize drugs or prostitution, we can make the press illegal.
Here's my point: Liberals believe, and have said openly, that once a right is granted, it can never be taken away. Not true. The democracy that gives you the freedom to broaden the idea of marriage also allows you to restrict it. All you need is a vote. If some people want to legalize gay marriage, simply because they vote for it, then all you need to outlaw homosexuality is a different vote. The Bill of Rights can be voted out, too.
There are no guarantees in democracy. If anything can be voted in, anything can be voted out. Meddle with that at your own peril.
OK
October 23, 2008 - 12:49 ET by mvfreemanSo what exactly are people meddling with that has you so worried?
The system we have has been working for over 200 years.
My point exactly
October 23, 2008 - 14:38 ET by KC MulvilleI apologize for the length, but this is one of my favorite topics.
Let me make an argument. Morality is the issue.
Now, re-consider that discussion about legalizing prostitution. What’s missing? No mention of a moral objection. The TV “analyst” argues that prostitution might be opposed because it drags in the unwelcome element of pimps and drugs, but the morality of prostitution itself is never considered.
Let me be clear, mvfreeman, I don’t oppose democracy. In my opinion, this is morality’s last best hope. In a democracy, I don’t have to defend why I vote. I don’t owe anyone an explanation. And if I want to vote against prostitution on moral grounds, that’s as much my right as any other debate.
Liberals want to challenge or alter traditional institutions of marriage and morality. By the same democracy and freedom, I can vote to maintain the traditions that made this country great. I can vote for my convictions of morality.
Except that "morality"
October 23, 2008 - 15:01 ET by mvfreemanis defined differently by different groups. What one person considers moral is immoral to someone else.
But to the subject at hand. It's an old saying but I'll repeat it nonetheless:
Why is it illegal to sell something which is prefectly legal to give away for free?
Horse poop! Clear headed
October 23, 2008 - 15:13 ET by Clear thinkerHorse poop!
Clear headed people know exactly what's moral and what's not.
And I cannot believe you actually wrote that last line. But, I will at least give you my reason... cause we ain't Europe and don't want to be!
Peek Into Liberal Minds - If You Dare
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
that made a lot of sense
October 23, 2008 - 15:24 ET by mvfreemanMorals are usually imprinted by religious or cultural affiliation.
You have links to something that shows otherwise I'd be happy to take a look.
Who is this "we " you speak of? This is a nation of indivduals with freedom to do engage in democracy and whatever pursuits they care to engage in as long as they are legal.
that made a lot of sense...
October 23, 2008 - 15:25 ET by Clear thinkerThank you!
Peek Into Liberal Minds - If You Dare
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Clear Thinker
October 23, 2008 - 15:35 ET by shawn228Makes about as much sense as "We ain't Europe" :-)
He's got my vote
»→ Prostitution
October 23, 2008 - 15:29 ET by Cool ArrowThe fight against prostitution stems from women not wanting to share their men with other women, and a wish to keep the family in good health.
If a man runs around long enough, he's going to bring home some unpleasant consequences.
Ancient religions combined prostitution with their worship. I think it was an attempt to legitimize something their women disapproved of.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
But I agree with you
October 23, 2008 - 15:30 ET by KC MulvilleIn a democracy, I can vote my convictions of what things are moral and what are not. Those who refuse to "impose their morality on others" want to eliminate morality as a criterion. They claim that it's inappropriate to vote according to one's morality. I say that voting according to your moral convictions is crucial, and democracy gives me the freedom to vote for any reason I want.
And I say...
October 23, 2008 - 15:46 ET by mvfreemanDo whatever floats your boat.
bottom line is that the gov
October 23, 2008 - 15:32 ET by patmac49bottom line is that the gov can try but it cannot ever regulate morality...hooking is not called the oldest profession for nothing..the gov tried outlawing liquor and we saw how that worked out..as for morality,if your beliefs would have you shun it fine..that is you right..but your morality should not govern how another free citizen lives his or her right within the law
Exactly patmac46
October 23, 2008 - 15:38 ET by shawn228Lets take away someones fun, just because I disapprove of it. Having it illegal is ridiculous
He's got my vote
Well, that's the argument
October 23, 2008 - 18:10 ET by KC MulvilleWhy can't I vote on how the community lives? That's where democracy comes in. My personal morality doesn't govern, but I can vote and be part of a democratic majority ... and majority rule does govern how everyone lives their lives.
the question is never if
October 27, 2008 - 16:11 ET by patmac49the question is never if you can vote on how your community lives..you are correctamundo...you have a right to vote..the question is always can you live with it if the vote goes against you me i could not care less if they make it legal or not..i do not live there..but i would vote yes
SF is Sodom and Gomorrah
October 23, 2008 - 11:54 ET by attorneygirlSan Francisco has become Sodom and Gomorrah.
I am ashamed of that city, its mayor, its board of supervisors, and citizens who partake in this reprehensible behavior.
And CNN is a socialist propaganda machine, with no knowledge of absolutes: right versus wrong; black versus white; fairness versus attack; objectivity versus ideology; decency versus depravity; goodness versus evil.
The press has died as we know it. And San Francisco has become a hell hole of depravity. That's unfortunate.
If you recall, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors is against the U.S. military--and believes the U.S. should not even have a military. So this makes them depraved idiots.
attorneygirl...I've thought once or twice that...
October 23, 2008 - 12:26 ET by PrairieSkygiven SF's position on the military, if (God forbid), this country should ever be under a massive, country-wide attack, that San Francisco should be left to its own devices. They don't like or want the military? Fine...Let's see how well it would do in defending itself. Just a thought...
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981
Or Sodomy and
October 23, 2008 - 13:07 ET by semolina_filcherOr Sodomy and Gonorrhea.....San Francisco is a weird, weird town and I live 40 miles from it! Never visited the city except for the Golden Gate Bridge. Other than that landmark, what else do they have? Gayvin Newsome? Nope. Nancy Pelousy? Barbara Boxer? DiFi? Nope.
Cindy Sheehan! ON the ballot taking on Pelousy in her district!
Other than that landmark, what else do they have?
October 23, 2008 - 13:14 ET by shawn228"Other than that landmark, what else do they have? "
Golden Gate Park
Fishermans Wharf
Alcatraz
Some of the best Restaurants in the world
Ghiridelli Square
Cable Cars
The 49ers
The Giants
Breath taking scenery
Beside the Ocean
'He's got my vote
Amen!
October 23, 2008 - 14:21 ET by ProssAmen shawn...I love SF. I don't love the people of the government...but I love the Giants, love the food, the bridge...all of it.
"We will not tire, We will no falter, We will not fail." President George W. Bush, October 26, 2001
Hi Pross
October 23, 2008 - 14:32 ET by shawn228Nothing like a few cold ones, a Giants Dog, and Garlic Fries and Giants and Dodger game.
If this bill passes, the fun does not stop after the game ends :-)
He's got my vote
Well...
October 23, 2008 - 13:20 ET by mvfreemanI've personally never been to S.F but my best friend was there for two weeks earlier this year.
He had a good time. He said there were some good restaurants, there are top notch wineries, and Alcatraz is pretty neat too.
He also watched a Giants game while he was there. There are also the 'Niners for football.
Then you have all the hills and cable cars that make it a pretty unique city.
Not saying it doesn't have it's problems but it certainly has more than just the GG bridge.
BREAKING NEWS Bill
October 23, 2008 - 12:17 ET by ElyasBREAKING NEWS
Bill Clinton is now looking at starting a "small business" in San Francisco. More details to follow...
Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying. - Ronald Reagan
An old joke
October 23, 2008 - 12:34 ET by KC MulvilleThree United States Presidents get caught up in a tornado... and off they were whirled to the land of OZ. They finally made it to the Emerald City and went to find the Great Wizard.
"What brings the 4 of you before the great Wizard of Oz?" Jimmy Carter stepped forward timidly and said: "I've come for some courage." "No Problem!" said the Wizard. "Who's next?"
Then there was a great silence in the hall. Bill Clinton is just standing there, looking around, but he doesn't say a word. Irritated, the Wizard finally asks, "Well, what do you want?" "IS DOROTHY HERE?'
NEWSFLASH... Prostitution
October 23, 2008 - 12:21 ET by Jack BauerNEWSFLASH... Prostitution is already legal.
It's called the Mainstream Media.
It won't help their economy
October 23, 2008 - 12:46 ET by Tim the EnchanterIt won't help their economy if they have SanFranNan walking the streets- she'd evacuate the whole red light district by showing up!