CNN: Legalized Prostitution Could Help San Fran Economy

CNN: Legalized Prostitution Could Help San Fran Economy

By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)
October 23, 2008 - 11:10 ET

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."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

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.

Read comments Free email alerts Take action

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

What's next?

October 23, 2008 - 11:19 ET by TASS71

Are 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 shawn228

but 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 mbuel

This 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 shawn228

I 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 mbuel

It'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 shawn228

I 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 mbuel

The 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 patmac49

exactly 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 mbuel

no txt.

no smoking, no drinking

October 23, 2008 - 11:39 ET by JIMMY1660

no 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 Anchor89

Where 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 JIMMY1660

allow 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 shawn228

the 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 Rackie

Since 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 shawn228

I;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 cocodrie

Lighten up and have a good laugh. Don't be silly,

crocodie

October 23, 2008 - 12:28 ET by shawn228

Lol , 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 cocodrie

I'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 cocodrie

I;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 ShanghaiRay

Well 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 JIMMY1660

change?? 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 ShanghaiRay

Well 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 motherbelt

Not 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 Blonde

Make 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 bassndude

Hey, that gives STOP signs a whole new meaning.

State

Tax

P____

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

I thought they were ladies

October 23, 2008 - 12:03 ET by cocodrie

I thought they were ladies of horizontal refreshment.

cocodrie

October 23, 2008 - 12:08 ET by Rackie

The other pause that refreshes.

Sex worker Warnings list

October 23, 2008 - 11:57 ET by Rackie

1 Carries only $5

2 May cause health problems

A study in democracy

October 23, 2008 - 11:49 ET by KC Mulville

There are two steps in this argument.

From the perspective of pure democracy, if the people in that locality want to legalize something, or anything for that matter, that's what democracy is all about.
The second step is more dangerous. Democracy comes at a price. Once you throw open that door, you cannot shut it. And by the same freedom that you wish to legalize drugs or prostitution, others have the freedom to outlaw homosexuality.

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 mvfreeman

So 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 Mulville

I apologize for the length, but this is one of my favorite topics.

So what exactly are people meddling with that has you so worried? Answer: traditional institutions, and the morality contained with them.

The system we have has been working for over 200 years. Exactly. And the morality within those institutions is a big reason why.

Let me make an argument. Morality is the issue.

I argue that liberals, through the liberal media, are trying to eliminate morality as a criterion of discussion. Look at the major social issues of the day: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and now this latest arena, legalizing prostitution. What do they all have in common? They all hinge on the idea that no one is allowed to “impose their morality” on others. The liberal social agenda is built on the idea that all morality is individual. No institution, especially not the political state, has a right to prevent individual behavior because they consider it morally wrong.
I argue that individualistic morality is a liberal axiom. (Note: I don’t think that liberals who believe this are immoral or stupid. I just think they’re wrong. This can be an honest intellectual discussion.)
I argue that liberals have lumped together morality and religion. And since they will defend to the death the separation of church and state, they now equally consider any discussion of morality to be inappropriate in public. In philosophy, morality and religion are completely different, but I think liberals have conflated the two … and are trying to eliminate all morality from public discussion.

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.

Liberals won’t tell you that they have deliberately eliminated morality from public discussion. You’ll just wake up one day and realize it’s missing. This “analysis” of prostitution is what a morality-free country will look like.

You want liberal bias in the media? Here it is.

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 mvfreeman

is 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 thinker

Horse 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 mvfreeman

Morals 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 thinker

Thank 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 shawn228

Makes about as much sense as "We ain't Europe" :-)

He's got my vote

»→ Prostitution

October 23, 2008 - 15:29 ET by Cool Arrow

The 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 Mulville

In 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 mvfreeman

Do whatever floats your boat.

bottom line is that the gov

October 23, 2008 - 15:32 ET by patmac49

bottom 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 shawn228

Lets 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 Mulville

Why 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 patmac49

the 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 attorneygirl

San 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 PrairieSky

given 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_filcher

Or 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 Pross

Amen 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 shawn228

Nothing 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 mvfreeman

I'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 Elyas

BREAKING 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 Mulville

Three 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?"
Up stepped George Bush and said, "I'm told by the American people that I need a brain." "No problem!" said the Wizard. "Consider it done."

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?'