http://news.aol.com/article/city-may...387x1200696278

San Francisco May Allow Prostitution By EVELYN NIEVES, AP
posted: 1 HOUR 41 MINUTES AGOcomments: 15filed under: Ballot Measures, Law News, National NewsPrintShareText SizeAAA

SAN FRANCISCO (Oct. 21) - In this live-and-let-live town, where medical marijuana clubs do business next to grocery stores and an annual fair celebrates sadomasochism, prostitutes could soon walk the streets without fear of arrest.

San Francisco would become the first major U.S. city to decriminalize prostitution if voters next month approve Proposition K — a measure that forbids local authorities from investigating, arresting or prosecuting anyone for selling sex.

Selling Sex in the CityDarryl Bush, AP4 photos San Francisco could become the first major U.S. city to decriminalize prostitution if voters approve Proposition K on Election Day. The measure would not technically legalize prostitution, but it would forbid local authorities from arresting or prosecuting anyone for selling sex. Here, a sex worker called "Violet" poses for a photo at a downtown bus stop.

 

prostitution should be legal

 

Definitly Yes, also No on 8.

 

agreed

 

It should be legal but I am not sure about how they will be dealing with it. To be honest I need to read up a lot more.

I am for legalizing it in a way much like how Nevada has done. It's legal but there are still simple restrictions that keeps things in check and in line. SF might have them but like I said I've yet to read the whole information.

 

If you can give it away for free - you should be able to sell it.

And a resounding NO on Prop 8.

My only worry with Prop K is that pimps will try to take over the streets, but I suppose if its legal most prostitutes will simply 'employ' themselves.

 

Its not legal, its decriminalized. It means girls will not be prosecuted or arrested for selling sex, very different than legalization.

 

That's true but it results in almost the same thing - no arrests from prostitution, right?

 

Good call ! isnt half the fun not getting caught by the police hahahahahaha

 

You know, you are right. It is not "Legalization". Like I said, I'd need to read more to vote on it. I personally only vote on items I've researched and or know both pro's and con's to, concretely that is.

I think one major fighting point was to reduce the amount spent on going after the "workers".

Would that be factual or not?

 

Theres no money is prosecuting typically - they slap them on the wrist and send them on their way.

But along that time - about 3 or 4 man hours is spent doing that.

 

No on K yes on 8. Why dont people start thinking outside the box with these propositions. Instead of decriminalizing prostitution why dont we improve the rehabilitation process? Put more money into finding them alternate work. With all the mexicans jumping ship due to the economy we are going to have alot of job openings. Yes on 8 instead of leagalizing gay marraige why dont we create a union for gays and lesbiens so they can collect the benefits without actually calling it marraige? IMO

 

Marriage is a union.

 

You are absolutely correct and I respect your oppinion. Being a religious person my only sticking point on it is calling it a marraige. While I tolerate homosexuality I do not agree with it, and IMO marraige was started by religion and that religion was a belief in god the one in heaven. GOD says being gay is bad. I simply am not ready for gay people to marry eachother. Dont want to thread jack though and I apologize NO ON K

 

If that is your opinion, thats fine - however I would argue that you are incorrect.

'Marriage' or the union of two beings in a monogamous relationship has been around LONG before organized religion.

Cave paintings(yes, cave paintings) have depicted 'marriage' in tribal organizations.

And Indians (or Native Americans if you prefer) were marrying (both gay and straight I will add) hundreds of years before Christianity was introduced to them.

Marriage predates religion; and polytheism predates monotheism, so I don't think you can say that a monotheistic religion 'started' marriage.