When Proposition K was added to Tuesday’s ballot, many people likely snickered at the possibility that San Francisco might take its place alongside such prostitute-friendly havens as Amsterdam and a few rural counties in nearby Nevada.
But this week, it became readily apparent that city officials are not laughing anymore about the measure, which would effectively decriminalize the world’s oldest profession in San Francisco. At a news conference on Wednesday, Mayor Gavin Newsom and other opponents seemed genuinely worried that Proposition K might pass.
“This is not cute. This is not fanciful,” Mr. Newsom said, standing in front of the pink-on-pink facade of a closed massage parlor in the Tenderloin district. “This is a big mistake.”
Supporters of the measure say it is a long-overdue correction of a criminal approach toward prostitutes, which neither rehabilitates nor helps them, and often ignores their complaints of abuse.
You let one form of immorality move into your house, you soon find out all of its relatives will move in as well.
For once, I agree with Gavin Newsom! As for his other issues, however………..
Isn’t that the problem, though: his other issues. Sweep out the one and seven more, worse that the first, rush in. Except they already are “in”. You’re right, Jim.
It’s impossible to make the standard argument for abortion – that a woman’s body is off-limits to the law – and to not have it apply to prostitution as well.
Then again, if putting the government in charge of regulating it follows the usual path, prostitution will soon be obsolete in San Fran due to skyrocketing prices, plummeting quality and the scores of forms one must fill out to engage a partner or two.
California Penal Code § 647(d) prohibits soliciting or engaging in any act of prostitution. How could San Francisco voters nullify a state criminal law?
[blockquote]California Penal Code § 647(d) prohibits soliciting or engaging in any act of prostitution. How could San Francisco voters nullify a state criminal law? [/blockquote]
A lot of state have “home rule” exemptions for certain laws and ordinances, I. I don’t know if California is one of those states, but these kinds of things aren’t unusual for large municipalities.
#5 Irenaeus, don’t know how this one is worded, but generally these types of measures prohibit local law enforcement from making arrests for violations of the statute.
I was a student at Berkeley in the Seventies when local ordinances essentially prohibited the Berkeley police from arresting anyone for using or dealing drugs. It wasn’t worded as an absolute, but made drug offenses as the lowest priority of law enforcement; in other words, you couldn’t cite or arrest someone for a drug offense unless you could demonstrate you had nothing else to do (such as writing parking tickets). Needless to say, the police got the message.
As a result, Telegraph Avenue became the drug supermarket of the Bay Area. The first day I moved there and walked down Telegraph, you couldn’t go ten feet without someone trying to sell you dope, hashish and harder stuff.
It’s also very similar to the “sanctuary city” ordinances, where local law enforcement is prohibited from checking on immigration status or enforcing immigration laws.
Jeffersonian [#6]: The California Constitution does allow for home rule in matters of local concern. San Francisco, as a charter city, can exercise home rule powers. But I’d think Penal Code prohibitions would constitution maters of statewide concern, not subject to local opt-out.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Jim [#7]: A Berkeley-style rule of lowest-priority enforcement would make sense of this proposal, as least insofar as Berkeley and this proposal make sense.
Possible slogan for opponents:
“Nay, nay, nay! Vote nay on Proposition K!”
[blockquote]Jeffersonian [#6]: The California Constitution does allow for home rule in matters of local concern. San Francisco, as a charter city, can exercise home rule powers. But I’d think Penal Code prohibitions would constitution maters of statewide concern, not subject to local opt-out. [/blockquote]
I think you’re likely right, and I’m sure we’ll see some legal wrangling on the scope of the state’s preemption powers if the proposition passes.
you reap what you sow, Mayor Newsome!
Yes, let’s jail these filthy wenches. As our Savior said, he who is without sin, jail the first whore. Oh, wait. You’re all as flithy as they are in Christ’s eyes. Or perhaps a little cruddier since Jesus hates pride.
I called Kendall’s attention to this article. My particular reason was this, close to Library Jim’s, that this prop, so offensive in the eyes of all those liberals, will have an even stronger effect on conservatives, and that the potential success of this prop. might have a real effect on who votes how on prop. 8. One must be both blind and dumb not to see that there is a connection between the two, that legalized sodomy and prostitution have something in common, and if one is permitted, there is no reason, given equal rights, why the other should not be too.
#12 can say what he wants. The presence of prostitution is like the presence of gambling casinos. Where they go, every other vice goes, and otherwise harmless people are seriously harmed thereby. If the argument is economics, that the state can tax official prostitution, then it follows that every vice should be legalized because the potential for revenue is enormous. So #12, does “Get thee behind me Satan,” and ” Thou shalt not tempt the Lord” ring any bells with you? Larry
The theory behind Proposition K seems to be that of forbidding the SF police from taking action against prostitutes:
One thing that did make me wonder, was the following:
Which church, I wonder? I can think of several, in addition to TEC churches. I wonder if the Diocese of California has taken an unofficial position on this?