Larry Flynt Running for CA Gov

[Guest MrRant]

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt announced Monday that he plans to run for governor of California, saying he believes he can do a better job balancing the state's budget and improving education than "those pinhead bureaucrats in Sacramento."

 

Flynt said he wants to put his name on the ballot for the vote October 7 on whether to recall incumbent Gov. Gray Davis and whom to put in his place.

 

Suggesting as his slogan "Vote for a Smut-Peddler Who Cares," Flynt, 60, said he would expand gaming regulations to allow private casinos to have slot machines, which could be taxed by the state at 30 percent.

 

The casino tax could raise about $3 billion a year for the state, he said.

 

Educational improvements are another priority, he said, as is illegal immigration. Flynt suggested giving amnesty to all illegal immigrants, then having California secure its borders because, he said, the federal government has failed to do it properly.

 

Flynt has made millions publishing pornographic magazines, including Hustler and Barely Legal.

 

Asked whether his entry contributes to a "circus-like atmosphere" in a wide-open race, Flynt acknowledged that easy ballot access allows many to run. But in the end, he said, "you're only going to have serious contenders."

 

"Just because I publish pornography does not mean that I am not concerned about the social ills that all of us are," he said.

 

Flynt, who said he'd run as a Democrat, spoke to reporters in his plush, classically decorated office at the headquarters of Flynt Publications in Beverly Hills.

 

Flynt has run a political campaign before. He launched a brief campaign for president against Ronald Reagan in 1983. He is also well-known in the courts, having served time in federal prison time in 1984 for not revealing the source of FBI undercover tapes he released that showed footage from the drug sting against former automaker John DeLorean.

 

He was on trial in Gwinnett County, Georgia, on obscenity charges in 1978 when he was shot outside the courthouse, a wound that left him paralyzed.

 

"I even took a bullet for the First Amendment," Flynt said, calling himself a civil libertarian.

 

His firm belief in the Constitution, and especially the First Amendment, also means he can't be bought, he said.

 

"I don't have one penny in special interest money behind me," he said. "I don't owe anybody anything, and in the end I would not owe anybody anything, and I think that I would be Gray Davis' and the California Republican Party's worst nightmare come true if I got elected."

 

He called the war on drugs a failure and said it must be dealt with, but Flynt did not propose any particular measures. He said he favors legalizing prostitution.

 

"I could see all kinds of benefits coming from that, including additional tax revenue, being able to control venereal disease and a possible decrease in sexual assaults," Flynt said.

 

Flynt said he might commission a study on legalizing prostitution, though he said he doesn't think he would get much support.

 

Flynt lamented California's low ranking in education, and said the problems with the system include low SAT scores, teacher pay and class size.

 

"But you know, our children are our future," Flynt said. "Whatever the education problems are in California, we have to fix 'em, because if California can be a beacon for the rest of the country on the rest of the social issues, why can't it be a beacon for education?"

 

He said he wants to "cringe" every time Davis and others say they're working on education "when they're not doing a damn thing, and everybody's buying into it."

 

Flynt shoved off comparisons to former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, the former professional wrestler who ran as an independent and won in 1998. Flynt said Ventura's was an independent movement, whereas the current situation in California is about the "two-party process shaking itself out."

 

Former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, a Republican, would be the only other candidate Flynt said he would back, because the two are friends.

 

The recall drive has been led by Rep. Darrell Issa, who is also running. Bill Simon -- who narrowly lost to Davis in 2002 -- and state Sen. Tom McClintock also are likely GOP candidates.

 

Political commentator Arianna Huffington has said she is considering running as an independent.

 

---------------------------------

 

I'd vote for him if I lived in CA.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

The thing is, there are actually close to 200 candidates running IIRC, and with all the Schwarzenegger nonsense (is he running or not?), Flynt's name is going to be looked at as just another publicity stunt, much as Schwarzenegger's, regardless of either man's intentions.

 

I'd read more of Flynt's platform, however, because I know how he's fought against censorship in the past, and that's an important issue for me. If the rest of his plans sound feasible, he could win my vote.

[Guest DrTom]

I'd vote for him, regardless of which party he affiliates himself with.

[Guest MrRant]

Political commentator Arianna Huffington has said she is considering running as an independent.

 

ARGH! I HATE that bitch.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Political commentator Arianna Huffington has said she is considering running as an independent.

 

ARGH! I HATE that bitch.

Ah, she's not that bad.

 

Her book was pretty decent.

[Guest CED Ordonez]

Well this is turning into a gigantic clusterfuck...

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I saw a CNN report on this where Bill Schneider said that he met Flynt at one of his porn stores.

 

Ewww...

 

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Damn, that's tempting. But he's going to get bashed on all sides by the conservatives in Orange County (which are majority really conservative conservatives like Darrel Issa and not middling Conservatives like Riordan) as well as the PCer-than-thou types up North. But who knows, maybe the Greens will be drawn in by his pot thing.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Well, now I have to vote for him. Look at the prayer service he's having:

 

[Guest The Old Me]

^ nice.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Wow, looks like the ol' cripple doesn't like Mr. Bill.

 

Looks like I'll be putting a dollar under my pillow tonight and making a special wish to the Cancer Fairy...

[Guest JMA]

While Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard, and truly a prick, he doesn't deserve to die. Wishing death on him is a little immature.

[Swift Terror 0]

The person who deserves to die is the moron who couldn't shoot accurately enough to kill the jerk.

[Guest SideFXs]

Now that's funny....

 

OK lets see, even though he publishes pornography, that doesn't mean he isn't concern about social ills? And he is in favor of legalizing prostitution and using that tax revenue to combat venereal disease? And by legalizing prostitution that will reduce sexual assaults?

 

How warped is this? He publishes two magazines that debase women. This encourages scum to attack women. And legalizing prostitution will reduce venereal disease , humm.....

[Guest Reservoir_Kitty]

I hate to burst your bubble, but scum are going to attack women regardless of what Larry Flynt publishes in his smut mags.

 

Normal people don't look at porno mags and think, "Gee, I'm gonna go rape someone today!"

[Guest Texas Small Arms 09]

Well Larry vs Arnold....that will definately be something.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I hate to burst your bubble, but scum are going to attack women regardless of what Larry Flynt publishes in his smut mags.

 

Normal people don't look at porno mags and think, "Gee, I'm gonna go rape someone today!"

But Larry Flint is just, flat-out, the scummiest man alive. Rob Black is more respectable.

 

If he garners even 5% of the vote, my faith in CA --- shaky as it may be --- will be completely gone.

-=Mike

[Guest evenflowDDT]

The person who deserves to die is the moron who couldn't shoot accurately enough to kill the jerk.

You know...generally if you disagree with someone over a tasteless action (and I'm all for Flynt, but that was uncalled for, and certainly not going to win him any favors), you're supposed to maintain higher moral ground by not stooping to their level. Anyhow...

 

OK lets see, even though he publishes pornography, that doesn't mean he isn't concern about social ills? And he is in favor of legalizing prostitution and using that tax revenue to combat venereal disease? And by legalizing prostitution that will reduce sexual assaults?

 

How warped is this? He publishes two magazines that debase women. This encourages scum to attack women. And legalizing prostitution will reduce venereal disease , humm.....

 

Some feminists have argued this for years, however, there have never been any studies suggesting that pornography encourages rape or sexual debauchery. I've downloaded and viewed porn for years, yet I don't force myself upon women. In fact, if anything, the opposite is true - a trait many serial killers and rapists share is an ultra-religious background that denies them access to sexuality by teaching them it's "wrong" to have such thoughts. Thus, when such thoughts do come (and they come to everyone, of every age and gender...yes that's a blanket statement, but find me someone it doesn't cover), they're associated with "wrong" and "sin", and thus become intertwined with other "sins" such as rape and violence. Note this isn't the case every time (e.g. there are many from restricted backgrounds that just become sexual introverts, and pass it on to their children, if they have any; or there is the rare serial killer from a "normal" background), and I'm certainly not suggesting being religious will make you a serial killer, however, this argument at least has some statistical basis, as opposed to yours, which is a totally moralistic and absurd argument.

 

Even thinking about it the most basic way...pornography is something a male masturbates to. Masturbation is a release, both of semen and of pent-up sexual thoughts and possibly frustrations. Rape is usually attributed to a male's desire of power over the victim, but let's say it's caused by sexual desire. Wouldn't this desire then be fulfilled by pornography?

 

Plus, your argument assumes that heterosexual males are the only ones who rape, and that heterosexual males are the only ones who view pornography. Shame on you...if you're going to be close-minded, at least be equally close-minded

 

And as for legalized prostitution combatting venereal disease, most prostitutes these days use protection, because "bare-backing" is indeed, dangerous because of STDs like those you mentioned. Regardless, legalized prostitution would mean all prostitutes would have to be registered and require regular STD tests to insure they are clean. With an illegal prostitute, yes, you really have no idea whether or not they're clean. But a condition of legalized prostitution would be that all legal prostitutes are required by law to be free of disease. But what about illegal prostitutes you ask? Well, you have to ask why anyone would go to an illegal dirty prostitute, and unless they're a "bug catcher" (which, despite it being sensationalized in Rolling Stone a few months back in the gay community, I doubt actually exists, or at least in a great enough number to be considered part of any feasible argument), they wouldn't. And besides...since all prostitutes are currently illegal, how would it be any different?

 

For more on feminist arguments FOR pornography, check your local library. Unless your community's taken up book-burning.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

But Larry Flint is just, flat-out, the scummiest man alive. Rob Black is more respectable.

Funny you should mention that, me and my brother were just talking about how Rob Black should get into this circus of an election.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

But Larry Flint is just, flat-out, the scummiest man alive. Rob Black is more respectable.

Just curious Mike...how do you come by this statement? One man took a bullet for free speech and the other had a man's thumb cut off because he didn't want to pay him. Of course that's the most extreme comparison between the two, but even in terms of the pornography produced, from what I've gathered from Nevermortal's reviews of their product (I admit I've never seen any Extreme Associates myself), EA is more hardcore and disgusting than Penthouse.

[Guest JMA]

Larry Flint > Rob Black

 

I'm glad evenflow saved this thread from further degeneration.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

But Larry Flint is just, flat-out, the scummiest man alive. Rob Black is more respectable.

Just curious Mike...how do you come by this statement? One man took a bullet for free speech and the other had a man's thumb cut off because he didn't want to pay him. Of course that's the most extreme comparison between the two, but even in terms of the pornography produced, from what I've gathered from Nevermortal's reviews of their product (I admit I've never seen any Extreme Associates myself), EA is more hardcore and disgusting than Penthouse.

Let's not play the "Larry Flynt as a martyr" fiddle. It was more than mildly obnoxious in Forman's movie. The man is scum and he took a bullet not for "free speech", but for him to make a few more bucks and avoid jail time. His claim is as laughable as stating that George Wallace wasn't so much a racist as a states rights advocate.

 

The man has threatened his daughter's life more than once (which is why she has NOTHING to do with him). His "porn" is bottom-feeding crap and the moment he dies, we become a better country.

 

The man is sleaze.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

The man is sleaze.

No disagreement here, but I definitely think Rob Black is worse.

[Guest SideFXs]

legalized prostitution would mean all prostitutes would have to be registered and require regular STD tests to insure they are clean.  With an illegal prostitute, yes, you really have no idea whether or not they're clean.  But a condition of legalized prostitution would be that all legal prostitutes are required by law to be free of disease.

 

For more on feminist arguments FOR pornography, check your local library.  Unless your community's taken up book-burning.

So evenflowDDT,

 

I am closed-minded because I am wrapped up in some conservative religious moral justification for not wanting prostitution legalized?

 

Don't you see what this would mean to women? Most women are recruited into prostitution when they are still girls. Most prostitutes come from poor Black or Hispanic homes. Most prostitutes are controlled by pimps. They are drug addicted and kept in poverty. Legalizing prostitution would make the state of California a pimp, profiting from the exploitation of women from poor and broken homes.

 

Your justification for legalization is that the government would require prostitutes to get regular check-ups for STD's and they would get badly needed healthcare? How would that insure the prostitute you are hiring would be clean? Perhaps you will get an appointment, for sex, as soon as she gets back from the doctor and she has the government's "seal of approval?" How many tricks would she have to turn, before she becomes a risk to you for STD's, before her next, regularly scheduled, doctors appointment?

 

The use of a condom is absolutely a must if you are going to have sex with a prostitute, or if you are not sure about your partner. But, it is by no means a 100% guarantee to protect you or the prostitute against STD's. Condoms break, H.I.V. is contained in blood, saliva, vaginal fluid, and semen. So you better not bite, or kiss, or go down on her. It is also a known fact that the H.I.V antibodies take about 6 weeks to appear in the blood. In the mean time, that H.I.V. infected prostitute may very well show a negative for the AIDS virus at the doctors office and she will get that "seal of approval" and be certified as a "safe sex surrogate." And what is to guarantee that she will comply with government regulations? And if she is sited for not complying with government regulations, well that only means more money for the state treasury, in fines.

 

If prostitution is legalized, California will become a Mecca for the sex-tourism industry. Attracting, well lets say, not the best of our society. But it will not matter to the California government, because it will still profit from prostitution and that will offset any loses from other businesses leaving this 'Hell-hole' that California is turning into.

 

I just can't believe that some people can justify legalized prostitution and believe it will ensure that they will get a safe prostitute or be better for the prostitute.

 

Do you really think the government policing the sex industry and exploiting the raping of woman for tax revenue, is the right thing to do? No!

 

Instead the government needs to get these women (and men too) into medical programs and then offer them opportunities outside of prostitution. To help them get a productive, self-reliant, and self-respecting life. Then they can rely on themselves to get out of poverty and away from being exploited. Legalized prostitution only guarantees them more of the same miserable life.

 

This is a very dangerous idea Larry Flynt endorses. And to do what?

 

Why, to exploit women. Something he is very familiar at doing, already. "Smile for the camera sweetheart"

 

No I am not a closed-minded individual and I don't live in a community that endorses book burning. But, you liberals always resort to labeling people as Nazi's, if they don't agree with your views.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Took a bullet for free speech? Please.

 

And when you're dealing with Flynt you HAVE to stoop to his level. He's in a wheelchair after all -- it's not like he's going to get up to YOUR level.

 

Oh, when I was typing this I stubbed my toe against my computer desk -- I took a hangnail for free speech, where's my martyr parade?...

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Don't you see what this would mean to women?  Most women are recruited into prostitution when they are still girls.  Most  prostitutes come from poor Black or Hispanic homes.  Most prostitutes are controlled by pimps.  They are drug addicted and kept in poverty.  Legalizing prostitution would make the state of California a pimp, profiting from the exploitation of women from poor and broken homes.

 

I assume that the system Flynt would like to put into action is similar to Nevada's "brothel system", which would mean there are no pimps. And enough people are already kept in poverty by the fact that minimum wage is less than living wage everywhere in California that legalizing prostitution would actually be a step up in regards to wages. Although some prostitutes in the brothels are just feeding a habit (and that's a legitimate problem and a legitimate argument against legalized prostitution), it's not the majority, and for most of these women, they have nowhere else to go; medical treatment of any sort is expensive, and the State ain't paying for it as is. Besides, the customer at a brothel gets to pick their girl, and thus it's bad business for brothels to employ unattractive junkies.

 

So you better not bite, or kiss, or go down on her.  It is also a known fact that the H.I.V antibodies take about 6 weeks to appear in the blood.  In the mean time,  that H.I.V. infected prostitute may very well show a negative for the AIDS virus at the doctors office and she will get that "seal of approval" and be certified as a "safe sex surrogate."  And what is to guarantee that she will comply with government regulations?

 

In the brothel system, it's actually illegal to kiss or go down on a prostitute, presumably for just that reason. As for biting, although that's not expressly forbidden, most girls probably wouldn't allow it, as most disallow fingering/fisting (and as for those who would force themselves on a woman against her will, brothel rooms are usually tapped, and first sign of trouble, a man's out!). Brothels generally test their girls twice a week, and if there's ever any doubt or problem the girls are told to take some time off (which they're required to take at least a week's vacation after an average 3-week "working period" anyway). The brothels don't want any legal trouble or trouble for their clients just as any other business doesn't. Even the slightest rumor of STDs will get a brothel shut down for good; nobody'll want to go near that place.

 

If prostitution is legalized, California will become a Mecca for the sex-tourism industry.  Attracting, well lets say, not the best of our society.  But it will not matter to the California government, because it will still profit from prostitution and that will offset any loses from other businesses leaving this 'Hell-hole' that California is turning into.

 

I'd hardly call Nevada a mecca of sex-tourism. That honor, unfortunately, still goes to countries in Southeast Asia, where there's no government restriction (or no enforcement), and forced prostitution of young girls, the poor, diseased, etc. DOES happen. Actually, if anything, the brothel system in Nevada caters to other tourism happenings (e.g. there's a higher number of women available during hunting season).

 

This is a very dangerous idea Larry Flynt endorses.  And  to do what?

 

Taxes, really. The same as cigarettes. Vices are a veritable source of income for all parties.

 

Why, to exploit women.  Something he is very familiar at doing, already.  "Smile for the camera sweetheart"

 

Except it's not exploitation of women when they agree to it. Despite what Linda Lovelace will testify, nobody forces women into pornography. It's what they choose to do with their bodies. Pro-choice doesn't limit itself to abortion.

 

Instead the government needs to get these women (and men too) into medical programs and then offer them opportunities outside of prostitution.  To help them get a productive, self-reliant,  and self-respecting life.  Then they can rely on themselves to get out of poverty and away from being exploited.  Legalized prostitution only guarantees them more of the same miserable life.

 

I actually totally agree with you on this one, up until the end there. In my opinion, prostitution is like stripping; both are legitimate jobs just like any other, however they're "tainted" by a certain "moral standard" so assumptions are made that they can't live a productive, self-reliant, self-respecting life. Many female sex workers feel more confident with their sexuality and feminity, and as mentioned earlier, they make more money than minimum wage, so they're able to live on their own without government money. You can work a shit job in a government program and still be exploited and feel worthless, without even making enough to pay your bills and eat.

 

But, you liberals always resort to labeling people as Nazi's, if they don't agree with your views.

 

Dude, I love Nazis! I listen to Joy Division, like, all the time!

 

Anywho, I did most of my research for this reply here, and there are many other links available here.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to lament kkk's stubbed toe. I too, have been experiencing foot pain lately, unfortunately not for free speech but because I can't stop playing DDR.

[Swift Terror 0]

I have no problem with hoping that the bullet would have been just a tad closer to a major artery or organ of Flynt, given the prayer parody. If you show yourself to be a bad guy, you deserve a taste of your own medicine.

[Guest SideFXs]

I assume that the system Flynt would like to put into action is similar to Nevada's "brothel system", which would mean there are no pimps.  And enough people are already kept in poverty by the fact that minimum wage is less than living wage everywhere in California that legalizing prostitution would actually be a step up in regards to wages.  Although some prostitutes in the brothels are just feeding a habit (and that's a legitimate problem and a legitimate argument against legalized prostitution), it's not the majority, and for most of these women, they have nowhere else to go; medical treatment of any sort is expensive, and the State ain't paying for it as is.  Besides, the customer at a brothel gets to pick their girl, and thus it's bad business for brothels to employ unattractive junkies.

 

Anyone in California gets medical care, whether they can afford it or not.

 

I contend that most brothels in Nevada are not the glamorous and sexy life-style portrayed by the Coyote ranch on PBS. I also contend that most prostitutes would tell you that every time they turn a trick, they feel they have experienced another violation of their bodies. Not the best thing for self-esteem. A reason for drug abuse. You say, "they turn to prostitution because what they earn is a step up compared minimum wage." I would agree with you that minimum wage needs to be raised so that women have a choice to work that crappy government job, for a decent living standard. But, by making prostitution legal, the people of California would be using women for tax revenue, in return they get medical treatment and earn a better living? Just one downside. The government (the people) are putting prostitutes at risk to acquiring AIDS. A death sentence. I don't care how many precautions are taken by the brothel. I don't see how anyone, with morals, could make a vote for approval for legal prostitution. Besides, the medical expense involved in treating the disease AIDS, the tax payers would have to afford. And I don;t think they are going to vote for something that would guarantee massive strain on the state Medicaid budget.

 

You have stated that "its bad business for brothels to employ unattractive junkies." So, legalization would ensure a 'two class' system. The clean attractive prostitutes, with their "Seal of approval," in the government brothels, pimped by the state and the ugly drug-addicted prostitutes employed by street pimps. You see legalization will not remove street prostitution. There will still be illegal prostitution.

 

 

In the brothel system, it's actually illegal to kiss or go down on a prostitute, presumably for just that reason.  As for biting, although that's not expressly forbidden, most girls probably wouldn't allow it, as most disallow fingering/fisting (and as for those who would force themselves on a woman against her will, brothel rooms are usually tapped, and first sign of trouble, a man's out!).  Brothels generally test their girls twice a week, and if there's ever any doubt or problem the girls are told to take some time off (which they're required to take at least a week's vacation after an average 3-week "working period" anyway).  The brothels don't want any legal trouble or trouble for their clients just as any other business doesn't.  Even the slightest rumor of STDs will get a brothel shut down for good; nobody'll want to goar that place.

 

Prostitution puts people at risk for acquiring HIV and other STD's and I hope voters will say no for that reason. The detectable antibodies for HIV takes about 6 weeks after exposure. It doesn't matter one bit, that most brothels test twice a week for STD's. They still get pimped out, infected with the virus, until it is detected. Condoms or restrictions of sexual behavior, by the brothels, still do not guarantee complete safety. But I would agree that detectable STD's like genital warts or cold sores caused by Herpes Simplex would be detected and the prostitute would be required to take a week off. Not good for business.

 

the brothel system in Nevada caters to other tourism happenings (e.g. there's a higher number of women available during hunting season).

 

I will concede that argument. Prostitution probably does augment other predominantly male activities

 

Taxes, really.  The same as cigarettes.  Vices are a veritable source of income for all parties.Except it's not exploitation of women when they agree to it.  Despite what Linda Lovelace will testify, nobody forces women into pornography.  It's what they choose to do with their bodies.  Pro-choice doesn't limit itself to abortion.

 

Which is exactly what makes it so appealing to big, overburdened, bureaucracies. They burn money, so they require more and more of it. The poor get the shaft because they smoke the most and gamble the most in state lotteries. Unfortunately state governments are seduced by the money. So it was only a matter of time before the vice of prostitution would become an issue.

 

Pro-choice is an excuse to do whatever you want to do. I don't think governments should be in the business of legitimizing vices. But they are because of special interest groups and the money. There will always be controversy because of this. Eventually it comes down to the individual's own actions and how they treat their bodies.

 

Vices appeal to our most reptilian instincts, i.e. sex, aggression, greed, pleasure. But, the drive to fulfill those urges (selfishness), eventually leads to destructive consequences. Trying to restrict those vices politically (making it legal or illegal) is one way to prevent another person's destruction and maintain a civil society. It is not a bad thing, it is not being a Nazi.

 

But, eventually it comes down to the individual and the choice they make, whether it is legal or not. I suppose, if they choose a vice, and that action harms them, or they reach a bottom (commonly referred to by recoving alcoholics), then perhaps they would make a change.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Vices appeal to our most reptilian instincts, i.e. sex, aggression, greed, pleasure. But, the drive to fulfill those urges (selfishness), eventually leads to destructive consequences. Trying to restrict those vices politically (making it legal or illegal) is one way to prevent another person's destruction and maintain a civil society. It is not a bad thing, it is not being a Nazi.

 

How many people do you know that have said "I don't want to (smoke/drink/do drugs/sodomize/etc.) because it's not legal!"

 

I suspect it's quite a small number. The problem here is that this, too, is one of those businesses (vices, too) that involves no victim; quite frankly, if it were state-subsidized, they'd probably make it easier for women to get out of the business if they feel uncomfortable with it. It's also a great way for California to get out of the red, considering most of these brothels pull in high dollar tricks as it is.

 

I agree that there is a huge moral downfall here, but it's not like you're going to change the fabric of society by legalizing prostitution. Our society will still be overwhelmingly promiscuous either way, and there will still be prostitution.

 

Eh. I think it's too similar to the marijuana legalization issue.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

The government (the people) are putting prostitutes at risk to acquiring AIDS. A death sentence. I don't care how many precautions are taken by the brothel. I don't see how anyone, with morals, could make a vote for approval for legal prostitution. Besides, the medical expense involved in treating the disease AIDS, the tax payers would have to afford. And I don;t think they are going to vote for something that would guarantee massive strain on the state Medicaid budget.

Although it's true that there's always the risk of STDs, no matter how many precautions are taken, the required precautions are still better than illegal prostitutes, who without any precautions or "job security", have to turn more tricks a night (I believe a brothel prostitute only has one or two customers a night; often they stay with their customer the entire night), which increases their risk of getting STDs, and because there are no required STD tests for illegal prostitutes, they may not know they're infected and may end up passing diseases or infections onto their clients as well. True, there's no way to make it totally safe for prostitutes, legal or illegal, to avoid STDs, but it's definitely much safer for legal prostitutes with restrictions in place than for illegal prostitutes with no restrictions.

 

You have stated that "its bad business for brothels to employ unattractive junkies."  So,  legalization would ensure a 'two class' system.  The clean attractive prostitutes, with their "Seal of approval," in the government brothels, pimped by the state and the ugly drug-addicted prostitutes employed by street pimps.  You see legalization will not remove street prostitution.  There will still be illegal prostitution.

 

I agree that legalization won't totally remove street prostitution, at least not immediately. However, giving johns a legal venue to turn to will curb it, and possibly eventually remove it. In Nevada, the only areas of the state where illegal prostitution still exists is in Las Vegas, Tahoe, Reno, and the other areas without brothels. Many communities with brothels develop almost a "kinship" with them...unlike "those whores on the streets", brothels are somewhat like family (maybe more like that weird cousin where you don't approve of many of their actions, but they're still family), and as such, members of the community will go to the brothels and promote the brothels rather than the illegal prostitutes. Besides the community support, legal prostitution will "win over" illegal prostitution because, while it may be more expensive to provide for taxes and the like, with the higher quality girls and safety procedures, will be a better overall "package" than illegal prostitution (like any other business, the legal brothels would do their best to shut down/bring customers away from "inferior knock-offs"). Also, the mere fact that legal prostitution exists would make it easier for law enforcement to check against a database and brothel paperwork to find and shut down the "unregistered" illegal street pimps and their girls (it's not like just because prostitution is legalized means that cops will stop going after illegal prostitution).

 

Which is exactly what makes it so appealing to big, overburdened,  bureaucracies.  They burn money, so they require more and more of it.  The poor get the shaft because they smoke the most and gamble the most in state lotteries.  Unfortunately state governments are seduced by the money.  So it was only a matter of time before the vice of prostitution would become an issue.

 

I agree with you on this one; taxes on vices are designed to take advantage of lower and middle class clients who are usually the ones to use such vices. But, if all vices are dangerous (to health, money, or other aspects of well-being), what makes this vice so different that it should remain illegal?

 

Vices appeal to our most reptilian instincts,  i.e. sex, aggression, greed, pleasure.  But, the drive to fulfill those urges (selfishness), eventually leads to  destructive consequences.  Trying to restrict those vices politically (making it legal or illegal) is one way to prevent another person's destruction and maintain a civil society.  It is not a bad thing, it is not being a Nazi.

 

I agree with Tyler on this one, in that a person is going to exercise their vices regardless of the legality. I don't think making a vice legal will entice more people choose that vice; just because smoking cigarettes is legal after the age of 18 doesn't mean all adults over the age of 18 smokes cigarettes (though to concede a point to you, it still doesn't mean that only adults over the age of 18 smoke cigarettes). If anything, I'd argue the opposite is true; that youth culture's desire to rebel preaches that many illegal activities are "cool" simply because they're illegal. Although that's a bit of a tangent in regards to this specifically, because most people who use illegal prostitutes are still over the age of 18.

 

But, eventually it comes down to the individual and the choice they make, whether it is legal or not.    I suppose, if they choose a vice, and that action harms them, or they reach a bottom (commonly referred to by recoving alcoholics), then perhaps they would make a change.

 

I agree with you on this one too (and I basically restated it in the last paragraph); I believe people are free to do whatever they want to themselves, since by doing so they accept any risks that go along with it (and if they haven't educated themselves or been educated to those risks, that's their own fault for going ahead without knowing better). Regardless of the legality, people are going to make certain choices. It's not totally safe, and it never will be, but if people are going to do it either way and it's legal, it can be regulated, and with checks and balances, it's safer for both parties.