Nationalizing the Hobby

[charlestudor2005]

I know, it's not very realistic, but I thought I'd throw out the idea. Not sure of all the cons, but here might be some of the pros:

1. Decriminalized conduct
2. Steady income for providers
3. Healthcare (although that might be less a concern now)
4. Retirement plans
5. Regulation of STDs & treatments

Questions, comments, observations?

Would it be a good trade-off??

[pjorourke]

I'm curious what aspect of the Commerce Clause this would fall within? TTH, you want to step in here?

[Ansley]

Even if it was totally legal, I would still do things the way I am now. I don't want my real name to be registered as a sex worker.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I'm curious what aspect of the Commerce Clause this would fall within? TTH, you want to step in here?

Commerce??? Police powers/health & welfare.

[Gryphon]

One big con: It would turn providers into tax collectors. "Sin taxes" are very popular with politicians and this would be a huge target. Each visit would likely be taxed at federal, state, and local levels, not even mentioning sales tax. Who would be responsible for collecting those taxes and sending them to the appropriate governmental agencies? The provider. Who would also have to keep meticulous records of each transaction so when the revenooers show up to audit her she can prove she did it right.

[Grizzly]

What Ansley you dont what to have a card like they do in nevada an LPIN. Where they have to be fingerprinted and a background check run before they work.

Ansley I was joking and being a little sarcastic (sorry if this offendes anybody).

Granted it does help with the economy of the towns that have LPINs but I also understand if a provider wants to be anynomous as they have a life away from the hobby.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Gryphon

One big con: It would turn providers into tax collectors. "Sin taxes" are very popular with politicians and this would be a huge target. Each visit would likely be taxed at federal, state, and local levels, not even mentioning sales tax. Who would be responsible for collecting those taxes and sending them to the appropriate governmental agencies? The provider. Who would also have to keep meticulous records of each transaction so when the revenooers show up to audit her she can prove she did it right.

OK, not what I envisioned. I envisioned all the money going directly to the gov't, who would turn around & pay salaries and benefits, etc.

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by oenghus

Ansley I was joking and being a little sarcastic (sorry if this offendes anybody).

Oh I can take a joke, besides sarcasm is a prerequisite around here.

[RunSilent RunDeep]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I'm curious what aspect of the Commerce Clause this would fall within? TTH, you want to step in here?

Clearly the aspect that addresses interstate commerce. In terms of:

• Providers in metro areas that span states (such as Kansas City, St Louis, Cincinnatti, Memphis, possibly New Orleans or Mobile, Chicago, possibly Detroit or Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NYC ... and the list goes on),
• Hobbyists who visit providers while travelling out-of-state, and
• Providers who tour out-of-state.

The problems that can come up in this interestate commerce include criminal behavior such as fraud or abusive violence (trying to exclude mutually consenting BDSM and/or "power exchange play"), as well as hazards to public health. (Each issue can come up on either side of the transaction, of course.)

Not to mention the "equal protection" clause: being "invisible" makes it easier for LE to abuse providers invisibly and makes it harder for providers to obtain legal safeguards against that abuse.

Not that it would ever happen -- this version of "Prohibition" has been around too long to make "repeal" a simple thing to accomplish. But if you're asking whether the US Constitution can be read in a way to support it if people wanted it to ... well, here you are.

IMHO, YMMV, IANAL, and the rest of the usual disclaimers, of course.

-- RSRD

[Six of Jericho]

Hahah, Charles - you were talking about creating a Federal Department of Prostitution? That's definitely an amusing thought. I think you might run into a Youngstown problem pretty quickly....

BTW, Gryphon, you might be interested in this article - at least one brothel owner in Nevada is eager to be taxed (he figures it would be a lot harder to shut down the industry if it were subject to taxation).

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Six of Jericho

Hahah, Charles - you were talking about creating a Federal Department of Prostitution?

I think you can come up with a better acronym than FDOP. lol

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

OK, not what I envisioned. I envisioned all the money going directly to the gov't, who would turn around & pay salaries and benefits, etc.

Well, needless to say, the workforce would be represented by a public employee union. After all, isn't it clear that the administration and congress are intent on unionizing everything under the sun?

A hobbyist would have no better chance of picking his choice of provider than a victim...er, patient of the UK's NHS would of picking his or her doctor.

Of course, the union's objective would be to reduce income inequality to a minimum. A 1-hour provider visit would simply be deemed a fungible commodity. Want to see an attractive, classy lady like Ansley? Good luck. You'd be just as likely to draw Streetwalker Stella or Trailer Park Tracy -- for the same price!

I mean, after all, fair is fair.

Right?

[TexTushHog]

Another pro is that that a great deal of previously untaxed activity would now be taxed.

Whether it could be done on a national level is somewhat open to debate. Under the most recent interpretation of the Commerce Clause I'd guess it would be a 50/50 shot. However, the power under the taxation clause is broader.

But as a practical matter, these sorts of decisions have traditionally been made at the state level (the Federal criminalization of drugs not withstanding). It will be really interesting to see what the Federal government does if Prop 19 passes in California legalizing the recreational possession of marijuana. One imagines that California will only be the first of several states to do so. The Federal government will surely at some point abandon the federal criminalization of that substance once it is de jure legal in several States.

[Six of Jericho]

National Sexual and Fetish Welfare Administration? (The NSFW Admin, of course)

Federal Association of Comfort, Intimacy, And Lust? (FACIAL)

Department of Erotic Ecstasy, Pornographic Titillation, Heavy Raunch, Orgasms, And Tricks? (DEEPTHROAT)

(please don't kill me)

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Another pro is that that a great deal of previously untaxed activity would now be taxed.

Whether it could be done on a national level is somewhat open to debate. Under the most recent interpretation of the Commerce Clause I'd guess it would be a 50/50 shot. However, the power under the taxation clause is broader.

But as a practical matter, these sorts of decisions have traditionally been made at the state level (the Federal criminalization of drugs not withstanding). It will be really interesting to see what the Federal government does if Prop 19 passes in California legalizing the recreational possession of marijuana. One imagines that California will only be the first of several states to do so. The Federal government will surely at some point abandon the federal criminalization of that substance once it is de jure legal in several States.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there actually is a federal law against prostitution. Thats why Charles' proposal would be so weird, they would have to positively override state law (i.e., you can do it.) But given the fact that these clowns think they can make people buy insurance (next is Chevy's from Government Motors) why would they let a little thing like the Commerce Clause stop them.