RedBook
EscortsPremier Adult Entertainment Community HOME | ADS | FORUM myredbok
Subject: "Budget cut on VICE?" Archived thread - Read only
    Previous Topic | Next Topic
printerPrinter Friendly view     picviewPic view    
Conferences > Northern California > General > Topic #43619
Reading Topic #43619

kelvin0123456789
Member since 9-Aug-09
82 posts, Rate this user		 06-Mar-10, 12:52 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to kelvin0123456789 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
"Budget cut on VICE?"
 
   With the on going budget cut everywhere, I wonder anyone knows anything about cutting Vice units in the Bay Area cities?
That would be great to discharge all of this "tax money wasted" units. It's time!

  Alert Top

 
Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

realdeal81 click here to view user rating
Member since 7-Feb-05
1474 posts, 14 feedbacks, 22 points		 06-Mar-10, 01:22 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to realdeal81 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #0
 
LAST EDITED ON 06-Mar-10 AT 01:26 PM (PST)
 
While I agree with you on money being wasted on prostitution bust, I would not want to discharge all the tax money spent on these units. We still need them to go after the real creeps who prey on innocent victims. Women who are forced into prostitution against their will, sometimes minors or women from third world countries. Other women who get hooked on drugs and the pimp pays her in drugs just to keep her working the streets.

  Alert Top

escort4us click here to view user rating
Charter Member
21343 posts, 70 feedbacks, 91 points		 06-Mar-10, 04:38 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to escort4us Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
3. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #1
 
>While I agree with you on money being wasted on prostitution
>bust, I would not want to discharge all the tax money spent
>on these units. We still need them to go after the real
>creeps who prey on innocent victims. Women who are forced
>into prostitution against their will, sometimes minors or
>women from third world countries. Other women who get
>hooked on drugs and the pimp pays her in drugs just to keep
>her working the streets.
---
True, except unfortunately, most of the decriminalization activists, and most RB folks, cant see their way to separate the good world, from the bad.


Thats why decrim will never pass..the public thinks that its ALL bad news.

Fujiwara tofu rocks!

  Alert Top

VonClitzentitz
Member since 10-Apr-07
4179 posts		 06-Mar-10, 03:37 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to VonClitzentitz Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #0
 
   Please remember that there is also Federal money involved that requires a certain amount of local effort in order to have it coming. So as long as a dollar spent will bring in five more dollars from Obama stash they'll keep spending it. Similar to where their unholy alliance with the John-school (Love'ya, Norma!) requires them to make a certain number of sting operations a year to net new clients.

  Alert Top

culo
Member since 18-Oct-08
352 posts		 06-Mar-10, 06:21 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to culo Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
4. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #2
 
  
In addition to money, it is easy. The cops know they can make a bunch of busts quickly and easily. Pad the stats.

culo is a culo

  Alert Top

Trunks
Charter Member
4696 posts		 06-Mar-10, 10:09 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Trunks Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
5. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #0
 
>With the on going budget cut everywhere, I wonder anyone
>knows anything about cutting Vice units in the Bay Area
>cities?
>That would be great to discharge all of this "tax money
>wasted" units. It's time!

I wonder why LE don't to after gang bangers full force like they do with SW. They pose a real threat to the community when they go out robbing and shooting at people. If they see a group of thugs hanging around, they should break them up just like they do with SW.

  Alert Top

escort4us click here to view user rating
Charter Member
21343 posts, 70 feedbacks, 91 points		 06-Mar-10, 11:20 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to escort4us Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
7. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #5
 
>I wonder why LE don't to after gang bangers full force like
>they do with SW.
---
SW's make it easy.

But..until the neighbourhoods start to speak up about what they know...you cant bust a banger without evidence.

Cant just round up people you think did it.

>They pose a real threat to the community
>when they go out robbing and shooting at people. If they see
>a group of thugs hanging around, they should break them up
>just like they do with SW.
---
Hangin around aint breakin no law..we are a nation lf laws.


Fujiwara tofu rocks!

  Alert Top

oralio click here to view user rating
Member since 1-Dec-03
33673 posts, 115 feedbacks, 192 points		 08-Mar-10, 09:49 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to oralio Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
12. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #5
 
"I wonder why LE don't to after gang bangers full force like they do with SW"

They do. Usually, much more aggressively.

Be the change
you wish to see

  Alert Top

nicefun click here to view user rating
Member since 24-Mar-08
127 posts, 1 feedbacks, 2 points		 06-Mar-10, 11:17 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to nicefun Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
6. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #0
 
   LAST EDITED ON 06-Mar-10 AT 11:19 PM (PST)
 

IMHO Real Deal makes a good point. I favor the strategy of packaging decriminalization with shifting routine vice funding into better funded enforcement where it actually serves a very good purpose - protection of minors from coercion and manipulation, prevention/prosecution of violence toward providers or clients, and prosecution of the use of drugs to control/coerce providers.

  Alert Top

Mattboy click here to view user rating
Member since 7-Jan-06
439 posts, 14 feedbacks, 26 points		 07-Mar-10, 09:44 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to Mattboy Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #6
 
LAST EDITED ON 07-Mar-10 AT 09:49 AM (PST)
 
Agreed--often when people talk about legalization they think it means that everything would stay as it is, but most who favor legalization would want protections like you suggest. Regular screening of the providers for STD's and drug use, continued prosecution of the pimps and drug dealers (which would be easier if the providers and hobbyists could help without fear of persecution), and also monitoring to prevent young individuals from getting involved.

The current approach does not work and never will, only serves to hurt the citizens, and wastes enormous resources. LE says they are short staffed which is hard to believe when they waste so much time on something that is really a choice between adults. With the city and other budgets in the shape they are in, tax on this activity would likely be of some help. Some countries take a more pragmatic and less oppressively puritanical approach than we do, though the right wing religious hate mongers can usually be counted on to stir up trouble whenever they feel they can get a chance to hear their own voices spewing rhetoric designed to stigmatize and belittle others. Sometimes I wonder if those who began the major religions could every stop wretching if they could see what the right wing zealots have done with their ideas.

Mattboy

(Perdition's Partner)

  Alert Top

realdeal81 click here to view user rating
Member since 7-Feb-05
1474 posts, 14 feedbacks, 22 points		 07-Mar-10, 12:42 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to realdeal81 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
9. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #8
 
I don't live in San Francisco but If I did, I would have voted down measure K Which would have decriminalized prostitution in San Francisco. The problem with measure K was not having any kind of plan in place on how to handle prostituion if measure K did pass. It would have been a nightmare and pushed back chances of actually legalizing prostitution by 20 years.

  Alert Top

Mattboy click here to view user rating
Member since 7-Jan-06
439 posts, 14 feedbacks, 26 points		 07-Mar-10, 01:25 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Mattboy Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
10. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #9
 
Actually, I disagree. I think there would not have been pandemonium and the providers would for the first time have been able to help in the battle against the pimps and druggies. They could have come forward and that would be a step in the right direction. The other would need to come later, in steps to appease the anti human rights activists working with the religious lunatic fringe and misguided other groups. It will need to happen in stages

Mattboy

(Perdition's Partner)

  Alert Top

realdeal81 click here to view user rating
Member since 7-Feb-05
1474 posts, 14 feedbacks, 22 points		 08-Mar-10, 09:14 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to realdeal81 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
11. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #10
 
Are you kidding me? Without any fear of prosecution, every pimp and prostitute would have been on the first freight smoking, headed for San Francisco. There was no plan in effect on how to deal with the incoming prostitution traffic if it did pass. Even if prostitution is legal, you still have to have ground rules. You wouldn't want prostitution to take place around a school,church or a city park. You would probably want some kind of health test to make sure prostitutes were not spreading desease. There's also a safety factor for both the johns and the prostitutes which must be adressed.

Making rules as you go after prostitution has been legalized is kind of like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.

  Alert Top

VonClitzentitz
Member since 10-Apr-07
4179 posts		 08-Mar-10, 09:56 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to VonClitzentitz Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
13. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #11
 
   >Making rules as you go after prostitution has been legalized is kind of like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.

There is a difference between decriminalization and legalization and I am often not sure whether this is clear to those who are discussing the issue.

Having been to countries where it is "legal" I can tell you that as a hobbyist you do not (!) want it to be legalized. I can go into that if you'd want me to.

As to it being "decriminalized", that would not automatically meant that you can do anything anywhere. Why do you need to get the hooker on the street corner specifically for solicitation when you can get her for disorderly conduct or public nuisance? In my book, decriminalization is clearly the way to go.

  Alert Top

realdeal81 click here to view user rating
Member since 7-Feb-05
1474 posts, 14 feedbacks, 22 points		 08-Mar-10, 11:42 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to realdeal81 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
14. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #13
 
You're right, there is a difference but I think the end result would have been the same. You would still have a flood of prostitutes and pimps coming to town without any laws or rules in place. Evidently, everyone else felt the same too. As liberal as San Francisco is, the measure went down to a huge defeat.
I think many San Franciscans might have been in agreement with decriminalization but feared it poping up in their neighborhood with no way to control it.

  Alert Top

achingneed click here to view user rating
Member since 19-Jul-08
296 posts, 5 feedbacks, 10 points		 08-Mar-10, 09:56 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to achingneed Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
15. "American attitudes change very slowly"
In response to message #0
 
   Check the poll numbers. Wait for the voters who are in their 60's now to die off in 20-30 years or so.

In a generation or two, yes, it'll be decriminalized, at least in states like California, Massachussetts, etc.. It's been heading that way for a long time, but very slowly.

Look at the trend towards marijuana legalization. We might get it this June in California. If not, then it's coming soon. It's already almost de-facto legalized here in SF and in Humboldt/Mendo. Just about everybody I know flares up everywhere. As soon as you walk out of BART, first smell you smell is weed. "Welcome to San Francisco, have a blunt!"

How long did it take for us to have a black president? How long till we have a female one? Look at how many people in this country still believe that the earth was created 5000 years ago and global warming isn't real? Traditions and opinions are slow to change. Shit, people are still freaking out even in California over gays getting married or serving in the military.

But the demographic trends are strongly in favor of tolerance and what I call social libertarianism: a laissez-faire attitude towards what people do with their bodies and personal lives. We will soon be able to fire up a blunt and call a hooker without ever worrying about going to jail for it.

  Alert Top

RuralAXis click here to view user rating
Member since 16-May-07
3681 posts, 24 feedbacks, 35 points		 08-Mar-10, 10:31 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to RuralAXis Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
16. "RE: American attitudes change very slowly"
In response to message #15
 
   It is legal in Rhode island as long as it is not done in public. Seems reasonable...

  Alert Top

VonClitzentitz
Member since 10-Apr-07
4179 posts		 09-Mar-10, 06:29 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to VonClitzentitz Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
17. "RE: American attitudes change very slowly"
In response to message #16
 
   >It is legal in Rhode island as long as it is not done in public. Seems reasonable...

I thought that just got changed back recently?

  Alert Top

AMPFan click here to view user rating
Charter Member
10894 posts, 116 feedbacks, 216 points		 09-Mar-10, 02:22 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to AMPFan Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
18. "RE: Budget cut on VICE?"
In response to message #0
 
> I wonder anyone knows anything about cutting Vice units in the Bay Area cities?

Based on the replies so far, it's safe to say that no RBers -- not even the vice cops who regularly patrol this board -- have any factual information on the subject. I suspect vice would be more vulnerable to cutbacks than firemen or beat cops, but any actual budget decisions will have more to do with economics than morality, and will be made by city government budget analysts who are pretty much shielded from the provider scene.

  Alert Top

Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
   reviews | join vip | metasearch | terms of use | privacy top | help | faq    ©2010 myRedBook S.A.