Decriminalized prostitution in DC: 15 hour council hearing 10/17-10/18

[Anonymous]

Grosso championed legislation that permitted students who shouldn’t have graduated from DC schools to graduate.

People who put him in office are fools.

Despite claiming to be champions of the people neither Grosso, White, or Bowser ever spent one day as a student in a DC high school.

[Anonymous]

On the one hand, I'm all for this from a public health, HIV reduction perspective. On the other we would need to be prepared for human trafficking into the district. Sex tourism, etc.

[Anonymous]

Despite claiming to be champions of the people neither Grosso, White, or Bowser ever spent one day as a student in a DC high school.

Obviously they should be judged on choices their parents made 30 years ago and ignoring that the only one in that list with a school age kid (White) has his daughter in a public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On the one hand, I'm all for this from a public health, HIV reduction perspective. On the other we would need to be prepared for human trafficking into the district. Sex tourism, etc.

Exactly! We will now have tourists coming here to tour the Smithsonians, ride the Ferris wheel at National Harbor...and then have some sex worker ride their Johnson!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Despite claiming to be champions of the people neither Grosso, White, or Bowser ever spent one day as a student in a DC high school.

Obviously they should be judged on choices their parents made 30 years ago and ignoring that the only one in that list with a school age kid (White) has his daughter in a public school.

Where did Bowser go to school? Which school is whites kid in?

[Anonymous]

Bowser's kid is an infant; no need to be in school yet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On the one hand, I'm all for this from a public health, HIV reduction perspective. On the other we would need to be prepared for human trafficking into the district. Sex tourism, etc.

The sex tourism thing is a huge issue, also home based brothels in residential areas. No regulation under the amended legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the one hand, I'm all for this from a public health, HIV reduction perspective. On the other we would need to be prepared for human trafficking into the district. Sex tourism, etc.

The sex tourism thing is a huge issue, also home based brothels in residential areas. No regulation under the amended legislation.

What about street prostitution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sincerely hope the DC Council has an ounce of sense and does not pass this legislation. We're in a weird era where hyper-left ideas can rocket to the top of the policy agenda, without much meat behind them. While I am hyper-left myself and would love to live in a world where women who legitimately chose sex work could do it safely, I'm smart enough to know that we are not in that world. Prostitution preys on the most vulnerable of women, and this bill is not going to change that, and may in fact increase it. It's a shockingly irresponsible way to legislate, and my sense is that the council members pushing it just want a progressive feather in their caps, without doing the HARD work of actual policymaking.

One thing the bill sponsors claim is that the bill does not legalize prostitution -- it just decriminalizes it. But I don't understand why this is a good thing. What that means, to me, is that DC will stop controlling prostitution at all (currently through policing), will create a brand new economy for sex work, but will completely fail to regulate that brand new economy! On what planet is that good policy, particularly where the stakes are so high for these workers.

+100

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Giving already underskilled and under-resourced women criminal records that will follow them and further harm them in the job market is awful. It traps them in a cycle of poverty.

Sex work should absolutely be decriminalized.

These same women will have no recourse if they are held in brothels next door to your house. Can't convict a brothel keeper for trafficking/forced sex work without evidence of criminal activity. Trafficking then becomes a he-said/she-said hearsay issue.

The amended bill leaves no probable cause for criminal activity for investigators to get search warrants or anything else.

This is the one issue that I am proud to be NIMBY about. Especially when it can directly impact poor women and children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Giving already underskilled and under-resourced women criminal records that will follow them and further harm them in the job market is awful. It traps them in a cycle of poverty.

Sex work should absolutely be decriminalized.

These same women will have no recourse if they are held in brothels next door to your house. Can't convict a brothel keeper for trafficking/forced sex work without evidence of criminal activity. Trafficking then becomes a he-said/she-said hearsay issue.

The amended bill leaves no probable cause for criminal activity for investigators to get search warrants or anything else.

This is the one issue that I am proud to be NIMBY about. Especially when it can directly impact poor women and children.

Agreed. By "decriminalizing" without actually setting up any regulatory structure, they're basically opening the door to trafficking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Giving already underskilled and under-resourced women criminal records that will follow them and further harm them in the job market is awful. It traps them in a cycle of poverty.

Sex work should absolutely be decriminalized.

These same women will have no recourse if they are held in brothels next door to your house. Can't convict a brothel keeper for trafficking/forced sex work without evidence of criminal activity. Trafficking then becomes a he-said/she-said hearsay issue.

The amended bill leaves no probable cause for criminal activity for investigators to get search warrants or anything else.

This is the one issue that I am proud to be NIMBY about. Especially when it can directly impact poor women and children.

Agreed. By "decriminalizing" without actually setting up any regulatory structure, they're basically opening the door to trafficking.

Women are already victimized enough in the sex trade. This is not setting up clean co-op brothels. The money will go straight to some nasty pimp and them women will be dealt with by violence. Thanks Aleen, Grosse etc.

[Anonymous]

It seems really ridiculous that this is how the city council spends its time. I'm glad D.C. has so few problems that we have the luxury of worrying about such inconsequential issues.

[Anonymous]

woke Olympics to get progressive activist support

I want to start the common sense activist club only problem is us normal folks are working and taking care of famililes/kids have lives and don't have time to fight against all these insane liberal special interest groups

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Giving already underskilled and under-resourced women criminal records that will follow them and further harm them in the job market is awful. It traps them in a cycle of poverty.

Sex work should absolutely be decriminalized.

These same women will have no recourse if they are held in brothels next door to your house. Can't convict a brothel keeper for trafficking/forced sex work without evidence of criminal activity. Trafficking then becomes a he-said/she-said hearsay issue.

The amended bill leaves no probable cause for criminal activity for investigators to get search warrants or anything else.

This is the one issue that I am proud to be NIMBY about. Especially when it can directly impact poor women and children.

Agreed. By "decriminalizing" without actually setting up any regulatory structure, they're basically opening the door to trafficking.

Women are already victimized enough in the sex trade. This is not setting up clean co-op brothels. The money will go straight to some nasty pimp and them women will be dealt with by violence. Thanks Aleen, Grosse etc.

This bill isn't to protect women. The quoted advocate says it is to protect trans POC who are sex workers because they are poor. She said pimps are no different than a supervisor at McDs.