Dear Everyone;
Because it has come up as a topic before regarding the crack-down on massage parlors and brothels and prostitution this LTE published in todays SF Chronicle is interesting to note. First for the SF Chronicle to publish after its sex-trade hyping articles and the idea itself of legalized prostitution being bandied about.
BTW: the only thing the new law on scrutiny of new massage parlors did was to make the old massage parlors that much more valuable business wise because the competition is being quashed by the government. Nothing like using the state to kill competition. This is why the orignal Social Security bill was not fought by large businesses because it killed off small business competiton because they couldn't afford the tab.
It was like the holier than thou executive of Wal-Mart who said they saw nothing wrong with increasing the minimum wage. Leaving out the fact that the majority of wal-mart workers already earn above the minimum wage at about 10.00 an hour vs the 5.15 federal minimum wage. What it would do of course is shut down small businesses who compete against wal-mart by not being able to raise prices enough to cover the extra payroll and social security withholding matching funds. Nice to use governmment to close down competition. Surprise surprise surprise
Makes you wonder who was really behind the original proposed massage parlor legislation in the first place and how much campaign money did they donate to Fiona Ma the former supervisor and now successful assembly candidate.
The unintended consequences strikes again.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Practical prostitution
Editor -- So, the new San Francisco law intended to crack down on massage parlors which double as brothels already is deemed "insufficient."
While those of the Puritan persuasion no doubt prefer to live with the knowledge of the existence of these moral sewers rather than face legalization of prostitution, the truth is that legalizing the practice is the only way to remove the blight of pimps, drugs and violence.
The city of San Francisco could construct buildings in which prostitutes could ply their trade in a safe environment and they would, in turn, be subject to mandatory health checks administered by the city's Department of Public Health. To offset financial costs, the prostitutes would be required to pay a rental for their respective rooms/places of employment.
It works in some other countries. Why not here?
ROSEMARY GILBERT
San Francisco