Tag: Prostitution

The Latest White House Oops

You may remember the scandal, a few years ago, when Secret Service agents and military personnel in the President’s advance security detail in Colombia hired a few prostitutes. While prostitution is legal in Colombia, it was felt that the agents endangered security by their behavior. They were seeing these women and drinking heavily when they should have been preparing for the President’s arrival; they invited them up to their rooms in a security violation; they tried to cover it up, exposing themselves to potential blackmail*. Worst of all, they refused to pay the women what had been agreed upon. I don’t mind people hiring courtesans; but not when they are supposed to be protecting the President.

(*Using sexual infidelities or behavior as blackmail fodder is not unique to prostitutes and is probably actually less common among professionals. A woman who just wants a few hundred dollars for her time is a lot less likely to blackmail someone than a random stranger they pick up who may not be so random. The infamous 1986 sex-for-secrets scandal involved a Russian civilian, not a prostitute. The big infidelity blackmail scandals — such as Rick Pitino or David Letterman — involved women they’d picked up not women they’d hired. Indeed, this is why a lot of famous people hire women instead of picking them up. The potential danger of US military personnel being blackmailed for hiring a prostitute would be severely lessened if we abandoned the idiotic policy of discharging military personnel who avail themselves of legal sex workers.)

Punishment came down on the men involved but there were rumors that a White House staffer also hired a prostitute and it was covered up or at least punted past the 2012 election.


As nearly two dozen Secret Service agents and members of the military were punished or fired following a 2012 prostitution scandal in Colombia, Obama administration officials repeatedly denied that anyone from the White House was involved.

But new details drawn from government documents and interviews show that senior White House aides were given information at the time suggesting that a prostitute was an overnight guest in the hotel room of a presidential advance-team member — yet that information was never thoroughly investigated or publicly acknowledged.

The information that the Secret Service shared with the White House included hotel records and firsthand accounts — the same types of evidence the agency and military relied on to determine who in their ranks was involved.

Once again: one rule for the masses; one rule for the elites. It’s Elliot Spitzer all over again. You plebs can’t hire a girl to spend the night with you. But we, the rulers, can do whatever the fuck we like and fuck whoever we like.

It gets better:

Whether the White House volunteer, Jonathan Dach, was involved in wrongdoing in Cartagena, Colombia, remains unclear. Dach, then a 25-year-old Yale University law student, declined to be interviewed, but through his attorney he denied hiring a prostitute or bringing anyone to his hotel room. Dach has long made the same denials to White House officials.

Dach this year started working full time in the Obama administration on a federal contract as a policy adviser in the Office on Global Women’s Issues at the State Department.

Dach, incidentally, is the son of Leslie Dach, a huge Obama campaign contributor. But more importantly, he advises the State Department on women’s issues. This is the same State Department that opposes legal sex work, has issued all kinds of idiotic and factually-challenged statements about sex trafficking and has pressured foreign government into adopting Victorian mores on sex and sex work. Again, this guy has a job telling everyone else not to use hookers while he — allegedly — employs them.

I don’t have a problem with clients working in high places. Depending on which study you believe, something like a third of men have used a hooker at least once. What I have problem with is the absolutely putrid hypocrisy on display here. Secret service agents and military personnel are drummed out of the service; our government pressures other governments to outlaw sex work; it runs nationwide “stings” for underage sex workers which nab thousands of consenting adults; it brands anyone who so much as gives a ride to a hooker as a “pimp”; it shuts down websites that help hookers screen out dangerous clients; it promotes garbage stats like the myth that there are 200,000 underage sex slaves in this country. But when one of their own is alleged to have seen a sex worker, they immediately cover it up.

Apparently no one should be able to pay for sex except the rich, the powerful and the connected.

The Other Prohibition

All of us are familiar with Prohibition, the attempt to ban the sale and manufacture of alcohol in this country. Very few would disagree that it was an unmitigated disaster. It created a spike in crime, empowered criminals and smugglers and did little to stop drinking (and I hope you celebrated Repeal Day last week).

This post is not about alcohol prohibition, but I raise it to point out some of the traits it shares with two other kinds of prohibition. It was pushed by religious figures, yes, but more so by a Progressive Movement that saw banning alcohol as being for Americans’ own good. They believed that they could create something like a perfect society, where everyone behaved … at least according to how they thought everyone should behave. They unabashedly claimed the moral high ground, casting their opponents as either drunks or profiteers on human misery. And the effect varied depending on class. The Volstead Act was an inconvenience, at worst, to the rich and powerful, who could acquire illicit booze when they wanted it. Meanwhile, entire swathes of the population were condemned to violence, extortion and murder. But it was OK because they were just bootleggers, drunks, smugglers and Italians. Al Capone pointed out, quite correctly, the classist nature of Prohibition — that what was called bootlegging when he did was called hospitality when rich people did.

There’s a second prohibition that we’ve discussed many times — the War on Drugs. I won’t rehash the many many horrors and inefficacies of this war — see the Alberto Willmore video below. But notice the traits it shares with alcohol Prohibition. It was supported by the Religious Right, yes, but also upheld by many “Progressives”. Our Vice President has long been one of the most vocal drug warriors out there and several Presidential campaigns in the 80’s and 90’s turned on who could be toughest on drugs. The Drug Warriors believe they can create a perfect drug-free society. They unabashedly claim the moral high ground, describing their opponents as either addicts or profiteers on human misery. And again, notice how the effect is varies depending on class. It’s not difficult for the elites to get drugs if they want them. If a Congressman’s son is busted with drugs, he goes into treatment. Meanwhile, the lower classes are condemned to the hell of gang wars, no-knock police raids and minimum sentencing guidelines. But it’s OK because they’re just drug dealers or drug addicts (or, it must be said, black).

There’s a third prohibition, however. In fact, it’s actually the first prohibition, the one whose “success” inspired the ones that followed. It is so insidious that many of us don’t even realize it is a prohibition. And since my friend Maggie McNeill has asked those of us who oppose this prohibition to write about it on Friday the 13th, I’m going to talk about the prohibition on sex work. Or, to be trite: the War on Whores.

Prostitution was not illegal for most of our history or most of human history. Because even those who regarded it as an evil saw it as a necessary one. As Maggie explains in the Cato Unbound debate between her, Ronald Weitzer and two well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) fools:

Indeed, up until the nineteenth century almost nobody imagined that prohibition could be done, let alone that it should. It was almost universally understood that many working-class women and a not-inconsiderable number of those in higher classes would accept money for sex, at least on occasion, and it was impossible to draw a bright, clear line between behaviors that constituted “prostitution” and those (such as concubinage, mistresshood, and political marriage) which did not despite their often-mercenary basis. The manifold laws regulating sex work were not intended to preclude pragmatic motivations for sexual behavior, but rather to keep up appearances, guard the purity of bloodlines, and maintain public order. But as the Victorian Era dawned, a new idea began to take hold of European minds: if science could perfect Man’s tools and techniques, why couldn’t the same process be applied to Mankind itself? The immediate result of turning (pseudo-)scientific inquiry upon sex was that taking money for it was no longer considered merely something that “unladylike” or “sinful” women did for a living or extra income; instead, the “prostitute” was defined into existence as a specific type of woman, separate and distinct from other women. For most of the century the prevailing view was that women who took money for sex were congenitally defective, but in the 1880s the idea arose that most or even all were forced into the profession by evil men. It was about this time that “avails” laws started to appear, under the rationale of “protecting” women from exploitation by such men.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, the “white slavery” hysteria was in full swing. Progressives were determined to “rescue” women from the clutches of the “pimps” who were abducting them by the thousands from homes, railway stations, and dance halls, and for the first time in history the act of taking money for sex was itself criminalized on a large scale. In the United States, it was illegal almost nowhere in 1909, but almost everywhere by the end of 1914.

The more you dig into the issue the more you see the parallels to the War on Drugs and alcohol Prohibition. Again, we see the hand of religion, but also the Progressives (and I would argue that they are worse on this issue than the religious, having now donned the cloak of pseudo-feminism). They believe they can create a perfect whore-free society. They unabashedly claim the moral high ground, describing their opponents as whores or pimps. And the effect once again depends on class. It’s not difficult for someone like Eliot Spitzer — who prosecuted sex workers and their clients — to get a high-priced call girl. But some poor shmoe who just wants to get laid goes on John TV. Prostitutes can be raped with impunity, extorted by law enforcement and ultimately jailed. But it’s OK, because they’re just perverts and whores.

And look where this hysteria has led us. Just as the War on Drugs will get a high school girl busted for giving Midol to a friend, so will the sex prohibitionists engage in absurd excesses in the War on Whores. In Madison, a man has started a business where people can pay to snuggle and cuddle with other people. I think it sounds stupid (about a decade ago, this sort of thing showed up on a Penn and Teller episode as a laugh). However, if paying $60 to hug some people is your thing, knock yourself out.

But ultra-liberal Madison is banning it.

Snugglers contend touching helps relieve stress. But Madison officials suspect the business is a front for prostitution and, if it’s not, fear snuggling could lead to sexual assault. Not buying the message that the business is all warm and fuzzy, police have talked openly about conducting a sting operation at the business, and city attorneys are drafting a new ordinance to regulate snuggling.

“There’s no way that (sexual assault) will not happen,” assistant city attorney Jennifer Zilavy said. “No offense to men, but I don’t know any man who wants to just snuggle.”

This is your brain on the War on Whores: a government official invoking sexual assault and the dreaded prostitution in a response to a hug house. God knows what they would have done if they’d found out about the back rubs on my freshman year college dorm.

This is where this ahistorical hysteria on sex work has led us. This is who we are now. People think that bans on prostitution and hysteria over sex work only affects dirty whores and their filthy clients. But when you open the door to government getting involved in consensual sex between adults, the entire damned law enforcement industry will stampede through it. And next thing you know, they’re calling you a rapist for wanting to hug someone.

No society has ever rid itself of alcohol — not even Islamic countries, where alcohol is illegal. No country has ever rid itself of drugs — not even China which once imposed the death penalty for opium use. They can reduce it, a bit. They can drive it underground. But they can not stop human beings from human beings.

And no society has ever rid itself of sex work. In fact, many of the greatest empires embraced it. Our experiment in banning sex work has now gone on for a century. As with alcohol and rugs, its adherents continually claim we are right on the verge of victory; we only need to ruin a few more lives. It’s time that the prostitution ban, like Prohibition and the War on Drugs, find its way into the list of history’s abandoned mistakes.

Don’t think that this is entirely about booze, drugs and hookers, either. All three of our nation’s great prohibitions have arisen from the Great Progressive Conceit: the idea that government can make people better (assuming you accept the Progressives’ definition of ‘better’). This is a conceit that plays out in a thousand ways in our politics, from the government telling you your insurance policy isn’t good enough to forbidding you from smoking in your own home to telling you not to drink so much soda.

The Great Progressive Conceit is tempting because government can create the circumstances for people to become better. Freedom of religion and speech, capitalism, rule of law, etc. all create opportunities for human beings to improve themselves and the society around them. And we absolutely need government to stop people from harming each other. But the minute the government turns its eye toward telling you that you must do this or you must not do that for your own good …

Just Say No.

Nananana! We Can’t Hear You!

Of all the political memes out there, the one that most annoys me is the idea that liberals are so much more reasonable than conservatives. We’re told that they think in terms of facts and evidence. They like to consider all points of view. They are “evidence-based”.

But the simple reality is that almost everyone is full of shit. And when their shit is challenged, they try to shoot the messenger, whether that messenger is liberal, conservative or crypto-monarchist. To wit:

Last week, the American Federation of Teachers released a blacklist of financial asset managers that fund organizations supporting education reform and/or switching from defined-benefit to defined-contribution pension systems, such as StudentsFirst, the Show-Me Institute and the Manhattan Institute. The report urges AFT affiliates to pressure pension fiduciaries not to invest their money with such asset managers. The AFT also makes a not-so-subtle threat to go after the donors to other think tanks and education reform groups:

This isn’t the first time AFT has done this. But the emphasis against education reform proponents is probably related to this:

Yesterday, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released their third edition of their report “A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice.” The report provides a literature review of dozens of high-quality studies of school choice programs around the country, including studies from scholars at Harvard University, Stanford University, Cornell University, the University of Arkansas, the Brookings Institution, and the Federal Reserve Bank. The studies examine the impact of school choice programs on the academic performance of participants and public school students, the fiscal impact on taxpayers, racial segregation, and civic values.

The report’s key findings included the following:

  • Twelve empirical studies have examined academic outcomes for school choice participants using random assignment, the “gold standard” of social science. Of these, 11 find that choice improves student outcomes—six that all students benefit and five that some benefit and some are not affected. One study finds no visible impact. No empirical study has found a negative impact.
  • Twenty-three empirical studies (including all methods) have examined school choice’s impact on academic outcomes in public schools. Of these, 22 find that choice improves public schools and one finds no visible impact. No empirical study has found that choice harms public schools.
  • Six empirical studies have examined school choice’s fiscal impact on taxpayers. All six find that school choice saves money for taxpayers. No empirical study has found a negative fiscal impact.
  • Eight empirical studies have examined school choice and racial segregation in schools. Of these, seven find that school choice moves students from more segregated schools into less segregated schools. One finds no net effect on segregation from school choice. No empirical study has found that choice increases racial segregation.
  • Seven empirical studies have examined school choice’s impact on civic values and practices such as respect for the rights of others and civic knowledge. Of these, five find that school choice improves civic values and practices. Two find no visible impact from school choice. No empirical study has found that school choice has a negative impact on civic values and practices.
  • On the same day, a new study from researchers at Harvard University and the Brookings Institution found that a school choice program boosted college enrollment among African-American participants by 24 percent.

    To be fair, some of the studies show only small gains. But that’s often the way science — not to mention social science — works. Studies have biases, errors or just bad luck in their sampling. There are always outlier studies and people who want to cite those outlier studies over the more numerous non-outliers. That the studies are consistently showing improvement is the important thing.

    These studies would not be happening — would not even be possible — without the ongoing uphill fight by such as the Manhattan Institute. And so the AFT is getting desperate to stop these successful experiments in education reform. They have to kill the messenger before the taxpayer hears the message. They have been aided by a liberal establishment that will happily ignore the message (notice that these studies are never mentioned when Jindal’s Louisiana plan is discussed). But the truth is slowly getting out. School choice works better than the current system (and no, it’s not perfect; I know that. It’s an improvement is all I’m saying.) Other reforms opposed by union are also showing results. And this has to be stopped.

    This is, of course, not unique to the education debate. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society. This case hinges around the Bush-era policy — continued by Obama and supported by many liberal and so-called feminist organizations — of requiring NGO’s to denounce prostitution and oppose legalization in order to qualify for funds to combat the spread of AIDS. I’m not sure how the Court will rule; they have typically taken an “it’s my ball, I can go home now” attitude on these issues. But look closely. There is plenty of evidence that legalizing prostitution inhibits the spread of AIDS by giving sex workers legal backing for demanding condom use. In fact, in countries where prostitution is legal or quais-legal, non-street walkers often have lower STI rates than the general public.

    But that fact is inconvenient to the Baptist and Bootlegger coalition that opposes sex work decriminalization. It is inconvenient to the feminist organizations that oppose decriminalization, inconvenient to the Obama Administration, inconvenient to five Democrats (and four Republicans) who filed an amicus brief in support of the law, inconvenient to the feminists and liberals who signed the amicus brief for the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. It is critical that no one dispute the Pravda that fighting AIDS means outlawing prostitution.

    We can go on and on but you get the point. People will happily talk about “getting the facts” and “considering the evidence” when it supports them. The minute the facts turn against them, those facts have to be stomped down. Liberals aren’t exempt from this in the slightest. I have a whole tag on my own site detailing case after case where liberals massage the facts, ignore the facts, deny the facts, stomp down the facts. Why just today, the liberal blogs erupted over a poorly designed analysis that claimed that gun ownership increases homicide rates despite extremely obvious flaws.

    So yes, liberals like the facts … that is, until those facts shit their bed. Then the facts have to be ignored. Or better yet, never come to anyone’s attention.

    Columbian Hookers

    By now, you’ve heard all the salacious details of our Secret Service agents partying with some legal Columbian hookers. As expected, Maggie McNeill has a good round-up of both the pearl-clutching hysteria in the media and the more reasoned response from libertarian quarters.

    Suffice it to say, the idea that this was something unusual or particularly dangerous is a bit far-fetched. I really can’t see our Secret Service compromising the President’s safety rather than have their legal whoring revealed. This crosses me as the latest, “Hey look, sex!” distraction from the economy.

    In fact, I would argue that seeing whores is a safer way for the Secret Service to get their jollies than picking up girls in bars. The thing about a hooker is that you know what she wants in exchange for sex: money. Women who don’t want money; who want, say access or secrets, are the danger. Do you remember the sex for secrets scandal of the 1980’s? That didn’t involve a hooker. It involved an amateur that a marine slept with and fell for and then exchanged classified information for access to.

    All that having been said, the Secret Service has rules. They specifically have rules about contacts with foreign nationals. And if these agents violated those rules, it doesn’t matter whether the rules were reasonable or not: they agreed to abide by them. If they broke them, they should be fired.

    But we can do that without our President and everyone else pulling grim faces about this “disgrace”. Amped-up men in dangerous jobs like to see working girls. That’s been true forever. Let’s not pretend it’s something new or unusual. And let’s not cater to the delusions of grandeur of the reporter who broke the story and now sees himself as the next Woodward and Bernstein.

    You’re Going to Jail

    I’m not the biggest of fan of John Stossel’s routine. But this is pretty devastating. It’s long, so I put it up as a weekend video when you have time.

    The most interesting part, to me, is when Stossel brings the hookers in to talk to prosecutor and serial shit-maker-upper Wendy Murphy. The fascination on her face when she meets these women is priceless.

    Cry of the Twitter Twerps

    You may be aware of this ridiculous “Real Men Don’t Buy Girls” campaign started by dim bulb celebs Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher. You can google or Youtube the commercials. They exemplify everything wrong with how Hollywood approaches issues:

    • The campaign started because the two yo-yos involved watched a documentary on sexual slavery in another country.
    • The focused on this as a morally simple issue. No one is for child sex slavery. So even if their solutions were useless or even counter-productive, they would still earn unwarranted praise.
    • They were then exposed to a “study”, now cannon, that claims there are between 100,000 and 300,000 underage girls in sexual slavery in the United States, a number they have repeated endlessly.
    • Being Hollywood idiots, they decided that, instead of learning something about the issue, they would make “funny” commercials under the theme “real men don’t buy girls”. These commercials are the “We Are the World” of their time and about as entertaining. Apparently, men who relax by raping children might be dissuaded from doing so by a commercial.

    There are gigantic problems with the campaign, most of which were exposed in this week’s Village Voice article. The Voice has been a target of trafficking claims since it runs escort pages. But they marshaled a very damning case against the “Real Men” thing.

    First, there’s the 100-300,000 girl claim. It’s garbage, as Maggie McNeill has demonstrated numerous times. We have about half a million prostitutes in the country total, which makes the 300,000 number look insane. It would mean about 1 in 100 underage girls are in sexual slavery at a time when crime rates in general and sex crimes in particular are plunging like the reviews on one of Kutcher’s movies. It would mean there are almost as many child sex slaves than there are child Jews, slightly fewer teens in slavery than teens who are lesbians and many more child prostitutes than child Muslims. It would mean entire communities would be pillaged by pimps.

    But you don’t even need to go that far because the study doesn’t even say what Kutcher says its says. The study actually says that 100-300,000 are “at risk” with “at risk” being defined so loosely that all runaways are considered at risk. More scientific approaches indicate there may be 10-20,000 underage prostitutes of any kind and only a small fraction of those are doing it against their will. The experts cited by the Village Voice estimate that the number of sexually exploited children is more in the hundreds or low thousands.

    Now any child in sexual slavery is a horrific tragedy. Thankfully, there are a host of smart things we can do about it. We can legalize prostitution for adults, freeing up resources to help minors. We can throw more money at shelters and counseling for underage kids. We can throw people off the sex offender list that don’t belong there so we can keep a closer watch on the truly dangerous (preferably from inside a prison cell). We can especially focus on LGBT or promiscuous kids who are thrown out of their homes and sometimes turn to whoring just to survive.

    But that wouldn’t make the Hollywood celebrities feel good and it wouldn’t line the pockets of various organizations and it wouldn’t please the anti-prostitution forces. And that may be the most devastating part of the Voice article:

    Despite the tidal wave of cash going to nonprofits purporting to raise awareness and task forces hoping to prosecute (with little track record of success), someone’s been left out: the victims.

    Although Congress has spent hundreds of millions in tax-generated money to fight human trafficking, it has yet to spend a penny to shelter and counsel those boys and girls in America who are, in fact, underage prostitutes.

    So the Hollywood celebs get to fell good about themselves, the non-profits rake in money, the politicians get to grandstand and … no one is actually helped.

    Naturally, when this sort of gig is exposed, the beneficiaries react. And react they have. Kutcher has gone on the warpath on Twitter, calling on sponsors to abandon the Voice and successfully getting American Airlines and Domino’s to pull out. It’s hard to blame the companies; they’re not interested in the subtleties of the issue. But it tells you what shaky ground Kutcher is on that he’s having a Twitter Tantrum consisting mainly of linking shaky studies and horror stories.

    Now I would normally ignore this. I like it when celebrities expose themselves as idiots. But there is a potential for this campaign to make things far worse. For one thing, the campaign has made it clear that they want to target all prostitution, no just child prostitution and the federal money is flowing to prohibitionist causes. This will inevitably make things worse as it’s much easier for the authorities to bust consenting adults who advertise at the Voice than little kids who are shopped in secret. So they can claim they are “cracking down” when they are, in fact, diverting precious resources away from the problem.

    (I’ll leave you to ponder the condescension of a famous celebrity, who could bed any woman he wants, telling men who may not have other options that they’re not “real men” if they hire a consenting adult woman.)

    For another thing, Kutcher and his minions frequently conflate trafficking in child sex slaves with all human trafficking. But the vast majority of human trafficking involves smuggling willing people into this country from Mexico and other central American countries for work. I oppose illegal immigration, but conflating it with child molestation is going to create the same problems as conflating adult prostitution with child molestation: resources will be diverted to attack the larger, easier but less insidious problem. We’ll nab tens of thousands of illegals at the cost of neglecting the actual child prostitution problem.

    This debate finally illustrates why I get so terminally focused on numbers and data and defining issues as clearly as possible. In order to address a problem, you have to define it and characterize it correctly. You can not get distracted by side issues and irrelevancies. People who exploit children are sneaky and devious but, thankfully, not very common. We need to go after them with the law enforcement equivalent of laser bombs, not carpet bombs. Leave the adult whores and the illegal immigrants out of it. Work the problem.

    And ignore the self-satisfied celebrities.

    Update: Just to make one thing clear: I think Kutcher is sincere in wanting to combat human trafficking, which is admirable. But I think he’s going about the exact wrong way, the Hollywood way, which is not admirable. It makes him feel good but it doesn’t do anything to solve the problem. And I think, deep down, he suspects this, given his reaction to the Village Voice calling him out.

    In the best of all worlds, this foofaraw would end in smarter action. I somehow doubt that will happen. All he’s doing at this point is aiding more destructive policy.

    The Puritans Strike Back

    And once again, I am eternally grateful that that fucktard fascist Martha Coakley did not get elected to the Senate:

    Attorney General Martha Coakley, leading legislators and district attorneys have decided that what Massachusetts really needs is an all-out offensive against prostitution.

    They are proposing a new crime: “human trafficking for sexual servitude,” which would allow convicted pimps, madams, or anyone else facilitating the exchange of sex for money to be imprisoned for up to 20 years on the first offense, with a mandatory 10 years in the pen if convicted a second time.

    The 20-year sentence would also apply to anyone who recruits someone to engage in a “sexually-explicit performance.” If you’re planning a batchelor party, better do it soon, since this law would empower Coakley to shut down the “gentlemen’s clubs” and hire-a-stripper operations.

    The proposed law considers prostitutes the “victims” of prostitution, so it doubles the sentence for their customers. “Whoever pays, agrees to pay, or offers to pay another person” for sex can be sentenced to up to 2 1/2 years in jail and a $5,000 fine, “whether such sexual conduct occurs or not.”

    The anti-prostitution weenies have found a way of prettying up their sexual hangup. They’re not against sex, they say, they’re against “trafficking”. But they have now defined trafficking so broadly that women consenting to have sex for money are considered victims of some global conspiracy. And those who facilitate this business could be in jail longer than murderers. They site bogus statistics to convince us that hundreds of thousands of underage women are in sexual slavery in this country, despite their manifest failure to uncover these supposed massive trafficking rings. And now they’ve decided that it’s a good use of resources to jail whores, pimps and johns.

    This will not work. Prostitution is universal, even in countries where it is punishable by death. You simply can not control consensual acts between adults. Massachusetts should be decriminalizing prostitution, not doubling down on a failed and corrupting policy.

    (The article also address efforts to stop people snacking and the Mass cops taking a cue from our President and refusing to comply with the more liberal laws on pot possession. But that’s small potatoes compared to tossing someone in the clink with violent thugs because he paid for or was paid for a blowjob. That’s an entire extra level of stupid.)

    (H/T: Maggie McNeill, bringing the facts, as always.)