Sunday, October 26, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

STEVE SEBELIUS: Little Amsterdam

Occasionally, I'll get an e-mail or letter asking me about how the city should deal with the "problem of prostitution."

Invariably, I'll reply that the only problem with prostitution is that it's illegal. Amend the state law that allows prostitution in all but the state's most populous counties and almost every problem related to prostitution will vanish overnight.

So you can imagine that I greeted Mayor Oscar Goodman's remarks of last week with approval: Goodman seemed to express support for the concept of legalization in interviews, and at his regular weekly news conference, he said legalized brothels could be a redevelopment tool for the blighted East Fremont Street area.

Unfortunately, Goodman also said he wasn't going to advocate for the idea as mayor, and that he wouldn't dream of moving forward with a bill at the Legislature unless he thought there was public support for the concept. And that's too bad, because a cause like legal brothels could use a high-profile spokesman such as Goodman and his mayoral bully pulpit.

Critics immediately jumped on the mayor, perhaps wondering if he were high (Goodman once said he also favors legalizing marijuana, but that's a column for another day). But if there's any criticism to be proffered, it's that the mayor isn't aggressive enough about following up on his more intriguing ideas.

Consider the benefits. Those inclined to seek the services of a prostitute would have no need to go to the seamier parts of the city, to risk robbery, battery and sexually transmitted disease. Legal brothels would be regulated by the state, and employees would have regular health checks, the way they do in rural houses of prostitution. In the event of a dispute with a customer, police could be called without the fear of everyone going to jail.

Women would no longer have to endure beatings or working for pimps who keep most of the proceeds and run their lives. In legal brothels, they would work as contractors, and their wages would be their own. Disputes would be settled in court, not on the streets.

Street prostitution, in fact, would almost vanish. Customers would flock to legal brothels instead of street hookers the way gamblers flock to craps tables in casinos instead of shooting dice in back alleys. An uneven system of enforcement -- crackdowns on street prostitutes while more expensive consorts in nice Strip hotels go largely unmolested -- could be ended, and police assigned to crimes with a complaining victim.

In addition, the government would reap tax revenue from legal brothels, money that could be put toward redevelopment, schools, roads and other local services, in the same way gambling taxes are used to fund local needs.

The only real arguments against the plan are moral: Legal brothels may encourage infidelity, resulting in divorces. Tourism may suffer as wives and girlfriends forbid their significant others from visiting or relocating to Sin City. (Then again, most people outside of Las Vegas think prostitution is perfectly legal now; they're wrong, although outlawed prostitution goes on every day.)

But the answer to those moral arguments is simple: If you think prostitution is wrong, don't engage the services of a prostitute. Those so inclined will do so whether it's legal or not. And while that's not always a good reason for repealing a law, in this case, it is.

That Goodman brought the issue up in the first place is a good thing. Now, the mayor should do the heavy lifting and start pushing to change the law against the consensual "crime" of the world's oldest profession.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist. His column runs Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Reach him at 383-0283 or by e-mail at ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.