Printable View
House Bill 2613
In addition to the new laws in TX, House Bill 2613 makes it a crime
to operate a stash house to facilitate prostitution or human trafficking
Will providers who host incall from their residence be affected by this? o.o
even before this new law, I thought using any establishment to conduct
prostitution would be an additional penalty for an incall sting
(plz correct me if I’m wrong)
!
It's an interesting question Phoenixx.
No you will not be in any more trouble using an incall.
HB 2613 says you commit an offense if you own a stash house (condensed for brevity) if you would commit an offense under any of: 20.05, 20.06, 20A.02, 20A.03, 43.04, 43.05.
Sections 43 are for promotion of prostitution. Doesn't apply to you as sex worker (also still very rocky legal ground for prosecutors even regarding site owners, managers, etc...).
Sections 20.05/06 are for smuggling of persons. Doesn't apply to anyone, not the sex worker or anyone else unless they are engage in smuggling people.
Sections 20A.02/03 have to do with trafficking. Furthermore you have to traffic the person (they must be underage) *AND* it has to be through force, coercion, or duress to engage in any of the prohibited activities. Again this would mainly be the managers or site operators that were targeted (not hobbyists or providers). But it's still not an issue even for them unless they are engaging in force, coercion, duress, or underage trafficking.
In short....no this does not affect you the provider, nor the hobbyist, and in fact, it doesn't even affect responsible site owners or managers (the real target of that bill) so long as no underage trafficking or labor or services or prostitution through force, coercion, or duress are occurring.
A warrant will knock your door down my friend. You don't have to be sex trafficking anyone for the cops to bust through a door and that has been on the news.
They don't need a warrant at a hotel or an apartment these days on the grounds of exigent circumstances same as based upon probable cause. Police arrive because neighbors called crimestoppers and officer's saw frequent traffic raising suspicious activity.
Relating to the offense of operation of a stash house and to funding certain crime victim services through the use of money derived from a civil asset forfeiture of contraband related to that offense, human smuggling and trafficking offenses, and certain prostitution offenses; creating a criminal offense.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTIONA1.AAChapter 20, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 20.07 to read as follows:
Sec.A20.07.A A OPERATION OF STASH HOUSE.
(a) A person commits
an offense if the person knowingly[:
(1)A A uses or permits another to use any real estate, building, room, tent, vehicle, boat, or other property owned by the person or under the person ’s control to commit an offense or to facilitate the commission of an offense under Section 20.05, 20.06,
20A.02, 20A.03, 43.04, or 43.05; or
(2)A Arents or leases any property to another, intending that the property be used as described by Subdivision (1).
(b)AAAn offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c)AAIf conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.
SECTION A2.AAArticle 59.01(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, is
https://www.abc15.com/news/region-we...stitution-bust
Both women face a long list of charges including maintaining a house of prostitution and money laundering.
I wouldn't argue about the warrant Uni that's definitely true but realize that's not so easy to get unless you have already been under investigation. Yes, if you are using hotels and there are sting like operations going on then that could have a warrant involved or in play; however it would take time and you would have already under investigation. That's nothing new though and has zero to do with this amendment. Prostitution, strictly speaking, is illegal (yes, of course).Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
About the "stash houses" (notice the very interesting wording that was added that House Bill 2613 - which is simply an amendment to Ch 20 TX Penal Code - Operation of Stash Houses). It's not at all surprising to me that they chose the wording "stash house". If you read my prior posts about what this is all really about the fact they chose "stash house" is not at all surprising.
Uni, I know you have concerns about this whole thing. My aim has been to subside peoples fears, but not simply be cheer leading, that alone won't do anything. No, rather I would like to point out the facts and be objective about the data. My main point is that, yes, prostitution is illegal, but that's not somehow a big change. You, we, us, any of us involved in the business has been doing something technically illegal for a long long time. Yea. We know that. Right? I mean come on. But these laws don't aim for you, the provider, or the individual hobbyist (they flat out *do not* - period).
I will explain why and show you using the exact text from the amended bill (and, again, let's remember that interesting usage of the word "stash house").
Sec. 20.07. OPERATION OF STASH HOUSE. (a) A person commits
an offense if the person knowingly:
(1) uses or permits another to use any real estate,
building, room, tent, vehicle, boat, or other property owned by the
person or under the person's control to commit an offense or to
facilitate the commission of an offense under Section 20.05, 20.06,
20A.02, or 20A.03; or
(2) rents or leases any property to another, intending
that the property be used as described by Subdivision (1).
Let's look further at 20.07 subsection (1) above:
You commit an offense if you use any real estate, building, room, boat, etc etc... to commit an or to facilitate commission of an offense under Section 20.05, 20.06, 20A.02, or 20A.03
Link to Penal Code 20.05 - SMUGGLING OF PERSONS
Read that link.
You are not committing this offense. Nor is any hobbyist. Nor is any site operator or manager UNLESS they are doing one of those smuggling items which primarily involve the "stashing" of someone in some form of vehicle, house, motorcraft, etc... to evade law enforcement or conceal the person from law enforcement. This is typically slave activity (trafficking) and is not aimed at the hobby community.
What about penal code 20.06? It's just CONTINUOUS FORM OF SMUGGLING (basically aggravated/habitual smuggling behavior). It's the same as 20.05 but more aggravated. No issue.
How about 20A.02?
Link to Penal Code 20A.02 - TRAFFICKING OF PERSONS
Read that one in full but the key item most would be interested in "here" is this one:
(3) traffics another person and, through force, fraud, or coercion, causes the trafficked person to engage in conduct prohibited by:
(A) Section 43.02 (Prostitution);
(B) Section 43.03 (Promotion of Prostitution);
(C) Section 43.04 (Aggravated Promotion of Prostitution); or
(D) Section 43.05 (Compelling Prostitution);
See the paragraph above? You must "traffics another person **AND**, through force, fraud, or coercion, causes the trafficked person to engage in conduct prohibited by: ........."
As a result, you are not committing an offense under 20A.02 unless it is through force, fraud, or coercion to any of the subsections of 20A.02 (A), (B), (C), or (D) above.
Now we get to penal codes 43.04 and 43.05. These have to do with promotion of prostitution and aggravated promotion of prostitution.
I will come back and comment on this. I have to go pickup kids right now.
This one is also not an issue for the individual provider, nor the hobbyist as I said in my first reply earlier. It *could* apply to site operators and managers and a few other conditions but that's still very iffy and very rocky ground for a prosecutor.
Point is though for the purposes of the individual, the provider, or the hobbyist, this "stash house" amendment to the penal code is not aimed at you.
Why do we think they call them "stash houses"? Again, this is mostly about smuggling humans, trafficking humans (slavery), really awful nasty stuff that happens on the dark web (not the dark web I'd guess many "might" think is the dark web either - that's not the dark web). The dark web has entire task force dedicated to it within the cyber crimes division both at the federal and state level. There are horrors there like you cannot fathom. I'm telling you. It's disgusting. That's what this stuff is all about. Technology has made it so that horrible horrible things can occur all around the world with ease and there are no laws to protect against those awful syndicates and persons committing such atrocities. In fact, there were laws EVEN protecting them (i.e. safe harbors act as just one such example).
Yes, let's realize that prostitution is still illegal. Obviously. Who doesn't know that? Of course. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that none of *these* kinds of new laws, not even FOSTA/SESTA are really aimed at the individual sex worker, hobbyist, and not even really responsible legitimate site operators/community owners/managers/etc..... They are aimed at stamping out a plague across our world, of which the US is the #1 destination and drop point.
But this new amendment to penal code 20 that's in house bill 2613? This law doesn't affect you at all. Not this one. No. It simply doesn't. It's about smuggling, forcing labor, forcing sex, trafficking (slavery). You have to commit one of the penal codes in Chapter 20 that are listed in subsection (1) of the 20.07 amendment in House Bill 2613 in order to commit such crime. No hobbyist or provider is doing anything remotely close.
Oh another thing. Uni I'm absolutely not trying to argue with you or be negative whatsoever. Not at all. I appreciate your feedback.
I know you were upset with my other posts about the recent legal topics. I'm truly sorry if those came off harshly. I honestly cannot imagine how they did though.
Those threads were asking for how this will affect things. I was giving my perspective & sharing my hypothesis. I was trying to make everyone feel better, but with objective data based on legal & societal data & precedent, knowledge of the slave trade across our world, as opposed to simply cheerleading or giving false promises or ways you could "disguise" ads (b/c that's still illegal, unfortunately, speaking strictly).
I assure you that there will not only be great platforms such as OH2 right now, but there will be others, great ones, and this industry will thrive. I have a unique perspective on that fact. I'm not simply cheerleading with an empty promise. I hope that you, or anyone else, can understand that was my position all along. I wasn't at all trying to invalidate the fact that you or others have concerns. No no no. No way. Of course you do. My goal has been to help alleviate it.
Anyway, I decided to add this reply because I really want you, or anyone else, to know that I'm not trying to invalidate concerns or "argue". I am in a position to have a unique perspective about this situation (btw it has zero to do with me being a man... wouldn't matter if I were a woman). I wanted to be able to share with the community in a way that alleviates concerns. I guarantee, absolutely *guarantee*, you and others will continue to have success, you will continue to have platforms to advertise, as well as hobbyists having playgrounds (again, without hobbyists what good is an ad; both are equally important to that economic dynamic).
:peace: :hug: :sorry:
I am devoting attention to the subject and will not turn this into a political, sparring match by calling out someone's name for argumentive battle. I follow OH2's rules they don't want Political related agendas & it becomes political when someone shoves their opinion down another persons throat.
The law is set in stone and one question was asked .
Getting on topic and holding it there out of fairness to Phoenixx, Incalls are just as risky as outcalls depending on location and traffic.
Here is a news clip about a house that was busted recently in 2019. In this investigation the community called in tips about the excessive traffic.
https://www.wxyz.com/news/warren-pol...ion-drug-house
I beg to differ respectfully. It's not opinion. As you said it's quite plainly spelled out (but you have to read all of it, and understand all related statutes). Prostitution, either hobbyist or provider is risky. Always has been. It's partly why there eis money in it. But, yes, I was trying to answer her question directly. It's not political other than law itself is being political related. I'm just talking about the law. Not politics.
I'm not sure what you are upset about. I just don't get it. Do you want me to say yes it's bad, it's horrible, you are gonna be screwed, etc.? I. Actually asking you. It's not rhetorical. I would like to know b/c I really don't get it. It's untrue first of all. And even if you just want me to cheerlead for women or men (I don't see the difference) what good would that do for anyone? Can we find bad stories? Sure. Prostitution, providing or hobbying, is after all, illegal. Right? *shrug*
The amendment to chapter 20 of the penal code added by house bill 2613 doesn't in any way, not at all, affect the individual provider or the hobbyist (but, yes, prostitution/hobbying *is* illegal so of course we can find bad stories & various issue that occur). That is not the law that applies to that bust you linked (that was from May 24th btw before this law could have even been involved).
I don't get it. :noidea: Nothing I'm saying here is an opinion. It's not even bad. It's positive stuff too. It's also not "shoving an opinion down people throats". It's not opinion. But even if it were (let's pretend it is for argument sake) why would a positive message be so infuriating? I just do not get the hostility or anger or whatever it is. I still don't even know what it is that I've said that you believe is so bad :shocked:
That story you linked is from May 24th. This amendment to chapter 20 with HB 2613 didn't take effect until Sep 1 2019. It's not related anyway but there is no possible way it even could be b/c that law didn't exist. It can't be related to what Phoenixx asked about. So that is actually more off topic than the other stuff we were discussing above.
I truly don't understand why you are upset. If you still are? It certainly sounds vituperative or bordering on bellicose. I wish it weren't. I really do. Gosh I wish you could at least give a hint or clue what I did wrong. I'm not saying anything bad and I'm not stating an opinion. I'm stating fact after a detailed analysis of that statute and all related statues which are referenced.
Hummm, I wonder if anyone here pontificating legal opinions is a licensed attorney??? I have a legal opinion on that.
Saved by the counsel. This is the legal section and didn't realize till now, oopsie. Apologies Phoenixx and I know when to bow out.
Tip toe out of here and get a salad.
I love you Phoenixx
We would get you out of jail, promise
Lol that's prolly true Doc :giggles:
You know I'm a computer scientist not a lawyer and I know you are in fact a lawyer. But you also know as well as I do that that link to that May 24th bust which was posted is absurd. It's actually less on topic than the earlier response which at least attempts answering the question. I do consider it fact too (everything I said - you just need to interpret it correctly - logic is logic and those predicates can all be broken down and digested easily). Practicing law is one thing. Indeed. Due to all the various caveats, procedures, palm greasing, deals, process, etc.... Interpreting it though as you surely know entirely another. Quite easy in many cases, in other, not so much. This is so straightforward though a 5th grader should be able to decode it.
All it takes it a very logical mind to decipher the statutes. I've practiced my own law (not licensed but have done my own - one year long adoption, older son, bankruptcy 15yrs ago, took 8mos, etc...). And to be fair anyway you have to be an attorney in that area of specialization too (taxes, crimes, property code/civil, patents....). But it's so plainly spelled out that this whole thing is nonsense. It does not affect the sex worker or hobbyist. Period. Maybe the site operator/community owners/managers. Still though that May 24th link has no relevance to this amendment to the penal code which only took effect on Sep 1st.
Edit: Oh wait. Is there a rule about that? I didn't know if that was the case. I still stand by my argument in any case. It's so simple like I said a 5th grader could easily breakdown that logic without knowing the first thing about predicate logic or predicate calculus. Kinda silly that a community for illegal activity would require licensed attorney responses hehe. Irony :tongue: :giggles:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
luv u too... now let’s GTFO
!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
.....and this is why i've never done QV's or have traffic going in and out of my place, this is why i keep everything quiet as mouse around here, there's a way to go about things, a way to do things, i may not be bringing in alot of money that maybe i could be, but when it comes to money laundering, those of us on disability...umm would be up shit creek with no paddle with no damn paddle store in sight either, lol...which is ANOTHER reason for the way I screen, because I'm VERY thorough in my screening techinques. one thing is for certain, any hobbiest that I approve, is in a tight niche circle that's pretty damn secure,...lets say this, as secure as i can possibly make it. im always extra extra cautious and is a damn good reason why i don't move, it's cool here, things are "set" so to speak, if i was to move some where else, all these worriees here in these laws, yea i'd be concerned, but where im at, im comfortable and i am VERY thankful for that!
the way i have things "look' here...it's look like i have a friend that is visiting....simply said, i don't have but a few calls a week or so...enough for me to make it, sorta lol..but i hardly have any traffic at all here...im not high traffic at all, and i kinda like it that way, due to laws, im more flying UTR, than anything really...if i was to be watched, i can tell ya, they'd be bored as fuck lmao
Food for thought......if a service providers incall is their main personal residence then that provider may be vulunerable to counter-intelligence collection efforts by law enforcement. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause still afford a guilty suspect the benefit of the doubt or the presumption of innocence....until a suspect admits guilt by confession or allocution as part of a plea bargain agreement.
On the other hand, the assumption of innocence may not exist if law enforcement leverage asset forfieture laws. Since law enforcement may operate your incall is filled with (guilty) property the presumption of innocence may not exist when your guilty property is arrested (seized). Ask a lawyer if you want to know why that is. When law enforcement leverages asset forfieture laws your property (incall) may be considered guilty and (arrested) seized until you can prove your property is innocent.
In this way, corrupt police without ethical leadership are converted in to robbers-legally. These new federal and state laws push sex workers off the Internet into less safe and hostile operating environments. I operate on the assumption that these new laws will make it easier to connect the dots and collect revenue at the expense of sex workers (the ripe low hanging fruit).
Those service providers who continue to operate online without adaquate precautions may find their incall being raided and their property seized. All these assumptions are for merely for red teaming and contingency planning. The objective of this post to inspire an innovative approach, leverage the collective knowledge of forum participants and empower individuals to devise effective bespoke business solutions...aka brainstorming or red teaming.
I would suggest that a service provider's incall, business front for money laundering, bank accounts and toys (cars, boats, planes, motorcycles, cash and real property) may be less safe and at greater risk than before. Moreover, service providers that panic and abruptly increase their digital foot print on the Internet, sexually oriented advertising websites and social media platforms without a social media contingency plan may inadvertently show up on the police radar at the worst possible time.
Ask yourself....Do you have a lawyer on retainer? Do have a plan for a trusted friend or lawyer to bail you of of jail? Do you have adaquate offline cash reserves to sustain your lifestyle and business operations if your bank accounts are frozen or seized. Are you making large cash deposits without substantial gainful employment or side gig to justify your revenue stream? Are your incall clients screened and discreet or do your clients attract unwanted attention? Do BSC companions, admirers or unethical and abusive managers pose a security threat because they curated your real world info? Just a few factors to consider that could put your incall at risk or make it safer with a crisis management plan.....you know like a business.
I suggest all providers formulate a social media plan as a contingency that addresses the use of secure and non-hostile online banking venues, a VPN, encrypted phones or encrypted phone/messenger apps (Pryvate, Silent Circle, Telegram, Signal, Wire, etc) social media management tools (Buffer), encrypted foreign email servers (protonmail or tutanola) is the digital equivalent of lighting bonfires, setting off flares and emergency location beacons summoning the police to your bank accounts and incall locations.
Protect your incall operation by be discreet. Protect your identity, secure your communications and fortify your online defenses than explore new social media options and advertising opportunities. My opinion is not legal advice. Moreover, my opinion is based on my situational experience.....which does not include sex work unless you consider being married a form of sex work. But, what do I know.....I don't have a vagina and I am definitely not a lawyer. I'm just oilfield trash that stays at a Holiday Inn Express now and then. Comments?
Incalls aren’t risky. People are risky.
Well said!!! Perfectly matter of fact!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovinglifeinaustin
Certains d'entre vous sont tetus comme diable! C'est bon quand meme. J'ai encore de l'amour pour vous tous vixen fougueux. Vous savez qui vous etes!
Ok.....so people are risky.....at the incall. Let's go with that assumption as fact! Would that not mean counter-measures or contingency plans are needed to change risky behaviors by people at the incall location.....know? Is that not known in the business world as a risk assessment? The intent being to mitigate potential risks.....at the incall? Change my mind!
BINGOQuote:
Originally Posted by Lovinglifeinaustin
Real answer dwarfs others by comparison my love
you embarrassing the Google grabbing, paste & copy Sirius translator
A mind of a thousand intelligent men brings me to ahhhhh orgasm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
Really! Ok, so you and others still mad. I get that. I did apologize. Moreover, in my defense....I did warn you about my alledged superpower. Yes-My French is a little rusty...Alright, a lot rusty. But no need to be rude or petty. I was as just trying to help. Just so you know....I don't embarass easily at all. You do know you always welcome to PM me as gfejunkie has suggested if you like...or not! I mean it's not like I'm going to bite you...hard....anyways. One's emotions and words can betray! I operate on the principle that emotionally derived business or personal decisions are rarely effective or cost-efficient....Just my opinion and nothing you have posted so far has changed my mind.
William Congreve-"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned"
Mr. Congreve's words not mine. Please, let's us not summon gfejunkie to the threads again! It will not go well for me. I'm trying to behave!
Awww, Gentle Hugs LuvQuote:
Originally Posted by MsRogueSA
Was Wes being attacked about the French thing? Not sure if you used Google or not, I don't have a clue what it says, not my thing. However, if it's not bad I really don't know why we should attack him. IJS. I don't always agree with Wes, but I do very appreciate that be puts thought into his posts and doesn't jump to being negative instantly upon disagreement. Personally, it's refreshing for me to have someone to debate with, share ideas, etc... even when we disagree, instead of nonstop pointless empty hugs & kisses. Chill people. Just chill. :/
This not a cheerleader forum; not just this legal section either, the entire board. Everything is fine anyway. So just relax, calm down, chill out. Move on if it's too long or you can't understand someone's logic or hypothesis. There is no need to attack just for the sake of attacking b/c someone chooses to express a large concept.
Unless someone asks for a pity party, or true help b/c they are feeling suicidal, or severely depressed, then there isn't any point in making empty virtual hugs, promises that don't relate to an OPs question, or simply cheerleading.
We shouldn't just jump on a pity bandwagon every single time. I feel for women and men both. Anyone who can't see that then I don't know what to say. I don't care anymore either. I'm not here to be a cheerleading section for anyone. Not for anyone. I'm fair to both sexes, I disseminate my ideas the way I want, just as each of you should, I try to do it respectfully, and I rarely ever show my teeth unless someone seriously pisses me off (and that is soooooo rare). Sending hollowed out meaningless "hugs" & "kisses" or various cutesy remarks incessantly while not addressing any OPs question, or derailing any discussion to promote an agenda, like, for example, that we should "pity party for women" (as if the men are not just as important to the women's economic future or that they don't also feel bad, possibly even make their own living in it themselves - wow what a concept righ, that men also have feelings & also make livings in this realm), is frankly about as useless, also shameful, ironically uncaring, and as silly as praying to the sun god, "Ra", for sunlight when it's midnight.
I don't know what Wes said on the French topic, I haven't bothered to open another window to even translate it, but I think lambasting anyone for promoting thoughtful intelligent debate is vicious & malevolent. It's goes against the entire point of the forum too. :/
The idea that everything must be a small "sound bite" of wisdom, or a "pity party", or a "cheerleading effort", is quite simply the most asinine, passionless, uninterested notion I could possibly fathom. What in the world gives anyone the idea that you can't be loquacious or passionate about a topic that want to share with others? This isn't Twitter. Anyone want 150 characters or less? Can't read fast enough? Can't digest the content? Then move on. It's as easy as that. Basic human respect.
Example: If you can't read my post here without becoming "aggravated" by the verbosity, if you even have to look that word up, or any of the other words, *AND* (keyword "and") it bothers you? Move on. Simple. No need to be vitriolic or callous. SMH.
you are right Beautiful, gentle HugsQuote:
Originally Posted by Phoenixx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovinglifeinaustin
I love folks who keep it simple and to the point............
I don't disagree Phoenixx. Sometimes simple is best sweetie. ����Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenixx
A Case Study
As a controversial side issue related to the safe operation of an incall consider this operational variable [Race]. Please delete or post in a more appropriate section of the forum if required.
Your assignment should you chose to accept it is to complete this case study on the impact of race on incall security measures in response to new federal and state laws with a response of 500 words or less. Extra credit for brevity and collegial debate.
From the vantage point of a service provider keeping an incall location safe via discretion and avoiding unwanted attention how should a service provider address the issue of race. Like it or not America is still a class based society where minorities are disproportionately represented even in the hobby. I conducted a simple experiment on eccie by searching for service providers over 50.
Using the eccie search feature for service providers by race. Searches for service providers categorized by race resulted in findings that revealed white service providers over the age of 50 were consistently represented displayed in higher numbers on eccie than non-white service providers over the age of 50. Further study might reveal a correlation between racial bias (implicit and explicit) as well as implicit associations in the hobby world. Some service providers have installed policies alledgedly for security purposes perceived as and racist by other hobbyist.
For example, hypothetically speaking - Two service providers (one white or light skinned and one black or dark skinned) both exceptionally beautiful, poised and well educated (Masters degree in STEM) establish separate but equally richly appointed private incalls in the most luxurious upscale and expensive part of town populated with few black or dark skinned residents. In an effort to leverage youth and porn star experience the service providers charges rates significantly higher the prevailing average. In an attempt to minimize the time and expense of screening clients both providers are not newbie friendly but use a a highly regarded and generally accepted offshore screening tool to conduct client triage.
Only potential clients with two recent references within the last 30 days and willing to pay a deposit are accepted. Both providers have a no haggling, no African American policy but make exceptions for regular clients who enjoy VIP status and a secret menu to die for.....literally. Both providers defend their no African American policy as personal preference. Moreover, the presence of black but affluent professional men in the upscale neighborhood still attracts the unwanted attention of highly visible roving police patrols.
1. In your opinion are either of the service providers racists? Yes or No.
2. Is the no AA policy racist or a valid incall security measure for the operating environment? Please explain in 500 (English) words or less.
Please don't keep an old man waiting!
Sometimes....more like almost always.....simplistic one size fits all approaches to complex societal challenges rarely work out. For example, simplistic solutions like a one size fits all blanket prohibitions on alcohol, gambling and sex work have all consistently failed historically. The war on drugs....well that is a iconic failure of epic proportion. What happened to innovation and thinking outside the box? Personally, I love evidence based and empirically sound solutions that can be employed with a high level of confidence while creating minimum undesirable consequences. I also love collegial debate and flirting!Quote:
Originally Posted by mathguy
CLOSE THIS THREAD
pretty please, Mods. thanks xoxo
Many interesting opinions expressed. However, since this seemed to have meandered from the original discussion regarding the legality of incalls per House Bill 2613, and the OP has requested that the thread be rested, making it so. -- FIH/staff
The reality (according to ck1942):
If the LEO is intent on making a bust, won't matter if it is an incall or an outcall; apartment vs. hotel vs. resident.
ijs