published Friday, April 26th, 2013

Drew's views

HEADLINE: Chattanooga hypnosis clinics were fronts for prostitution, police say

THE RECAP: On Wednesday, Chattanooga police raided Hypnosis for Power, a hypnosis treatment center business they say was used as a front for prostitution. Two women were arrested, one for prostitution and the other with promoting prostitution, along with a male client.

DREW'S VIEW: I'm going to go ahead and say what a lot of people already think about prostitution, but won't say in polite company for fear of offending others: We should stop wasting time and money criminalizing prostitutes and their customers and legalize prostitution.

What was going on at Hypnosis for Power did nothing to harm anyone at all -- except, perhaps, for the folks who actually thought they were going to receive hypnotherapy. All of the people involved were consenting adults of legal age. There were no sex slaves or victims of human trafficking, there was apparently no violent pimp, and no one there was bound and gagged (at least no one who didn't pay extra for that service).

Rather than wasting tax dollars every year on arresting, trying and imprisoning prostitutes and their clients, wouldn't it be better for society in general, and sex workers in particular, to legalize prostitution? Prostitution could be regulated to ensure that prostitutes were in a safe environment and free of diseases. It could also be taxed, turning prostitution from a drain on taxpayers into a benefit.

In the article about the raid on Hypnosis for Power, reporter Beth Burger quotes East Ridge Detective Joshua Creel as saying the prostitution isn't as bad of a problem as the "secondary and tertiary crimes surrounding the acts that can lead to greater offenses, including drugs, assaults, rapes and robberies." Those crimes are not a result of prostitution, they are a result of prostitution being illegal. By simply decriminalizing and regulating the activity, drugs, rapes, assaults and robberies would all drop significantly as they relate to prostitution, just as those crimes decreased dramatically when prohibition was repealed.

Of course, many people will object to the idea of legalizing and regulating prostitution on moral grounds. But it is not the state's role to dictate what is moral.

Many people object to the lottery, adult bookstores, alcohol and guns, too, and they are all legal. How do those who are offended by those things manage? They don't buy lottery tickets, porn, booze or rifles. In the same way, if prostitution were legalized, opponents of prostitution could show their displeasure by refraining from engaging in sex acts with prostitutes. Problem solved.

•••

HEADLINE: Chattanooga City Council OKs Mayor Andy Berke's restructuring plans

THE RECAP: The Chattanooga City Council unanimously approved a major City Hall reorganization, including eliminating four departments and creating three others. The Education, Arts and Culture; Neighborhood Services; Parks and Recreation; and Human Services departments were dissolved.

The council approved creating the new departments of Youth and Family Development, Economic and Community Development and Transportation.

DREW'S VIEW: On the surface, it's hard to criticize Mayor Berke's city government reorganization plan. Berke's restructuring eliminated several useless agencies and combined some duplicative services, while saving taxpayers about $370,000 a year and keeping all necessary services intact. The only real head-scratcher was Berke's decision to keep the useless Office of Multicultural Affairs in place.

For months running up to the election, some Chattanoogans (including yours truly) believed that Berke viewed the mayor's office as little more than a résumé builder and a stepping stone on his way to running for governor. The restructuring plan only helps to confirm that suspicion.

After all, his new departments are Youth and Family Development, Economic and Community Development, and Transportation. State government houses the departments of Economic and Community Development and Transportation. There is also a state-level Department of Children's Services and a Department of Human Services (the existence of both seems to intimate that children are not humans). Those agencies combine to do much of what Berke wants to achieve with his Department of Youth and Family Development.

It's as though Berke is creating his own little pretend state government in order to practice being governor before he actually runs.

•••

HEADLINE: Stacey Campfield in hot water over joke about assault pressure cookers

THE RECAP: State Sen. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, joked on his personal blog Monday about "assault pressure cookers" in the wake of last week's bombing in Boston, leading to a rash of complaints. Campfield argued that gun control advocates should also be calling for "crock pot control" if they meant to be consistent with their calls for gun control after December's Sandy Hook shooting.

DREW'S VIEW: State Sen. Campfield's argument, while perhaps not articulated as precisely or prudently as possible, is completely valid. Those who are quick to blame mass shootings on guns are using a logic that should lead them to blame pressure cookers and nails for the Boston Marathon bombing and fertilizer and moving vans for the Oklahoma City bombing.

Evildoers intent on causing mass casualties and creating terror and confusion will do so by any means possible. If a gun isn't available, they will make an explosive device. If that isn't possible, they will mail ricin or anthrax.

It is not the guns that caused Sandy Hook, it was a deranged criminal. Just as it wasn't a couple of pressure cookers that caused the Boston Marathon attack, it was apparently a pair of wicked terrorists.

Campfield, because of his strident, defiant nature in defense of bold conservative ideas that are offensive to some, gets unfair treatment by many in the media and the blogospere. Unfortunately, that means that when he presents a sound argument, his ideas are distorted and he is ridiculed by those who disagree with his ideology. I, for one, am glad that Campfield was willing to stand up and defend a point that many people would like to make.

38
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Leaf said...

"Those who are quick to blame mass shootings on guns are using a logic that should lead them to blame pressure cookers and nails for the Boston Marathon bombing and fertilizer and moving vans for the Oklahoma City bombing."

The difference of course is that a gun's primary purpose and design is to kill. A pressure cooker's primary purpose is to cook.

April 26, 2013 at 10:41 a.m.
Silverengine3 said...

Time for a fresh start with the Chattanooga Police Department. A new mayoral administration and lets start over with a new chief. According to information regarding the hypnosis raid from a couple of the businesses in that complex there was at least between 6-10(possibly more) officers, several vehicles for these officers, and some people thought they spotted Chief Dodd there as well. To use the time and resources of the department to go after this type of thing when we have one of the highest murder rates per capita is troubling. I believe most citizens would feel a lot better using these large groups of officers and station them in the dangerous areas of the city and maybe hauling in a group of violent gang members in a raid. I won't get in to the moral argument of whether prostitution should be legal, only to say that Drew's points in his commentary I agree with.

April 26, 2013 at 10:46 a.m.
timbo said...

Leaf...A guns primary purpose is to protect or provide food for your family. Any tool's use can be bastardized.

You missed the point, it is the fact that you and liberals blame the inanimate object and not the person. If gun control will help, so will pressure cooker control. This is exactly the same and it doesn't surprise me you don't see that.

April 26, 2013 at 11:05 a.m.
timbo said...

As far as prostitution goes, Drew is dead right. The government has no right to legislate behavior that doesn't hurt anybody else.

Our society needs to move on on prostitution. Prostitution is basically illegal for two reasons. Religious and it threatens women's sexual control over men. The government has no business in my personal business.

April 26, 2013 at 11:09 a.m.
Leaf said...

Timbo, timbo, timbo [shakes head]. Go play outside, son.

April 26, 2013 at 3:08 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

...and it threatens women's sexual control over men

Um, okay, this is revealing.

April 26, 2013 at 3:23 p.m.
Leaf said...

Yeah, creepy huh? Paranoid delusions, fringe politics, gun fetish and misogyny.

April 26, 2013 at 3:56 p.m.
librul said...

Drew said: "I, for one, am glad that Campfield was willing to stand up and defend a point that many people would like to make."

... And yet the arrogat scrooge ran from a little girl like a scared rabbit.

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2013/04/stacey-campfield-calls-8-year-old-girl.html

April 27, 2013 at 11:44 a.m.
fairmon said...

Legalize, regulate and tax prostitution for a safer city, less disease plus more tax revenue. Driving after a visit with a prostitute would not be hazardous like after drinking or doping. There is no victim if regulated properly. The reason for opposing is some imposing their morals on others which never works. The same is true with gambling which people will do whether legal or not. The prohibition era proved that imposed morals never work and made some criminals wealthy which is now happening with drugs, prostitution and gambling.

April 27, 2013 at 4:18 p.m.
gjuster said...

A crime against no one should not be a crime. I agree with prostitution being legal - but get rid of the pimps! (That would be the politicians in DC)

April 27, 2013 at 5:03 p.m.
gjuster said...

Librul -

The child was a prop - good call by Stacy. Everything for the children is ruining this country.

April 27, 2013 at 5:06 p.m.
aae1049 said...

I don't view legalization of prostitution, as good for anyone at all. Legalization, legitimizes an immoral business transaction that is unhealthy, demoralizing, and leaves psychological damage. I work with a nonprofit on women's issues. You guys are wrong.

Women should not have to sell their bodies to survive or feed addictions, and never will I believe that women just voluntarily go into the sex trade as a great profession. Most prostitutes have drug addictions that are the motive for actions they would not normally engage in without the addictions. While there is male prostitution, most are female acts of desperation for drugs or survival. Just curious, do you fellers favor legalization of the male prostitution that occurs, as well? Or, is it just women that are suppose to be sexually exploited.

What about the male prostitution?

So, my question is, do all of you favor male prostitution, as well as female?

As a mother, I would never never never want my child to grow up to be marketed for sex. The thought is horrifying.

Of course, you men think it is all ok, what if it were your daughter in the sex trade?

April 27, 2013 at 10:21 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Let me rephrase my question,

Several posters cite they would like to see prostitution legalized.

Are you approving both male and female prostitution, and are you approving both the homosexual and heterosexual prostitution that occurs?

Please advise.

April 27, 2013 at 11 p.m.
Easy123 said...

crazylady1049,

How many times do you think you could ask the same question?

"Just curious, do you fellers favor legalization of the male prostitution that occurs, as well? Or, is it just women that are suppose to be sexually exploited."

"What about the male prostitution?"

"So, my question is, do all of you favor male prostitution, as well as female?"

"Are you approving both male and female prostitution, and are you approving both the homosexual and heterosexual prostitution that occurs?"

I guess four times is the charm.

April 27, 2013 at 11:21 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Easy123, questions were directed to ABOVE posters that are my friends, that I know. There was no quesiton directed to you at all. It is Durham shame, it was not directed to you.

April 27, 2013 at 11:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

crazylady1049,

I never said the same question you asked four times (three times consecutively in one post) was directed at me. I was simply pointing out how you did, in fact, ask the same question four times. Look up the word "redundant".

April 27, 2013 at 11:47 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

so what easy. You can count, wow!

So what is your answer. You are a lawyer right? what is your legal take on this? What are the ramifications?

April 28, 2013 at 12:01 a.m.
Easy123 said...

nurseforjustice,

"so what easy. You can count, wow!"

It's utterly ridiculous to ask the same exact question over and over. Children do such things. Avoiding redundancy is one of the first things you learn when learning composition.

"So what is your answer."

The question wasn't posed to me.

"You are a lawyer right?"

Not yet.

"what is your legal take on this?"

The legal take is whatever the law is.

http://prostitution.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=763

"What are the ramifications?"

Of what? Prostitution? I have never been nor am I currently a prostitute so I wouldn't know the personal ramifications. And I am not one to speculate on what would drive someone to get into that line of work. The legal ramifications are up to whatever judge decides such cases.

April 28, 2013 at 12:14 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Nurseforjustice,

As noted, Easy's references to knowledge must contain www or http for him to comprehend. If the dialogue exceeds these limits, he resorts to name calling, well, because he has nothing else work with.

April 28, 2013 at 12:33 a.m.
Easy123 said...

crazylady1049,

"As noted, Easy's references to knowledge must contain www or http for him to comprehend."

Why do you have such a hard time constructing a cogent sentence? What are "references to knowledge"? I comprehend much better than you do and I can express myself much better than you can.

The link I provided is simply the TN law. I didn't use anything from the link. I simply posted it so nurseforjustice could read the law for himself.

"If the dialogue exceeds these limits, he resorts to name calling, well, because he has nothing else work with."

So if the dialogue exceeds the limits of accessible information, then I resort to name calling? Do you see how strange and illogical you sound? The things you say don't make sense. Apparently, you have a problem with references and/or accessible information via the Internet. I haven't called anyone a name. However, if I do, it is always warranted.

Would you like to try again, crazy lady?

April 28, 2013 at 2:51 a.m.
gjuster said...

Easy -

Perhaps you would post differently if you used your real name. Perhaps you would show respect to others and their opinions.

1049 - I am in favor of legalizing all prostitution. Male or female. I wish it weren't around, but it is the oldest profession and it isn't stopping anytime soon. I believe that legalizing it would help the ladies (and men) lead better lives, less drug addiction and far less violence against them.

April 28, 2013 at 6:42 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Gjuster, I appreciate your honesty, even though we don't agree.

Easy would never use his real name. That would require courage and belief in what you are posting.

April 28, 2013 at 7:40 a.m.
magenta said...

I believe that legalizing it would help the ladies (and men) lead better lives, less drug addiction and far less violence against them.

But would legalizing prostitution totally elminate the potential for a John or Janice contracting a serious STD (even HIV/AIDS) and taking it back to to infect mates? Remember, even Ghonorreah and Syphillis have mutated over the years and developed powerful resistant strains to treatment.

April 28, 2013 at 10:14 a.m.
Silverengine3 said...

I draw no distinction between men, women, or sexual orientation on this issue. It's an activity that is completely legal except when money changes hands. Are some people involved in prostitution involved with drugs? Sure, but there are many drug and alcohol addicts who are teachers, day care workers, elected officials, sales people, and ceo's. It is not an automatic connection, addiction has hit almost all families regardless of work field. It's just an incredible waste of police resources on these type of raids. It's time for leadership change in the CPD.

April 28, 2013 at 10:32 a.m.
Silverengine3 said...

And yes, legalizing would absolutely help with the std's..testing would then be mandated. Remember it is legal in Nevada and there is a system in place for consistent testing, etc. Lets all remember this: a man or woman can go out right now and have consensual sex with any other consenting person and that is not illegal. How many men or women have contracted std's throughout history when having an affair outside of their marriage(not through prostitution)?

April 28, 2013 at 10:40 a.m.
mrssmith said...

"...The only real head-scratcher was Berke's decision to keep the useless Office of Multicultural Affairs in place."

"It's as though Berke is creating his own little pretend state government in order to practice being governor before he actually runs."

"Evildoers intent on causing mass casualties and creating terror and confusion will do so by any means possible. If a gun isn't available, they will make an explosive device. If that isn't possible, they will mail ricin or anthrax"

EXACTLY! Drew's on a roll.

"Easy would never use his real name. That would require courage and belief in what you are posting." Said by poster named aae1049 #thatsfunny

April 28, 2013 at 11:09 a.m.
kellie2479 said...

Great column. How can we charge someone for a crime for selling what they have the right to give away for free. Police have enough to do, Drew rocks!

April 28, 2013 at 3:41 p.m.
bhdodd said...

Silverengine3,

Not sure what your chosen profession is or how you spend the majority of your time, but you seem to have a pretty strong opinion of what the Chattanooga Police Department should or shouldn't be doing to address crime complaints. Police Officers don't have the luxury of investigating and prosecuting only the laws they like, or feel are appropriate, we have to address violations of the laws of Tennessee.

If you are truly concerned with which laws are on the books, you should lobby your legislators to address those issues. A great deal of the vice crimes that the CPD investigates come from complaints to our department concerning gambling, drugs, and prostitution. There are many neighborhoods and families that are directly impacted by these crimes and we will not ignore the issues as long as they remain illegal and affect our community.

We have officers permanently assigned to the Vice / Narcotics unit and we do not "waste" resources to address the vice issues in Chattanooga. From reading your posts, it appears you are more concerned with a fresh start or a change in the leadership of the department more so than which crimes are addressed. Since you are posting behind an anonymous name, I obviously can't determine your law enforcement experience or actual working knowledge of the CPD. I doubt very seriously that you know enough about what we do, how we do it, or why we do things in our department to make any such suggestions.

There are many community members and families that demand we address these issues in our city and it is our duty to do so. But if it makes you feel better, just keep posting that you would like a fresh start or new leadership at the CPD because officers took action against violations of state law.

April 28, 2013 at 4:58 p.m.
Silverengine3 said...

Actually my first post mentioned a change in the city's leadership from the election and therefore it is also a good time for a change in leadership for the police department as well. There was never a personal attack in any of my posts, I don't do that. I did relay and still feel that undue amounts of attention and resources are paid to the raids on this type of business or when female officers walk the streets and offer themselves to try and arrest people. And of course I understand that laws are on the books and how we go about changing them. But everyone also understands that not all laws or violations are pursued as strongly as others. I have the utmost respect for uniformed individuals who do their job with honesty and treat people well. My father was an MP in the army and I grew up with admiration for that line of work. And just because I have a handle when posting comments doesn't mean anything. I have communicated face to face, by phone, emails, and even letters to various leaders or people pursuing leadership roles and will continue to do so. I am very comfortable meeting someone and telling them what I think directly to their face in a respectful manner.

April 28, 2013 at 5:58 p.m.
bhdodd said...

I can appreciate that and I always welcome the chance to talk face to face with anyone to address individual concerns. I can be reached at dodd_bobby@chattanooga.gov, or 643-5107 / 5108. Thank you.

April 28, 2013 at 6:31 p.m.
jjmez said...

Chief Dodd, keep up the good work. The naysayers are either defending their friends or they were customers who got caught. They applaud you if such a raid was carried out in da 'hood. They just don't like it when they or theirs get caught like deer in the headlights. Crime is crime. And if the act or acts are criminal then it's a crime committed and the criminals, like any criminal, must face the consequences and "take responsibility for their actions" (taken from their own advice to others).

Prostitution, legal or illegal, is not a victimless crime. Just ask the families who have been destroyed by it. What a tragic myth to believe otherwise.

April 28, 2013 at 8:29 p.m.
Hunter_Bluff said...

Families "destroyed" by LEGALIZED prostitution - I doubt that. Destroyed by being tossed in jail for illegal prostitution - that I can see. Of course, being thrown in jail is bad for anyone who prior to arrest was viewed as a respected contributor to society. Ask Jeffrey Skilling, former CEO of Enron how that worked out for him.

April 28, 2013 at 9:14 p.m.
Hunter_Bluff said...

I'm no fan of most of Drew's doodles but I applaud him for saying something logical in the face of prospective pushback from the "morality" police . If you say you believe in personal responsibility, eliminating government in your life and liberty then eliminating dopey laws that attempt to impose morality are job one.

April 28, 2013 at 9:31 p.m.
jjmez said...

"If you say you believe in personal responsibility,"

Actually, that was said with sarcasm, Hunter. Just bouncing off the term many of the very same posters now beating up on Chief Dodd have used when it was someone from the poor side of town complaining about them dar dopey laws and how their families were gravely affected when that primary breadwinner, who'd contributed to society, were jailed and removed from the home. Leading to the family having to apply for public assistance or chance becoming homeless.

April 28, 2013 at 9:44 p.m.
aidehua said...

agreed! Imagine adults treating adults like adults - free to do what they want so long as they don't hurt anybody but possibly themselves. We have been a nanny state for too long.

April 28, 2013 at 9:53 p.m.
jjmez said...

aidehua said... agreed! Imagine adults treating adults like adults - free to do what they want so long as they don't hurt anybody but possibly themselves

What guarantee is there that adults doing whatever they want will only hurt themsevles, and not others?

Many of the individuals posting on this subject want the laws to be selective. They seem to think the rules and personal responsibility shouldn't apply to them. Only some joe from the poor side of the tracks shouldn't break laws? They, their friends and family should be allowed to break laws because they're considered contributors to society?

April 28, 2013 at 9:58 p.m.
fairmon said...

aae1049 said... Let me rephrase my question,

Several posters cite they would like to see prostitution legalized.

Are you approving both male and female prostitution, and are you approving both the homosexual and heterosexual prostitution that occurs?

Yes, with strictly enforced regulations and heavy taxation like cigarettes and alcohol but better enforcement in all.

April 29, 2013 at 7:08 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Thank you fairmon. I am trying to understand why anyone would be in favor of legalization of prostitution. I don't agree, but thank you for sharing.

April 29, 2013 at 8:42 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.