5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: +
Talk:San Francisco values (view source)
Revision as of 23:39, October 21, 2008
, 23:39, October 21, 2008→"Again, San Francisco has curtailed the polices ability to perform its crimefighting duties"
That's not entirely accurate. The purpose of the policy is to make prostitution legal, but there is a statewide ban. It's the same thing as CA's legal marijuana -- weed is still illegal at the federal level. It's not about stopping the police but ''de facto'' legalizing. Now whether or not you think it ''should'' be legalized (or decriminalized; tomato tomahto) is a whole other issue entirely. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:29, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
That's not entirely accurate. The purpose of the policy is to make prostitution legal, but there is a statewide ban. It's the same thing as CA's legal marijuana -- weed is still illegal at the federal level. It's not about stopping the police but ''de facto'' legalizing. Now whether or not you think it ''should'' be legalized (or decriminalized; tomato tomahto) is a whole other issue entirely. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:29, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
:Also (instead of creating a whole new heading) I have a couple other issues as I read through the rest of the article. First of all, there are numerous instences of flat-out opinion ("The second measure would be laughable if it didn't have the support it does" was the one that caught my attention). There are some areas of opinion which are allowable in this context (such as the opinion on whether many of the SFV's are immoral) since it takes a conservative viewpoint, and these are ok, but some opinions go farther than that. I'd love to say that not all of those "immoral" things can be undeniably considered immoral, but I don't see any luck going down that road, so I won't even try. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 21 October 2008 (EDT)