No doubt we could do more to aid societies issues, but it's unlikely that we'll ever fully resolve many of them.

If comedy central has ever taught me anything, it is that there is still illegal prostitution in Reno, Nevada. ;)

Which probably increases the amount of illegal prostitution in those areas.

I'm sure the Reno Sheriff's department hears that a lot...

Legalizing prostitution allows its workers to fall under police protection.

Illegality also leads to money hiding endeavors and tax fraud. Illegal sex workers are wary of setting up a real shop where they could implement security methods, or a guard to stand at the door in a brothel type operation.

Legalizing prostitution allows for better taxation, and less in the way of illicit venues.

I'm sure you're right in that every woman wouldn't turn to prostitution just because it became legal, but at least part of that should be attributed to the inherent danger of working in an illegal market with zero marketplace or police protections. We (hopefully) wouldn't see a huge spike in legitimate prostitution if it were legalized, but we would almost certainly see an uptick.

Prostitution is legal where I live (Australia) and I can confirm that not every woman has turned to prostitution.

Indeed! It's the same in New Zealand.

As attractive as it may be (in terms of income) there are always inherent risks that come with every occupation.

It even stimulates tourism. I wonder what would happen to the Amsterdam economy if legalization of softdrugs and prostitution becomes the global norm.

Obviously, this should be solvable through better regulation enforcement - but there doesn't seem to be the political will to pay for that...

Maybe in the short-term; it would probably somewhat increase the rate of entry. But removing the powerlessness that comes from illegality would probably also make it much more common for people to be able to move up and out of it and one to other things once they'd entered.

  many people also choose to be homeless; whether or not this is 
  a result of another issue like drugs or mental illness 
  is irrelevant. 

  Many mentally ill people would rather deal with the disease than the treatment.

Mental illness is not a lifestyle choice. No-one who has experienced mental illness would choose to live with it. Those that do live with it often don't live for long.

Many mentally ill people are incurable. Many mentally ill people are too ill to find treatment.

Nobody chooses to live on public transport. The mentally ill are vastly more likely to be the victims of crime: assault, battery, rape. If you were confused and persecuted and in fear for your life: where would you go to seek safety?

Seeking refuge from persecution and violence is not my idea of 'choice'.

They use this free housing as their "business premesis".

Both people need to be over the age of 18.

There needs to be no element of coercion. The paying person is guilty of an offence if the sex worker is coerced even if the payer is not aware of any coercion.

There needs to be no trafficking. The UK uses a stricter definition of trafficking, which can include someone voluntarily coming to the UK. It also includes travel within the country.

There's some other stuff too about premises used as brothels and about pimps.

Your comments about use of Housing Benefit are weird and wrong and not worth responding to.

Others points I believe are correct.

Most HB fraud is criminal gangs using fake id, or individuals who are cohabiting but claiming as singles.

If you operate a cash only business with no paperwork there will always be a temptation to under report earnings.

True it's legal to pay for sex, but it's illegal to offer sex for payment, or to live off immoral earnings.

It's certainly not illegal to respond to an advert offering paid sex or to place such an advert. I have no idea what the law would be regards propositioning people at random.

Edit: Paying for the services of someone who is coerced into prostitution against their will is also illegal.

Source: http://sw5.info/law/punters/

I know. A shocking concept: law has underlying moral values like "it's bad to kill people" and "stealing people's cars is wrong" and so on.

You can wax on about how what we really need to solve is homelessness itself, but I am not hearing any solutions to that. We need solutions, not platitudes. Dissolving the free-zone was a solution.

Dissolving the free-zone was a solution to the problem of having to deal with homeless people, not the problem of homelessness itself. I agree we need solutions and not platitudes, but we also have to be cognizant of how our "solutions" merely decrease the salience of pervasive ills rather than attempting to tackle them head-on.

Agreed. You do not need to be in "Save the World!" mode at all times.

> Homelessness is a problem for the homeless. Homeless people sleeping on the buses are a problem for commuters.

Disagreed. Homelessness is a problem for everyone. While homeless people exist, they will necessarily cause problems for the rest of the society. Here are my takes on it:

1. Homelessness is a spot in society. If you take all the non-homeless people in your community and move to a brand new piece of land that is completely isolated from the rest of the world, new homeless people will appear. This is because being homeless is inherent to certain societal setups and the percentage of homeless population can be determined "at compile time" via static analysis of the rules and initial state of the society.

2. The homeless/poor/hungry are a problem for everyone and everyone pays the cost. It is rarely direct (e.g.: not everyone gets mugged), but often indirect. For example, your car or renter's or homeowner's insurance is higher. You have to pay for a security guard in your apartment building. You have to pay for your bus ticket. You have to buy a more expensive bike chain.

3. Given #1 and #2, it is in everyone's best interest to solve the problems of homelessness/poverty/hunger.

I am not saying that we should drop everything and not stop until it is solved. I am saying that it should be a pretty high priority and that the question of whether we tackle it should be "yes".

That is a matter of opinion. Other people think it is a problem of society.

I'm going with what @scarmig says:

"confined space with a homeless person who is likely unhygienic, drugged up, or (non-exclusive) mentally unstable." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5907142

Countless times I have seen homeless people harass commuters (particularly women), straight up threaten people, "soil" the bus seats, leave unsanitary waste and debris on buses, and occupy more space than a single person requires. Resolving situations typically involves the bus driver pulling over and waiting for a police officer to arrive, though typically situations go unresolved. This is not merely a matter of aesthetics; pervasive abuse of transit systems by homeless people interferes with a transit departments ability to do their job (which is providing safe, clean, and effective transportation to people with places to go).

By all means, dedicate all the effort that you want to solving homelessness. Just don't use transit as your tool, it is preoccupied trying to be transit.

It may reassure you to know that a local social services group now operates a free "Downtown Circulator" bus which runs in a loop around the area of the old ride free zone. Any homeless or impoverished people who actually need to travel around the downtown area for free can still do so.

I run a small website where I am trying to put together ideas on how the homeless can solve their own problems. I am not looking for a handout. I think one of my biggest problems is the Othering of the label I have. But I had that problem long before I had this particular label. Anyway, I think on that a lot and learning to "behave normally" after a lifetime of never managing that looks to me like one of the big things I most need.

Edit: The homeless website whereof I speak: http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/

The people on the streets say they'd rather be there than in the shelter. Some of it is because the shelters don't let you bring in weapons and don't allow people in who are under the influence. But some of these guys are homeless because they're an extreme case of a person who doesn't like to be told what to do.

edit: http://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-ch...

> But they're still good ideas, both empirically and morally.

No. They're bad ideas because they don't work, for reasons you mentioned!

Certainly we should strive to resolve all of those issues!

However, until we do, we should be mindful that they are issues and deal with the problems that they cause like adults. For now, free buses are a terrible idea. Once we take care of the issues you mentioned, they might be a wonderful idea. Sadly, we live in the now, not in the future.