Biggirl – you think that there are many, legal occupations that disrupt society, can spread disease, reduces property values, facilitates other criminal behavior, causes other persons, not involved in the activity harm (both physical and financial)? Care to elaborate on that? AND, let me repeat for you , for the LAST time, that all of the problems with the illegal behavior do NOT change (as proven in my link) when the activity is legalized. You want it legal – it is up to you to demonstrate why it should be, since there are a wide variety of reasons that it shouldn’t be. Repeating your assertion that it’s strictly due to moral considerations doesn’t make it so, and doesn’t prove your point. . Until you hold up your end of the debate, there’s nothing more to be said.
RE: your later posting – the act of trading sex for money is more than a simple transaction between two people. See above comments for other issues regarding the practice. In reality, as well, one should be very cautious in the use of the word “consensual” . Certainly, those women who have been kidnapped weren’t consenting, those who are addicted to drugs have questionable acquiescence, those who were shamed into it by boyfriends, family etc ditto. And, there are specific harms to persons other than those involved in the practice (see lists above).
Stoid. Ditto. Let me spell it out for you slowly. Keeping it illegal gives the authorities important tools in order to attempt to effect change on the current problems. Making it legal did not do away with the problems, we only have your assertion that it made them less, and in some ways, it created yet another new problem (importing women to serve in the brothels). So, until and unless you demonstrate by evidence that making it legal will serve the greater good for the population as a whole (not simply for those who choose to involve themselves in the profession), there’s nothing more to be said. Two threads, multiple pages, still waiting.
drachillix – the quote you cited was merely an example. The ‘case’ was attempted that by again making prostitution illegal in Nevada, there would be a huge amount of current tax revenue lost. My point was that certainly, anything could be legalized and taxed. It didn’t make it either right or a good idea. The fact that Nevada has gotten used to this $$ from taxes does not make the case that the activity should be legalized. What did Nevada do before it legalized prostitution?
Monocracy Your first ‘demonstrated’ benefit is taxation. See the argument above. The fact that the government can benefit from taxation of any behavior is not a reason to legalize/decriminalize the behavior if it not in the publics better interest in the first place. Your second, that of disease etc. According to the data that Stoid has provided before, disease spread is not a significant problem from prostitution. Are you now admitting that it is? And if so, let us remember again that to decriminalize it will not provide these benefits, that to make it legal will take away the best form of enforcement of the practice as a whole. And since we’ve demonstrated over and over again, that when the practice is legalized (and regulated}, it does NOT eliminate the illegal and unregulated practice, it only makes those harder to enforce. And remember, too, according to your own links, the sex workers themselves are not in favor of legalization/regulation but in favor of decriminalization.
To understand how the legalization of the activity will effect and take away the enforcement aspect of the cj system, you need to understand how enforcement works. Currently, you can arrest anyone who engages in sexual favors for $$. But you would have it illegal for anyone to engage in the behavior except in these regulated areas, right? But how would you control and regulate the ones who chose not to abide by these rules? How would this not hamper the authorities? How would they even attempt to address the illegal behavior?
You missed the point about the admonition re: the women in Amsterdam red light district. In that city, they’ve chosen to make a part of the city the “red light” district. In Nevada, they’ve achieved the same segregation purpose by placing the ranches in remote areas. One would presume that if the business was a wonderful, lucrative and no problems business, there wouldn’t be this insistence on having them segregated. Apparently, in Amsterdam’s red light district, women, presumably not in the profession, have reason to be concerned. So, by legalizing prostitution, you would create areas where women in particular would not be safe. That’s a new problem for me. In order to create these areas where women in particular would be in danger, you need a very strong reason, not simply ‘why not?’
Yes Amsterdam has laws against slavery etc. I don’t need to prove that the practice increased with the legalization. My proof is that legalization of the behavior has not eliminated the problems associated from the behavior. My proof is in. For the last time, YOU are under the obligation to prove your assertion that legalization will improve the situation for** society as a whole**. At best you’ve demonstrated that some of the sex workers themselves would be happier. Insufficient.
And, for all of you: if this is such a wonderful, self fulfilling and lucrative career option in Amsterdam, why, then, are women needing to be kidnapped from other countries in order to perform the work? Perhaps because your assumption (that it’s wonderful, self fulfilling and lucrative career) is wrong?