Prostitution should be legalized in Nevada

1A. Insurance plans would refuse to cover STD testing for prostitutes because their actuaries would view them as high-risk. Thus, they can expect to pay about $50-$100 per week on testing alone. In addition, insurance companies would refuse to cover prostitutes for STD treatment for the same reason. They are not interested in giving low premiums to high-risk people. In addition, these prostitutes would probably not be covered by state insurance or medicaid because they would be pulling in a fairly high taxable income whereas their costs would still make them technically poor. Thus, these mandatory medical tests would discourage prostitutes from operating legitimately. They would prefer not having to be forced to take the medical examinations at all, because $50-$100 a week is pretty hefty. 1B. Prostitutes are not paid according to will, prostitutes are paid according to the free market. Before, prostitutes earned a decent amount of money because of the illegal nature of their work. Prostitutes after legalization would earn substantially less from their clients simply due to them being on a much more open market instead of an exclusive one. My opponent may argue that the safety benefits will outweigh this and justify a higher price, but remember that with those safety procedures come a much higher upkeep cost for the prostitutes themselves. 2. Until I can see detailed statistics about Nevada's legalized prostitution, I cannot accept my opponent's contention that STD control is working in Nevada's legal brothels. I can offer explanations for the statistics in the video: First of all, they have not stated any statistics on STDs besides AIDS. Only that HIV itself has presented no cases amongst the prostitutes. Second, it is reasonable to assume that a prostitute that contracts an STD would not be employed until it clears, meaning, it is quite easy to fudge the numbers because a prostitute with an STD wouldn't show up as a statistic. 3. Brothel-like buildings would require hideous amounts of upkeep. Electricity, maintenance, administration, plumbing, not to mention rents and licensing, etc. My opponent also talks about security guards and free condoms, and on top of all that, taxes. Keep in mind that for every penny spent on these new things, it is another penny out of the pocket of the prostitutes. Why would prostitutes accept all these regulations that will strip them of the money that they need when they can operate illegally? Sure, there's the risk of being arrested, but prostitution has been a field of work where desperate women will use any means to get money. In that case, the illegal nature of prostitution will not be an issue compared to the huge pay cut they would have to take under these regulations. 4. My opponent has said he does not understand my final argument. Although I believe I was more than clear, I will try to rephrase my point: Prostitutes vote, and my opponent is proposing legislation that will directly affect them. Thus, it is important that we consider what prostitutes think about my opponent's proposal. Not only that, but after all legislation is passed, it is still up to prostitutes whether or not they choose to enter the regulated profession at all. The point I was trying to make is that prostitutes would oppose the legalization of prostitution. The legalization of prostitution, as I have detailed in many points above, would provide for much lower wages than prostitutes are making now. As I have said before, the proposal is nice, but impractical because he would have no participants. It would just be a waste of money all around. I also do not mind my opponent rushing his argument and instead found it well written. I too understand that debate. org requires a chunk of time that we may not quite be able to afford, and do look forward to his next response.