Prostitution should be legal in each state.

1. The fact that at least 18 countries (out of 150 ) does not mean anything for your case. Several countries do uniformly stupid things all the time. I'll use the example of the Netherlands to prove that society can be benefited from legal prostitution instead of harmed. In the Netherlands, a very Libertarian nation, prostitution is legal. Here, prostitutes work in sex houses or brothels instead of displaying their lewdness on the streets (which proves legal prostitution leads to regulation instead of wild frenzy of paid sex), pimps are unnecessary and put out of work, and prostitutes pay their income taxes. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Canada is another example with legal prostitution. They look down on us, because they believe (and so many Americans) that prostitution is criminalized based on a non-existent Biblical precedent. Their prostitution is safe and contributes to society in a positive way instead of a negative way. Canada, most all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, most of Asia, Latin America are all other examples with legal, safe prostitution that contributes to society and the tax treasury. (. http://www.sexwork.com...) 2. CON says that "not all pimps do the things" that I've described. It is evident that pimps are abusive and violent. (. http://www.libertarian.to...) I challenge my opponent to find a source that says that pimps are friendly. .. It is common knowledge that pimps are violent. It is in their job description. If a pimp was not violent, the prostitute would not pay him. Let's remember that there are no police involved in this. So a pimp cannot go to the police and tell that the prostitute has stolen her money. Instead, the pimp has to evil and abusive to scare the girl into giving him her money. It is a fact that in the Netherlands, Canada, almost all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, most of Asia, and Latin America all have legal prostitution and it is safe from violent pimps. (. http://www.sexwork.com...) 3. CON has given a false example. He says that Germany legalised prostitution and had a budget deficit later as a result. This is not a result of prostitution. Firstly, the government did not pay prostitute anything. So they could not have lossed any money (not even one penny). Secondly, prostitutes usually have their brothels pay the tax. Thirdly, in Germany many cities and states force their prostitutes to pay their taxes in advance. How could they be evaded in this instance? Fourthly, EVERYBODY EVADES TAXES! !! The IRS has a huge problem of forcing people to pay their right amount of taxes. The fact is that no government can be hurt (financially) by taxing, because they are not paying money, so they are no losing money. And German (and prostitutes of other nations) pay their taxes. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) 4. A great example is in Kenya and Senegal. In these countries, prostitution is regulated and condom use has gone up tremendously. Now, STDs have reduced drastically. (. http://www.liberator.net...) This website has a chart showing that countries where prostitution is legalized have lower rates of HIV/AIDS. Canada has half our rate, Denmark, Greece, and the Netherlands have a third. (. http://www.liberator.net...) A third example is Nevada. Under legalised prostitution, NO CASE OF HIV HAS EVER BEEN FOUND. This fact is backed up by Nevada Department of Public Health and Harvard University. (. http://www.aegis.com...) The fact is that regulation works. 5. My opponent says that his pursuit of happiness may be different from mine. I agree! That's the beauty of American liberty! Everybody is into something different and if you want to do something that does not harm anybody else you should be able to. Thomas Jefferson says in his Declaration of Independence that we hold these truths to be self-evident that the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and endowed by our Creator. He also says that if the government takes away these rights we are to change that government! (. http://www.archives.gov...) If a person is into hockey, debating, or prostitution, it is that persons personal liberty to engage in these activities, because he is hurting noone else. 6. My partner did not even bother to refute the actual fact that our Libertarian founding fathers would have frowned up illegal prostitution. Because they supported liberty and they opposed big, despotic government. 7. In this point, CON admits to the fact and conceeds that "the prohibition on Prostitution hasn't exactly worked. " Of course, my sources tell us all this as well. And he also says that Alcohol and Drug prohibtion did not have the same problems (like HIV). However, alcohol and drugs are abusable. But even though this is true, we ended the prohibition on alcohol because we saw the negative effects of it. We saw notorious gangsters like Al Capone (paralled to pimps and gangs today). We saw bad health issues because of lack of regulation (paralled to higher STD levels). We saw a lot of tax revenue lost (compared to revenue lost today). We saw an ineffective enforcement (which we see in prostitution today). We even saw government corruption (which we see in this today). We saw a costly (but still ineffective) enforcement. Please, let's learn from our history! 8. My opponent says that prostitution is not the first thing that gangs fight about, which I agree. But it is still something they fight about and it could be stopped. Also, violent pimps are a seious problem, which could be bearly eliminated if prostitution was legalised like Netherlands, Canada, and other examples illustrate. 9. My opponent here admits that prostitutes would pay taxes. Also, many people own casinos in Las Vegas. There is nothing stopping the mafia from owning a Subway. Legalizing prostitution does not help the mafia in any way. It hurts pimps though by displacing them. CON says legalisation will make it so that gangs "will no longer have to avoid the law. " Yes! This is the essenes of legalization! This way, now, the law is involved and prostitutes are safe and taxation is had. 10. My opponent points to one instance where prostitutes were arrested and told on a mobster named Lucky. But this is unnecessary. The girls did not even have to be arrested in the first place. And police money could be used elsewhere. It's the only logical thing to do. CON's example is irrelevant! Resources could go elsewhere! 11. CON calls the sentiment that legalisation lowers use a "myth. " However, "Contrary to the prohibitionist's philosophy, this data may give reason to implement and regulate prostitution to reduce crime because crime in countries where prostitution is legal is lower than the U. S. 's rates. " (. http://www.liberator.net...) This is a scientific researcher. 12. I am not comparing legalisation to the Holocaust. I'm comparing the rights taken away. Slowly but surely, rights were taken away and because it was gradual and commonplace it was allowed by citizens. We must use history to learn from our mistakes! I'll use another historical truth. In Cambodia's genocide, Pol Pot tried to make the ultimate utopia. But when people tried to stray from it, they were eventually fined, then jailed, then killed. Rights are taken away gradually, not all at once. We must ensure that we fight for every right we have, because we all know that we are losing them slowly. Pot was trying to do a good thing and protect his people, and look what happened. My opponent failed to bring up one beneficial point of criminalization of prostitution. Vote economics! Vote more tax revenue! Vote STDs and health! Vote good police resource allocation! Vote history!