The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution.

Well-argued Whiteflame. First I would like to apologize… I did not mean to add confusion to the debate by directing sources to a separate debate. I noticed that the links did not light up in blue and assumed that they were copied and pasted without the full url. Sorry about that. 1) Safety- Pro claims “Enforcement is, itself, harmful.” Naturally, as is true with every type of law enforcement. Is pro suggesting that no law should be enforced if it is harmful? Pro argues that “It is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year." The same source he took this from states “There are, of course, many problems with this data. Rape is a crime that regularly goes unreported and what is considered rape in one countries data set may not be considered rape in another. The homicide rate also suffers from being defined differently in different countries.” It seems that Pro’s source while willing to speculate admits many issues with the data provided. As such these numbers are mere speculation and not a reliable model to base a policy change. Legalization of prostitution does not lower the harm of STD’s as pro suggests. “In one of CATW's studies, U.S. women in prostitution interviewed reported the following: 47% stated that men expected sex without a condom; 73% reported that men offered to pay more for sex without a condom; 45% of women said they were abused if they insisted that men use condoms. Some women said that some establishments have rules that men wear condoms but, in reality, men still try to have sex without them. One woman stated: "It's 'regulation' to wear a condom at the sauna, but negotiable between parties on the side. Most guys expected blow jobs without a condom(1) This shows the reality, whether there is enforcement of a condom policy or not, it ends up being left to the individual women in prostitution. This becomes less realistic when coupled with the offer of extra money as incentive. “So called "safety policies" in brothels did not protect women from harm. Even where brothels supposedly monitored the "customers" and utilized "bouncers," women stated that they were injured by buyers and, at times, by brothel owners and their friends. Even when someone intervened to control buyers' abuse, women lived in a climate of fear. Although 60% of women reported that buyers had sometimes been prevented from abusing them, half of those women answered that, nonetheless, they thought that they might be killed by one of their "customers" (1) It seems idealistic to assume that legalizing prostitution would decrease harm as Pro suggests. Legalizing does not eliminate the demand to have unprotected sex. Which,due to monetary pressure and fear, is likely to happen frequently as indicated above. The stats provided by pro that suggest a decrease in abuse and rape is weak as even the source acknowledges errors in the data. 2) Justice-- The justice argument is entirely specious. As Pro has defined the right to work, any and all illegal activity could be deemed a right in terms of a job. Pro’s source states “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.” The source also endorses the idea that Prostitution is a type of slavery. (2) So which is it? Does the right to work supersede the right to not be a slave? 3) Costs Part A asserts that the enforcement of the status quo is expensive. This is true. Something being expensive is not enough of a reason to dismantle or reverse a policy position. Though perhaps it is grounds to observe and restructure how such laws are enforced. Fighting cancer is expensive, this does not make me want to endorse cancer. Likewise, enforcing prostitution laws as outlawed may be expensive but that does not make endorsing it desirable. Part B asserts that money can be made for the government. I don’t deny it. However, to conclude that because money could be made we should make something legal is ludicrous. Millions could be made by legalizing slave labor as well… should we legalize that? In terms of Utility many things worth preserving cost a great deal. Likewise many deplorable acts could make money. Neither case is sufficient reasoning to implement a policy. States Rights: 1) Pro says “Con is arguing that there's an inherent barrier that prevents the federal government from engaging in this action. That doesn't matter.” Actually my rebuttal is that the Federal Government Should not because it does not have the authority. The U.S. Government has done many things in the past despite not having authority to do so. (IE, Indian removal act deemed unconstitutional, yet still implemented. Etc…) I did not argue that the U.S. Government is not capable but rather if it did so it would undermine States rights. I am in support of the Status quo position on States Rights. The Constitution of the United States limits the Federal Government; Each of the first 10 Amendments lists what the Federal Government CANNOT do. Including “The regulation of prostitution in the United States is not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is therefore exclusively the domain of the states to permit, prohibit, or otherwise regulate commercial sex…” If the Federal Government was indeed in absolute control, why does the Constitution restrict it and not it's "subordinates" (States)? It behooves my opponent to accept the burden to provide evidence of why circumventing this restriction is beneficial as he is arguing against the status quo. His only point addressing this is that “having the federal government act invites beneficial discussion, as it results in nationwide engagement in the discussion of both prostitution and the duties of the federal government.” This is an incredibly weak argument as the federal government acting is not the only way to invite a beneficial discussion on the topic. Indeed, we are having this discussion despite the federal government not having acted on this issue. 2) Pro argues that “The tenth amendment is incredibly vague.” I concede that many portions of the U.S. Constitution are in fact vague, it is clear however, that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Whether it should be left to the States or the people is vague… not vague is that it is not in the realm of federal jurisdiction. Again as Pro is arguing against the status quo, it is up to him to provide reasoning as to why the federal government should do something explicitly against the law. 3) Pro argues here that the Federal government “most notably regarding interstate commerce. Congress has actually passed constitutional laws criminalizing prostitution from this perspective most notably regarding interstate commerce.” This is within the rights of the federal government as regulating commerce is within the parameters that the federal government may act. He concludes thats "Thisshows evidence of how such a law would be regarded by the current USSC, and therefore how a tenth amendment challenge would be ineffective.” It does no such thing. Regulating commerce is within the realm of federal power via the constitution. Prostitution directly is expressly not. Therefore the Tenth Amendment argument stands. Legalizing prostitution on a federal level is not within the realm of Federal power and is expressly stated in the 10th amendment that it is left to the States respectively or the people. This is an argument that the federal government Should Not and not that they Can not. Other thoughts: Pro says “If disease is the major concern, though, then there are plenty of other jobs that should also be eliminated based on this same concern, such as nursing staff, coal miners, and just workers in general. [28-30] If likelihood of acquiring an illness is the standard by which we determine if an occupation should be legal, then why aren't these other positions put under the same lens?” This is a clever retort. Perhaps those other positions should be put under the same lens. Out of curiosity I put the question to pro what would be a reasonable reason to outlaw a type of job? Do you believe such an argument could be made? Pro says “The reality is that prostitution is alive and well in this country, and that it will happen whether or not we do anything about it.” This is true of any if not all crimes. Following this logic should we legalize all crime or any activity that is “alive and well.” Pedophiles are alive and well, should those activities be legitimized just because they and their actions are “alive and well.” Pro “it's not a problem we can ignore.” I agree with this sentiment. I confess I do not know, nor desire to create a burden on myself to defend an alternative. What I do know is that the policy promoted by pro should not happen for numerous reasons as argued throughout. I conclude as I did in my previous round. The Federal Government does not have the authority to legalize prostitution on a federal level. Such an action is a clear violation of States rights. Aside from this implementation issue, it is empirically evident that prostitution is dangerous. This is due to the spread of disease, the psychological damage, the high mortality rate, and the physical violence that accompanies prostitution. Legalization of prostitution does not change its danger. I conclude as the U.S. Government did in 2002…. Whether legal or not, “prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing.” The United States Federal Government should not legalize prostitution. (1) http://www.icasa.org... (2) http://www.ohchr.org...