Legalizing prostitution in the United States

However, I believe he has misunderstood my contention: I don't believe in only loose control of prostitution. I contend that prostitution, though it should be legal, should also be tightly controlled, which I believe is possible. Aside from that, I provide the following rebuttals to his points. 1: "This argument lies upon the notion that because something is popular, we neglect the logical, moral, and reasonable argumentation contending it. " My opponent misunderstands my point; my point was that despite the fact that it is illegal, it remains common (in opposition to my opponent's contention that legalization would result in an explosion of incidences of prostitution). In an article (. http://economics.uchicago.edu...) about the economics of prostitution, the author states on page 4 that "in stark contrast to illicit drugs, the criminal justice system has a relatively minor impact on prostitution activities", supporting my assertion that legalization of prostitution would result in only a minor increase in its incidence (my explanation is that the main fear of most clients is the social stigma rather than the courts). 2: "Do you think that the government will seriously check and test these girls after every day, week, or even month for STDS? Legalization fundamentally increases the risk of getting aids because more individuals visit these sites (explained in Contention 1), and the government cannot possibly monitor these sites every time they have sex, nor is it likely that they will every 500 times they have sex. " I have already rebutted half of this argument (by rebutting Contention 1). I also now provide an example, although it involves a country where prostitution is still illegal. In Cuba, although prostitution is illegal, it is still a major presence, as the rise of sex tourism there attests to. However, even though prostitutes have little incentive to heed the government (as they are already illegal), a massive government campaign has convinced a staggering percentage of sex workers to take precaution against the spread of AIDS and other STDs, and there is evidence that prostitution is a relatively minor force in the spread of AIDS there (. http://www.nytimes.com...), since a Cuban doctor stated that "only a handful of [280 AIDS victims he administers to]. .. are sex workers". 3: Although the article quotes Terri Miller as saying that "a brothel owner is. .. nothing more than a slave owner", I fail to see the connection under my proposed system, since a prostitute under legalization is free to quit the brothel at any moment, which is certainly much different than a slave, who is held forcibly. 4: I read the article my opponent posted as evidence (. http://www.lvrj.com...), and it is not so strong in linking legal prostitution to trafficking as he makes it appear. Although Las Vegas is a problem city in terms of trafficking (much of the trafficking his quote refers to occurs there), (1) prostitution is illegal there, invalidating his argument, and (2) although it is 'more tolerated', this is a 'don't-ask-don't-tell' policy from what I understand, which is wholly different from legalization and government oversight, since it means that prostitutes suing abusive pimps and brothel owners still risk running afoul of the law. In fact, 'don't-ask-don't-tell' is the exact opposite of what I propose; in Las Vegas, prostitution is illegal and government still has no oversight capabilities, while I propose a system in which the government legalizes it and exercises substantial oversight and handles lawsuits against abusive pimps and clients. I also fail to see how "with legalization, the dehumanizing factors of women who are prostitutes would only increase with time", since abused prostitutes would be able to press charges without worrying about their own position with respect to the law. 5: When Farley says that "the conditions that make choice possible are absent", I'm not sure what she means. There is a clear choice: unless it is a truly serious case of trafficking (in which case laws that are only anti-prostitution would not apply since it would fall under the 13th amendment and kidnapping and rape laws, so these cases are irrelevant to our debate). If she means that most women who go into prostitution face extreme poverty if they don't, thus limiting their 'choice', then preventing them from going into prostitution would simply mean that they would have to face extreme poverty, so they wouldn't be any better off. I agree that the fate of these women is deplorable, but the solution is not anti-prostitution laws but strong and effective social welfare programs that will relieve these women of this awful choice. If the contention is that these women are too young and impressionable or simply not well-informed enough to make rational choices, then the solution is, in the former case, a minimum age limit for prostitutes (I'd put it at 21, but that's not the subject of this debate) and in the latter case a public-education program (like Cuba did to combat AIDS) to better inform women of the dangers of entering prostitution. If they are fully informed and not too young, and they still make the decision to go into prostitution, they are not a victim (and obviously the customer and any third parties are not victims either) any more than a guy who willingly drives his car smack into a tree at 90 mph is a victim; less, in fact, since they at least reap the benefits of the extra cash, and, if they were smart and well informed then this benefit ought to outweigh the negatives for everyone who ends up making the choice to go into prostitution (or else they would not have made that choice).