Prostitution should be legalized

Thanks for your response.Lets take the issues one at a time1. Prostitution is a victimless crime "Prostitution is often described as a "victimless crime", or a "consensual crime", because in theory, no one present at the crime is unwilling. In reality, this is a myth. In reality, prostitution of women is a particularly lethal form of violence against women, and a violation of a woman's most basic human rights...Sadly, the majority of girls enter prostitution before they have reached the age of consent. In other words, their first commercial sexual interactions are rape. Research indicates that most women in prostitution were sexually and physically abused as children." [1] "There's some sentiment out there that prostitution -- except for the potential of sexually transmitted disease and the marital implosion it may cause -- is really one of those victimless pursuits that really doesn't fit the description of a crime. Aside from the societal concerns that sex for money constantly erodes whatever moral values the majority of us still hold dear, the more immediate harm is dealt to these vulnerable young women who are usually duped into a life of dependency and abuse." [2] It would also lead to more anti-social behavior of men who now can just walk into a brothel and pay for sex.So the list of victims are the institution of Marriage, Morality, any who gets an STD, youth, women.2. Undermining the black market and increasing workplace safety for prostitutesThe goal with black markets is to eliminate them not turn them into legitimate buisnesses. "No other workplace has to cover the range of health and safety issues that ensue from this sexual and economic exchange. Together with STIs, verbal abuse, battering, sexual harassment and violence, rape and unwanted pregnancies are recognised occupational health and safety risks within the prostitution industry. This does not change because prostitution is legalised." [3] "Ingrid Barclay’s study, which looks at the experience of four women in one of Melbourne’s legal brothels, shows how even when overt coercion is not present, women remain disempowered. The women in her study found that they had to agree to any sexual acts a buyer demanded to obtain a booking. They are then later forced to attempt to renegotiate the way the sexual act will be performed when the booking has commenced and they are alone with the buyer." [3]Legalization does not make it safer.3. Decreasing the taxpayers' loadIf you intend to regulate the industry the money goes from police to more government beaurcrats, and with increases in disease, and violence it will cost tax payers more. "when police pay attention to minor offenses — such as prostitution, graffiti, aggressive panhandling — they can reduce fear, strengthen communities, and prevent serious crime." [4]It will not decrease tax payer load.Now to my arguements1. Demeaning to WomenYou making womens' bodies just sex objects to buy and sell. Not to mention how positution would enforce female steryotypes and unrealistic standard of beauty."It bothers me that we're making money off the backs of women. Condoning prostitution is the most demeaning and degrading thing that the state can do to women. What we do as a state is essentially put a U.S.-grade stamp on the butt of every prostitute. Instead, we should be turning them around by helping them get back into society." [5]2. DiseaseLegalizing Prositution will only lead to an increase of STDs. "In 1986, the Victorian Labour government [Victoria, Australia] legalized brothels, claiming crime would be eliminated, prostitutes' lives wouldbe made safer, and there would be fewer health risks. None of this happened...Sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and AIDS increased." [6] "It has been argued that legalized brothels or other “controlled” prostitution establishments protect women through enforceable condom policies. In one study, 47% of women in U.S. prostitution stated that men expected sex without a condom" [7] "The harm reduction approach is shortsighted, doomed to failure, and ethically lacking. It fails to recognize that many prostitutes are unable to negotiate condom use with their clients but often are forced to provide whatever services the client may want. In addition, it is common knowledge that prostitutes are often paid more if they agree to have sex without a condom. In fact, a study in Calcutta India found that prostitutes who regularly use condoms suffer a 79% reduction in their earnings over prostitutes who do not use condoms.1 A 79% loss of income is a huge motivator to forego the use of condoms!" [8] "Even if a prostitute is being tested every week for HIV, she will test negative for at least the first 4-6 weeks and possibly the first 12 weeks after being infected. If we assume that he or she takes only 4 weeks to become positive, because there is an additional lag time of 1-2 weeks to get the results back, there will be at best a window period of 6 weeks for a prostitute. The average prostitute services between 10-15 clients per day. This means that while the test is becoming positive and the results are becoming known, that prostitute may expose up to 630 clients to HIV. This is under the best of circumstances with testing every week and a four-week window period. It also assumes that the prostitute will quit working as soon as he or she finds out the test is HIV positive, which is highly unlikely. This is not the best approach for actually reducing harm. Instead, in order to slow the global spread of HIV/AIDS we should focus our efforts on abolishing prostitution." [8]Sources: [1] http://www.aljazeera.com...[2] http://www.lowellsun.com...[3] http://action.web.ca...[4] http://old.nationalreview.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://www.academia.edu...[7] http://www.embracedignity.org... [8] http://www.biology-online.org...