Prostitution should be legal in the United States

1. The Right To Do What We Want With Our Own BodiesWe have the right (if not legal right) to do whatever we want with our own bodies, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another. Con says we don't have that right in regard to prostitution, based on these factors: A) Disease- I've already argued against this, including the fact that STD rates tend to DROP when you legalize prostitution.B) Physical Violence- I've already argued against this and explained why legalized prostitution PROTECTS prostitutes from physical violence (from pimps, clients, etc.). To repeat, it makes law enforcement protective allies rather than people who will arrest you for doing your job. C) It wouldn't financially benefit the govt.- This is completely untrue which I will explain later. More importantly, you don't lose rights just because something isn't profitable. It wasn't profitable to free the slaves, but they still had a right to freedom. D) It would encourage selling sex for money.- Once again, I've already argued against this. See point 6 from the last round as just one example. E) It subjects people to ridicule. - This is completely irrelevant. I might wear a terrible outfit and be ridiculed. That doesn't mean I don't have the right to wear it.2. Covering the Medical Cost of STDs Con says that we cannot expect clients to be tested for STDs, as that might infringe upon their privacy. With any mutual transaction, the customer and consumer agree to specific terms. This is true of any contract or exchange. Some requirements are more detailed or personal than others. In this case, a brothel might require STD testing just as leasing a vehicle or renting a home requires a background and credit check. If the customer doesn't want to abide by the terms and conditions of the exchange, then they won't be a customer there.Further, I've argued that people must be responsible for their own health and decisions. If I eat 20 cupcakes a day, I might suffer from obesity. That's my problem. Con never responded to the contention of personal responsibility. Additionally, prostitutes would require safe sex. Considering condoms are 98% effective [5], the likelihood of contracting an STD is minimal. Also, Con disregards the obvious fact that if prostitutes are being tested for STDs, then even if the clients aren't tested, the prostitutes will NOT be spreading STDs (because if they had one they couldn't practice) meaning any rise in rates could not be attributed to prostitution. 3. BureaucracyCon says he disputes the economic gains that legalizing prostitution would bring. This is a pretty absurd contention. Let's acknowledge how big the sex industry is (it generates billions in revenue per year). Now for a small case study, consider the fact that in Nevada alone, legal brothels generate about $50 million in total revenue per year and have an economic impact of about $400 million on the state [6]. Now multiply 400 million by 50 states. That's 20 billion dollars in positive economic impact. That is money that goes into the circulating economy - not the underground economy, benefiting only crooks.So now we have to see if the cost of regulation is so enormous that it somehow trumps the exorbitant amount of money the industry creates. The answer is quite clear that it most certainly would not. By "regulating" the only thing the government would have to do is audit brothels, which would require maybe hiring a few more IRS employees. Of course creating those jobs would be a good thing. The same applies to creating jobs to check for safety and code compliance. Assuming the government had to hire 1,000 employees to oversee this regulation of this industry (which is probably a generous over-estimation) at let's say $50 K a year, that would cost 50 million dollars at the federal level... but considering we estimated the tax revenue at 50 million at the state level, then clearly revenue exceeds bureaucratic oversight by hundreds of millions of dollars.If you don't want to accept my figures, a comprehensive analysis on the cost of regulating prostitution can be found in a study done by economists [7]. The authors support regulation as being financially beneficial on a cost/benefit analysis. Moreover, they point out the obvious fact that the cost of criminalizing prostitution is incredibly and unnecessarily expensive. They note, "...Legal intervention in these sub-markets [prostitution] is likely to be specially costly and futile at the same time." My opponent mistakenly ignores the enormous cost of criminalizing this industry, which costs about 8 million dollars per state per year [8]. That's about $400 million annually. Regulation would be astronomically cheaper than criminalization. Con says, "But if its the private sector regulating prostitution then these agencies would prioritize making money more than keeping people safe." There are a ton of arguments in favor of privately regulating multiple industries, not just prostitution [9]. I could spend a great amount of time detailing why this is a completely flawed assertion. However, I've already showed why this would be economically beneficial even without private regulation, so for the sake of brevity I won't waste my time. Likewise while it's true that prostitutes may get help trying to find jobs, that's not really important to my contention so I won't waste character space responding to it. The point still remains that the economic benefits for legalization are overwhelmingly in my favor. 4 & 6 - Brainwashing and Impact on Society Con basically says that prostitution is taboo which is irrelevant. Bi-racial and gay relationships are still considered taboo in some places, but that doesn't mean they are immoral. The same concept applies to smoking pot. Rather than a visceral, emotional response based on what society has told is is "acceptable," we have to look at the facts. The facts are that society has a very strong demand for sex, and prostitution is a viable solution. Rather than spend $40 buying a random girl drinks at a bar hoping to take her home, a client could spend the money going to a prostitute and doing exactly what he would have done anyway: have casual sex, which happens in our society all the time. This is safer and probably more moral as the intentions of the exchange are clear and mutually agreed upon. Con also brings up teenage prostitutes. This is an appeal to emotion (But what about the children?!) but doesn't have much clout. For one thing, if a teenager wants to pursue a career in sex work, they should have that option. The only reason this seems "icky" is because of what society has taught us about the non-existent, inherent sacredness of sex or our bodies. And you know what - if you believe that sex is sacred, awesome - don't be a prostitute. Parents should instill values in their kids/teens. But again, you cannot impose your own morality onto others via government force. It is not the role or responsibility of citizens or government to interfere with your sexual choices, but instead to protect your rights and uphold contractual agreements in the market. 5. Rule BreakersCon basically ignored my entire argument 5 from the last round, so just extend it. [ CONCLUSION ]My entire R2 has been upheld. [5] http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...[6] http://www.thedailybeast.com...[7] http://www.google.com...[8] http://www.texaswatchdog.org...[9] http://www.cato.org...