If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.
Even if the citizens complaints are largely based on "I just dont like it" reasons, the State is not compelled to legalize it. The victims of say, Crack cocaine are also largely willing victims. Yet, society can restrict the sales of substances deemed harmful to both individuals and costly to society.
At the end of the day, the current practice works fine:
-Hooking is illegal
-local municipalities, in response to local conditions, decide how stringently those laws are enforced. Enforcement can vary from fairly strict to pretty token.
It doesn't answer the question why it should remain illegal. Why does anyone care what a man spends his money on, and why would anyone care what a woman accepts for reimbursement for using her body for gain?
The State should also not facilitate environments that lead to the exploitation of its citizens (even if the exploitation is "willing").
It does not matter whether it is prostitution, usurous loans, or exploitive labor contracts that are "voluntary".
Please note, this does not mean that I am advocating a Bloomberg nanny state.
a. especially risky (prostitution) and
b. bans can be enforced in the practical sense
For that matter, I am not personally exploited by usurous loans or loan sharking either- does that mean they should also be legal? Or, can the State forbid certain loan arrangements?
Last edited by Cryptic; 08-06-14 at 02:13 PM.
I don't think loan sharking should be illegal either. If someone chooses to borrow money at 50% interest it's not my business.
Sex is risky no matter who does it. Unless we are prepared to regulate all sex, we shouldn't be criminalizing it for women & men who choose it with payment.