If you consider it overly broad. I don't. So it goes back to my counterargument.
"The ones who commit the rapes in that context are not the ones profiting - and if consensual prostitution were legal, the market for trafficked women would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. And a great many rapes involve no profit whatsoever."
You asked the question, I gave you an answer. I wasn't talking of consensual prostitution, I'm talking about where women/girls are captured like slaves.
"Who profits from assault and battery?"
Those that would stand to profit from engaging in said acts.
If you consider it overly broad. I don't.
It's not about your consideration nor mine, but about effects: a good working definition of "overly broad" would be "having the primary effect of enriching criminals" as was the case for alcohol Prohibition and is the case for marijuana prohibition.
The ones who commit the rapes in that context are not the ones profiting - and if consensual prostitution were legal, the market for trafficked women would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. And a great many rapes involve no profit whatsoever.
You asked the question, I gave you an answer.
And I pointed out how that question and answer have limited comparability to drug policy.
I wasn't talking of consensual prostitution
I was - because it's another prohibition that's fueling the genuine crime.
Who profits from assault and battery?
Those that would stand to profit from engaging in said acts.
ROTFL! That's a textbook case of a circular statement. Quit joking around and answer the question.