Did you read the article?
Another common claim is that prostitution causes direct harm by contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. However, that may be the reddest herring of them all. In Australia, where sex for money is legal, the rate of HIV infection among female prostitutes is so low that prostitution has been removed from the list of known risk factors in HIV surveillance. In the U.S., reliable data are more difficult to come by, but a 1987 Centers for Disease Control study likewise found very low infection rates among prostitutes.
I'm in favor of legalizing prostitution, as it is one of those "victimless crimes." By making it illegal, it isn't like we are getting rid of it, and instead we are throwing away money at policing it. If prostitution was legal, then there would be fewer pimps, since a prostitute could go to the police for protection from Johns who beat them or don't pay (I'd wager this costs less than prosecuting and jailing them). Legislating morality will not make people any more moral, and only makes the government a bigger nanny state.
You posted: “Legislating morality will not make people any more moral, and only makes the government a bigger nanny state.”
To some extent, every law is a legislation of morality (as a principle). Should we take, “Thou shalt not kill”, or “thou shalt not steal”, out of our criminal codes as well...since they are legislations of morality?
It isn’t “victimless”, there is trafficking in sex slaves. Women who appear to be “free” but are smuggled into this country illegally, and kept through constant threats on their family and “debt” contracts that can never be paid off.
It is an international problem. But there is little attention focused on it. There are estimated to be at least 25,000 slaves in the US.
Now if any woman could get in the game, it might drive down the business interest of organized criminals to engage in such operations.
“Legislating morality will not make people any more moral, and only makes the government a bigger nanny state.”
We have a winner.
By “legislating morality,” the would-be legislator must first ask “Whose morality?” And when you get into those types of semantics, you are without doubt on your way to sustaining, if not further growing, a tyrannical and overbearing nanny state.
Check out the Rad-Islams: They “legislate” their brand of morality all the time. But to them, they are the only ones with true moral standing - so, in their minds, why shouldn’t they force their moral beliefs on others?
I would side with your position. Whose business is it if two adults agree to a money-for-sex exchange?
Sexually transmitted diseases includes HIV/AIDS, but it also includes herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and hepatitis. It is pretty well established that AIDS/HIV does not readily tranmit from female to male unless there is some sort of open sore. However the other diseases are easily transmitted from female to male...but your quote only makes mention of AIDS.
Classic strawman argument.
Besides, I DO believe in legislating morality. You know, little things like murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, bestiality, etc... ALL laws legislate morality to some degree.
It’s often not a matter of morals but of public order. For some reason wives and mothers feel uncomfortable with women in short skirts following their rational self-interest to maximize profit by soliciting their husbands on their way home from work.
That hasn't been Europe's experience with legalized prostitution.
A victimless crime?
Hmmm, I wonder how many betrayed wives and children of divorce feel that way.
Our legal system has never been based on whether or not something is a "victimless crime". This is a libertarian myth.