Where do you stand on the legalization of prostitution?

flips to Deuteronomy well you see…

totally for it. The government is always sitting with their thumbs up their asses…NOT producing any results. Too worried about being re-elected.

well, it doesnt eliminate pimps and murders but it certainly helps. I think its not technically legal here, but it has been decriminlised and may as well be legal. The laws are not really enforced (aside rom things regarding the age of consent, etc) and there are groups such as the prostitutes collective that work with the government to help keep people safe.

One problem is that if prostitution were legal, then certain people who work at jails, as law enforcement, etc., might lose their jobs. Same type of thing as for drugs.

Generally, an economist or attorney might argue that that much of the prostitution and drug laws are written so as to penalize those who have less money. So, those with less affluence and influence are inclined to be arrested…save for certain celebrities…otherwise, the people in government are probably more concorned with keeping their jobs, as opposed to actually getting rid of associated crimes.

The extra that’s charged because a drug is illegal, is essentially a “tax” that’s collected by drug lords or whomever along the chain or activities; that’s NOT being collected by Uncle Sam (in the US - the US Government). So, part of our deficit can be easily explained because the government has too many areas in which it chooses to remain ignorant about drugs, or people’s business - in the case of prostitution - so, if a person of affluence happens to be caught in the wrong type of activity in the wrong place at the wrong time…well, they end up making tabloid and news headlines. Quite a few people are employed who produce “news” and other content types, based upon how the rich and famous (or, famous and formerly rich) have fallen from grace, so to speak. There’s quite a bit of money in all of these areas.

Just think, if the government were able to control and regulate what is commonly referred to as illicit drug use, they could probably sell the narcotics for less money that what the drugs presently go for. So, for some stretch of time, until the government oversight gets too large, the government could sell the narcotic for less money that the drug dealers would, which would produce less drug-associated crimes. This would then, in turn, produce profits that could be used to help pay off SOME of the federal debt.

Remember, illegality drives up the demand and prices for certain types of products and services…along with associated criminal activities.

There might, however, be certain other fall-out for a politician who votes for such a thing - that, in economic theory,makes perfect sense. Those who vote for such a thing would have been perceived as voting not in favor of drug lords, but against them. This could produce many retaliatory responses/actions by various levels of drug trafficking.

Regardng “call girl” activities - this might produce more localized retaliations against various parties.

Also, what about those who have “arrangements” for laundering illegally gotten money? Would the IRS be required, by law, to look the other way and not pursue money from those who might have profited not directly from the drug or prostitution activity, but whose businesses were used to try to make legitimate, the proceeds from illegal activities? Put another way, being in business isn’t generally considered “illegal” - but, the drug or prostitution related activies are what’s illegal. For this very reason, those who sale drugs, etc., are allowed to deduct “Cost Of Goods Sold” - okay, the cost of the narcotics, but not the expenses for operating the criminal enterprise. So, in order to produce legitimate-seeming income, or to even explain having such money, the organized criminal elements might actually partner-up with people who are “running short” on money. All of the sudden, a hotel with very few rented rooms has on their books that their hotel is a thriving business enterprise…with lots of cash payments from their customers??? Same type of thing with certain resturants, etc., too. Even a flower shop can be used to “launder” money - try to make it seem as legally obtained. It’s really simple, actually. So, you want to hide heroin money - have nice-looking, nice-seeming people sell flowers on the street corners for you. The criminal enterprise could possibly import the narcotics - alongside the flowers, have these amounts mixed into their Cost Of Good Sold - then, mis-report what was paid for both the cost of and sales proceeds for the flowers. So, if a person is asked if they’re a drug dealer, they could “honestly” answer that they have an interest in or are a part owner of one or more flower shops. Although the flower shop is a “half-truth”, it certainly does make things look bad for those trying to prosecute a flower shop owner…even though numbers have been fixed, to make it appear as a legitimate business enterprise. So, if we decide to purchase a rose for only $1.00,at a time where the market rate in the area is actually at $5.00 for each rose, then the remaining $4.00 that the “florist” isn’t collecting, could actually be increments of $4.00 that was actually obtained from the illegal business enterprise - but, reported through the legitimate-seeming enterprise…hence, “money laundering”. Legalizing drugs might “right” the “wrongs” done by money-laundering criminal enterprises - but, how would these involved parties respond to not having a way to continue the process of trying to legitimize their criminal enterprises?

Same type of thing for prostitution - altough probably much smaller amounts than narcotics…there’s still people trying to convince “Uncle Sam” that their earnings are from legitimate business enterprises. So, if prostituion and narcotics did become legal, then these hotels and restaurants with a severe lack of real customer, wouldn’t have the cash-flow provided by the injection of funds from the money laundering process. After significant drops of business, after legalizing certain illegal activities, the IRS might come knocking on the doors of these businesses. Before that happens, there’s a good chance that many who once might have perceived their situation as “desperate” might end up being murdered for what they know - and could reveal, that could be used against those whose income they helped launder.

Which of the above is the lesser evil - not sure. Unless certain provisions were made for those who might fall victim to those involved in the criminal associations, then the fallout could be a rather deadly one for many, many people. So, what sounds great on paper, might have rather harsh consequence in the real world.

One might be able to take Nevada and certain European country examples of how to legalize thus-and-so…the difference is - for a federal level making things seem legal, there could be some very harsh unintended consequences.

you are to winded and all the person asked about was prostitution

In some ways it could definitely be a good thing. Like I think legalizing weed could be a good thing. It’s one of those things people will probably do whether or not its legal so the government might as well find a way to tax it.

Absolutely, why should courts have any say in what adults decide to do with mutual consent.