3 ms·

This is pretty silly, prohibition has been an obvious failure in both drugs and sex work. Firstly, it's a human rights issue, people ought to be able to engage

This is pretty silly, prohibition has been an obvious failure in both drugs and sex work. Firstly, it's a human rights issue, people ought to be able to engage in the commerce of their choosing with only reasonable restrictions. Prohibition is an unreasonable restriction, enforced according to a set of puritan morals that are no longer even popularly held. After all, alcohol is more addictive and more harmful than many schedule 1 drugs. We're not enforcing any kind of consistent moral principle here, we're hewing to the arbitrary views of people who are long dead. I personally do not find prostitution compatible with my moral sensibilities (I'm a prude, I'm just a libertarian prude), so I don't engage with it, but I'm not interested in prosecuting those that do any more than I'm interested in criminalizing pineapple on pizza. Secondly, that study doesn't show that it made trafficking worse. It showed that it increased inflows of trafficking. Of course traffickers will prefer open markets to closed ones, that doesn't establish a causal relationship whereby increased openness lead to more net trafficking. What this shows is that prohibition makes trafficking happen in someone else's back yard. Thirdly, you're linking to a 2014 article about a 2012 study, which is ancient as far as an academic paper goes. Is there really no more recent study? Browsing Google Scholar is evident that this is an active area off research. Here's a 2021 one I skimmed to cherrypick an article that finds decriminalization more effective ("Although it seems that partial decriminalization has greater benefits with fewer disadvantages, it is not without defects."): https://brieflands.com/articles/ijhrba-106741.html https://brieflands.com/articles/ijhrba-106741.html Why should I find your article more authoritative? (I'm looking for a survey article on the subject presently.) Fourth, once you've prohibited something, it's next to impossible to intervene to make that market safer. If we want to find the traffickers, we're going to have an easier time in a lit market then a dark one. Lastly, I'm just more inclined to listen to sex workers and trafficking victims about what they would help than to look at descriptive statistics. Statistics are cool and useful, but predictive mental models and lives experience is a better source of policy. Statistics is better able to tell us that something isn't working than what that something is, why it isn't working, and what should be done about it.

rayiner 3y ago
> Firstly, it's a human rights issue, people ought to be able to engage in the commerce of their choosing with only reasonable restrictions You’re starting with a libertarian premise most people don’t accept. The vast majority of the world accepts that it’s proper to restrict individual freedom even to protect people from themselves. Society has a role to play to help people make good choices and to make it hard for them to make bad or dangerous choices. Also, you’re incorrect about the prevalent morals. Even in the US, women—who bear the lion’s share of the cost of prostitution—oppose legalizing by a large margin (50% to 30%): https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-men-women-poll https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-me.... And of course the overwhelming majority would still say it’s a bad or immoral choice, even if they agree someone should be allowed to make that choice.
- maxbond 3y ago
  > The vast majority of the world accepts that it’s proper to restrict individual freedom even to protect people from themselves. As do I, and I said as much (I'm not a capital-L Libertarian, I meant it as an adjective). I argued this exceeded reasonable bounds. I'm surprised to learn it's that unpopular, but I am comfortable arguing an unpopular position.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > Even in the US, women — who bear the lion’s share of the cost of prostitution — oppose legalizing by a large margin That's not a surprise. Amazon bears the cost of Wal-mart's operations and would probably like to outlaw Wal-mart too.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    I think a fairer analogy is worker protection laws. Workers understand how other workers can be coerced into accepting unsafe working conditions and think it’s okay to limit individual freedom to take that pressure off the table for all.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
vorpalhex 3y ago
Well I quoted a Harvard review of a Swedish study, and yours is an Iranian study that seems to have no peer review. Also your metastudy uh, agrees with mine: > The last critics would be that full decriminalization has not resulted in reduced trafficking victimization, but led to growth trafficking inflows > Lastly, I'm just more inclined to listen to sex workers and trafficking victims about what they would help than to look at descriptive statistics. Have you.. talked to any trafficking victims? Any sex workers? And, why do you think a sex worker has the ability to write prescriptive legal policy? Drug addicts would like drugs to be legal, oil barons would like there to be no natural protection laws, prostitutes would like prostitution to be legal. And what do you think has changed about sex trafficking and prostitution in 11 years? > Fourth, once you've prohibited something, it's next to impossible to intervene to make that market safer. Right because you squash the market. Decriminalization of drugs failed because the count of addicts soared and so did ODs. You have less sex trafficking when it is riskier to engage in any prostitution. This isn't rocket science. Arguing your trafficking victims should get better health care is worse than just having meaningfully less trafficking victims.
- maxbond 3y ago
  > [Y]ours is an Iranian study that seems to have no peer review. Fair enough. (I intend to find a good & recent survey paper still but chores have come up, so it'll have to wait a few hours.) > Have you.. talked to any trafficking victims? Any sex workers? Not personally no, I only know what I've learned of their positions through articles I've read and documentaries I've seen. Why, have you? > Drug addicts would like drugs to be legal, oil barons would like there to be no natural protection laws, prostitutes would like prostitution to be legal. Why are you equating prostitutes with oil barons of all things? This seems like a list of people whom are often viewed poorly, and I can only infer the rhetorical function here is to tar prostitutes through association. Which makes me doubt the sincerity of your concern. > And what do you think has changed about sex trafficking and prostitution in 11 years? I'm sure the state of those things as they relate to the internet has shifted, but not importantly what I was suggesting was the understanding of this field of research has probably changed dramatically in 11 years. > Right because you squash the market. What market has ever been squashed by prohibition? Alcohol wasn't. Drugs haven't been. Prostitution hasn't been. > Arguing your trafficking victims should get better health care is worse than just having meaningfully less trafficking victims. There won't be fewer trafficking victims, or other sex workers who are victims of abuse, we'll just have disclaimed responsibility for them by declaring that it's illegal and excluding them from polite society. The abuse we'll continue, and the comfortable can pretend it doesn't exist because it's been brushed under the rug. Additionally, it absolutely does matter if we can provide services. For the example of drug use, the appropriate healthcare (eg Narcan, needle exchanges, treatment for addiction) can make a night and day difference for survival. Sex workers would be safer if they weren't stigmatized and so more likely to be believed if they ask for help, if they were able to operate in the open with hired security and vetting processes, etc.
themitigating 3y ago
Thirdly, you're linking to a 2014 article about a 2012 study, which is ancient as far as an academic paper goes Has there been some new release of prostitution, like a 2.0 where they updated the security to prevent abuse? Stupid joke but nothing has really changed in that realm of things where a study that isn't that old would be invalid.
- maxbond 3y ago
  > Has there been some new release of prostitution, like a 2.0 where they updated the security to prevent abuse? This is the wrong question. A better one is, "has the way prostitution and sex trafficking relate to the internet changed?", but the correct one is "does a 2012 article reflect the current understanding in this field of research?"
  - themitigating 3y ago
    2012 isn't really pre internet though, right?

rayiner 3y ago

> Firstly, it's a human rights issue, people ought to be able to engage in the commerce of their choosing with only reasonable restrictions You’re starting with a libertarian premise most people don’t accept. The vast majority of the world accepts that it’s proper to restrict individual freedom even to protect people from themselves. Society has a role to play to help people make good choices and to make it hard for them to make bad or dangerous choices. Also, you’re incorrect about the prevalent morals. Even in the US, women—who bear the lion’s share of the cost of prostitution—oppose legalizing by a large margin (50% to 30%): https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-men-women-poll https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-me.... And of course the overwhelming majority would still say it’s a bad or immoral choice, even if they agree someone should be allowed to make that choice.

maxbond 3y ago
> The vast majority of the world accepts that it’s proper to restrict individual freedom even to protect people from themselves. As do I, and I said as much (I'm not a capital-L Libertarian, I meant it as an adjective). I argued this exceeded reasonable bounds. I'm surprised to learn it's that unpopular, but I am comfortable arguing an unpopular position.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> Even in the US, women — who bear the lion’s share of the cost of prostitution — oppose legalizing by a large margin That's not a surprise. Amazon bears the cost of Wal-mart's operations and would probably like to outlaw Wal-mart too.
- rayiner 3y ago
  I think a fairer analogy is worker protection laws. Workers understand how other workers can be coerced into accepting unsafe working conditions and think it’s okay to limit individual freedom to take that pressure off the table for all.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago

vorpalhex 3y ago

Well I quoted a Harvard review of a Swedish study, and yours is an Iranian study that seems to have no peer review. Also your metastudy uh, agrees with mine: > The last critics would be that full decriminalization has not resulted in reduced trafficking victimization, but led to growth trafficking inflows > Lastly, I'm just more inclined to listen to sex workers and trafficking victims about what they would help than to look at descriptive statistics. Have you.. talked to any trafficking victims? Any sex workers? And, why do you think a sex worker has the ability to write prescriptive legal policy? Drug addicts would like drugs to be legal, oil barons would like there to be no natural protection laws, prostitutes would like prostitution to be legal. And what do you think has changed about sex trafficking and prostitution in 11 years? > Fourth, once you've prohibited something, it's next to impossible to intervene to make that market safer. Right because you squash the market. Decriminalization of drugs failed because the count of addicts soared and so did ODs. You have less sex trafficking when it is riskier to engage in any prostitution. This isn't rocket science. Arguing your trafficking victims should get better health care is worse than just having meaningfully less trafficking victims.

maxbond 3y ago
> [Y]ours is an Iranian study that seems to have no peer review. Fair enough. (I intend to find a good & recent survey paper still but chores have come up, so it'll have to wait a few hours.) > Have you.. talked to any trafficking victims? Any sex workers? Not personally no, I only know what I've learned of their positions through articles I've read and documentaries I've seen. Why, have you? > Drug addicts would like drugs to be legal, oil barons would like there to be no natural protection laws, prostitutes would like prostitution to be legal. Why are you equating prostitutes with oil barons of all things? This seems like a list of people whom are often viewed poorly, and I can only infer the rhetorical function here is to tar prostitutes through association. Which makes me doubt the sincerity of your concern. > And what do you think has changed about sex trafficking and prostitution in 11 years? I'm sure the state of those things as they relate to the internet has shifted, but not importantly what I was suggesting was the understanding of this field of research has probably changed dramatically in 11 years. > Right because you squash the market. What market has ever been squashed by prohibition? Alcohol wasn't. Drugs haven't been. Prostitution hasn't been. > Arguing your trafficking victims should get better health care is worse than just having meaningfully less trafficking victims. There won't be fewer trafficking victims, or other sex workers who are victims of abuse, we'll just have disclaimed responsibility for them by declaring that it's illegal and excluding them from polite society. The abuse we'll continue, and the comfortable can pretend it doesn't exist because it's been brushed under the rug. Additionally, it absolutely does matter if we can provide services. For the example of drug use, the appropriate healthcare (eg Narcan, needle exchanges, treatment for addiction) can make a night and day difference for survival. Sex workers would be safer if they weren't stigmatized and so more likely to be believed if they ask for help, if they were able to operate in the open with hired security and vetting processes, etc.

themitigating 3y ago

Thirdly, you're linking to a 2014 article about a 2012 study, which is ancient as far as an academic paper goes Has there been some new release of prostitution, like a 2.0 where they updated the security to prevent abuse? Stupid joke but nothing has really changed in that realm of things where a study that isn't that old would be invalid.

maxbond 3y ago
> Has there been some new release of prostitution, like a 2.0 where they updated the security to prevent abuse? This is the wrong question. A better one is, "has the way prostitution and sex trafficking relate to the internet changed?", but the correct one is "does a 2012 article reflect the current understanding in this field of research?"
- themitigating 3y ago
  2012 isn't really pre internet though, right?