2.

Thbt legalize sex work in order to

make conntrol more feasible and
effective to combat HIV/AIDS
Prohibition Doesn't Work.
YES. Banning prostitution doesnt stop people from wanting sex, and plenty of people are still willing to pay
for it. This means that there is significant demand for prostitutes, even in places where AIDS is prevalent. In
fact, people with HIV and AIDS and Africa are less likely to be able to have sex in a regular setting, so are more
likely to turn to prostitutes. In addition, countries with high rates of AIDS and HIV are most often poor
countries with high unemployment and very low GDP [[http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/28/069.html]],
meaning there are a lot of women in desperate situations who need money, usually so desperate that obeying the
law (especially in places where law enforcement is often corrupt and under-funded) doesnt matter very much
compared to making a living. These two factors mean that prostitution is going to happen whether it is
nominally illegal or not. Evidence of this can be seen in the estimated 40,000 prostitutes who entered South
Africa for the Soccer World Cup [[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2010/0512/Prostitutes-flock-toSouth-Africa-ahead-of-World-Cup-2010]].
All prohibition actually does is prevent any effective regulation. If prostitution is legalised, Governments can
impose regulations such as compulsory use of condoms (which could also be provided by Government), regular
blood testing to see if prostitutes have HIV, and general enforcement of safe sex practices. If prostitution is
illegal, then there must be a denial of the existence of any brothels or prostitutes, as if they exist and are illegal
it becomes the Government's responsibility to get rid of them rather than ensure they are being safe.
Having these sorts of regulations also creates a type of self-regulation. The brothels and prostitutes that are
being safe will have a direct incentive to report ones that aren't, as this removes competition and will help build
their reputation as a safe option. If prostitution is illegal, then no-one will report anything.
NO. It is contradictory for prop to say on one hand, "especially in places where law enforcement is often corrupt
and under-funded" and simultaneously say that all the regulations they are putting in place will indeed work. If
it is true you cannot stop people from being prostitutes now, whatever their HIV status, how will you stop those
that refuse to comply with your regulations. If they are as poor and desperate as they say even the ones with
HIV will continue to want to work.
Prop correctly points out that, "countries with high rates of AIDS and HIV are most often poor countries with
high unemployment and very low GDP." The reason that they have such high rates of infection is not that some
how banning prostitution leads to higher HIV rates. If this where true, then all countries which ban prostitution
eg Sweden, Russia[1]) should have significantly higher prevalence rates than those who do as they propose eg.
Cte d'Ivoire & Senegal[1]. This is not the case.[2] What causes such high rates of infection is ignorance or miseducation about HIV and the way it is transmitted. This is more pervasive in countries with poor education
systems & high levels of illiteracy. Many people believe ridiculous things about HIV[3][4][5]. Like the belief
that the withdrawal method is effective in preventing HIV infection. Education is the only way to solve this, not
legitimizing a a crime which brutalizes women.
It is logical to believe that the instinct of self preservation (the one that drove her to prostitution over starving in
the first place) will lead to prostitutes using condoms. Many currently do. Those who do not are ignorant of the
dangers and how to protect themselves. This is what needs to change.

Everyone has AIDS. AIDS, AIDS, AIDS.

YES. As weve mentioned in our previous point, prostitution will take place whether it is legal or not. We
believe prostitution should be legal. By regulating brothels and the conditions for prostitution through regular
health checks, condoms et cetera, we can make sure prostitutes are safe from HIV.
In places where prostitution is illegal, it is merely driven underground; controlled by cartels and gangs. In this
situation prostitutes live under no rights[[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/515.full]] Moreover they
tend to be associated with drugs, they are hooked by dealers who force them into prostitution to fund thri habit,
through multiple sexual partners and needle sharing there is significant risks of HIV.
[[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_35/ai_53390350/]].

If a sex worker contracts AIDS, a man or woman client using them will be at risk of contracting the virus, they
then run the risk of not knowing that they have it, infecting other sexual partners and the cycle continues. Also
let us not forget future children who contract the disease while in the uterus.
So it is in countries where prostitution is illegal where we cant keep sex workers safe from AIDS. In these
countries prostitutes arent even allowed to be prostitutes. They tend to enter the profession because they have
no other way of earning money or they may be forced to do it.
On the other hand, if prostitution is legal and regulations are put in place, sex workers will be safer from STIs
and HIV/AIDS. Regular health checks will pick up any possible infections and there will be laws to protect the
well-being of sex workers. Whats more, these laws will not only protect sex workers, but their clients too.
Making prostitution legal will improve the work conditions of people who have to go into prostitution for one
reason or another and will protect society from a further spreading of HIV/AIDS. This is a signifcant benefit to
greater society and individual workers and cl
NO. Prop seem to believe that they have just invented "high class escorts", which is essentially what their
proposal seeks to do. In every country in the world one can always access disease free prostitutes who conduct
their business in a safe environment, and who are not abused by their employers. You just have to pay a lot for
these prostitutes, the same as props mechanism, if a brothel is gang run and does not wish to comply to props
expensive requirements, then they will employ the HIV+ prostitutes who are not protected by props model. The
people in status quo who visit the types of brothels prop is targeting, will not be able to afford the disease free
prostitutes (otherwise they would do so in status quo) so they will still go to the HIV+ prostitutes. And there
will probably be more prostitutes in the community because prop has declared the business legitimate, so poor
women who were deterred from prostitution by the law now consider it an option, and seeing as these are
countries where law enforcement is poor, this means more women being exposed to STD's. Why? Well, let's
consider that South Africa has the largest antiretroviral therapy programme in the world (1), the government
distributes free condoms at public toilets and clinics/hospitals across the nation. Yet there is still a problem with
people having unprotected sex, even with prostitutes, the reason is not a lack of condoms, it's a reluctance to use
them. Hence, prop does not fix the problem, but rather exacerbates it, under status quo cultural programming
makes people feel as if sex with a condom is unnatural, so people will pay more to have intercourse without a
condom. If this is already happening under status quo, it will only worsen once you create more prostitutes with
your endorsement of prostitution, and they will still have sex without condoms because they are still as
desperate for money, particularly those who are already HIV+.

Changing Social Stigma and flow on benefits.

YES. The social stigma towards AIDS means noone wants it, indeed Ban Ki Moon suggests that stigma is the
reason sex workers are reluctant to go and seek treatment [[http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-stigma.htm]]
This negative stigma needs to change to battle AIDS in the sex industry. Strategies like in Brazil and Kenya
introduced campaigns to reduce stigma and help sex workers feel good about their jobs to and to take care of
their sexual health, leading to positive benefits for AIDS checks and condom use; Thailands 100% condom
strategy led to a sharp decrease in HIV cases within the industry. [[http://www.avert.org/sex-workers.htm]]
Our model is similar and will benefit all stakeholders
There are many benefits to why we should adopt our policy and how changing the social stigma of AIDS will
effectively remove it from the legalised sex-industry.
Government:
Identifying AIDS victims early, through compulsory testing, this means quick reaction to the diagnoses, offering
treatment options swiftly and having the worker removed from the position which would lead to the infection of
more people.
Business:
A Business is not going to want to hire a worker who will contract HIV to their customers, this is just bad
business. A business needs to compete in a market and they need to supply a service of high quality. This
doesnt work if your company is branded as selling unsafe products which kill customers.
Customers:
They get the benefit of paying for a service which they want and are ready to pay for. With a much lower
chance of contracting a nasty STD and get all the pleasure they can pay for.

Sex-Workers: Not having AIDS, being able to be getting treatment swiftly and not feeling the social pressure to
not reveal profession to public.
Many Benefits, no harms, tried tested and successful, this policy is beneficial to all stakeholders.
NO. Again prop contradicts themselves. They say that there is a very strong social stigma against HIV & HIV
patients (which we agree happens, and in many cases sufferers are rejected by their families and have to fend
for themselves). This stigma leads to the prostitutes not wanting to be tested and seek treatment in SQ (status
quo) in fear that their status will become public. Then they turn around and tell us that these same prostitutes in
these stigmatic societies will accept govt mandated health checks? Many prostitutes will not accept this and
continue to operate underground.
To add insult to their self inflicted injury they cite the example of Kenya where they say, "Kenya introduced
campaigns to reduce stigma and help sex workers feel good about their jobs to and to take care of their sexual
health, leading to positive benefits for AIDS checks and condom use." They neglect that prostitution is totally
illegal in Kenya[1] and this "campaign" did not even attempt to legalize it but rather to change societal
misconceptions about HIV which is our counter model and they agree has been effective in helping solve the
problem cited in the motion.

Prostitutes will be safer under legalisation

YES. As we have shown, prostitution will always exist whether it is legal or not. Therefore, we need to look at
whether prostitutes will be safer with legalisation. They most definitely will be.
It is important that prostitutes and safe and free from harm. There are many reasons why women go into
prostitution. Often it is due to financial desperation and/or children commitments. These women are in a very
vulnerable position and it is very important that we ensure they are as safe and healthy as can be. Prostitutes are
subject to gangs, violence, drugs and rape. Prostitutes are often forced to take drugs by the gangs who employ
(or own) them so as to make them addicted. This means they have no way to escape.
[[http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1772e.htm]] There is also no regulation, which means prostitutes are subject to
unprotected sex and rape from countless people, which means they invariably become infected with AIDS and
other sexually transmitted diseases[[http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/pubs/FS/revsexworkers.php]].
When the market is legalised, it is no longer controlled by gangs. This is because legal businesses operate the
industry instead. This is better for prostitutes as they no longer suffer the horrific abuses that they face under a
system of illegal prostitution. This is because legal businesses face regulation. They are required by law to
ensure that contraception is used by their employees. They are also required to ensure that their employees are
healthy by directing them to appropriate medical treatment when it is necessary.
When legal its easier to monitor. This is because the government knows how many prostitutes there are, where
they are located, and what issues are affecting the industry. This is beneficial as the government can better plan
appropriate health and social policies.
Prostitutes are legitimate stakeholders that need protection. Under our model, we better protect prostitutes. They
are safer, they are healthier, and they are happier
NO. We agree with prop that women often turn to prostitution due to financial desperation and/or children
commitments. These incentives will still exist even if they are caught to be infected and banned from practicing.
As is the case now, they will have no choice but to break the law and continue prostituting. Because the
"legitimate" brothels will be subject to regulation and taxes - which means significantly higher costs - illicit
brothels can under price then in order to compete. This will be very effective in countries with low incomes. A
parallel example is how tobacco tax spurs and illicit market for duty free cigarettes[1]. This puts pressure on
non-infected prostitutes to relieve themselves of the burden of regulation and go underground so they can
continue making money.
Effectively regulation is a partial ban and will always result in an illicit market. Example: prescription drugs are
legal and regulated (need for prescription) yet we still have an illicit market for prescription pain killers. The
black market and it's harms are not mutually exclusive to either side in this debate unless prop wants absolute
legalization with zero restrictions.

The Market solves all:

YES. Simple concept, allowing competition fixes the gang/abuse problem for two reasons. One, there are
Government regulations, they have to be above board, if they are then even if gangs are running brothels they
are doing nothing illegal. Two, there will be competition, a brothel will want to sell a quality service, generally
meaning drug/bruise and AIDS free, these are all things good.
Basically with the legal market sex workers will need to compete within the rules set by the Government, this
means that they will need to be STD free, there will be protection of their rights as people, the prices wont be
exorbitant because of competition, the price can only be as high a a consumer is willing to pay so the businesses
can reach maximum profit, again this demand will be increased by lack of Government sanctions against the
business for being abusive. They will not employ people with AIDS or keep them working because this is not
good for customers.
The social stigma of AIDS means no one wants it so no one will sell it.
[[http://www.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/SupDemand.html]] Businesses, because of this stigma are also likely to
develop their own restrictions on workers, they are going to want AIDS in their industry less than the
Government because of the profit they will lose.
Businesses will dob in unregistered workers because they are not going to want people having some of their
market share.
The demand for sex workers is great, this is undisputed. Therefore because AIDS is a problem it better that the
Govt can regulate and watch its transgression rather than ignore it. It us better to set the private sector against
the virus because frankly it is currently out of control and if people are going to loose profit over it this is sadly
a greater incentive to get rid of it.
NO. Prop is ignoring that there is a demand for having sex without condoms due to ignorance about the
dangers. If they prohibit this a black market for it will develop and all the harms they point out for us apply to
them. Secondly, they premise this argument on the claim that the government has the capacity to enforce all
these new regulations. If the government does have such power then our paradigm of prohibition will work.
What they have failed to address is what would happen is their regulations did not work. Their entire case is
based on a best case scenario of perfect regulation which is unlikely in these poor nations. Also these
regulations (like having condoms regular testing) are in the best interests of the prostitutes and brothels even
with prohibition. They have not yet engaged with the idea that demand for unsafe sex will still exist.

Legalisation Can Be A Part of a Wider Education Program

YES. The problem with the opposition proposal is that it is not mutually exclusive to legalising prostitution. It is
perfectly possible for a Government to provide an education program and legalise prostitution at the same time,
in fact that is what is done in places like New Zealand where prostitution is legal and we provide sex education
in schools.
In fact, legalising prostitution actually helps a wider education program. If the opp wants people to be properly
educated about AIDS, then they should not want to exclude and stigmatise sex workers. If you continue to ban
prostitution, then it actually entrenches the idea that prostitutes are somehow lesser people whose welfare we
shouldn't care about when it comes to HIV. As it is, countries that ban prostitution make no effort to protect
prostitutes at all.
To have a free and open discussion, it is necessary to allow a free discussion about prostitution, which can only
happen if it is legal. If it is not, it is much more difficult to acquire information about prostitutes and about the
conditions in which they work, because they are less willing to come forward and admit to what they are doing.
The opp has conceded that there is a problem of people having unsafe sex with prostitutes, and yet it seems like
the only group of people they want to exclude from their education program are the prostitutes themselves. If
we can identify who the prostitutes are, then we can educate them. If prostitution is illegal and forced
underground, we can't provide them with info. In addition, we can't provide information with people who use
prostitutes, both because they won't admit to committing an illegal act and because banning prostitution
increases the stigma on these people. The prop has missed the point entirely when they say we will be unable to
enforce regulation, because it will be in the interests of the prostitutes and brothels to abide by regulations and
report those who don't.

Proposition Summary
At the beginning of this debate we showed that prostitution (and demand for unsafe sex) will still exist whether
it is illegal or not, the question is whether or not making it legal will allow for better protection of prostitutes

and better help to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. The opp has never disputed that there will be prostitution
either way, so it was up to them to show harms of legalising prostitution, which they never did.
3 questions: 1) What best allows for the Government to protect people and regulate? 2) Will regulations be
effective? 3) Are there any real harms to legalising prostitution?
On the first point, we showed you that if prostitution is illegal it is an underground affair, unsafe and controlled
by gangs. It creates a stigma around the desperate women in prostitution, causing people to care about them
even less, and stops anyone involved in the industry seeking any protection or help. The opp tried to say that we
were contradicting ourselves, missing the point entirely: the way to lift the stigma is to legalise, then prostitutes
will come forward. Stigma around prostitution doesn't just exist inherently, it is promoted by banning it. The
opp tried to propose a counter-model providing education about HIV, however this model is not mutually
exclusive and as we showed you, will actually work better if prostitution is legalised. It is contradictory to not
allow education for prostitutes.
On the second point, the opposition tried to say that illegal, unsafe and unregistered prostitution would still
exist. We had three responses: 1) Because it is in the interests of legal prostitutes and brothels to report illegal
practice, the industry will self-regulate. 2) It is actually no more expensive to provide the legal services, because
most of the expenses will fall on the Government, which is providing the condoms etc. 3) Even if some illegal
practice still exists, if there is any increase in safe practice and the use of safe methods, then that is a good thing.
Finally, the opp tried to say an increase in prostitution would be bad. Firstly we told you that as long as the
prostitution involves safe methods, that would be fine, and then that essentially means that the other team thinks
people having sex is a bad thing. It is not a bad thing if people are having more sex with prostitutes, if it is safe.
They then tried to say we would be placing more people in danger. They never showed how this would happen
under our model, which insists upon safe practices. We are certainly not forcing any women into prostitution,
who are not currently doing it. The opp's final point was to say that we would be sending a message that this is a
legitimate way to make a living. Unfortunately they seemed to have missed posting some of the point, but
basically we do think that prostitution is a legitimate way to make a living. It is the poor treatment and health
risks that prostitutes face that is illegitimate. Our model helps with this.

Legalizing prostitution would reduce HIV/AIDS.

Legalizing prostitution would reduce HIV/AIDS.The government could require health checks for
prostitutes so they would not spread the disease to their various clients.In turn they would not spread the
disease to their various partners so in the end the rate of HIV/AIDS would be reduced making the
country a better place to live.

Evidence points to yes

The workers would be tested periodically. As simple as that. In Nevada, women who test positive for
AIDS are literally not allowed to work at all. If they do, there are harsh legal implications (both for the
brothel owner adn the worker). Illegal prostitutes (whether in brothels or on the streets) do not have to
get tested and are not required to wear a condom

Legaizing means regulating, regulating means health codes.

HIV/AIDS is spread by reckless sexual practice. This aspect of transmission of disease is able to be
controlled with establishments that can be held accountable for their quality of service. The clients, the
call girls, and the girls handlers, all share the responsibility of health and safety. Examples of this can
presently be seen in Amsterdam with window girls, and Nevada at the Bunny Ranch. Pornographic
cinema also share strict regulation and professional level safety concerns.
Cleanliness, STD screening, drug testing, prophylactic use, visual genital inspection, pre and post
pleasure hygiene, regular doctor checkups, are all measures that can be taken to prevent the spread of
disease in these legal pleasure houses. This goes for the working girls and the clients themselves.
Insuring the girls are clean creates rapport and quality in service, but clients have to be held to the same
level of cleanliness. Legalization is the way to hold clients to a new light. Instead of stigmas of shame,
and clients abusing the girls they visit, regulations make these service transactions respectable and
therefore safer.

Definitely.
It gives prostitutes legal backing to insist clients use condoms, or be subjected to prior examination for
STDs if they don't want to use condoms. In addition, prostitutes would be able to go to clinics to get
themselves checked out for STDs.
That being said, while I support the right of willing prostitutes to ply their trade, I definitely don't
support abusive and controlling pimps, and other people who force women/girls/boys/men into sexual
slavery and prostitution. I find adultery/infidelity and cheating absolutely vile, but only the customer is
to blame.
There is no regulation or enforcement of safe practices in the sex industry. We propose that all nations
with AIDS concerns legalise the sex industry and introduce regulations to make sure that sex workers
use safe practices, provide a registration system for sex workers and provide condoms for registered
establishments, we further propose that these states look at ways to reduce the social stigma around this
work as a way to battle the spread of HIV/AIDS

Proposal will exacerbate the HIV problem

YES. The only NEW workers in the industry under our model will be safe ones, because our model only
allows regulated workers. Even if all the old workers remained unsafe, these new workers would attract
some people to use them, meaning more safe and less unsafe sex, so this point actually falls to our side.
Opp admits that prohibition does not work, this reinforces why it should be legal, to keep track of these
sex workers. Saying that the Govt has a harder job detecting legal sex workers is ridiculous, it is much
harder to find ones who are undeclared and hidden. It is silly to suppose a gang would provide
underground brothels, which would be much harder to run and much more expensive when there is a
legal profitable option, considering most of the expenses such as condoms will be paid for by the
Government. If the Government is providing free health checks, condoms and education programs then
why wouldn't a business accept them? It is a benefit with no cost.
Stating that brothels can avoid penalties under the status quo just reinforces how fruitless it is to ban the
sex industry.
The Opp has failed to address the reasoning we put forward over how competition would mean that
there is a business and Government agenda to keep AIDS carriers out of the industry, businesses are
incentivised to dob in unregistered sex workers to the Government to be tested.

They have not addressed the rights of the sex-worker, how they are not the problem and need support, if
as the OPP suggests there is going to be this large black market under the status quo.
We proposed that because prohibition does not work, because their is no support for the worker and
because their is an AIDS problem in the industry that we should fix this under our model. Our benefits
have not been attacked, they have been ignored, this does not make them go away. There are clear
benefits to the worker/government and consumer there are no harms except for under the status quo as
the opp states there are.
NO. Despite the prohibition of prostitution many people still end up being sex workers. However, many
more are deterred by the penalties imposed by the government as a result of its illegality. As a result of
the proposal, many people would enter into the sex industry. Also many more people would start using
sex workers. This larger pool of sex workers and consumers will make the spread of HIV & other STDs
more likely.
Secondly, legalization makes detection of illegal sex workers harder. These gangs that prop says
currently run prostitution can have a few legal workers in order to window dress their business with
legitimacy while having other illegal workers. The incentive for this is that regulations on the legal
workers make them less profitable but also offers an opportunity for them to cloak themselves with
legitimacy. Hence, brothels can avoid the penalties under status quo, and at same time provide
unregulated/unsafe services to the less informed members of society. As it is these countries are facing
difficulties in terms of regulations. Not directly engaging with the lack sex education will incentivize
brothels to continue running legally with unsafe sex workers as there is a demand for such services. The
financial incentive of having unregulated or partially regulated brothels only makes it worse.

Costs of the proposal outweigh the benefits

YES. Making a job legal and telling people not to give other people AIDS is hardly a 'stringent criteria.
Through this debate the Opp has agreed with us on several points we made. They agreed that there was
high demand for prostitutes which currently make a black market; we showed how this would be
beneficial when legalised. They agreed that sex workers are a cause of the spread of AIDS, they agreed
that abuse was a problem, we showed how under our model these harms would deminish. They have
agreed that using condoms and practising safe sex is for the best, under our model this would become
the new status quo. They even agreed that there wil be recourse for abused workers. We have proposed a
model which makes a better life for sex-workers, customers and society as a whole.
The Opp asserts that the costs will outweigh the benefits. What costs are they specifically targeting?
Their entire case started by saying we needed more education, we proved this as not mutually exclusive
and showed how education would be a flow on effect of our model.
The Opp then attacked our model on the harms it will cause, the only harms being stated by the Opp are
that more people will become sex workers and this increases the danger.
These harms ignore our substantive arguments on how our model wants to see sex workers accepted, we
see this as a legitimate job and business, we explained how our model would increase the safety of the
workers by making their job stigma free and encouraging quality service through legislation and
competition, this hasnt been addressed. We also discussed how the customers would be safe, because
they would be paying for such a quality (and AIDS free) service. Workers with AIDS would be able to
be found and treated by the Government as businesses would feel obliged to dob them in.
The Opp has failed to show any harms at all, clearly this does not outweigh the benefits.
NO. Prop says that once prostitution operates in a legal framework there will be recourse for sex
workers who are abused. This may be true but we have to remember that assuming the stringent
regulations they say they will impose will work, an illicit market will still exist. More importantly
though this recourse comes at the cost of having more people being exposed to the dangers of
prostitution to begin with. Because the govt would have removed deterrence to prostitution many people
would now view it as a viable option. The higher probability of making reports comes at the cost of
having more people in danger in the first place. It is wrong for the govt to take actions that intentionally
place people in danger.

Detrimental to womens rights

YES. Why isnt prostitution a legitimate way to earn a living? It is one of the oldest and most
widespread professions in the world. People do practise this en mass voluntarily, under our model it
would simply allow current workers to do this without the social stigma meaning that gangs who do run
the show and the social and legal pressure which means sex workers do not to go and get checkups on
their sexual health because of the social and legislative deterrent would disappear.
I can only assume from this points title that the Opp is attempting to label prostitution as a strike against

women.
Well how is it that prostitution breaks womens rights but when a Government takes a moral high
ground and refuses to give aid and support to a woman who works as a prostitute who has a severe risk
of contracting a deadly virus and is likely to undergo significant abuse in an underground black market
run by criminals is not anti-women?
How is it that our model is detrimental to womens rights when what we propose is to allow sex workers
to be liberated from Governmental and societal discrimination?
Under the status quo where prostitution is illegal there is no support, women find themselves trapped in
a cycle where they need to do this job to earn a living while at the same time cannot complain if they are
taken advantage of by gangs, cartels or even their customers because to do so would be admitting to
being guilty of a crime.
This is not pro women, this is not moral or right, we propose that this is a status quo which cannot be
allowed to continue abusing the women who practise the profession of sex.
NO. When the govt legalizes prostitution and is actively involved in it's operation through regulation. It
sends the message that this is a legitimate way to earn a living. This combined with the poverty in these
countries can lead to many poor families pressuring (which is harder to detect and not really illegal than

Summary
The first basic claim made by prop was that the prostitution industry is only abusive because of its
illegality; the abuses highlighted were drugs, assault, and STIs. But in order to demonstrate that their
proposal is effective, they would need to show that there would be no more people desperate enough to
subject themselves to atrocious conditions, there would be no more demand for these prostitutes, or that
this new law enforcement would somehow be more effective than current law enforcement which they
spent their entire first argument discrediting. But prop failed to do that, all they did was give a list of
requirements legal brothels must abide by with no explanation as to how they would enforce them. Their
self-regulation model does not work either because if these brothels are gang run as prop asserts, then
they also told us that these gangs are involved in other illegal businesses as well, so even if one gang
knew of another that wasnt following the regulations, they would not report for fear of being reported
as well for something else they did was illegal. So if regulation cannot work, then are prop reducing the
drugs violence and STIs at least? NO! The assumption made on STIs was that prostitutes either do not
have access to or are ignorant about facilities that could help them preserve their health. On ignorance
we explained how THAT is the major problem, and that status quo is dealing with it, Prop needed to
show how they are going to educate people better than now which they failed to do. As for the
accessibility, we explained how South Africa (which seemed to be their prominent example) is
extremely advanced in dealing with HIV; they have education programs, free ARVs, free condom
dispensers at convenient locations, so obviously if a prostitute wanted a condom they could get one. If
they need to get tested (which the government already encourages) they can do so for free, so seeing as
they cannot enforce their regulations and all the precautions they are taking already exist in status quo, it
is clear that the proposal will have none of its alleged benefits

No it wouldn't
Even if prostitution got legalized people would still feel the need to do it underground or without the
legal process going on making it just as easy to continue to spread diseases such as HIV/AIDS. I think
people in the company would still spread it as well as not everyone shows signs

This Wouldn't Reduce HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS is passed through bodily fluids, blood, open wounds and the like. Legalizing prostitution
would more than likely make some people more likely to utilize the service, so that would lead to an
increase in sex, to a degree. Since the rate of encounters go up, I would say the chances of contracting an
STD, or namely HIV is probably more likely, than less likely

Legalizing Prostitution Spreads Disease

Legalizing prostitution only spreads diseases even more than before! It puts young women at risk for
pregnancy and if they have even more unprotected sex then HIV/AIDS will only get worse. Legalizing
prostitution is not an option in the United States as the blackmarket sex trade will get even worse than it
already is now.

NO!
Within 4-6 weeks an HIV/AIDS tests will come back negative. Until the HIV/AIDS test comes back

positive the infected will continue to spread. With the continuous spreading the demand for a cure will
increase; however, a cure has not been found yet. How will we eliminate HIV/AIDS if it becomes a
world wide epidemic?

I don't think so.

To me it doesn't seem like that would affect the spread of HIV and AIDS at all. There would be
guidelines and rules but there would still be people out doing it illegally to escape those rules. Plus who
wants to go to a legal prostitute? Most of the people who go to prostitutes are in relationships and they
would be more likely to get caught if they went to a legal institution. This question is kind of irrelevant
anyway though. Prostitution will never be legalized. It is just wrong

OF COURSE NOT.
If prostitution was legalised then it would encourage more people to do it. If more people are having sex
than the risk of HIV/AIDS is increased. Also, what happens if teenagers start doing it?
Sekilas mungkin memang kebijakan lokalisasi tempat protistusi sebagai jalan keluar atas permasalahan
sosial ini, karena dengan adanya lokalisasi maka terpusatlah semua kegiatan protistusi di satu titik atau
di satu tempat sehingga Pemerintah dapat mengontrol dengan baik dan juga dapat melakukan
pengawasan terhadap kegiatan tersebut. Tapi apakah ini suatu solusi ??
Jika melihat lebih kedalam lagi, permasalahan protistuti ini tidak semudah yang di ucapkan Ahok.
Apalagi dengan wacananya untuk melegalisasi dan memberikan sertifkat untuk para PSK tersebut
dengan melokalisasinya. Seharusnya pemda dalam hal ini Ahok selaku Gubernur untuk mencari solusi
lain daripada sekedar melegalkan protistusi ini. Permasalahan protistusi ini harus di lihat dari hulu
hingga hilir nya agar bisa melihat lebih dalam permasalahan ini, bagaimana para psk bisa masuk ke
dalam dunia ini dan juga bagaimana bisnis ini dijalankan. Dahulu mungkin para psk ini terjun dalam
dunia protistusi karena faktor ekonomi tapi faktor tersebut bukan satu-satunya ada banyak faktor bisa
human trafficking dll, bahkan saat ini banyak psk yang terjun ke dunia ini karena faktor life style atau
gaya hidup. Life style yang berkembang saat ini yang mengagungkan materi dan penampilan, memaksa
para psk untuk mengikutinya dengan melakukan jalan pintas dengan cara menjual diri mereka. Life style
ini banyak di pengaruhi oleh perkembangan zaman, arus informasi yang begitu cepat, tayangantayangan di televisi yang mempertontonkan sikap hedonisme dan juga perubahan sikap dan perilaku
masyarakat yang egoistik dan tidak memperdulikan lingkungan sekitar. Dan juga bisnis protistusi ini
yang mempunyai omset yang sangat menggiurkan dan juga becking dari aparat serta pejabat dalam
melindungi bisnis ini dan juga jaringan internasional dari bisnis ini. Ini seharusnya yang di carikan
solusinya oleh Pemda dan juga peran serta dari masyarakat karena ini menyangkut kesadaran dan
kepedulian dari masyarakat akan lingkungan sekitarnya.
Belum lagi wacana Pemda untuk memberikan sertifikat kepada PSK seperti di Negara lain. Mungkin ini
wacana yang sangat menggelikan, bagaimana bisa dilakukan sertifikasi untuk psk jika banyak bidang
profesi lain dan malah lebih penting untuk sertifikasi malah tidak di lakukan. Gubernur bilang ini
mengikuti cara Negara lain, mengapa tidak mengikuti hal-hal lain daripada mengikuti hal semacam ini.
Banyak hal-hal positif dari Negara lain yang patut di contoh dan di aplikasikan disini tapi bukan
sertifikasi psk ini yang harus di contoh, disitu kadang saya merasa sedih.
Begitu kompleksnya permasalahan ini maka solusinya bukan dengan melegalisasi serta sertifikasi PSK
dan dengan melokasisasikannya. Tapi dengan edukasi, peningkatan kesejahteraan dan ketegasan para
penegak hokum serta yang lebih penting lagi adalah pemahaman agama kepada masyarakat.
Jadi legalisasi dan sertifikasi PSK adalah kemunduran moral maka dari itu harus dilawan
Prostitusi adalah perbuatan yang melanggar hukum, jadi harus ditindak sesuai dengan hukum yang
berlaku, ujarnya.
Dalam pasal 296 KUHP, kata dia, jelas disebutkan adanya sanksi bagi siapa saja yang dengan sengaja
menyebabkan atau memudahkan perbuatan cabul oleh orang lain dengan orang lain, serta
menjadikannya sebagai pencarian atau kebiasaan.
Menurut lembaga pejuang hak-hak perempuan Women's Justice Center, kebijakan ini
membuat prostitusi di Swedia, khususnya di ibukota Stockholm berkurang hingga dua
pertiga dalam waktu hanya lima tahun. Jumlah pria hidung belang yang menyewa jasa
PSK berkurang hingga 80 persen.Pengguna jasa pekerja seks melakukan tindak kriminal,
dan penjaja seks bukan tindakan kriminal. Tidak berhenti sampai di situ. UU ini juga
mengatur soal bantuan dana sosial untuk membantu para pekerja seks yang ingin
berhenti menjajakan tubuhnya. Selain itu, tersedia juga dana bagi sosialisasi dan
pendidikan bagi masyarakat soal undang-undang ini.

Sebuah studi yang dilakukan University of London di Inggris pada 2013 menunjukkan
bahwa cara kriminalisasi pengguna jasa PSK yang diterapkan Swedia lebih manjur
mengurangi penyakit masyarakat ketimbang melegalisasi prostitusi seperti yang dilakukan
Australia, Belanda dan Irlandia.
ebuah studi yang dilakukan University of London di Inggris pada 2013 menunjukkan
bahwa cara kriminalisasi pengguna jasa PSK yang diterapkan Swedia lebih manjur
mengurangi penyakit masyarakat ketimbang melegalisasi prostitusi seperti yang dilakukan
Australia, Belanda dan Irlandia.
Dalam studi tersebut, legalisasi prostitusi malah justru menyuburkan praktik ini dan
memicu berbagai masalah baru.
Ambil contoh negara bagian Victoria di Australia yang melegakan rumah bordil. Hukum ini
memicu semakin banyaknya rumah bordil di Victoria sehingga tidak bisa lagi dikendalikan.
Berbagai masalah baru muncul, seperti kejahatan terorganisir, korupsi dan berbagai
tindak kriminal lainnya.
Survei dalam studi juga menunjukkan bahwa legalisasi prostitusi juga membuat para
pekerja seks merasa tidak aman dan dipaksa melakukan pekerjaan ini.
Sebanyak 79 persen PSK di Belanda mengaku ingin meninggalkan pekerjaan ini. Namun
program rehabilitasi yang dijanjikan Belanda terbukti tidak terealisasi. Sementara di
Swedia, 60 persen PSK yang bertaubat telah difasilitasi melalui program yang didanai
pemerintah dan berhasil mengeluarkan mereka dari bisnis hitam tersebut.
Namun Women's Justice Center menggarisbawahi bahwa tidak semua negara yang
menerapkan peraturan serupa bisa sesukses Swedia.
"Agar para penjaja seks bisa diposisikan sebagai korban kekerasan pria, maka pemerintah
harus lebih dulu mengubah sudut pandang prostitusi dari sudut pandang pria ke sudut
pandang wanita," ujar lembaga pelindung wanita dari Amerika Latin ini. (den)