legalise and place tax on it

It will happen anyway. We might as well be able to regulate it and protect prostitutes from the violence they face, as well as from STIs, particularly HIV.

Legalise, place taxes, and do manditory doctors check ups.

Where in the western world is prostitution illegal? I'm going to make a stab at the States (or at least some of them), but I don't know for sure

vegas i bet

Most of the US, it is illegal. In Nevada, it is only legal in a few counties and only in brothels licensed as such (street walking is illegal everywhere in the US). It is even illegal in Las Vegas and in Clark County (home of Vegas). There are only 8 counties in Nevada where it is legal and brothels exist.

Legalise it. Than regulate it and tax it out of business.

If you tax it out of business though, then you'll just have prostitutes working under the table, so to speak, and we end up at square one again. You need to tax it so that you can regulate it, but not so much that the benefits of being an unregistered or unlicensed or unofficial prostitute outweigh the benefits provided by taxation, regulation and oversight.

Warsprite, taxing it out of business it will totally defeat the point of legalising it.

My own view is simply that it is not the business of the government to get involved provided that there is no deception about STIs and no violence.

Services are already taxable in many places (many states tax dine-in, but not carry-out at restaraunts for instance) so it isn't unreasonable to consider it a "dine in" service (pun intended).

Legalise it, but only, *only* if you can ensure that the women (and men!) are a) are above the age of consent, b) doing it voluntarily, c) working independently (i.e. not being run by a pimp) and, last but not least, d) That they and the location they "work" in are clean and 100% disease (and camera) free. If you can ensure all that, then, by all means, legalise, regulate and tax it.

SpeakerToAliens, a pimp is probably a very good idea to prevent violence against the prostitute.

Also, camera free? Why?

That would all be part of the tax code. Nevada has a pretty good means already in place for legalising it by making it have to be in a licensed brothel (no visits to hotel rooms, no streetwlakers, etc) so they can assure the safety of the clients and their employees in all manners (health, threat, etc.)

Firstly, I'm not a supporter of prostitution at all, and I would be very happy if it ceased to occur.
However, it is my belief that this sort of thing is a matter of individual choice. If a woman wants to be paid for sex, and a man wants to pay her, then that's an acceptable transaction to me. Doesn't harm anyone else, and its none of my business to tell them its immoral.

@Speaker - a,b clearly. c) What's wrong with them having pimps as long as voluntary? d) Again, surely this is their choice? If they want to have a camera, why can't they?

Sorry, part of the state code (i.e. law), not tax code. Small typo there.

@Figle - the camera could be used to blackmail "VIP" type players.

@Ghost and Figle - a "pimp" in the classic sense controls the girls and has a bad reputation. If you outlaw street walking and only make it legal in a licensed brothel, then you get a "madam" who may be a man or a woman, but who has the girls interest at heart as they are running a legit licensed business and their girls saftey is of utmost importance. A pimp has no qualms putting his girls in the hospital, or a dumpster, if he thinks she is steeling from him, but a brothel collects the money up front then pays the girl her hourly wage. Of course, you can substitute guy in for girl everywhere if you like.

camera - Now I could check, but isn't having a hidden camera illegal? If its there and its disclosed then there's nothing wrong with that.

pimp - As I said, as long as it's voluntary. If someone chooses to work for a pimp then that's their choice. Clearly no girl should be forced to work for a pimp.
Now, you could argue that no 'traditional pimp' would allow the girls work they would voluntarily choose to take up, in which case they would 'break' Speakers rule b

My point on lots of contentious moral issues is things should be left to the person they involve.

The best way to guarantee the safety and cleanliness though, is through a brothel, a business dedicated to the service with a brick and morter "store" so to speak. You can sell liquor at a licensed store, but we don't offer licenses to "street vendors" outside of special event licensing to those who already have a license to sell it in a store. I guess you could have "convention call girls" who are affiliated with a license and have a street vendors license for conventions, but I'd want them all to be licensed as an extension of a conventional brothel.

I'm not convinced there is much difference between a pimp or a madam apart from one gets to sit behind a desk. I'm sure you can have some honourable pimps and you can easily get so pretty evil madams. I think the way the law exists in the UK now is quite a good model (with prostitutes being able to work from their own homes with or without a madam as they choose, but brothels and street prostitutuin being illegal). What the UK fails to do on so many occasions is enforce its laws. Bristol is full of street prostitution because the police don't make any serious effort to stop it. Birmingham has almost none because the police worked with the community to wipe it out.

Regarding prostitution and whether or not it is a good thing, one has to ask why women are willing to do it, and if we consider ourselves a better judge than them on these matters. It is certainly not the case that all prostitutes are drug addicts, as is commonly believed, for instance (particularly in the 3rd world).

Oh, and it isn't about morality in my mind, but safety. The motorcycle helmet and seatbelt issues come to mind. If you aren't wearing a helmet and a rock knowcks you unconscious at 65 MPH, your motorcycle may well cause a multicar pileup. So for the saftey of other dirvers, you need to wear a helmet. Likewise, if you are driving a car and have a blowout, the seatbelt keeps you in place so you have a better chance of controlling and recovering from the situation without having a collision with another vehicle or an innocent pedestrian. By having it licensed in a place of business, the place can be inspected for violations, a record of the employees and their health checkups can be maintained and the business knows where their employees are at all times they are working, better guaranteeing their safety.

Interesting that the UK outlaws Brothels where as a brothel is a requirement in Nevada. Now, that brothel could be the person's place of residence as a "brothel of one," provided the prostitute get a license to run the business and has her home zoned for business as well. In the US, zonign laws are generally such that you can live in a place zoned for business, but not run a business with customers coming in or out on a regular basis in a place zoned for residence only.

I should have made it clear that was a joke.

@Draugnar
The legal definition of a brothal in the UK requires that 2 or more prostitues work there. Strange, I know, but true

@Ghost: If you don't have a moral issue with accepting money for sex its a very lucrative job.

But that would preclude a couple of freinds from going in to business together as business partners. I would have written that law so that the the brothel must be at least 50% "worker" owned and that the books must reflect that fact by showing income from the "working" part of the ownership on a regular basis. In other words, you can't claim that "Sally" is a working owner and she never turn a trick.

legalized and supported with a subsidy

@Draugner
Not if one of the friends acted as as madam/manager/accountant/security etc. It is a system that can work when it's enforced properly. It's a system that goes to hell when it isn't, like it has in Bristol.