The Instigator
libertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Hypnodoc
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

Victimless crime laws should be repealed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,596 times Debate No: 4407
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (10)

 

libertarian

Pro

This is a continuation of a previous debate. Let's see if anybody can win on this topic.

Our police spend a lot of their time fighting victimless crimes like prostitution, gambling, and drugs. Nobody is hurt but the police are being overstretched for these crimes. The police could be elsewhere, fighting to help people, instead of hurting people to stop them from hurting themselves.

Our jails are filled with drug users, drug sellers, prostitutes and gamblers. Parole allows criminals to leave prison because the jail is overcrowded. If the jails were less crowded with victimless criminals, then violent criminals would not be back on the streets so quickly and people would not expect to get parolled and would be less likely to commit crimes.

Plus, we spend trillions on the War on Drugs each year. That money could go to other forms of crime fighting or anything else including lower taxes.

Recall alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1933. Home producers created whiskey and bathtub gin. The price of alcohol skyrocketed on the black market, which encouraged greed and inevitably violence. As a result prohibition did literally nothing to actually prevent alcohol from being consumed by the public. The government lost considerable amounts of tax dollars from bootlegged alcohol and it became impossible to regulate the quality, i.e. safety, of the product. Prohibition and victimless crime laws are very expensive, while being ineffective and causing violence.

The Constitution uses the word "not" in reference to restricting government 22 times. The founding fathers do not support victimless crimes. They support a smaller government.

In Amsterdam, when marijuana is legalized, usage was halved. Prohibition of alcohol made alcohol more popular. Victimless crimes make the crime more popular.

[http:// www. drugwarfacts. org/ thenethe. htm]
[US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I. Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: HHS, August 2002), p. 109]

If prostitution, gambling, and drugs were allowed, we would see tremendous increases in tax revenue.

The War on Drugs is immoral! If drugs were legal, then minorities would not kill themselves and others over them. You never see Targets having war with Wal Mart over territory, because they are a legal company, that can go to the police and report crime. The War on Drugs hurts young minority individuals who are surrounded by a culture where drugs are popular and violence is necessary. If drugs were legalized, those kids wouldn't go into those wars and would instead have a future elsewhere and lead more productive lives.
Hypnodoc

Con

First I would like to thank my opponent for the chance to debate this, I am sure it will B a good one.

My opponent has stated that the following crimes have no victim's and therefore should not be crimes:

Prostitution
Drug Use
Drug Sales and Distribution
Gambling

I will address these separately showing that not only are these crimes anything but victimless but that they are deserving of punishment due to their negative impact on society as a whole as well as individuals.

First Prostitution, This subject is one of the tamer on the list as far as damage to society overall however there are several studies that show over 80 percent of prostitutes are raped during their career over 70 percent have been raped more than 5 times.

Over 50 percent of Prostitutes world wide show signs of extreme mental disorders.

These Rapes and mental disorders take years of therapy to combat and thousands of dollars most of which becomes the burden of the state or local tax structure. Hardly victimless The prostitute is a victim as are the tax payers that have their hard earned dollars go to reverse years of psychological trauma.

Source Illinois Commission Against Sexual Assault

Next we will look at both drug use/abuse and Distribution When we look at the drug issues in this country we need to examine as many facets as possible the first and most obvious to me would be the impaired actions of the user having a negative effect on those around said user for example

Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are generally used in combination with alcohol (Jones et al. 2003).

Someone is killed in an accident involving driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol every 31 minutes this is hardly only effecting the individual that is doing the drugs. IF drugs are legal they are more readily available for people to take before a nice evening drive

In 2005, nearly 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (Department of Justice 2005). That's less than one percent of the 159 million self-reported episodes of alcohol–impaired driving among U.S. adults each year (Quinlan et al. 2005).

In 2005, 48 children age 14 years and younger who were killed as pedestrians or pedal cyclists were struck by impaired drivers (NHTSA 2006).

This is clearly a large problem without control it would become even more deadly and not just to the user.

users commit crimes in order to get the money to pay for drugs. If that is correct, the effect of marginal changes in enforcement is theoretically ambiguous. Making drugs more expensive increases the expenditure of drug users per unit of drug consumed, but decreases consumption, so the net effect on the expenditure of drug users depends on the elasticity of demand. If, however, as is widely believed,[4] the price of currently illegal drugs would be very low if they were legal, then the effect of legalization via this mechanism is unambiguous, since consumption has an upper bound set by non-pecuniary constraints. A heroin user who maintains his level of expenditure on heroin when its price falls by a factor of a hundred will no longer be able to commit crimes to pay for his habit, because he will be dead.

All Drug information Source: Center for disease control and prevention

As far as gambling I think it is a fun activity however there is a down side in gambling addiction:

Extreme cases of problem gambling may cross over into the realm of mental disorders. Pathological gambling was recognized as a psychiatric disorder in the DSM-III, but the criteria were significantly reworked based on large-scale studies and statistical methods for the DSM-IV. As defined by American Psychiatric Association, pathological gambling is an impulse control disorder that is a chronic and progressive mental illness.

All mental illness not only effects the one with the addiction but the family of that individual.

I have shown in this opening that these crimes are not victimless, The punishment for them is rational, Logical and just.
Debate Round No. 1
libertarian

Pro

I. "Prostitutes are often raped."

This is true. it is a sad truth. But if prostitution were legalized, this would not happen. 70% of Target employees are not raped in their profession, because they can go to the police and report the crime. They are protected. Prostitutes are not protected and will be raped and beaten if nobody will protect them. If they can go to the police and report the rape, it will not happen as often.

II. "Over 50 percent of Prostitutes world wide show signs of extreme mental disorders."

I think that your statement about the psychological healthcare cost is false. Please prove that prostitutes are using a lot of our tax dollars.

History proves (alcohol, Amsterdam) that legalizing a crime reduces the act of that crime. In Amsterdam, when soft drugs were legalized, their usage was halved. Meaning the cost of psychological healthcare will be reduced.

These abuses can be from a number of things like the violence in the profession, which would be removed if they could report crimes. You will have to prove correlation. It is possible that people who engage in prostitution are initially mentally disorderly.

The government spends a tremendous amount of money fighting prostitution. This will most likely offset any psychological healthcare costs from the government.

And if this is true, then it is a small price to pay compared to the well being of these prostitutes. They deserve to be able to report these rapes to the cops.

III. "Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths."

Driving under the influence is very unfortunate. However, this is a crime in itself. If you drive under the influence, you should be punished. Victims are often involved.

IV. "IF drugs are legal they are more readily available for people to take before a nice evening drive"

This is completely untrue. Minors will not be allowed these drugs and as history proves (alcohol, Amsterdam) drug legalization lowers the usage of the item.

V. "users commit crimes in order to get the money to pay for drugs."

However, the drug wars that kill minorities are far more harmful to all of society than these petty crimes, which usually include small thefts and prostituions. The gang drug wars that drug laws cause have people killed each year. These petty theftsare a shame, but are nothing in comparison.

Users, as history proves, will be reduced when drugs are legalized.

The cops can spend their time and money stopping these thefts and locking people up for these thefts as opposed to locking people up for using drugs, which hurts only the user.

Legalization reduces crime. In Amsterdam, where many drugs are legal, crime is 7 times lower. (http://www.drugwarfacts.org...)

VI. "A heroin user who maintains his level of expenditure on heroin when its price falls by a factor of a hundred will no longer be able to commit crimes to pay for his habit, because he will be dead."

First of all, you obviously copied this word for word, which is evident because of the sudden vocabulary increase and random, un-related citation. This point should be void because it is plagirism.

No government would support the fact that this individual should die.

This small probability, far-fetched theory will be drastically outweighed by the ending of gang drug wars. And the 7 times reduction of crime.

The crimes this individual commits are small compared to the ending of all drug related gang wars.

Amsterdam's homicide rate was lowered by 5 times after legalizing many drugs. (http://www.drugwarfacts.org...)

VII. "Gambling causes mental disorders"

This is unfortunate, however, the government has the duty to allow people to pursue happiness and enjoy freedom. These individuals have to be allowed to gamble, because it hurts nobody but the individual. That family, if they are concerned, can should take him to rehab.

Casinos help economies and reduce unemployment, which helps families.

These mental disorders are unfortunate, but cannot be taken seriously. These are these people's issues. The government cannot stop you from having freedom.

The Constitution uses the word "not" to restrict the government 22 times. The founding fathers designed this country to not over-control its citizenry.

VIII. Conclusion

If we legalize prostitution and drugs, the violence will significantly reduce, probably to 0%. Prostitutes can report abuse to the police. Drug dealers and gangs will not fight for territory, because it will be legitimate property. In all cases, history proves that legalization of victimless crimes, reduces the act and reduces violence. The most important thing here to consider is actually the freedom that our founding fathers wanted us to have. Remember lower crime and usage as well.

Vote PRO!
Hypnodoc

Con

Illicit drug use and sale is a large part of my argument in this debate and as such I will devote this round to eliminating any doubt that these substances should be illegal and that their sale and use are anything but victimless as well I will discredit my opponents statements regarding the prohibition as a model of failure of regulation and his claims That the Netherlands are a successful example of legalized drugs.

I will also include several examples that show conclusively that not only would addiction and abuse rise with legalization but that crime would follow that pattern.

First my opponent stated that the prohibition was a failure and only lead to a rise in violent crime. The facts of the era show clearly that it was by large measure a success below are the actual statistics from prohibition era America:

During Prohibition Alcohol Abuse fell by 30 to 50%
Death from Liver Cirrhosis fell from 29.5 in 1911 to 10.7 in 1929 Per 100,000 population wide
Admission to state hospitals for alcohol addiction fell from 10.1 per 100,000 to only 4.7

As well the rate of Suicide declined 50 % over all as did the number of Alcohol related arrests.

These figures do not lie, as I am sure my opponent will attempt to discredit them I will leave a full list of references at the end of this post.

Now we will look at legalization and crime rates per US history. We have in this country had a long history of legalization movements their outcome was by far enough to dispel the myth that legalization would work to do anything other than destroy society.

From 1919 to 1922 the US experimented with legalized drug use the government sponsored clinics which handed out free drugs to addicts in the hopes of controlling their behavior the effort was a total failure Societies revulsion against drugs and extended efforts by law enforcement were needed to eradicate the new scourge of addiction

In 1976 California de-criminalized Marijuana and within the first six months arrests for driving under the influence skyrocketed 46 percent in adults and 71.4 percent in juveniles

The fact remains that Most incarcerated "Drug" offenders violated other laws as well as cited by Professor John Dilulio of Princeton " Only 2 percent or 700 inmates in federal prison are there for purely drug related charges, they generally have committed violent and other crimes to get themselves arrested"

However 70 percent of current inmates were under the influence of and illegal substance when they were arrested and if the drugs become cheaper due to legalization we can then expect these violent crimes to increase

I will also note here that there is no evidence whatsoever that taxing hard drugs would bolster revenue any more than alcohol and tobacco currently do or that revenue from such taxation would offset the social and medical cost of legalization, Currently the government only spends 3.3 percent of its budget in criminal justice half of that goes to law enforcement and less than 12 percent of that half goes to drug law enforcement. This is hardly the cash cow it is made out to be.

My opponent likes to use other nations as success stories of drug legalization however the truth is, There are no success stories when it comes to legalization of hard drugs History tells all we need to know

China Legalized Opium early last century the legalization resulted in 90 million addicts it took over 50 years to repair the damage to the economy and social structure

Egypt Allowed Cocaine and heroin trade in the 1920's The resultant epidemic of addicts was catastrophic.

In Thailand and Iran countries where drugs are readily available addiction is hitting new heights prevalence soars.

Modern Day Netherlands is often sighted as a country where drugs legalization is a success. Marijuana sold over the counter heroine and cocaine users are not arrested or prosecuted. Official tolerance has led to a significant increase in addiction and crime Amsterdam's 7000 addicts are reported to be responsible for over 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam now has a burglary rate 200 percent higher than Newark New Jersey
Drug problems have forced the city to double its police force.

Dr. K.F. Gunning president of the Dutch National committee on Drug Prevention cites the following statistics Cannibis use increased 250 percent from 1984-1992 during the same period of time:

Shootings rose 40 percent
Car theft rose 62 percent
Armed Robbery rose 69 percent

Sweden legalized prescribed IV amphetamines in 1965 addiction rose 88.5 percent crime rose in correlation with addiction

Great Britain expiremented with controlled heroin distribution between 1959 and 1968 according to the british medical journal the number of addicts doubled every sixteen months the increase was accompanied by an increase in the narcotic crime division of Scotland yard of 100 percent to combat the crimewave perpetrated by the "Legal"addicts

Several years ago the Swiss opened a legalized drug are in Zurich local addicts were given drugs, needles and emergency medical care. The number of addicts surged to over 3500 in the district and violence overtook the district then known as Needle Park open warfare raged between gangs police vehicles were shot at and tipped over in 1995 the area was brough under rule when the law creating the park was overturned all involved conceded it was a grotesque spectacle.

In April 1994 the mayors of 21 Major European cities formed a group called "European Cities Against Drugs" an acknowledgement that legalization had been a complete failure.

There are countries in the Middle East that my opponent would not like you to know about they have almost no drug related crime of any kind, this is because they have much harsher penalties for drug crimes than any other countries.

The following statistics speak volumes as to why drug abuse and sales are not victimless crimes

In Chicago 31,000 abused and neglected children are represented by a court appointed attorney over 80 percent of the physical, sexual abuse and neglect cases involve drug use by the parent or guardian there is evidence that legalization could drive the percentage higher.

In our nations capitol 90 percent of reported child abusers are illicit drug abusers.

Most startling in Philadelphia cocaine is implicated in 80 percent of all abuse cases and 50 percent of cases where a parent beats their child to death.

Sources:

Wayne J. Roques, Legalization: An Idea Whose Time Will Never Come, U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration (Miami Field Division: U.S. Department of Justice, 27 December 1994).

Drug Policy Action (Washington, D.C.: Drug Policy Foundation, July/August 1994) 18.

Jill Jonnes, "Forgotten History of Legal Drugs 1995.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Source book of Criminal Justice Statistics -- 1992, NCJ-143496 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992) 603-604. 38. U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Legalization 43.

John Bradford et al, "Substance Abuse and Criminal Behavior," Clinical Forensic Psychiatry 15 (1992): 605-621.

Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem, Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, prepared for The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey, October 1993: 8-16.

The Drug Policy Letter (Washington, D.C.: The Drug Policy Foundation, 22 Spring 1994).

U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Legalization.

K. F. Gunning, "Statistics on the Netherlands," President, Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention, Rotterdam, Holland 22 September 1993.
Marijuana Research Review, October 1994. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 28 (1993): 595-681
Debate Round No. 2
libertarian

Pro

1. My point is not to prove that I can eliminate usage. My point is that drug legalization is more beneficial than criminalization. The Frasier Institute found that marijuana legalization (only one drug) in Canada (a smaller nation) would generate $2 billion in tax revenue. Imagine if all drugs were legal and in our larger nation what revenue could be created. (http://economics.about.com...)

2. The government has spent almost $24 billion on drug enforcement this year. (http://www.drugsense.org...)

3. If the police cannot control a business from invading another business, because the business is illegal, there will be business trying to invade other businesses. This is evident in our nation's infamous drug wars. If drugs were legal, then drug salesmen would build stores and not be attacked and have to kill people to keep their business.

4. PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK! When Alcohol prohibition happened in our country, alcohol consumption and deaths increased dramatically. Most houses made their own alcoholic beverages or bought them illegally. (http://www.druglibrary.org...)
Amsterdam proves that usage is lowered when prohibition is lifted. Marijuana usage was halved in Amsterdam after legalization. (www.drugwarfacts.com: US Dept. Health) Drug use, except opium, has increased in all drugs since prohibition (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

5. It is unconstitutional! Alcohol prohibition required an amendment to the Constitution because it violated state's rights and the pursuit of happiness. Each state should have the right to decide whether to criminalize drugs. And it violates the right to pursue happiness. It also undermines the restriction of government power, which was the intention of the Constitution, which mentions hte word "not" 22 times to restrict government.

I. Your Alcohol Abuse, Liver Cirrhosis, Addiction Related Hospital Admittance Arguments
a. These statistics cannot be trusted. They are the same as from Joseph Califano, a ruthless prohibition supporter who lied to the Supreme Court and was banned from speaking to the New York legislature for lying about statistics. You do not cite Califano, however, Wayne Roques (your source) was in the same field as Califano and used the same statistics. These statistics are not scientifically based. (http://www2.potsdam.edu...)
b. Alcohol abuse, consumption, and deaths dramatically increased during prohibition. Alcohol prohibition also raised drinking among children so much so that is referred to as an epidemic. In fact, during prohibition, New York City's alcohol related deaths multiplied by 5 times. Prohibition failed! They repealed it 13 years later! It did not work!
(http://www.druglibrary.org...)
II. Suicide Reduced As Well
a. There are no statistics that say this. I've traced your source: Sarnia, an anti-drug site. However, the source is a USA TODAY editorial, not fact. I cannot find these statistics anywhere. However, crime went up dramatically and alcohol related deaths. Those are facts.
These figures do not lie, as I am sure my opponent will attempt to discredit them I will leave a full list of references at the end of this post.
III. The US tried legalization by passing out drugs to addicts and tried to addicts, this failed.
a. This is completely different because drug legalization never took place. The study was not to see if drug legalization would work but rather if they could control their behavior. This would be impossible in a world where drugs were illegal. In a world where drugs are legal and regulated (much like prostitution in Las Vegas) drugs will be safer because children will not have access, stores can be held responsible for not selling to addicts, marijuana will not be secretly laced with cocaine, and people can be arrested for being addicted to hard drugs instead of selling (which creates gang drug wars).
IV. When California decriminalized marijuana, DUIs rose
a. I cannot find this statistic anywhere on the Internet, like many of your other statistics.
b. The number of marijuana arrests, including felonies, immediately dropped saving the California taxpayers an estimated $100 million per year.
(http://www.canorml.org...)
V. Most felons violated other crimes to land them in jail, non drug related.
a. I could imagine. Drugs leads to gangs when illegal which leads to violence and other crimes. Drugs when illegal cause gangs to fight for territory and kill people. Also, drugs when unregulated have addicts who commit crimes.
VI. Drugs will be cheaper when legal, which will lead to more violence
a. In Amsterdam, homicide was reduced by 5 times, this is fact and has been proven, unlike your theory.
VII. No evidence that taxing hard drugs would bolster revenue any more than alcohol and tobacco currently do. 3.3% of USA budget goes to criminal justice. 12% of that half goes to drug law enforcement.
a. It is obvious. Americans are paying a lot in taxes. The taxes from marijuana alone could fund public transportation improvements or something good. It could most certainly ease the pain to tax drugs. This is common sense. The Frasier Institute estimates Canada could benefit from $2billion in revenue of marijuana alone. (http://economics.about.com...)
VIII. No history evidence for hard drug legalization.
a. Common sense tells us that it will work. There is evidence that current hard drug criminalization fails. It is costly and causes gang wars.
X. China legalized opium and failed, Egypt did too with cocaine, Thailand, Iran, Sweden
a. America can regulate it. It will save money and stop drug wars. China was forced to legalize and did not fully legalize, which created gangs. These all failed due to partial legalization, which creates gangs, or due to lack of regulation. My argument is not that we can eliminate usage, but rather that it is more beneficial to legalize drugs. The fact is- drug criminalization is ineffective.
XI. Amsterdam's 7000 heroin addicts are reported to be responsible for over 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam now has a burglary rate 200 percent higher than Newark New Jersey.
a. I can see this. Addicts are bad news. But when salesmen are responsible not to sell drugs to addicts because of regulation, these addicts significantly decrease.
b. Amsterdam heroin use is .4% compared to America's 1.4%. (www.drugwarfacts.com: US Dept. Health)
XII. Drug problems have forced the city to double its police force.
a. If they were legal, this would not be the case. Amsterdam crime reduced with legalization. Incarceration was decreased by 7 times. (www.drugwarfacts.com: US Dept. Health)
XIII. Marijuana use rose 250%, Shootings rose 40 percent, Car theft rose 62 percent, Armed Robbery rose 69 percent
a. This is a lie. Marijuana use lowered by half according the US Dept. of Health and Human Services. Crime and homicide decreased by an average of 6 times according to the World Prison Population List (fifth edition), the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, and International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2001. I don't know what source you're using, but it's wrong. (www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe)
XIV. UK and Sweden tried this and addiction raised
a. This was partial legalization, which fails.
XV. Some cities oppose drugs
a. There is always dissent.
XVI. Middle East has harsher drug penalties and less crime
a. Yes. But American cannot offer these harsh penalties due to the 8th Amendment so it needs a good alternative.
XVII. Chicago, D.C, Philadelphia has a lot of abused children whose parents did drugs
a. This is in an environment where drugs are legal. Nobody is saying drugs are good...

Vote PRO! Look at my first points. There is no reason to vote CON. Vote PRO!
Hypnodoc

Con

My opponent has seen to attempt to discredit my sources. To begin my closing I will inform you the voters of Debate.org about his sources

The Web Site most cited Drugwarfacts.com is run by Douglas A. McVay A drug legalization activist and lobbyist Hardly an unbiased source of information

The Web Site Drugsense.Org, Also a site dedicated to legalization..

My Opponent also cites Wikipedia a web site where anyone including my opponent can edit the articles. It is impossible to trust these sources as they are all slanted.

My research and statistics are from sources previously stated Justice department, The ATF , governmental agencies in the Netherlands as well as Britain.

My Opponent also attempted to tie my statistics on the Prohibition to radicals and fundamentalists, however simply because they used the statistics does not negate the statistics.

Now for the facts My opponent would have you believe that legalization and taxation would be far more beneficial than the 24 billion dollar war on drugs however the numbers according to the Lewin Group in association with the National Institute on Drug abuse the cost of Drug and alcohol abuse including lost wages medical care and crime (not drug specific i.e. Possession) totaled 244.7 Billion Dollars in 1992 of that 97.7 was due to drug abuse alone.

These facts show simply that the amount spent to fight it is far less than the cost of allowing the abuse to continue and or worsen.

He would have you believe that legalization would lower violent crime in our nation however this again is not the case The NY DAM project that is Drug Abuse Monitoring
Concluded that over 70 percent of violent criminals tested positive for drug use.

The facts remain that the very drugs that my opponent would have you vote to legalize as a " Victimless crime" by there very nature cause violence

Crack, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, Barbiturates, Methylqulone, These are highly addictive substances that are known for increasing Aggression increased aggression leads to increased violence.

"Legalization may very well help curb the drug trafficking related crime however more availability would drive up non distribution drug related crime like robbery, Rape, vandalism etc, Not to mention the fact that unless you legalized all drugs sold to anyone kids included that there would still be a black market for stronger designer drugs" Dr. John Bradford, Journal of Clinical Psychology 1992

My Opponent claims to be advocating total legalization where drugs could be sold to anyone anywhere Children, Playgrounds. This is not the kind of society we need.

Now for the Prostitution Argument.

My opponent has stated that prostitutes get raped more because they cannot go to the police, This is false Rape or any form of sexual assault is Illegal regardless of who it is perpetrated against and Most prostitutes know this. Legalization of Prostitution would do nothing to stop violent crimes against women.
"Regardless of a prostitutes status (Legal, Illegal or decriminalized) Prostitution is extremely dangerous for women and Homicide is a frequent cause of death"
"Women in Prostitution are frequently Raped and physically assaulted and are more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence" Coercion and control methods like minimizing traumatic events are often used to keep them in the business.
M Farley PHD Psychiatric Times

IT is apparent even in this small snippet of an article that this is not a victimless crime these women are battered and sexually assaulted on a daily basis regardless of weather or not it is a legal profession in their area. They raise children in homes where violence is part of everyday life. No one in their right mind can advocate such violence.

These are not victimless crimes they are not just people skirting the law they are Violent and dangerous substances and practices.

These things are not illegal to provide a safe society
They are Illegal because they destroy safe societies.

Thank you for the opportunity to debate and please Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by s0m31john 6 years ago
s0m31john
GREATER GOOD
GREATER GOOD
SOCIALISM WHAT
FREEDOM BAD WHAT
Posted by critterrice 6 years ago
critterrice
There are precendents. A legal precedent is often the deciding factor in court, so a historical precedent can not be devalued here.
Anyway, I don't want to comment further until after Con takes his last turn.
Posted by critterrice 6 years ago
critterrice
But pimps are legal in Nevada. In Nevada, legal prostitutes are raped. They are abused by their pimps. Their legally sanctioned pimps!
You would also have to prove that police could protect these women. Police have not been able to stop domestic violence, because they can not make an arrest until AFTER the crime has been commited. Your logic is faulty.
Posted by libertarian 6 years ago
libertarian
Are you forgetting about cops? You're advocating pimping! And let's not forget that pimps can be rapists too. No legal industry has to worry so much about the rape problem because they have the legal system to count on.
Posted by critterrice 6 years ago
critterrice
Peronally, I think legalizing prostitution would increase rape because if they unions then pimps and other protection thugs would not be able to punish rapists as convincingly.
Posted by libertarian 6 years ago
libertarian
All victimless crimes....
Posted by gahbage 6 years ago
gahbage
Are you referring to just the laws you mentioned, or ALL victimless crime laws?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by PsyPhiGuy 4 years ago
PsyPhiGuy
libertarianHypnodocTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by libertarian 6 years ago
libertarian
libertarianHypnodocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by greenbean 6 years ago
greenbean
libertarianHypnodocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by surfride 6 years ago
surfride
libertarianHypnodocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 6 years ago
s0m31john
libertarianHypnodocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Alessia_Riddle 6 years ago
Alessia_Riddle
libertarianHypnodocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ILoveCheese 6 years ago
ILoveCheese
libertarianHypnodocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Josh 6 years ago
Josh
libertarianHypnodocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by critterrice 6 years ago
critterrice
libertarianHypnodocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Hypnodoc 6 years ago
Hypnodoc
libertarianHypnodocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03