[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Yes, and prostitution is still rampant throughout Las Vegas, even though it's illegal, because there is incentive for the prostitutes to work outside of the "Bunny Ranch" structure - you're giving an "upscale" (legal) option, and a low-end scummy option, only one of which actually utilizes the regulations/laws/etc.

This is my great macro-level fear about regulation - that it will lead to this sort of divide, which is only marginally better than the current system and would likely cost much more. I really have no fear of legalized prostitution in theory, and really support anything that takes government regulation based on limited morals away, but I think prostitution is a weird case that might not fit the idyllic foreshadowing.

Compare it to drugs - government regulation of the drug trade seems symbiotic. The government reduces its outlay on law enforcement, gains supply control, and on-point contact with users. The user gets cheaper and more reliable product. Society gets fewer unsavory drug dealers, at least in the ideal sense, and better ability to get problem users help. The only person who loses is the drug trafficker, who really doesn't have any control.

However, while the hooker will certainly reap major benefits from regulation, these may come at a cost (real or perceived) affecting the bottom line, where alternative setups will avoid that. The hooker has the control to choose whether to follow the system or not.

Additionally, it's not just the hookers that have to play by the rules - the johns have to, as well, or the market will certainly be met, and the john may or may not understand the benefits, either . . .

I think you are correct about this.