Spring Break
Letter: Student says illegalizing prostitution in RI would lead to infringement of liberties
Issue date: 11/13/08 Section: Editorial/Opinion
11/13/08 - To the Cigar,
Last week's editorial, "Too Ugly," informed its readers of the horrors of prostitution and its victims. This sort of information is shocking and appalling to us all. Surely no one wants to see another suffer in these ways.
However, the proposed solution of closing the Rhode Island prostitution loophole and supporting further prostitution legislation is WRONG. Whether you have a moral qualm with prostitution, or not, it is not the governments place to tell an individual what they can and cannot do with their body.
The results of prostitution may sometimes be violence toward the seller, but it should not be the government's place to protect a individual from himself or herself. This isn't to say an abusive John or pimp shouldn't be prosecuted, but that his victim had the right to sell her service. I understand you want to end this "growing" violence toward women, but by illegalizing this trade, you will be making it harder for these women to seek the help they need.
Many prostitutes, whether women or men, are drug offenders. They are pushed to sell their bodies for drugs, or their drug records prevent them from getting a job. So let's fix these situations that force a person into prostitution.
Let's end the drug war. Let's improve education for people in the lower socioeconomic brackets. But could you not support unconstitutional legislation that infringes on everyone's personal liberties?
What Rhode Island may want to consider is local legislation to really protect prostitutes. Protect them by further legalizing, as well as regulating, brothels. In certain areas of Nevada, brothels like the one on"Cathouse," seen on HBO, are legal and safe places of business. This would be an appropriate response.
My argument is not for prostitution per se, but for personal liberties and true freedom. To quote one of my personal heroes Ron Paul:
"When you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms. So if they do things that you don't like and you find morally repugnant, I as an individual, I don't make that judgment. I don't believe government can regulate virtue. I can reject it personally, whether it is drugs or prostitution ... People make bad choices in religion or philosophy, but we don't regulate their thinking or their religious beliefs if they're not harming other people. That is why I defend the position that individuals should protect themselves. Governments cannot protect individuals from themselves. It's just impossible, otherwise they become a tyrannical state."
Daniel Claffey
Last week's editorial, "Too Ugly," informed its readers of the horrors of prostitution and its victims. This sort of information is shocking and appalling to us all. Surely no one wants to see another suffer in these ways.
However, the proposed solution of closing the Rhode Island prostitution loophole and supporting further prostitution legislation is WRONG. Whether you have a moral qualm with prostitution, or not, it is not the governments place to tell an individual what they can and cannot do with their body.
The results of prostitution may sometimes be violence toward the seller, but it should not be the government's place to protect a individual from himself or herself. This isn't to say an abusive John or pimp shouldn't be prosecuted, but that his victim had the right to sell her service. I understand you want to end this "growing" violence toward women, but by illegalizing this trade, you will be making it harder for these women to seek the help they need.
Many prostitutes, whether women or men, are drug offenders. They are pushed to sell their bodies for drugs, or their drug records prevent them from getting a job. So let's fix these situations that force a person into prostitution.
Let's end the drug war. Let's improve education for people in the lower socioeconomic brackets. But could you not support unconstitutional legislation that infringes on everyone's personal liberties?
What Rhode Island may want to consider is local legislation to really protect prostitutes. Protect them by further legalizing, as well as regulating, brothels. In certain areas of Nevada, brothels like the one on"Cathouse," seen on HBO, are legal and safe places of business. This would be an appropriate response.
My argument is not for prostitution per se, but for personal liberties and true freedom. To quote one of my personal heroes Ron Paul:
"When you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms. So if they do things that you don't like and you find morally repugnant, I as an individual, I don't make that judgment. I don't believe government can regulate virtue. I can reject it personally, whether it is drugs or prostitution ... People make bad choices in religion or philosophy, but we don't regulate their thinking or their religious beliefs if they're not harming other people. That is why I defend the position that individuals should protect themselves. Governments cannot protect individuals from themselves. It's just impossible, otherwise they become a tyrannical state."
Daniel Claffey
