I jest, but in all seriousness, living abroad this year while studying at Oxford and traveling around central and Eastern Europe during my holiday has given me time to test run ideologies. Are they cruel and merciless savages, or god-fearing people, generous to strangers? Am I near creatures with human speech? Let me look, and see. The topic of decriminalization, both of prostitution as well as a number of illegal substances, is often met with illogical reasoning in the United States.
Puritanical warnings are resurrected from their bygone New England graves, making the s seem a fairly liberal era. However, neither side emerges as the victor, with each one clinging to stereotypes once the gamut of syllogisms runs out. It is true that the American penal code could be interpreted as regulating the intentions of its citizens by curbing the use of drugs such as marijuana.
Alcohol, again arguably more harmful to long-term health than chronic marijuana use, is not markedly restricted. The argument continues that if these incontestably more harmful substances are allowed the freedom they currently boast, why should marijuana be illegal?
The same fallacy is often invoked in the argument for the decriminalization of prostitution. In rough terms, it takes the following form: the alternative for prostitutes could be working at insert name of marginalized fast food establishment , where they would make less money and have less protection.
Therefore, legalizing prostitution is said to be wise. All of this is not to say that comparisons for the sake of argument are not useful or even accurate in many instances. Our view of the world is exceedingly relativistic, however frightening that concept is to the absolutists that walk among us and vice-versa. So for the remainder of my article I shall strive to move away from the semantics of logic and push toward logistical and ethical considerations.
