Aff must say what “US” and what “legalize nearly all” means—vote neg
Fairness—legalize can include hundreds of regulations which radically alter the case neg we need- makes the aff a moving target and spikes out of our disads
Topic education—confusion over what legalize means kills productive debate over sex work
PEN, Prostitutes Education Network, Last Modified Sunday, August 10, 2008 2:40:54 PM “Prostitution Law Reform: Defining Terms” Definitions Legalisation and Decriminalisation according to Scarlet Alliance, Australia from PRINCIPLES FOR MODEL SEX INDUSTRY LEGISLATION Scarlet Alliance and the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, http://www.bayswan.org/defining.html ac 8-17
Many (or most) societies that allow prostitution do so by giving the state control over the lives and businesses of those who work as prostitutes. Legalization often includes special taxes for prostitutes, restricting prostitutes to working in brothels or in certain zones, licenses, registration of prostitutes and government records of individual prostitutes, and health checks which often means punitive quarantine. The term legalization does not necessarily have to refer to the above sorts of regulations. In fact, in one commonly accepted definition of legalization, legal can simply mean that prostitution is not against the law.¶ Legalization¶ From sociological perspective, the term legalization usually refers to a system of criminal regulation and government control of prostitutes, wherein certain prostitutes are given licenses which permit them to work in specific and usually limited ways. Although legalization can also imply a decriminalized, autonomous system of prostitution, in reality, in most "legalized" systems the police are relegated the job of prostitution control through criminal codes. Laws regulate prostitutes businesses and lives, prescribing health checks and registration of health status (enforced by police and, often corrupt, medical agencies), telling prostitutes where they may or may not reside, prescribing full time employment for their lovers, etc. Prostitute activists use the term legalization to refer to systems of state control, which defines the term by the realities of the current situation, rather than by the broad implications of the term itself.¶Because of the range of definitions of legalization,it is difficult to use the term in a discussion of reform. When the general public concerned with civil rights, privacy, etc., call for "legalization," they may not be aware implications of that term, or of the problems inherent in many legalized systems.
Prostitution includes the seller and the patron- they leave half of the laws against prostitution on the books
Birckhead, 11 -- UNC Chapel Hill law professor
[Tamar, "The 'Youngest Profession': Consent, Autonomy, and Prostituted Children,” 2011, Washington University Law Review, 88 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1055, l/n, accessed 6-21-14]
n177. See, e.g., Alaska Stat. § 11.66.100 (2007) (defining the act of prostitution to include both the person who accepts a fee in exchange for sex as well as the person who makes the offer); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 944.30 (West 2005) (defining the act of prostitution as applying equally to sellers and buyers).
Even the broadest possible interpretation of nearly all is 51%
Miller, 98 – ABC correspondent
[Judy Miller, ABC Correspondent, and Catherine Kenney, teacher, 8-3-1998, ABC News, "A Closer Look," l/n, accessed 2008]
JUDY MULLER: (voice-over) But what does "nearly all" meanexactly? CATHERINE KENNEY: Our understanding at the meetings that we've had is that we can have a very broad interpretationof that. It could be 51 percent, you know, reallykind of pushing it.
[Mark, "Tory government’s new prostitution laws will likely target pimps, customers and sex-trade traffickers," National Post, 4-27-14, news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/27/harper-governments-new-prostitution-laws-will-likely-target-pimps-customers-and-sex-trade-traffickers/, accessed 9-20-14]
The federal government is poised to introduce legislation in the coming weeks that will overhaul Canada’s prostitution laws — possibly targeting the pimps and johns as criminals while leaving the prostitutes themselves free from criminal prosecution. Justice Minister Peter MacKay has been exploring various options since the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s prostitution laws last December, giving the government a year to come up with a new law. Among the alternatives being examined is a Canadian version of the “Nordic model” — an approach first used in Sweden which then spread to Norway and Iceland — in which police target prostitutes’ customers, pimps and sex-trade traffickers. Earlier this month, MacKay said his bill will be drafted to find the “right balance” to a “complex” issue. Two things have become apparent: the government will notdecriminalize or legalize prostitution, as some other countries such as New Zealand and the Netherlands have done; and the governingTories appear to be contemplating the Nordic model.
Vote neg for precision and ground- these are two entirely different debates
[Coty, J.D., former Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law senior editor, and Nuria Haltiwanger, ACS Infrastructure Development CEO, J.D., "Prostitution and The Legalization/Decriminalization Debate," The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 5 Geo. J. Gender & L. 207, Spring 2004, l/n, accessed 6-21-14]
It is in these different ideas and policy initiatives where one sees the divergent goals and theories underlying groups such as WHISPER and COYOTE. Although WHISPER's two main legislative reform priorities, the creation of civil causes of action for individuals coerced into prostitution and the elimination of "mistake of age" defenses, are supported by most prostitutes' rights groups (including COYOTE), its other policy initiatives have sparked heated debate. n195 WHISPER, for example, applauds and lobbies forthe imposition of harsher penalties against johns, while COYOTE fearsthat these penalties willunduly endanger prostitutesby only keeping criminally inclined customers on the streets. Similarly, WHISPER advocates stronger penalties for pimping, particularly laws making it a crime to live "off the earnings of prostitution." n196 COYOTE, on the other hand, argues that many women choose prostitution precisely because of the financial support it can give their children, parents, friends, etc. Although these laws are meant to protect against violent and coercive pimps, their broad wording can make children or parents (i.e. any person deriving financial benefit from the commercial sex transaction) a criminal. n197