I meant the NYTimes. I hit submit to soon.

then you should be suggesting regulation.

Of course prostitutes should be regulated. Because AIDS DOES kill people.

Assault weapons should be regulated as well. Limitations such as age, ability, sanity, etc. are all common sense variables. Or even just a name and an address.

There is little to no "margin of error" with highly dangerous weapons that are capable of mass-killing. If one ends up in the wrong hands, the consequences are as dire and irreversible as consequences could possibly be. There is thus an overriding and compelling public safety element with regard to highly dangerous weapons that simply does not exist with a controlled and regulated prostitution industry (or consumption of alcohol, for that matter).

Sure. And there is a set of very stringent laws about how one is able to acquire a full automatic or specialty weapon. A Class III license, which is NOT a piece of cake to get (though, perhaps there could be added a few more protections concerning mental bells and whistles) and is expensive...as are the weapons. You REALLY have to want one to buy one at the cost premium they run. I myself sometimes think about it but only if I win the powerball lottery and have money to burn but then again...full auto is a HUGE waste of ammo. Mostly, only idiot gangbangers and drug lords are into spray and pray shooting (and military-style out of control cops). Those with skill and smarts go with semiauto.

As for Tina's comment about STDs and sex workers. Sure they are at a much higher risk for STDs. Goes without saying. But then, any woman that sleeps around WITHOUT requiring money in direct payment is also at similar risk. Perhaps we should ban sleeping around for "health reasons" you understand. Or...we could all get smart about anti-HPV vaccines, condoms, and the like. You know, REAL sex ed.

I'm disappointed at this article as I was Glenn's original protest implying nobody cares that Spitzer was hiring prostitutes. The caveats at the end struck me as ultimately contradictory.

Prostitution is against the law. That does actually factor into the "Is using a prostitution service a moral wrong" equation, because it does impact the type of people who'd work in that industry and the risks that they suffer. This is not a case where Spitzer was hopping on a 747 every few weeks and spending some time in a well regulated and completely legal Amsterdam brothel.

Glenn is also suggesting that this is an extraordinarily intrusive investigation that would never be leveled at someone who isn't Spitzer. The details of why Spitzer has been investigated have been extraordinarily public, and boil down to apparent evidence that Spitzer was being bribed or blackmailed, and an investigation that subsequently revealed an entirely different picture involving clear violations of Federal anti-trafficking laws. Does Spitzer deserve to go to prison over this? Well, Greenwald is protesting when the charges haven't even been filed. All that's happened so far is that the investigation's findings have been made public.

The bottom line is that a great many people have very legitimate concerns about prostitution; that clients of prostitutes do enable that industry; that Spitzer is one of those clients; that Spitzer himself never had a problem with shutting down prostitution rings (and the argument I've heard from Spitzer apologists that as a client he's somehow less deserving of punishment is astonishing), and that he's been caught.

It's a sad end to someone who was, at one point, considered the next Teddy Roosevelt, but one could argue the supreme arrogance needed to both bust up prostitution rings, and then go on to enable them and exploit them in the belief you'll not get caught means we've dodged a bullet by taking Spitzer out of the Presidential candidate pool. Arrogance, a disrespect for his own family, a willingness to flout the law for short term pleasure, and a cavalier attitude towards funding crime rings: I'm glad we found out now.

Tina Schrier has done something I don't think I could accomplish: Maintained a cool head and intelligently argued her position for a 200-page-plus comments section. Bravo.

As for AKA Smith, I appreciate where you are coming from, and we seem to agree quite a bit on this one. I am a former libertarian too, and I am usually fully against issues of government paternalism, or the legislation of what people can do with their bodies. But like other libertarian issues, the people who hold the extreme view seem to regularly miss seeing the pitfalls of their position. If prostitution is legalized, there are many other questions that come up, and they can't be avoided. Many libertarian arguments are based on principles that are very sound when taken alone, but when applied to the real world just don't factor in the consequences of things.

Anyway..... Time to eat my salad...

So, prostitutes don't kill people, HIV/AIDS kills people? Even leaving that aside, the very reason people have been bringing up exploitation, coercion, and abuse in regards to prostitution is that it presents itself as a matter of public good, of "one person imposing his will on another"?

So, maybe it's a question of degree. I'm unequivocally against gun ownership and genuinely conflicted on prostitution, so this is sympathetic to me. I'm just saying, a nuanced approach like that in regards to guns means that no one should be ridiculing the idea of prostitution being illegal.

No, it is not a question of degree, it is plainly a difference in kind. Reread my post if you must.

Nevertheless, even if one assumes it's somehow a difference of degree, surely you know that a difference of degree taken to an extreme (such as what we are discussing) becomes a difference in kind.

For instance, you can't say that the difference between a loving touch and an uppercut punch is a difference of degree by framing them each as different degrees of "touching."

Now is as good of a time as any to post my Salon Ignore List. Salon does not afford me the opportunity of an ignore button. You are stridently accusing tina of slandering you as to your granddaughters, but any perusal of your posts both yesterday and today will make clear that you invited her charge by virtue of your own statements, which I found so appalling EVEN IF MADE IN JEST that you single-handedly hoisted yourself onto my ignore list. Do not expect any further reply from me. Utter tastelessness can get someone on my list. Here it is:

AKA’s Salon Ignore List

6Stringer

a_ignatius

arandi

Aycharaych

Brightstar 65

dataguyx

dick dworkin

Ellis Diablo

Elephantman

Ghingis Can

gneubeck

GoodCelery!

Elephantman

Hankster

h0tr0d

jeebery_wonkers

Jonathan

KcM

Madamfauntleroy

manos99

MereMortalMale

Nancianne

Parson Jim

pantanal

q8dhimmi

rupert c

shooter 242

Thrasher

tommydsz

tom payne

welcomerain