Yes it is nice to see the question asked, but I have to say I'm very disappointed at how it characterizes the cases for and against decriminalization. Namely, it seems to take for granted that prostitution is a bad thing, and boils down the decriminalization position to some kind of hopelessness that we can ever really stamp it out. Quoting the article:
"It is inevitable, the argument goes, so we’re better off improving the conditions than pretending we can control the trade."
The suggestion here is that the criminalization position would be correct if only it could be practically applied. But this couldn't be further from the truth.
Instead, we should be emphasizing the fact that all the arguments for criminalization fail miserably. For example, if someone wants to claim that decriminalizing prostitution will lead to increased human trafficking, then they must support such a dubious claim with evidence. But the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. For example, we don't see an influx of human trafficking in Nevada, where prostitution is regulated. Nor is Canada some kind of hot destination for human traffickers, despite considerably relaxed restrictions on prostitutes and their johns there, in comparison to the United States. Although I admit I'm not an expert on this, from where I sit, it looks like we have enough evidence to conclude, at least tentatively, that decriminalization would not lead to increased human trafficking. So criminalization advocates will have to find another reason to push their cause.
The article also mentions the argument that decriminalization will lead to increased violence against women. Again, though, where is the evidence? Without that, the argument won't work. Perhaps more importantly, though, this argument seems to take for granted a very dubious assumption, which is that dangerous work, or perhaps dangerous work of a certain kind, should be outlawed. But clearly this is not the case. If women understand the dangers and are nevertheless willing to endure them, then they should have the freedom to do so, just like workers in other dangerous jobs exercise similar freedom.
This is not to say I'm insensitive to the risk prostitutes take for the sake of servicing folks like myself. In fact, it deeply troubles me, and as a result I spend a lot of time thinking about what can be done to help minimize this very serious problem. But serious as it may be, it is not the place of the government to stick its nose where it doesn't belong. And it's certainly unacceptable to allow a few bad apples to ruin it for the rest of us. There are ways to effectively combat violence against women. However, criminalization of prostitution is not one of them.
To use an analogy, consider the world of online dating. Suppose we come to learn that women who use online dating systems put themselves in serious danger of becoming victims of violence. Please note that this is a thought experiment, so it doesn't matter if online dating systems [i]actually[/i] lead to violence against women. Just suppose, hypothetically, that we discover they do. Would this help us build a case for the criminalization of online dating? Certainly not! Why, then, should we think that violence against prostitutes helps us build a case for its criminalization? There seems to be no logical connection between one and the other.
Again, I want to stress that violence against women is a serious problem (regardless of whether the women are prostitutes), and we should do the best we can to combat this violence effectively. But our counter-measures must never come at the expense of individual liberty--especially the liberty of the very women we are trying to protect!
Other common arguments against prostitution, mentioned by this article, include such gems as, "prostitution is inherently demeaning," and complaints of "exploitation" by pimps. Again, though, I fail to see how these complaints have any logical connection to criminalization. Whether prostitution is demeaning is in the eye of the beholder, and downright laughable when offered as a reason to criminalize it. Complaints of exploitation are somewhat less obviously flawed, but flawed nonetheless. Apparently, criminalization advocates want us to feel bad that pimps are taking money owed to prostitutes. Except, it's not really owed if the prostitute and the pimp have entered into a suitable contractual arrangement. If we find a tendency for such contracts to cause social problems, then we can regulate them, much like we have done with excessive car title loan contracts, and other so-called lending abuses. (Notice that we don't outlaw altogether the practice of lending money!)
Moreover, if criminalization advocates are so concerned that prostitutes aren't getting their due pay, then it hardly makes sense to prevent them from working at all! Rather, it seems to me that these advocates just don't like prostitution, perhaps out of moral or religious concerns, and are doing their best to find excuses to force their moral preferences on everyone else. In other words, I suspect they aren't really convinced by their own arguments, but instead offer them in an attempt to rationalize existing moral preferences or religious beliefs.
None of this is to say that pimps are a good idea. Frankly, I don't understand why a prostitute would ever want to have one. (I also don't understand why anyone would willingly gamble money at a casino, or enter into a car title loan, etc.) But apparently some of them do want pimps, and these women should be free to contract their services, and vice versa.
Anyway, my point here is that decriminalization advocates shouldn't fall into the trap of conceding the supposed evils of prostitution, legal or otherwise. Instead, we should point out that the criminalization arguments don't hold up, and so we don't need to do any more work in defending decriminalization. In other words, it is quite enough to observe that criminalization advocates never had a case to begin with.
Already in polls, many people advocate for decriminalization or legalization, but having prostitution as a convenient thing to use during election time or any time your city/state/nonprofit wants some money is too profitable to let go. Too many people are served by its illegal status.