I hail from Rhode Island, “The Biggest Little State in the Union.” This painfully clever advertising slogan says it all. Rhode Island has the most coastline, the most corruption, the most drunken driving, the most Dunkin’ Donuts and the most Catholics per capita of any state. What more could you ask for? Well, we also hold the national headquarters of Hasbro Toys, the International Tennis Hall of Fame and Touro Synagogue, the oldest Jewish synagogue in the nation. Plus, we have WaterFire, the festival-style summer event in which buckets-o-fire float on Providence rivers. But now, at long last, there’s something to really put Rhode Island on the map. I’m talking about prostitution, the world’s oldest profession, legalized. Congratulations, Lil’ Rhody, you’ve won again.

Only a state that could reelect the mayor of its capital while he sits behind bars could manage to accidentally legalize prostitution. This is how it works: Rhode Island state law expressly prohibits the promotion and sale of one’s body on public streets. It also expressly prohibits the establishment and organization of brothels. What it does not prohibit, expressly or otherwise, is paying money for sex. The result: Certain members of certain familial organizations have recently opened up massage parlors in Providence in which a little something extra is offered. I’m not talking about a Happy Meal. Apparently, if the massage parlor is licensed, but the masseuses are not, said employees may offer whatever services they wish. Legally. Whoops!

But such an error seems rather simple to fix even for someone as poorly versed in legalese as myself. Perhaps a law along the lines of “No sex for money.” Or to cover a few more bases, “No sexual relations in exchange for goods, services or currency.” Too negative? How about “Sex may only be exchanged for love. Or more sex.” Or maybe something a little less strict to help boost Rhode Island’s coffee-based economy — “Sex for lattes only.” I think that one could benefit the whole New England community as well. Besides, who doesn’t like lattes?

Well, I’ll tell you who. The General Assembly, Rhode Island’s state legislative branch, whose members — despite having full knowledge that these not-a-brothels exist — continue to let them thrive. Like I said, Rhode Island is number one in corruption.

Yet perhaps Rhode Island is on to something. After all, prostitution is legal in some counties in Nevada (believe it or not, Las Vegas is not in any of them) and they seem to be doing OK. And Amsterdam has a thriving sex industry. The difference in these places is that prostitution is regulated, like any other industry. Now I’m not saying that prostitution is morally correct, but it does happen. And there’s no more way for governments to stop it than there is for them to control underage drinking. So why deny prostitution exists?

Imagine a society in which Diet Coke is illegal. Now, Diet Coke is delicious, and I know I would still try to get it even if it were a federal offense to do so. Similarly, some people will pick up prostitutes regardless of the legality. But since prostitution is illegal, there is no way to regulate it. Imagine buying Diet Coke on the black market. There’s no way to know if it’s safe to drink or if it, say, has a venereal disease. But since Diet Coke is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, we know the nutrition facts are correct and we can be assured venereal diseases will not be in it. Were prostitution legal and government regulated, consumers who were going to go to brothels anyway could at least know they would be in a relatively safe environment. Where it’s currently legal, prostitutes are given regular tests for STDs and brothels are always up to fire code.

But shouldn’t we, as a society, be discouraging this sort of behavior? Well, what better way to discourage activity than the age-old bureaucrat’s favorite, taxes? Suddenly we have both a deterrent for the masses and a source of income for government projects. If Diet Coke were illegal, people would still drink it and the government would get no income from its sales. If outlawing prostitution hasn’t stopped it from happening, maybe taxing it will. And if not, Social Security or the national debt could probably use some cash. Something tells me they could.

So no, I’m not saying prostitution should be legal. It’s ewwy. What I am saying is that Rhode Island is doing it all wrong. As the poet says, “Go big or go home.” If you’re going to legalize prostitution, make it safe (or safer at least) and by gosh, make some money off of it. You wouldn’t want someone practicing hairstyling or quantum mechanics without a license, would you? So why have unlicensed prostitutes? And why not earn some capital from it? And why ignore it, Rhode Island? Oh right, number one in corruption and Dunkaccinos. And the highest elevation point is a landfill.

Ethan Rosenberg, a freshman in the College of Fine Arts, is a weekly columnist for The Daily Free Press. He can be reached at [email protected].