Digital Subscribers Are Already Reading About How the War on Sex Trafficking Is the New War on Drugs
So why aren't you?

Hey post-mods and post-rockers, do you know what digital subscribers to Reason have that the rest of you do not? Full online access to the so-new-it's-not-even-printed-yet November issue of the magazine, featuring a cover story that will change the way you think about prostitution policy, Elizabeth Nolan Brown's "The War on Sex Trafficking Is the New War on Drugs."
Brown argues persuasively and in depth that what we are seeing in the name of eradicating "sex trafficking" is a very familiar cocktail of media scare stories, bogus statistics, mandatory minimums, liberty-quashing legislative panics, and an emphasis on punishing adults for making voluntary transactions that have nothing, in fact, to do with the "trafficking" of unwitting minors. You could read it all, plus a bunch of other great content, on the 21st century device of your choice, for less than $15 a year, or $10 if you're already a print-mag subscriber.
WAIT WE ARE NOT EVEN DONE. You also get full access to the full archive of the full magazine, going back a full 47 years.
So there is no longer any good excuse. Digitally subscribe right the hell now!
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Pay for content? OK Stalin.
The Stalin story is the first one on the cover. Irony!
But who's on the centerfold?
Hopefully not whomever is mentioned in the alt-text.
I subscribe to the magazine for the pictures.
try Reader's Digest, even better.
NO.
(and then I click on a button that says: "submit")
Kinky.
Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is what I do. http://www.OnlineJobs100.Com
Yes but posting ads for get rich quick schemes in random blog threads seems such a soul crushing endeavor.
IT IS. I used to do "Internet marketing" for a few years. Basically, you study the whole science of spamming - and it's surprisingly complex - and then you do tons and tons of work. But the majority of factors affecting your results are totally out of your control.
So basically, it's like playing a slot machine, except in addition to costing you money, the lever takes intense physical labor to pull. If you spend $500 at it and burn out every muscle in your body pulling it, you MIGHT get five bucks.
I feel sorry for our poor resident spammer. In all likelihood, he's living in some shitty apartment and busting ass at a full-time job, then he stays up until 3 AM trying to get people to sign up for some online money-making scheme.
So, the complex science behind this is getting people to pay $500 to do it?
Still not quite the same, as actual coerced sex trafficking should be illegal. Drugs shouldn't be period.
I think the point was that law enforcement and anti-prostitution groups are using the trafficing label for everything related to sex and money so they can justify extreme meaaures to stop it. Using the term trafficking conjures up connotations that are fine when applicable but basically lying and misleading when not. There is clearly a trafficking problem. They cheapen it and divert important resourses to the wrong areas when they dilute the term to the extent they have.
These anti-sex groups presume that because sex-money transactions would be degrading to them that it is degrading to everyone. Therefore all sex-money transactions must be coerced. That is not the case. Even that view I think is just spin for many of them. At heart they're just puritan scolds that can't mind their own business which is no doubt the biggest problem in this country.
I thought the War on School Children was the new WOD. Cops finally found victims that won't assert their rights.
As a previous winner of the reason weekly contest I enjoy the full online content.
"Gilligan my boy! Bring me be of those yummy boat drinks! Gilligan!"
Fucking autocorrect
The War On Sex is the old War On Drugs that never went away.
Them drugs makin' white wimmen sleep with the negroes and the yellers.
In the US, there always has to be a war on something, thats jsut how it is.
http://www.Full-Anon.tk
This cover picture is much more appealing than this one on the next story.