>You could make that argument about a bunch of things: prostitution, drugs, auto mechanics, etc.
Yes, indeed you could.
> But I don't see much push to license these things rather than criminalize them or ignore them
It probably depends on what segments of the population you run with, but among some groups, there is a fervent belief that both the drug trade and sex work should be legitimized, licensed, tracked, and taxed by the state.
You're right that this argument could be made for anything, and that ultimately a moral judgment has to be made as to whether the practice is tolerable under regulation or whether the practice is so offensive that it should prohibited totally. I'm just saying state licensure shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as a recommendation or endorsement of the service offered; it is perhaps more prudent to interpret it as a service that is recognized as in-demand and deserving of regulation without implying a judgment as to whether the service is beneficial.
Yes, indeed you could.
> But I don't see much push to license these things rather than criminalize them or ignore them
It probably depends on what segments of the population you run with, but among some groups, there is a fervent belief that both the drug trade and sex work should be legitimized, licensed, tracked, and taxed by the state.
You're right that this argument could be made for anything, and that ultimately a moral judgment has to be made as to whether the practice is tolerable under regulation or whether the practice is so offensive that it should prohibited totally. I'm just saying state licensure shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as a recommendation or endorsement of the service offered; it is perhaps more prudent to interpret it as a service that is recognized as in-demand and deserving of regulation without implying a judgment as to whether the service is beneficial.