On the simple basis that it's always easier to get less done. The most principled stance would be one that tolerates nothing less than the immediate cessation of all exploitative sex-for-hire by removing everything that causes it. Thats a tall order. Curbing some of the impact of that exploitation is less ambitious, less satisfying to principle, and still leaves thousands of women (and a few male youths) trapped in a very hellish sort of exploitation, but it's probably alot easier to accomplish in the short term. There's all kinds of dilemmas. Would enfranchisement banish concerns about the sex trade from the public consciousness? That would sabotage other efforts to lift women out of prosititution. But likewise, could standing on principle be satisfying to the conscience but fail to deliver any relief? I don't know ... these things constitute my indecision on the issue.

Perhaps ... I'm not really familiar with how succesful their policies have been or whether they address concerns of the prostitutes themselves, or just people who speak for them ...  but in any case, is it a politically viable solution here in Canada in any timely fashion? You yourself said "Fat chance in Canada." Will we end up waiting a generation or two for social change before it's possible, with prostitutes suffering in a completely disenfranchised, criminalized, and dangerous environment in the meantime?

That seems principled to you?

 Well, count me out of the "us". I'm on a meager disability, not a business expense account, and almost completely uninterested in socializing; let alone "macho camaraderie"!

Wrapped up in that whole statement, I detect a stereotype and an oppressive social model, the tyranny of the extroverts who insist that the non-gregarious among us are somehow damaged or lacking.