Mark, you argue that there is no moral justification for prostitution. That “no” leads to at least two questions. Does all human conduct have to be morally “justified” to be legal? Additionally, do you accept that an objection to laws banning activities that are generally regarded as immoral can be itself rooted in morality (even if you don’t agree with that morality).

I don’t know for sure what Adam Smith would have thought about laws against prostitution (a supporter, almost certainly), but this passage from the Wealth of Nations on the payment of actors, opera singers and opera-dancers (opera-dancers?) is not entirely irrelevant:

There are some very agreeable and beautiful talents of which the possession commands a certain sort of admiration; but of which the exercise for the sake of gain is considered, whether from reason or prejudice, as a sort of public prostitution. The pecuniary recompence, therefore, of those who exercise them in this manner, must be sufficient, not only to pay for the time, labour, and expence of acquiring the talents, but for the discredit which attends the employment of them as the means of subsistence. The exorbitant rewards of players, opera-singers, opera-dancers, &c. are founded upon those two principles; the rarity and beauty of the talents, and the discredit of employing them in this manner. It seems absurd at first sight that we should despise their persons, and yet reward their talents with the most profuse liberality. While we do the one, however, we must of necessity do the other.

Smith would not have approved of the Emperors VIP Club, but he might possibly have understood the rates it (allegedly) charged…