Well done on missing my point entirely, possibly intentionally. I'm fine with whatever happening between consenting adults. Unfortunately, there's a link between sex work and human trafficking that cannot be ignored [1]:
> Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited.
and
> Criminalization of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows.
Sex trafficking impacts people who aren't consenting (including minors).
So what are the negative externalities of cannabis consumption? Long term cannabis abuse can be a problem but pales in comparison to, say, alcohol abuse. Basically, there's no world that makes sense for alcohol to be legal and cannabis not to be.
Also, cannabis legalization has arguably hurt the illegal drug trade [2].
[1]: https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-...
[2]: https://time.com/3801889/us-legalization-marijuana-trade/
Nothing you said here illustrates that. You made yourself clear, and clearly you are for cannabis, but only theoretically for sex work between consenting adults, because you see negative effects from sex work that you think make it worth suppressing sex work between consenting adults.
Other people see externalities from cannabis use (although you argue as if you've never heard anyone mention any.) Other people see the fact that companies and banks can't support sex workers as something that causes sex work to be unmonitored and underground.
Neither of those last things are the point I'm making. The point I'm making and that the person you replied to was making is that you're having the debate. You don't have a problem in using the ability to receive payments or bank to prevent or encourage behavior, your problem is that you personally are not the regulator.
Is that how we should be deciding who gets to charge a credit card?
This is like the ring from LOTR: throw it out altogether, because there is no way to use its power responsibly.
From my understanding, based on that 2018 rule, the executives at CC processors are personally liable if they process money for sex work. Like "you are an accomplice to human trafficking" guilty.
At first I thought you were going to give an argument for removing financial gatekeeping, which I think is an inappropriate point to apply leverage towards moral ends. But -- and this is the heart of the problem everywhere -- you end up picking and choosing between vices. This maintains the processor's position as the morality enforcer, which is the entire issue: it's just one more thing that power-driven agents can strive to influence.