And if you had read anything about this, they are regretting that and looking at the Nordic Model themselves.
Then why haven't they re-criminalised it? There are lots of places where prostitution is legal, Nevada in the USA for example. So what if one country reverses their policy - things change, it doesn't mean it's applicable to all countries.
How about the organ donation then, as I asked at the beginning. People should be allowed to buy organs from other people who want to sell them right?
A libertarian would say yes. Someone else would say no. I think you were right that it would result in exploitation and therefore shouldn't be permitted, or at least heavily regulated.
Just because one person is happy, doesn't mean that all people are - prostitution harms women. Just because one person takes cocaine occasionally and holds down a job and a happy life, doesn't meant that we should make cocaine legal, as it harms a great many more people who take it.
So it comes down to numbers, like I said - utilitarianism. Now reverse it and pretend that only a minority of women are harmed, should it still be illegal? Alcohol creates alcoholics, but they're a minority so we don't criminalise alcohol. If we did we'd see another Al Capone bootlegging it. So now we have to decide if it's more harmful to prohibit prostitution or permit it.
MLK, Bevan, Lincoln, Attlee, Wilberforce and many more would probably disagree with you.
Lincoln freed slaves so he could win a war, he wasn't an idealist. He was a realist. Needs must. Things get done because they have to, not because it makes the world a better place.
And the drug trade is victimless? How utterly ignorant of the drug trade and the way it destroys entire communities and countries.
We're digressing, so I wont go into this too much. Do you understand the concept of a victimless crime? It's not about harm, it's about societies inability to prevent them happening. That's what makes those crimes different to murder, rape, theft etc.