Bans on... Everything!

The "Liberal" establishment across the globe is constantly trying to curtail our individual freedoms. The explanation they usually offer when they pass another ban is "it's good for society, and you are bad for opposing it". I assume the next step is to start sending opposition to jail... However, it is possible to quickly prove that the Liberal argument is incohesive and lacks something any good proof needs - logic. I have lately been listening to some nuts talking about why prostitution is banned and why it is evil and ruining out society. Now certainly, I do not condone prostitution. But I also do not condone, for example, chewing tobacco, and yet we all know it is (still) legal. On the other hand I do not condone theft, and taxes are the essence of legality. So, as we see, my opinion of something does not have a bearing on it being legal or not. Prostitution is just an activity which all sides agree to prior to the start. This is exactly the same "consenting adults" argument which Liberals have used to make homosexuality legal, as it should be (whether people condone it or not). Thus we have just made the perfectly logical case for legalizing prostitution, and legalizing all acts that consenting adults want to engage in within the confines of their private property. There is no logical way to refute this, therefore legislators opposed to any such practice have to resort to "pragmatic" or, as the great Herbert Spencer terms it, "expedient" argumentation. Let's stay on the example of prostitution.
The "Liberals" say that it:
1. Hurts women (treating their bodies like property)
2. That most individuals engaged in prostitution don't have a choice (they do it to support a drug habit)
3. That it fosters crime (for example, human trafficking).
First let me say that none of these points actually refute the statement that consenting adults may engage in whatever they want on their own property. Secondly, we can prove all the above statements wrong or inconsequential:
1. A person's body is their property. If it was not, then others would be in control of it, and they clearly are not. Also, if a woman is engaged in prostitution, it clearly doesn't bother her that her body is viewed as such, or even if it does bother her she still prefers the gratification (money) over the bad feeling.
2. Just because someone is addicted to any substance does not mean they have lost their free will. They can at any point choose to quit using drugs, which would solve the problem. And if people who are on drugs are no longer responsible for their actions, why are they allowed to vote?
3. Any crime needs to be punished and ferreted out. There is crime in the form of tobacco smuggling, or counterfeiting money - this does not mean we should outlaw tobacco and money. It is expedient to point out that government-run central banks are the biggest counterfeiters of money.

Just to get my point across better, I will now make the argument for banning dogs as pets in homes:
1. Dogs can be dangerous to children and other human from outside the household they are raised in.
2. Dogs foster crime (there are illegal dog fight gangs and gangsters often use attack dogs as weapons - see here)
3. Dogs cause a unhealthy atmosphere to develop in the community (most people care about their dog more than the life of another human being) and can cause accidents (dogs often cause traffic incidents by jumping out onto a busy road)

I think I have presented my case quite well. Let's hope none of the "Liberal" gang takes it up...