Prostitution has long been considered as illegal. But is it necessary to do so?

It is said that prostitution causes inconveinece and troubles to general public. However, the act that considers prostitution as illegal causes inconveinece and troubles to prostitution either. Does general public has the right t0 live without prostitution nearby which will prevent prostitutes from making money with their 'resources', or do prostitutes have the right to make money with their 'resources', which will prevent general public from living in 'and more enjoyable' environment? This is obviously a conflict of interest. The right should be grabted to the side with more social benefits. For example, if legal prostitution brings the society $100 and at the same time causes $50 harms to general public, the right should be granted to prostitutes. You may argue that it is very difficult to determine which side brings larger social benefits. But under some situations we can easily determine it. If prostitutions are located in some low-population-density areas, the harms or inconveinece caused by prostitutions will be smaller. But some may argue that although the inconveince is smaller, people will suffer. If satisfactory compensations for people who suffer are avaliable, people are willing to suffer. The right to prostitute, or the right to stop prostitution should be granted to the genral public (or people who are affected by prostitution) or prostitutes by the time the compensation system operates. However, it is very difficult to deliminate such right. What should be considered as prostitutions? If a female who provides a male with sex services for returns is said to be a prostitute, then is a wife who provides sex services for her husband for his love said to be a prostitute? Is having sex before marriage called as prostitution? We can see that is very 'costly' to deliminate such right.