I know that's the reality, but isn't this fucked up?

Shouldn't _this_ be illegal?

You mean having conflicts of interest?

Don't want to make a straw man, but whatever you meant we ran in to this problem (black markets) precisely because we kept thinking we should make all kinds of things illegal.

To solve this problem, make fewer things illegal not more.

Good point. What can we do instead? How would making fewer things illegal solve the problem of corrupt institutions locking people up for money?

Make it in their (financial) interests to not have prisoners?

We make things illegal for a reason. Often times, a very good reason. And there will continue to be very good reasons to ban things from society.

But just because we made it illegal once doesn't mean it should stay illegal.

I don't understand something. Why is a compromise not an option?

Like safe spaces for such vices. State or city, or even privately owned venues with highly audited and regulated enviornments. Solid security, but also inviting enough to be an option for anyone.

Revenue and taxes generated from them ofcourse benefits society, while also putting a damper on crime lords income that could possibly end up being used to fund worse activities such as human trafficking.

Those who currently refuse to observe laws and still want that 'fix' have a legal option in a controlled enviornment. Reducing convictions to only those who do not utilize the safe space and put theirself and others at risk. They can cheaply and efficiently be monitored to know if they are well enough to be back in public. If not, sleep it off or have a verified driver pick them up.

Consumption can be monitored possibly greatly reducing accidental overdoses.

Increases availability which may lead to less 'its hard to get, I want it more' scenarios that strengthen addiction and habits. It may also help prevent people from getting in over their head by racking up debt with individuals who have no problem resorting to violence and sometimes also intentionally or unintentionaly hurting other innocent people.

I truly cannot think of any 'Cons' to having such a system other than the possible general public's opinion that 'we have accepted defeat and decided to join them' pinning involved organizations and business as effectively drug dealers and just as bad.

Let me summarize with an example:

Gambling other than lottery is not permitted in my state as far as I know. If I want to gamble I have to hit the casinos 1-2 states over. Knowing I have such an exquisite option available if I decide to do so allows me to appreciate that. I've never stepped foot inside a casino, nor done any type of serious gambling, but if I ever did I would like for it to be in a nice, fair, and engaging enviornment like those available. Just as if I decided to take a trip on shrooms, or hit a line of cocaine just for the experience with friends. I'd rather be in a place that I can relax and know everyone involved is exponentially safer than doing so in the neighborhood crack house.

I would love to hear others thoughts.

I know of places in Paris (France) where they provide a safe space for heroin addicts, safe clean needles, resting beds, etc.

There is only one place and the people living around are very unhappy, especially since it is a safe haven for dealers and junkies.

Wasn't there more places at some point? or planned others at least? I think I heard/read something about Ivry.

Yes I know the neighborhood unfortunately...

> We make things illegal for a reason. Often times, a very good reason.

I think more often than not the other option rather than making stuff illegal is to leave it to the individual's responsibility. Unless there is a clear story that an individual is going to go to harm someone else by pursuing a specific behavior, the rationale for illegality is not very strong.

A lot of the things that are illegal are illegal due to "child safety" concerns. It's not enough to tell people be responsible when then counterpoint is, "but think of the children."

>>We make things illegal for a reason. Often times, a very good reason.

So? We also often make things illegal for a very bad reason. Just because something has been made illegal doesn't mean it's bad or harmful. Often times, someone powerful simply made people believe that it is because they stood to gain from that decision.

>You mean having conflicts of interest?

I think it just depends on the values and societal norms of a territory.

In the Middle East for example, their "Dark Markets" mostly sell alcohol.

Welcome to Earth.

(I wanted to say "America" but then I remembered that things like that happen everywhere, it's just human nature)

True - in other countries it's called corruption; in the US it's called lobbying.

Police and so-called "correctional facility" unions are among some of the highest and most effective of lobbying - especially elected judges (yes wtf).

>Shouldn't _this_ be illegal?

They are law enforcement, not law makers.

I think this is overly cynical. It's simply a question that this is law enforcement not law improvement. If you want the laws changed, look to leglislators not enforcers.

>If you are working for law enforcement, making this a legal market would mean less crime and could cost you your job.

Pretty sure this is only true if there is no other crime to spend your time on (e.g. more officers than crime, rather than vice versa), which seems to be a ways off from reality.