Hi /pol/tards. I have a crackpot policy proposal for you. City governments should sponsor facilities in which to conduct illicit activities of all kinds: prostitution, drug use, illicit transactions, etc. These facilities would include surveillance in staff and common areas only, and evidence collected on activities in and around the facility would be made inadmissible in court. However, staff would keep anonymized logs of all activities. This system has a lot of benefits, I think. First, and most importantly to me, it reduces the risk posed to people engaging in these activities. For example, it ensures the person buying substances actually gets the substance they're buying rather than something they'll like... overdose and die on. And it ensures harm doesn't come to a prostitute if staff is waiting outside the door that she can call for help from. So overall, big reductions in human suffering in all those places I think. But second of all, it theoretically gives the government complete knowledge of all the illegal activity happening in their area, which I imagine would be valuable information in efforts to mitigate it. Thoughts? :Dp.s. I'm a bit of a lefty... forgive me.
>>530020255If these crimes are acceptable within a certain area then why not everywhere else?
>>530020713Well you don't have to just build them in cities, that's just where the most people are I guess. And when I say city don't think big city, I mean like legal definition of a city city, which is pretty generous iirc. And it's not that they're acceptable, they're still illegal and the government is still working to mitigate them. But it's a fact that these crimes do happen, so I think it is a positive thing to reduce the risk to those involved while gathering tons of data.
>>530020907They're not illegal if you can't be punished for them.You're proposing that certain crimes (presumably not all crimes?) are de facto not crimes if committed in a certain area.But why not everywhere?
>>530021076Well it's not that they're not crimes, it's just that the evidence of the crime isn't admissible in court because otherwise no one would use the facility. And I don't know, I feel like it would help you catch as many crimes as you catch by sending cops out to pretend to want to buy drugs or something. I mean, if you know about every time someone in your city buys, say, cocaine, and you know how much cocaine they're buying and how much they bought it for, doesn't that give you huge insight into the cocaine supply chain that could be very valuable if you want to disrupt that supply chain? Or if you want to prevent prostitution, wouldn't knowing about every time it happens and being able to graph that over time, by population, etc. give you huge insight into the factors that might drive it?
>>530021935You definitely wouldn't get any useful data, not least because you're actually encouraging more "crime" by granting immunity to criminals in the area. But that still doesn't answer the question I've asked twice now: why not just legalize these activities everywhere?
>>530020713One point would be to make those places > adults onlyAnd thus keeping such activities away from influencing or directly affecting children.But given that OP posted under the rainbow flag, it's no suprise that he omitted that little point, they always do.
>>530020255They already have synagogues you dumb nigger.
>>530022162>you're actually encouraging more "crime" by granting immunity to criminals in the area.I really don't believe that the current systems do much of any deterring. People still buy drugs all the time. The people who sell drugs couldn't care less what the law is.>why not just legalize these activities everywhere?Sorry, I didn't mean to dodge your question, I was trying to respond when I was saying that it was because otherwise no one would use the facility I probably should have specified. As for why you don't legalize them, I am working off the premise that the people on this board are naturally opposed to legalizing them I guess. I mean, I don't think it makes much sense for prostitution to be a crime. I am also kind of fond of the idea that controlled substances should be available over the counter to adults, since I feel like you should be able to put whatever you want in your own body. That would probably just be at pharmacies, but it would obviously outcompete the illegal drug market. And using illicit drugs definitely shouldn't be a crime imo.>>530022472>> adults onlyI assumed that was obvious I guess. But yes, adults only. Well shit, kids do buy drugs though. but obviously anything adjacent to prostitution is adults only.
>>530020255No I don’t want Epstein island on an industrial scale fuck off kike
>>530020255>City governments should sponsor facilities in which to conduct illicit activities of all kindsWe have this. It's called 'everywhere that niggers live'.
>>530022634>As for why you don't legalize them, I am working off the premise that the people on this board are naturally opposed to legalizing them I guess.That makes no sense because your proposal is just a partial legalization with apparently no reason as to why it shouldn't be universal.No person who was really opposed to these things would support it, and people who think like you that prostitution should be legal also have no reason to support it instead of plain legalization of such.
>>530020713So normal people don't have to deal with the bullshit, stupid.
>>530021076So pedophilia is legal for rich people?
>>530023102What bullshit?
>>530023164drug addicts, whores and johns and base players.
>>530023240Those are people. What bullshit are you talking about?
>>530023101>That makes no sense because your proposal is just a partial legalization with apparently no reason as to why it shouldn't be universal.I'm trying to reach across the aisle, cut me some slack. I still think certain facilities would be a positive even if everything was legal, since their benefits still apply. And certain things should stay illegal. Like, maybe we're okay with people selling drugs, but we're probably not okay with people selling, like, weapons.
>>530023283No they aint - they themselves chose not to be.
>>530023370This isn't reaching across the aisle at all because as I just said the people opposed to the things you propose to partially legalize have no reason to support that policy.There's no benefit to anyone here except criminals.
>>530022559kek
>>530023533I guess I assumed the average person doesn't like the idea of prostitutes getting murdered or people overdosing or drug deals gone wrong.
>>530023667The criminals who do are likely to do those sort of things (assuming your freedom parks have police to stop that) aren't going to go to a place where they'll be monitored, so it won't stop them.
>>530023840I feel like I addressed these concerns in my original post.>These facilities would include surveillance in staff and common areas only>staff would keep anonymized logs of all activities.>activities in and around the facility would be made inadmissible in court.
>>530020255Very thoughtful ideas. I however think the wood chipper is easier.
>>530024036I am opposed to suffering, so I unfortunately cannot endorse that.
>>530023984It wasn't clear if you would allow crimes like murder in these areas. I just assumed that you wouldn't, but now I have a sneaking suspicion that I was wrong.Either way it doesn't solve the problems you imagine it might.
>>530020255governments should build crime cities in remote areas. all crime is legal in crime cities. water, electricity, food, and tiny houses are provided by the government. if you commit crime you get exiled to a crime city. you can also go to a crime city voluntarily if you wish.
>>530024121>It wasn't clear if you would allow crimes like murder in these areas.Oh, of course not! Just the activities the facilities are specified for.>>530024126>crime citiesThis seems like a recipe for massive amounts of suffering.
>>530024266it's more humane than prisons.
>>530024266So let's say I'm a pimp or a john who has an inclination to murder prostitutes.Do you think I'm going to seek out prostitutes in the area where I'm constantly monitored or somewhere else?
>>530020255>>530020907>>530021935>>530022634>>530023370>>530023667>>530023984>>530024266SF, Portland, and Seattle are shitholes because they already did this, and now homeless fentanyl zombies roam the streets. Kill yourself you fucking retard.
>>530021935Lol you don't think this has been happening since active intel policing became a thing decades ago? Cops mapping out vast networks of drug dealers from kingpin to foot steppers in Bolivia. It's called the fucking ghetto. These places have existed forever and the outcome is what you see in nigger hoods. It's a containment zone of all of that. Results on the human body, psyche exams, affiliate reports, toxicology reports, statistical analysis, etc. We shouldn't have 'clean' heroin or 'clean' meth. That's fucking ridiculous listen to that again. All of this has already exists. You also need to be over 18 to post here
>>530024320Now you see why we have to make prisons more ethical :]>>530024351Well I don't think people generally go in with the intention of murdering a prostitute. But more critically, why would the prostitutes work anywhere else?
>>530024592>Now you see why we have to make prisons more ethical :]it's called a crime city.
>>530024545Anon, if they're on the street they're not using a facility?>>530024552None of this means it wouldn't still be highly valuable though?>>530024627That is not ethical at all.
>>530024592>why would the prostitutes work anywhere else?Maybe because they'll be murdered if they don't work the corner their pimp assigned them.Why do you think there's any violence in that business in the first place?>Why would prostitutes work for a violent man?
>>530024749how so?
>>530024793>Maybe because they'll be murdered if they don't work the corner their pimp assigned them.Why would their pimp assign them a corner when they can use the facility where their employees won't get murdered for free?
>>530024850Because it would be a Fallout-esque nightmare? And because exiling people to a place likely too dangerous for certain people to ever visit them is quite cruel.
>>530024943To cater to those who don't want to be monitored while using their services, which is probably most customers. But even so it doesn't really matter since unless the prostitutes are living in your facility full time they can still be murdered for any perceived misbehavior.
>>530025004not necessarily. if anything providing an alternative society for people who cannot function in primary society is very benevolent.
>>530025118>those who don't want to be monitored while using their servicesOmg it's not like there'd be cameras in the room there'd just be staff in earshot I literally explained this in the original post.>they can still be murdered for any perceived misbehavior.I guess, but that's like, really difficult anon, to track down and murder someone. So the barrier to entry is way way higher. And by the time they can actually formulate the plan to do that, they'll probably have gotten over it, because most of these crimes are heat of the moment.>>530025161I don't necessarily mind the concept I guess, but forcing people to live there is not benevolent.
>>530023283Yes, they are. Some of them my family members. I don't like them around when they are fucked up and being stupid. They need a space where they can go and when they get done and are not high and have taken a shower, they can come around.
>>530025344>Omg it's not like there'd be cameras in the room there'd just be staff in earshot I literally explained this in the original post.You absolutely didn't explain that but if that's what you were implying then you've made it pointless.>that's like, really difficult anon, to track down and murder someoneIt's not at all, and the fact that you think this policy would alleviate the problem is proof enough of that. If it weren't already a problem then it obviously wouldn't be a problem to solve.
>>530025466Then don't be around them when they're fucked up. Kick them out of the house or go for a walk or whatever else.
>>530025004False. You have more freedom in a crime city than a prison. Or even a nice hallmark city where everyone know everyones business. A cold, white walled, government run 100% pure drug dispensary, with sterile whore houses. You give up every right you have when do it this way. It's better to continue to police red light districts without consumer disturbances and keep it a word of mouth trusted yet dangerous zone than lining up in a rat maze for your little hit every day so you dont kys. Yet I guess you people who stand in line at the suboxone clinic every single morning to get your donation isn't so different? Is it so different than the people who block miles of traffic in a Starbucks line every morning? Is it? Everyone is a fucking drug addict
>>530025617>You absolutely didn't explain that>These facilities would include surveillance in staff and common areas only>it ensures harm doesn't come to a prostitute if staff is waiting outside the door that she can call for help fromCome on anon.>you've made it pointless.How so? She is in a building with people who can come to assist her, and no one is going to try anything because they are 100% guaranteed to get caught.>>530025848>You have more freedom in a crime city than a prison.I mean, you have more freedom in a crime city than you do as a regular citizen. But freedom doesn't mean it is a nice place to live.>You give up every right you have when do it this way.The right to do it in less comfortable and more dangerous conditions?>It's betterIn what way, you literally said it was dangerous. It's only superior in aesthetics.
