No, I think passing legalization for anything doesn’t make sense unless you have a framework in place (even if imperfect) for regulating some negative externalities of it. I think that’s pretty routine, and there are already examples we can use from other places so the same mistakes are not made again
Yeah, correct. But you can’t implement that framework on anything until it is legalized. It can be your very next action. But the lawful government cannot, by definition regulate illegal activity, so first you pass one legal motion and then you do the next. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a plan for move 2 before you make move 1.
You’re again correct, they use a lovely little modifier we call in English “And”. It lets you do two things as one thing. So you can legalize something, and regulate it, in one legislative action. But you couldn’t regulate something, and then legalize it, because if the government is regulating something they’ve defacto legalized it. If it’s illegal it can’t be regulated because the only regulation allowed for illegal things is “none at all ever”.
No, I think passing legalization for anything doesn’t make sense unless you have a framework in place (even if imperfect) for regulating some negative externalities of it. I think that’s pretty routine, and there are already examples we can use from other places so the same mistakes are not made again
Here’s an interesting report: https://journalistsresource.org/economics/legalized-prostitution-human-trafficking-inflows/
And this one: https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/to-protect-women-legalize-prostitution/
Policy makers just have to understand the data and frame a policy using what we already know
Yeah, correct. But you can’t implement that framework on anything until it is legalized. It can be your very next action. But the lawful government cannot, by definition regulate illegal activity, so first you pass one legal motion and then you do the next. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a plan for move 2 before you make move 1.
Per my understanding it’s all usually part of the same legislative action
You’re again correct, they use a lovely little modifier we call in English “And”. It lets you do two things as one thing. So you can legalize something, and regulate it, in one legislative action. But you couldn’t regulate something, and then legalize it, because if the government is regulating something they’ve defacto legalized it. If it’s illegal it can’t be regulated because the only regulation allowed for illegal things is “none at all ever”.