Much of what you said I agree with, but let me say that an independent license with less restrictions will be way more favorable and harder to secure than a location license. An independent license should not remove regulations, but remove security. Being licensed through a house should guarantee the availability of condoms and such, security personnel, testing, and so on. An independent license should require std testing regularly, but also means a John/Jane has to sign a waiver that they understand this is an independent.

I also would like to state that a house should never be run like strip clubs are where the strippers are independent contractors who have to pay the club. Workers should be employees just like ia regular job. Just a license.

Another point should be that a worker needs to be responsible for their own license renewal. The license for renewal (on time) should be free if you are in a house, and tied to the company that owns the house. If a worker gets a better offer at another company, a new license is required, but not if it’s a transfer of locations within a company.

And in the point of the company, there should be limitations on how many houses they can own, and how many workers in each house. Maybe that can be at a local level, like I can’t have a house called Billy’s House of Poon right across the street from another place I own called Madam Sapphire Day Spa. Zoning laws. I live in an area that saw an explosion of dispensaries after weed went legal, and now most of them are all owned by corporations that have no problem opening new shops in the same market. Avoid that.

I could go on, build out a framework for all the legal stuff, but I’ll keep it simple.