NationStates Jolt Archive

We need to consolidate our strength. If we all approve one single proposal to legalize marijuana it will reach quorum. If you are a delegate and you would support a proposal of this kind, please telegram me. I will write you back when it is proposed so that we can all vote for it at the same time. Thank you!
The United Socialist States of Cus Um Uk Khara

ALL drugs should be banned.

All drug proposals should be banned. No one's ever going to bring one to quorum.

Drugs are bad for people, but mostly drugs are bad for a country. Never will a majority of countries accept this.

I think the proposal process for "recreational drug use" is flawed because it is simply a matter of yes in favor or no against it. There is little argument involved.

N.O.R.M.L.

They should be legal. We need freedom.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Instead of trying to legalize marijuana, we should criminilize tobacco and/or alcohol. Just about any way you look at it, alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana and cigarettes are more deadly in the long term. The UN should resolve to rid the world of the scourge of alcohol and tobacco. Otherwise, we're just being hypocritical!

You really cannot ban alcohol because nearly any living thing can be turned into alcohol.

drugs, tobacco and alcohol should be totally legal.

ALL drugs should be banned.
Istahan wonders whether the government of Oppressed Possums includes drugs such as aspirin, penicillin and other medications in this statement. If this is so, then we expect that Oppressed Possums' hospitals are reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

If this is not so, then we urge Oppressed Possums to not make such sweeping broad statements, and to clarify their position.

The Emperor requests that if you feel the need to legalize such drugs, you do so in your own nations and not demand that the rest of the world do so as well. It is his opinion that the use of such drugs among the plebians distracts from military training and leads to rowdiness and inefficiency and does not wish the efficiency of his military hampered by foreign moralists.

I will support the legalisation of all drugs until such time as anyone can give me a reason which I consider acceptable why the government or any individual should have any right to tell me what I can and can't do with own body.

ALL drugs should be banned.
Istahan wonders whether the government of Oppressed Possums includes drugs such as aspirin, penicillin and other medications in this statement. If this is so, then we expect that Oppressed Possums' hospitals are reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

If this is not so, then we urge Oppressed Possums to not make such sweeping broad statements, and to clarify their position.

I said all and I meant all. Once that takes place. We can truly build a decent medical system.

In the Holy Empire of Henoria recreational Drugs are legal and the sale of them are taxed. The money is used to fund health care and the police amoung other thing. But we do not believe that the UN should regulate this one way or another. It should be up to the nations themselves to decide.

I said all and I meant all. Once that takes place. We can truly build a decent medical system.
A medical system without anaesthetics? Or analgesics? Or antibiotics? Istahan wonders how this could take place.

All drugs should be legal...if someone wants to screw up their health and their body, they should have every right to.

Smolins how can you justify the medical cost of allowing your nation total legal access to all drugs or the cost to society in the form of lost production and health due to addiction? Who will pay for overdose treatment and rehab.?

I am completely against drug use, as it harms people and causes misery, so NO :twisted: :x

The Jusen government respects the wishes of those who use recreational drugs - however, the social and economic cost of those who become drug abusers should not be born by the state nor society.

When usage of a recreational drug reaches addiction level and the person involved can no longer function as a productive member of society and constantly requires the use of said drug to keep himself in a tolerable state, it is drug abuse.

Thusly, the government of Jusen do not think the matter of recreational drug use should be among the matters discussed by this august body. Though a matter of individual right, it affects the path and road taken by a nation and is people. Despite our respect for the U.N, no external body shall impose such potentially destructive laws upon us.

If the matter ever reaches a quorum, the representative of Jusen will vote against it.

there is no reason why marijuana shouldnt be legal. It shoud DEFINATELY be legalized. :)

I said all and I meant all. Once that takes place. We can truly build a decent medical system.
A medical system without anaesthetics? Or analgesics? Or antibiotics? Istahan wonders how this could take place.

Anaesthetics can be accomplished by restricting the oxygen contain in their breath.

Antibiotics are just adding fuel to the fire and making people sicker in the longrun; creating stronger more resistant illnesses.

So far acupuncture is working well.

Oppressed Possums your medical methodology leaves much to be desired if you happen to have needed a caesarian section like me. :shock:

All drugs are legal in my nation but i think that when it comes to this issue, nations should be able to make that decision for themselves. As for rehab, i have a large social welfare program, the government funds drug rehab, just as it funds mental health programs, and other social programs. Each individual should have the right to decide what they want to put in their bodies. As long as you aren't hurting anyone else, you should be able to do what you want. Obviously if you kill or hurt someone while under the influence it should still be a crime, but that's a crime if you do it under the influence of alcohol too, and alcohol is legal.

my nation, Yaddaya, has legalized the use of marihuana and hashish. in
our opinion, this kind of drugs falls into the same risk category as alcohol and tobacco, the most common recreational drugs.

we have chosen to legalize these three to pull them out of the criminal circuit and regulate and check the sales of these recreational drugs.

of course, there will always be people that cannot handle their freedom and need rehab. the people of Yaddaya have acknowlegded this fact and are prepared to bear the consequences: rehab budget, created by taxes on recreational drugs.

if someone is able to make a good statement about this, Yaddaya will support it.

We should legalise all drugs. The criminalisation of recreational drug use is the cause of all the social problems associated with recreational drugs - not the drugs themselves. Heroin and Cocaine are produced in third world countries at very little cost, but because of criminalisation they are sold at vast profit in the western world, drug addicts therefore turn to crime to fund their habit, which as a consequence of the breakdown of order in their lives spirals out of control. Tobacco is the most deadly of all forms of drugs, if we allow it then we should all all drugs to be used as the individual sees fit.

I am completely against drug use, as it harms people and causes misery, so NO :twisted: :x

What gives any government the right to tell people they cannot cause themselves misery? Educate them as to the dangers, advise them not to do it, definetely, but otherwise, the government should stay out of the matter of what people choose to put into their bodies.

Smolins how can you justify the medical cost of allowing your nation total legal access to all drugs or the cost to society in the form of lost production and health due to addiction? Who will pay for overdose treatment and rehab.?

Allow me to answer for Smolins - the users can pay for their treatment and rehab themselves, either through taxation to fund state health services in nations with free-at-point-of-service healthcare, or through paying for private medical care in more capitalist nations.

As to the matter of health - that's the individual's body, thus it's his choice to harm it. To production - you would sacrifice personal freedom for economic success?

Allow me to answer for Smolins - the users can pay for their treatment and rehab themselves, either through taxation to fund state health services in nations with free-at-point-of-service healthcare, or through paying for private medical care in more capitalist nations.

This essentially what is in effect for cigarette smokers (USA) and the clamor for more taxation to supposedly fund ever growing health programs are endless. Health care costs of course just continue to float away thereby driving the need for more taxation. So I hear you but as you can see what a drain on an economy (especially for poorer nations).


As to the matter of health - that's the individual's body, thus it's his choice to harm it. To production - you would sacrifice personal freedom for economic success?

Well don't we all everytime we have to leave for work while sick with a cold? That may be my choice to make but my economic sucess depends on it as would any nation.

This essentially what is in effect for cigarette smokers (USA) and the clamor for more taxation to supposedly fund ever growing health programs are endless. Health care costs of course just continue to float away thereby driving the need for more taxation. So I hear you but as you can see what a drain on an economy (especially for poorer nations).

I'm talking about rehab programmes being paid for solely by the tax on drug sales, so it would not cause any problem to anyone, as non-users wouldn't pay extra taxes, and the users have a choice as to whether they're going to spend their money on more drugs or go to a rehab clinic and break the habit.

Well don't we all everytime we have to leave for work while sick with a cold? That may be my choice to make but my economic sucess depends on it as would any nation.

My point is that an employer cannot force you to come to work, but he can fire you if you're late, so most people don't risk it. Similarly, an employer shouldn't be able to stop you using drugs, but if you are the least productive employee, you're going to be laid off when the company next feels the need to make some people redundant, therefore people will tend to try and compromise and use drugs in moderation so as not to drastically reduce their ability to work.

Drugs fall into the category of abuse.

Drugs fall into the category of abuse.

If you mean self-abuse, well I think the individual should have the right to abuse his or her own body, if that's what they want to do.

Wouldn't it be "mental illness"?

Delegates and fellow members of the United Nations,
Circumstances other than the base human desire for altered consciousness necessitate the flow of marijuana, legally or illegally, into our nation states. Perhaps some grow, transport, or sell the plant because they believe they are doing a service to their fellow humans. Others would say their participation in the drug trade was nothing more than greed, if they felt they could be honest. I urge all United Nations members and delegates to internationally legalize marijuana.
The illegalization of marijuana is a tremendous double standard when once considers the other mind-altering substances freely available in most 2nd world+ societies. Alcohol has been humanity's favorite method of escape, as has marijuana, but it has only been in the last 100 years that the culture of marijuana grew to even nearly the size of the drinking culture. One of the main reasons that marijuana was illegalized in the United States (by the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act in the 1920's) was the end of prohibition. Hemp fibers were commonly used in the production of fabrics and paper. The cotton and lumber industries lobbied, and dramatized the possible ill-effects to a gullible, narrow-minded public. Hispanics and African-Americans were at the time the most common users of the substance, and so the powers that be did not want to encourage any aspect of their culture.
In its legal state, alcohol easily does more damage to the family unit, to relationships, to lives, and cars than marijuana ever has. If the world were to legalize marijuana in sanity, the users of tomorrow would not be allowed to be under the influence while operating motor vehicles or necessarily on the job. (This is of course at the employer's suggestion.)
It is true; much crime is related to the sale of marijuana, but that is more because of the illegality of the trade. The trade is made all the more lucrative because of the unnecessity of paying taxes on that income. The government monitored, age-regulated sale of marijuana would help to rid our world of violence over a substance relatively harmless. I suspect that the "paranoia" symptom often attributed to marijuana is closely linked to the fear of getting caught using marijuana.
The most dangerous thing that a nation with decriminalized marijuana trade has to contend with is amotivation. Your citizens could potentially become apathetic. But that's better than dead.
Would you rather your parents had been alcoholics or stoners?
The Calumet

Hoydonia thinks the comparison of mood altering drugs versus mind altering ones is moot. Both are a threat to society yet obviously the freedom of personal responsibility must be factored in.

Hoydonia supports unspecified taxation on all "recreational" drugs consumed by legal adults as determined by our nation for the rehabilitation of those who seek it.

Use the correct terms people...Drugs can also be medication perscribed by doctors

ILLEGAL drugs is the world your looking for

we do not advocate the recreational consumption of neurotropic substances (we neither advocate nor oppose what we feel to be a matter of personal taste and choice on the part of those willing and able to exercize their freedoms responsibly). what we do advocate is that the persicution of those who do, and the wasting of resources on that persicution, be brought to an utter and complete end.

=^^=
.../\...

Not only should we ban drugs, but let us go a bit further and become proactive; Ban the next idiot that suggests the we adopt a policy of legalizing drugs for recreational use by submitting a proposal to the UN and once again suffering the agony of watching the irresponsible vote-in something with far reaching implications and hazards, to which they have no clue.

And ban ever idiot who attempts the same, after that one!

Not only should we ban drugs, but let us go a bit further and become proactive; Ban the next idiot that suggests the we adopt a policy of legalizing drugs for recreational use by submitting a proposal to the UN and once again suffering the agony of watching the irresponsible vote-in something with far reaching implications and hazards, to which they have no clue.

And ban ever idiot who attempts the same, after that one!

Can you justifiy to me why the state should have any right to tell citizens what they can and cannot put in their bodies?

Use the correct terms people...Drugs can also be medication perscribed by doctors

ILLEGAL drugs is the world your looking for

If they are "recreational" in your country, it's likely that they are not illegal.

Not only should we ban drugs, but let us go a bit further and become proactive; Ban the next idiot that suggests the we adopt a policy of legalizing drugs for recreational use by submitting a proposal to the UN and once again suffering the agony of watching the irresponsible vote-in something with far reaching implications and hazards, to which they have no clue.

And ban ever idiot who attempts the same, after that one!

Can you justifiy to me why the state should have any right to tell citizens what they can and cannot put in their bodies?

Because I am the state. What I say, goes.

Can you justifiy to me why the state should have any right to tell citizens what they can and cannot put in their bodies?

Yes.

When people use drugs on "their own time", they still suffer the effects on "my time". Allow me to expand: Eventually, even the most upright person shaves the edges and performs their "own time" activities on "my time", and light up during breaks or lunch. This harms business which in turn harms economics. If you were to look at current examples you would have realized this and not even blinked twice at refusing to promote drug use.

Also, we know without a doubt, conclusively, that drug use is "bad". There are numerous organizations that argue for it, but the reality is that certain drugs are illegal because their effects are harmful to not only the user but to those close to the user.

And lastly - Not every citizen has a firm grasp of what is for their well being. People make mistakes all the time and allowing the use of drugs will only compound these issues and generate more. You increase medical burdens, you risk the burden to their families, and you provide for the degradation of entire generations over time.

Sometimes you must protect the people from themselves.

Yes.

I don't think your answer is enough to justify it...

When people use drugs on "their own time", they still suffer the effects on "my time". Allow me to expand: Eventually, even the most upright person shaves the edges and performs their "own time" activities on "my time", and light up during breaks or lunch. This harms business which in turn harms economics. If you were to look at current examples you would have realized this and not even blinked twice at refusing to promote drug use.

Well then employers can employ people on the condition that they avoid using drugs in their breaks and if someone's productivity is poor, they are likely to be the first to be made redundant, for whatever reason. Some industries with especially good reasons could even that employees abstain from drug use completely except on holiday, and they mite have drugs tests.

Also, we know without a doubt, conclusively, that drug use is "bad". There are numerous organizations that argue for it, but the reality is that certain drugs are illegal because their effects are harmful to not only the user but to those close to the user.

The risk to those close to users could be solved as follows - not allowed in public, and in private allowed only with the permission of the owner and perhaps not in a house with kids. Drugs are harmful, yes, but it's the individual's choice to harm himself.

And lastly - Not every citizen has a firm grasp of what is for their well being. People make mistakes all the time and allowing the use of drugs will only compound these issues and generate more. You increase medical burdens, you risk the burden to their families, and you provide for the degradation of entire generations over time.

Sometimes you must protect the people from themselves.

With proper education (not fanatical "all drugs are bad and you should never take any"), the state can leave the citizens to make their own informed decisions. Some will make foolish decisions, true, but in the end we should be free to make mistakes. With a comprehensive healthcare and rehab program funded by tax revenue solely from the sales of drugs, the impacts can be softened somewhat.

In the end, I think the individual's sovereignty over their own body should come before protecting citizens from themselves.

“Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.”
--Abe Lincoln

Alcohol Prohibition - 1920s/30s
Lax Enforcement of Drug Laws - 1940s/50s/60s
War on Drugs - 1970s/80s/90s

Addiction rates, violent crime rates, overall deaths from drugs, and civil rights violations were lower when drugs were legal (prior to 1914) and when drug laws were laxly enforced than when they were illegal.

The War on Drugs has spawned a host of horrendous problems and has led to the worst ongoing civil rights abuses in American history, with the possible exception of slavery. It must be ended immediately.

It's rather interesting that we can argue about what you are allowed to do to your body but there is no acknowledgement of the fact that this affects other people, perhaps directly. Smoking is an excellent example. Does second hand smoke kill? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact it that be smoking indoors you're making the decisin for everyone. When you make the decision to drink and drive and someone dies, is that still your right as a soverign individual to control your own destiny?

Here's another example. How about wearing perfume? Have you ever seen what happens to a serious asthmatic when someone who is wearing strong perfume comes by? It could even mean death if the conditions are right, and that's from a single exposure. Yet, by your argument, it is your RIGHT to wear perfume regardless of whether or not it could kill someone. Same with cigarettes and pot. In my case pot is a migraine trigger, just the smell of it will ruin my whole day. If you have the right to smoke it, where are my rights to avoid exposure?

How about the cost argument? In a country with public healthcare anything that you purposefully do to your body which could result in, say, a psychotic episode (drugs) or liver cancer (excessive alcohol) suddenly becomes a burden on other people's taxes. Should you have that right as well? Should society be responsible for patching you up because you think that LSD is cool or that alcoholic benders, or chain smoking is your right? I don't think so.

You're really looking at yourself only and are not recognizing that you have to respect others as well. Your "personal choices" do affect others whether you'd like to think so or not.

Not only should we ban drugs, but let us go a bit further and become proactive; Ban the next idiot that suggests the we adopt a policy of legalizing drugs for recreational use by submitting a proposal to the UN and once again suffering the agony of watching the irresponsible vote-in something with far reaching implications and hazards, to which they have no clue.

And ban ever idiot who attempts the same, after that one!

How about banning you for trying to undermine the democratic process??? Rather convenient that the 'irresponsible' happen to disagree with you isn't it???

I have on occasion smoked weed, and enjoyed it. I feel much better than after a drinking session. No stoners are going to go around smashing up cars (unless they have food inside) and getting into fights. Marijuana didn't stop me from coming top in my class at university and I don't see it as any different to alcohol or tobacco.

However, I do believe this is a national issue, because I know if it came to vote it would:

a) get voted down
b) prompt proposals banning drug use, which would probably get voted in and thus destroy the freedoms in my NationState.

“Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.”
--Abe Lincoln

Alcohol Prohibition - 1920s/30s
Lax Enforcement of Drug Laws - 1940s/50s/60s
War on Drugs - 1970s/80s/90s

Addiction rates, violent crime rates, overall deaths from drugs, and civil rights violations were lower when drugs were legal (prior to 1914) and when drug laws were laxly enforced than when they were illegal.

The War on Drugs has spawned a host of horrendous problems and has led to the worst ongoing civil rights abuses in American history, with the possible exception of slavery. It must be ended immediately.

That's just because punishment isn't severe enough. You can eliminate it by "euthanizing" all people involved in the drug process.

Smoking is an excellent example. Does second hand smoke kill? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact it that be smoking indoors you're making the decisin for everyone. When you make the decision to drink and drive and someone dies, is that still your right as a soverign individual to control your own destiny?

So ban smoking inside public buildings and make drunk driving illegal.

Here's another example. How about wearing perfume? Have you ever seen what happens to a serious asthmatic when someone who is wearing strong perfume comes by? It could even mean death if the conditions are right, and that's from a single exposure. Yet, by your argument, it is your RIGHT to wear perfume regardless of whether or not it could kill someone. Same with cigarettes and pot. In my case pot is a migraine trigger, just the smell of it will ruin my whole day. If you have the right to smoke it, where are my rights to avoid exposure?

Again, ban pot use in public, but allow it in private.

How about the cost argument? In a country with public healthcare anything that you purposefully do to your body which could result in, say, a psychotic episode (drugs) or liver cancer (excessive alcohol) suddenly becomes a burden on other people's taxes. Should you have that right as well? Should society be responsible for patching you up because you think that LSD is cool or that alcoholic benders, or chain smoking is your right? I don't think so.

Fund the increased cost of healthcare from the taxes on drugs, and possibly if necessary the money saved by police forces because they no longer have to spend effort and cash catching drugs dealers and users.

We're talking about having sovereignty over what you put into your body, but nobody else's. Therefore, to stop people putting drugs into others' bodies through passive smoking etc., the solution is not to ban all drug use, but stop people using them in public buildings.

As for the perfume, I really don't know. Never heard of this, and I had mild asthma. Perhaps we should regulate the strength, since there is no ther way to stop it - you can't say only use perfume in private.

Restrictive regulation of Perfume. Restrictive regulation of Drinking. Restrictive regulation of drugs...

This is regulation of the rights and freedoms of the people. We as individuals in society are subject to laws often frivolous, though most aid in the order of society. However, to begin regulating all forms of possible harm, we begin slowly removing the freedom and liberty that life is about.

Firstly- the suggeston of regulating perfume is an extreme one. If one is so affected by perfume and leads themselves into an unsafe atmosphere- others cannot be held responsible for their recklessness. It is as if to say- "Fire hurts me" And then walk into an open grill restaurant where flames extinguished by overzealous waiters with lemons are common. The question is, would a reasonable person be able to foresee possible harm should they enter an anvironment? If the answer is yes, then no others are at fault for reckless endagerment. If it is no, then all steps must be taken to prevent their exposure while keeping with the idea of liberty for all. It is the resonsibility of the individual to protect themselves from unnessecary harm due to any illness or condition. It is not the responsibility of the people to foresee all possible harm and try to circumvent it. This is a fruitless and illogical cause destined to fail.

Drink, drugs.. walking across the street- all cause negative effects, all can negatively impact society or an individual business. However, is this to say we should regulate who, when and under what circumstances someone is able to cross a street? No- this is an infringement. It is the same as regulating drug use in a manner that prohibits it's sale, or use in public areas. THis is not to say that some sort of regulation could not be in place, just restrictive mandates that allow law enforcement for the breaking of a law. Therefore, it is recommened that- like crossing the street (Which is possibly harmful to the person, and everyone around them, as well as the economy, etc) we create zones in which drug use is permitted. I.E Private residences and specified public areas. The use of drugs outside this area is subject to fine, and if a subsequent crime is committed, sentences which reflect the lack of consideration, forethought and maturity of the user. Then, allow the sale of drugs on the open market, to create a fair, legal, transparent and accountable market. This allows for compensation fo those negatively impacted by drugs, while ensuring health concerns about purity etc are addressed. In essence- these laws and by laws would reflect current alchohol laws now in place.

This allows the people their freedom to do with their bodies as they see fit, an accountable means of compensation for damages, and the removal of criminalization procedures that unjustly and unfairly segregate many poverty ridden areas.


The Most Serene Republic of Iriya- Mors Semper Tyrannis