NationStates Jolt Archive

Performance Enhancing Drugs

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights Strength: Mild Proposed by: SolaceArmonia

Description: Once a civilian has cast off his former position and taken upon himself the duties and responsibilities of a soldier, he has put himself into a place of complete submission. This selfless sacrifice is being abused in many U.N. member nations. Soldiers are being forced to take performance-boosting drugs, some of which are highly addictive. Others wreak havoc on bodily systems, causing permanent damage. Being forced into addiction in the service of one's country should never be acceptable.

Be it resolved, no soldier shall be forced or manipulated into taking an addictive drug without the individual’s clear consent.

Be it resolved, alternative non-addictive performance-boosting drugs (with minimal side effects) shall be researched and developed for military and civilian purposes.

This is a current U.N. proposal worthy of any delegate who values the sacrifices of our military personel.

No one values military personnel, that's why their military personnel! They're cannon fodder! They're used in wars! They get killed! I support performance enhancing drugs because they LESSEN the chance they'll get killed! Do you WANT human beings to die??

the great nation of flippity floppity flu concurs with the assesment of darkmentia, and commends him for his candid view on the matter

No one values military personnel, that's why their military personnel! They're cannon fodder!

Thats disgusting.

The Holy Republic of Geletic supports this resolution.

The nature of this resolution is contradictory. You deplore the use of performance-enhancing drugs because their negative side effects, and yet you would encourage their development with the same stroke of a pen, and make that drug available for the civilian population? Thats just what every country needs, representative, civilians using military-grade controlled substances. This resolution is a walking contradiction, and to sign it would to bring about a drug plague upon our country and others. We stand in opposition

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

It is a bitter thing to be misinterpreted. It's not the drugs themselves that are deplorable, it is involintarty addiction. The sacrifices soldiers make are heartbreaking, we must not abuse them. Performance Enhancing drugs are a helpful thing when they don't destroy the entirety of your natural life.

And to Darkmentia, I'm certain many soldiers have died defending your life, the life of your country. The things you have said are terrible.

The nature of this resolution is contradictory. You deplore the use of performance-enhancing drugs because their negative side effects, and yet you would encourage their development with the same stroke of a pen, and make that drug available for the civilian population? Thats just what every country needs, representative, civilians using military-grade controlled substances. This resolution is a walking contradiction, and to sign it would to bring about a drug plague upon our country and others. We stand in opposition

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

After talking with the head of the Confederation's Super Soldier Serum project, Dr. Bruce Banner, I took a completely different context out of the proposed draft.

The point is to put safe guards in place that would allow programs like our Super Soldier Program to continue. While my government feels that there is a danger creating too many transhumans, we have already agreed that our Sentinels of Liberty (our name for our soldiers) will enjoy the same rights and freedoms as any other citizen. Dr. Banner gave his assurance that there will be additional medical benefits from his research.

10kMichael

Perhaps the representative from Mikitivity doesn't understand our objection. In the name of clarification, I shall restate our argument in a more detailed fashion.

This proposal carries with it two mandates, the first a declaration of a soldier's rights to not have chemicals crammed down his or her throat. The second is a mandate that all nations start programs to develop "safe" drugs to cram down their soldiers' throats.

Our first objection is to the second mandate of this proposal, as not every country believes in giving their soldiers chemicals. Under this proposal, every single UN member would immediately have to develop such a program, even if they don't believe in the use of said chemicals.

Our second objection is on a philosophical level. The UN is an organization devoted to peace and the resolution of conflict, where this proposal seeks to move in the opposite direction. For the UN to pass a resolution that demands nations develop a weapons program this nature is to legitimize the use of such weapons, a direct insult to the purpose of this organization. The UN should not encourage nations to develop a chemical designed to make more effecient killers.

Our third objection lies in the contradictory logic used within the proposal. The proposal would have you believe that the chemicals used on soldiers are the ultimate evil, causing irreperable harm to the person using it, and that the use should inacceptable on this harm principle. In the same breath, the proposal encourages the use of these same chemicals. Now, the author of the proposal would argue that this is okay because the chemicals being developed are safer, but this isn't reason enough to pass the proposal. As has been pointed out in discussions on other topics, it is in a nation's best interest to use vague language to circumvent a proposal. What's to stop a nation from using this weakness to define safer as "only causes their heart to stop instead of their heart and their lungs"? The proposal establishes a harm in the status quo, then does nothing to solve it by using weak language. Furthermore, the lack of a regulatory or oversight comission means no one gets to tell the country manipulating defintions that they're not allowed to do that. If the drug I create only causes 98% brain damage as opposed to 99% it is legal under this proposal, yet obviously not what the author wants.

Our fourth objection comes to another contradiction. Remember, as establisehd by my third argument that the author belives it is immoral and terrible to subject anyone to a harmful chemical. Now, if you read the exact text of the first mandate offered by the proposal you'll see that it only bans chemicals of an addictive nature. A chemical could be non-addictive yet lethal if you take more than a gram, and under this proposal it would be perfectly acceptable to force a soldier to take it. Its a little difficult to solve for the problem if your legislation allows the problem to still happen after its passage.

Our fifth objection is to the language used in the preambulatory justification. In order for you to suppor this proposal in the face of all the other objections raised you would have to believe that all of the generalities offered are 100% true. First, I would argue that a soldier does not cast off his rights as a human being and become completely submissive in every member nation (and if they do, its likely to a government that will take advantage of the loophole pointed out in the third objection). Second, you have to assume that every soldier is being forced to take a supplement of some kind at every waking moment of their life. This is fallacious in more than one way, the primary being that not every soldier is forced to take them, the secondary in that not all nations would waste such expensive chemicals unless in a time of crisis. Third, you have to assume that all chemicals offered are of a harmful nature, which is obviously not true. By that definition, if I give my army a vitamin supplment it obviously has some negative side effect.

Now, facing all five of those arguments, please, tell me why I should support this proposal? You would demand that I initiate a weapons program that will produce a drug I don't believe in using, open that chemical for abuse by my non-military citizens, and all in the name of solving a problem that this proposal fails to address completely, partially because of the alternate causality and partially because of manipulation of vague definitions. At that level, its an easy vote in opposition.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Perhaps the representative from Mikitivity doesn't understand our objection. In the name of clarification, I shall restate our argument in a more detailed fashion.

This proposal carries with it two mandates, the first a declaration of a soldier's rights to not have chemicals crammed down his or her throat. The second is a mandate that all nations start programs to develop "safe" drugs to cram down their soldiers' throats.

Our first objection is to the second mandate of this proposal, as not every country believes in giving their soldiers chemicals. Under this proposal, every single UN member would immediately have to develop such a program, even if they don't believe in the use of said chemicals.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

I'll respond to your objections independently (though I'm still suffering from a case of the giggles based on an utterly silly idea spoken this morning).

Having looked back at the original proposal's wording:


Be it resolved, alternative non-addictive performance-boosting drugs (with minimal side effects) shall be researched and developed for military and civilian purposes.


I concur, and had totally missed the fact that this draft proposal mandates a prescribed course of action.

Here is my nation's suggested rewrite of the above quoted section:


Affirms that NationStates UN members and non-members have the right to pursue and apply alternative non-addictive performance-boosting genetic and chemical technologies to willing persons for any defensive or peaceful purpose provided that the implementation of these technologies does not have serious negative impacts on the quality of life of the volunteers or others;


Hmmm, can we continue to work on this wording and find something that is mutually benefical to those nations like mine that do in fact have genetic and chemical enhancement programs, like our Super Solider Program and Psi Corps?

The reason I bring up both programs, is clearly one of the common unifying goals of any society is in mutual protection: be it from other sentients or the elements. Though clearly we have the power to change the face of the world with weapons of mass destruction, a new dawn in the way sentient life in NationStates compete for resources will move into biological and genetic fields of play. A person who is physically or mentally more adaptive and flexible will be better prepared to defend his / her society without having to rely upon the age old theory of mutually assured destruction.

10kMichael

* Picks up stamp.

" [ DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB ] "

* Is stamped arcoss the sheet of paper, slipped into its red U.N. card folder and placed in the OUT tray, adressed to its composer.

"Pfffrt,"

* Says The Rep of Komokom,

"It had to be said"

* And with that he takes up his jacket, slips into it, flicks off the light in his private office, closes/locks his door, walks past the mixed sex typing pool and office staff, waves to them to go home to their friends, families, government paid for broad-band and to enjoy themselves, takes the stairs (To avoid the sheep in the elevator already!), down to the bar and slips in for a quiet one in the last bastion of sanity... :wink:

The Rep of Komokom. (Who having slipped down for a quiet one and back up in the blissfully empty elevator, sneaks back through his silent now staff area, into his private office again, and pulls out his office cot to sleep a slippery slumber.)