NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: Within the UN, there is a broad spectrum of legal attitudes towards psychoactive substances of recreational application (hereafter referred to as recreational drugs). While seeking to avoid imposing on national sovereignty with regard to this, it is desirable that agreement be reached to prevent such substances illegally crossing national borders, and likewise to prevent nations hostile to such substances from taking punitive action against more liberal nations.

The General Assembly,

Recognising the right of individual nations to illegalise, legalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit,

Conscious that in some cases, nations with widely differing policies on such substances share land or maritime borders,

Aware of the high priority many nations place on preventing the illegal production and import of such drugs into their own nation,

Fearing that lack of accord over such issues may produce conflict and division between UN member states, victimisation of innocent states or individuals ostensibly to prevent narcotics traffic, and / or aggressive support of illegal imports in order to destabilise, subvert and strain the law enforcement agencies of nations,

1) Declares that from here on in the export or attempted export of recreational drugs to a nation in which they are illegal shall be considered a serious offence in the nation of origin, regardless of domestic narcotics policy;

2) Demands that all nations, in conducting actions in their efforts to suppress illegal drug imports, recognise the sovereignty of other nations; neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their narcotics policy, nor violating international borders in military or policing actions, covert or otherwise; nor restricting legitimate travel by citizens of either nation between said nations; nor using domestic narcotics policy as a justification for any other breach in human rights or international law,

3) Requires that no nation take action against narcotics production within their own borders by biological or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be reasonably judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, under pain of international prosecution,

4) Asserts that nations on both sides of any international border are equally responsible for the prevention of the illegal traffic of any goods, in either direction, across said border; and that the respective law enforcement, customs and border control agencies of said nations share such information as is judged relevant in order to better prevent illegal traffic,

5) Requires that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish reports upon the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances for other than personal consumption; as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal.

6) Recognises the right of vessels, engaged in the export of recreational drugs legal in both the importing and exporting nations, to use international waters without threat of impediment or harrassment from other nations; recognising also the right of other nations to monitor such shipping in order to prevent illicit activity, and the duty of both importing and exporting nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival,

7) Recognises the right of nations to forbid use of airspace or national waters to craft transporting narcotics illegal within that nation,

8) Recognises the right of nations to conduct breath, blood, urine or other drug-detecting tests upon their own returning nationals, at point of reimmigration or elsewhere, and to take action against them as they see fit, including but not limited to forbidding re-entry; but forbids them to perform such tests upon nationals of any other UN nation at any point, unless they seek to obtain citizenship or dual nationality in that nation,

9) Recognises the right of nations to punish according to their own legal system foreign nationals convicted of the production, transport, purchase or supply of illegal substances within their borders.

Recognising the right of individual nations to illegalise, legalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit

In general, we applaud this as an intelligent, well thought out and well written proposal. However, the above clause may constitute a game mechanics change, as the right to submit proposals mandating the legalisation or banning of recreational drugs is part of the UN constitution [OOC: coded into the proposal submissions process].

We therefore suggest that this clause be amended to read:
"Recognising the right of individual nations to illegalise, legalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit until such time as the UN may pass further proposals concerning the legal status of such drugs".

Comrade Christian
Delegate for Law

I'd submit that this still leaves room for further drugs legislation, although not a total ban or legalisation across the UN. Whether this constitutes an infringement is far from clear.

It's clear that the ability to submit a proposal doesn't mean that proposal can't be prevented by prior UN legislation (as is made clear all too frequently).

But you're right; this probably has further-reaching implications than I'd anticipated. I'll modify as you suggested.

Elsepeth R. Nibbling
Ministry of Being Nice

Our esteemed comrades in Rehochipe are probably correct - and, realistically, the UN is never going to legalise or ban recreational drugs outright, given the number of times that both have been tried unsuccessfully.

There may be a qualitative difference between this case and, say, the attempts to repeal the right to gay marriage, since this proposal does not in fact rule either way - it is effectively ruling that the UN has no position on drugs.

But this is all legal wrangling; the fact is that it can't hurt to make this proposal as watertight as possible in order to avoid sniping.

Comrade Christian
Delegate for Law

I think it'd also be worth modifying 1) to include the support of organisations within a foreign nation engaged in production, processing, distribution, etc. of narcotics. You can undermine a country just as easily by sponsoring its own narcotics traffickers as you can by sending yours across the border.

And do something about that frickin' smiley.

You can undermine a country just as easily by sponsoring its own narcotics traffickers as you can by sending yours across the border.

This might be covered by the recently passed Rights and Duties proposal, which forbids "fomenting civil strife" in the territory of another Nation State, or words to that effect. But we'd need to consult further with our legal team.

And do something about that frickin' smiley.

Don't blame us, comrade - you put it there...

Over all, I like it, make it water tight, and its a winner.

The Rep of Komokom

Realised that 8 ) in its current form would prevent nations from conducting, e.g., breathalyser tests on foreign nationals suspected of drunk-driving. Modified to:

8 ) Recognises the right of nations to conduct breath, blood, urine or other drug-detecting tests upon their own returning nationals, at point of reimmigration or elsewhere, and to take action against them as they see fit, including but not limited to forbidding re-entry; but forbids them to perform such tests upon nationals of any other UN nation at point of immigration, or at any time excepting when their suspected intoxication threatens others, or they seek to obtain citizenship or dual nationality in that nation, or are convicted of some other crime,
Also modification to:
Recognising the right of individual nations to illegalise, legalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit, within the bounds of existing or future UN resolutions concerning same,

*Harsh studio lights shine on GD Hendrik as he sits at a ornate teak desk. The Duke watches for the red light to turn green... *

"Citizens of the World, the all-devouring UN Beast has now unleashed a new attempt to destroy our homelands. They have their Thought Police, Environment Police, working on adding a Space Police... and now, they wish to add their Drug Police."

*The Duke dabs his fore-head clean of perspiration... with a silk hankie. The strikingly handsome Royal... resumes his speech.*

"Slowly, they keep wrapping their evil tentacles around sovereign and free people. Vigilance must be our watch-word... resistance our cry of freedom."

"We must unite against the One-Worlders before it is to late!!!"

*The Duke rises from the desk and exits the studio... to the cheers and applause of the TV station staff.*

EDIT (OOC) --- I tried to delete this post... it said that it had been. I apologize for the double post. I will change it to something else.
_____________________________________________________________

*The Duke exits the TV Station by a side-door and jumps on his Harley. He speeds away to the Palace.*

and now, they wish to add their Drug Police.

Quite the contrary. If you actually examine the proposal, it's designed to safeguard small nations with liberal attitudes to drugs (such as yourself and, indeed, Rehochipe) as much as it is to protect states with more stringent attitudes. Essentially, it's an agreement to disagree. It's there to enable states to strengthen each others' national sovereignty.

Elsepeth R. Nibbling
Ministry for Being Nice

P.S. We appreciate the canned laughter, however. *the entire UN rises to its feet and wildly applauds Minister Nibbling. Impromptu street parties break out across the world.*

I'll support it, as long as the modification about future legislation is maintained. However, it may be too long for the server to accept it. Not sure what the maximum is. Although perhaps clause 9 could do with tweaking - it needs to make clear that this is within the bounds of other current/future legislation such as fair trial.

We approve of this proposal with its amendments.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs
Community of Ecopoeia

The deeply sighing and heavy load lifting nation of Berkylvania lends its support to this well thought out, written and presented resolution.

Now, if you'll excuse us, we've run out of Doritos and must go call Dominos cause MAN do we have the munchies.

The Envoy from the Grand Duchy of Laio has been instructed to inform, The Community of Rehochipe, that this proposal is unacceptable to the Government. We object to this clause of the proposal:

5) Requires that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish reports upon the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances for other than personal consumption; as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal.

The cultivation of organic, recreational drugs in the Grand Duchy is practiced by many citizens. Since we have no laws against this… no means of monitoring and collecting data for reports currently exist.

Will the UN be willing to fund establishing and maintaining such a government agency to fulfill this requirement?

Why should the citizens of Laio bear the burden for something that is no even on are law-books?

This amounts to a forced tax, on innocent Laioian citizens, in the proposal's present form.

1) Declares that from here on in the export or attempted export of recreational drugs to a nation in which they are illegal shall be considered a serious offence in the nation of origin, regardless of domestic narcotics policy;

2) Demands that all nations, in conducting actions in their efforts to suppress illegal drug imports, recognise the sovereignty of other nations; neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their narcotics policy, nor violating international borders in military or policing actions, covert or otherwise; nor restricting legitimate travel by citizens of either nation between said nations; nor using domestic narcotics policy as a justification for any other breach in human rights or international law,

3) Requires that no nation take action against narcotics production within their own borders by biological or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be reasonably judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, under pain of international prosecution,[/quote]

We have no objection to these protections of national sovereignty.

4) Asserts that nations on both sides of any international border are equally responsible for the prevention of the illegal traffic of any goods, in either direction, across said border; and that the respective law enforcement, customs and border control agencies of said nations share such information as is judged relevant in order to better prevent illegal traffic,

5) Requires that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish reports upon the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances for other than personal consumption; as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal.

We also support holding nations accountable for their own actions. Clause 5 is similar to the Goobergunchian regulations on marijuana usage and we support it.


6) Recognises the right of vessels, engaged in the export of recreational drugs legal in both the importing and exporting nations, to use international waters without threat of impediment or harrassment from other nations; recognising also the right of other nations to monitor such shipping in order to prevent illicit activity, and the duty of both importing and exporting nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival,

7) Recognises the right of nations to forbid use of airspace or national waters to craft transporting narcotics illegal within that nation,

We have no objection to the defense of national sovereignty in clause 7 nor the defense of international rights in clause 6.

8 ) Recognises the right of nations to conduct breath, blood, urine or other drug-detecting tests upon their own returning nationals, at point of reimmigration or elsewhere, and to take action against them as they see fit, including but not limited to forbidding re-entry; but forbids them to perform such tests upon nationals of any other UN nation at point of immigration, or at any time excepting when their suspected intoxication threatens others, or they seek to obtain citizenship or dual nationality in that nation, or are convicted of some other crime,

We have no objection to this defense of national sovereignty (given the right to emigrate already held in international law), although we would urge nations not to exercise this right.

9) Recognises the right of nations to punish according to their own legal system foreign nationals convicted of the production, transport, purchase or supply of illegal substances within their borders.

We would appreciate it if this clause was modified to account for diplomatic immunity extended by the nation to which the foreign national in question is a citizen of.

However, on balance, this is a well-crafted, well-thought-out resolution that I would support. We would be even more fervent in our support if the one offending provision were rectified.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Retired UN Delegate

5) Requires that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish reports upon the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances for other than personal consumption; as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal.


Could the delegate from Rehochipe perhaps explain this clause in greater detail?

Some socities consider the very currency of the Cofederation of Mikitivity to be a recreational drug, though I for one can not understand how anybody can refuse to acknolwedge Spice Melanges proven medical benefits. However, this clause sounds like my government would have to record every transaction, or does the last phrase "as far as the demostic point of retail or legitimate exports to another nation" limit my government's documentation of Spice Melange transactions to only international exchanges?

10kMichael

Yes, good point Mikivity. There are some things that some nations might want to ban that are too ridiculous to ask us to regulate, so a list might be in order, or a provision for some sort of imaginary committee to rule on what needs to be checked (of course, we wouldn't actually do this, but we'd pretend that it was happening).

Goobergrunchia: thank you for drawing the issue of diplomatic immunity out. We considered this when drafting the proposal, and it appears that there are no extant UN provisions giving any guidelines on diplomatic immunity whatsoever; this is a fairly horrendous oversight and should be dealt with as soon as possible, but in the meantime it would be worth qualifying the relevant clause.

We would submit that the wording of 'recreational psychoactive substances' would be fairly clear; however, we agree it would be worth setting up a subcommitee to provide consensus on what this could legitimately consist of. Alcohol and nicotine would certainly be among them; we are aware, however, that most governments already record such information in order to levy tax on said products or industries and it would merely be a matter of making it public. (In the case of nations which do not levy such a tax, it would seem reasonable for governments to require this information of the corporations responsible for its production, who would certainly be possessed of it).

In small agrarian nations... corporations are seldom involved in the cultivation, harvesting, curing and sells of organic narcotics. In the Grand Duchy, it is a cottage-industry... it is one of the few cash-crops permitted for the peasants. The government is not involved in this... in any manner.

We see no essential difference between cottage-industry drugs production and a microbrewery or small vinyard. Even in the extremely extended possibility that you're not going to levy any taxes whatsoever on such an institution, it seems incredible that you don't at the very least license them.
We'd further like to remind you that this is a policing proposal - of course it's going to involve policing duties. On this basis you could say 'I don't have a police force or army, and I therefore all UN security/policing resolutions are illegal because they would require me to raise taxes in order to employ one.' It would certainly make more sense to impose more rigourous demands on large exporters than minor industries clearly for local sale only; if you trust your peasants enough to deregulate their drugs production, you can trust them to produce reports on their activities in barangay-like formats.

We'd like to add that small agrarian drugs-producing communities are exactly the sort of people that this proposal aims to protect; I doubt many peasants will be unhappy with filling out a few annual forms in exchange for surety that they won't have Agent Orange sprayed on them by a big-hitting nation holding them responsible for its own social decay.

We would submit that the wording of 'recreational psychoactive substances' would be fairly clear; however, we agree it would be worth setting up a subcommitee to provide consensus on what this could legitimately consist of. Alcohol and nicotine would certainly be among them; we are aware, however, that most governments already record such information in order to levy tax on said products or industries and it would merely be a matter of making it public. (In the case of nations which do not levy such a tax, it would seem reasonable for governments to require this information of the corporations responsible for its production, who would certainly be possessed of it).

I would suggest that you describe your controlled substances as recreational psychoactive synthetic chemicals. Perhaps this is unnecessary, but some cultures use natural psychoactive substances in religious practices.

As for assuming that documentation would be acceptable because "most" governments do so, is basically forcing a unique minority to conform to the will of the majority.

What is the point in documenting production? Do you also suggest mandatory UN documentation of Soda Sales and production? I don't see why we'd want to do this, even though Miervatian medical research has shown that excessive drinking of soda pop leads to the intake of excess calories (in other words, Miervatian Children get fat if they sit around and drink too much cola). And yet there is no attempt on my nation's part to regulate soda pop sales in countries like our neighbor Trandosha.

Of course who would want to suggest anything to a Trandoshan ... they tend to bite first, ask questions later. ;)

10kMichael

Trandoshan

Bah, those Trandoshans wish they could afford soda. Most of them drink fermented hamster milk.

To force the peasants to start keeping records would be an attempt to force a change on their culture. Why should the people of Laio be forced to assist in controlling the mis-use of organic narcotics by decadant Americans and Europeans.

Most Laioians use these "gifts from god" for religious purposes. The last census showed that 97.4% of Laioians belong to the Universal Church of the Mo-town Experience... need I say more. To force the nation of Laio to change its policies... would be religious persecution.

What classification is this going to be given? Because I don't like to support resolutions which mess up my precious ratings on low military, high civil rights and high political freedoms (since in the end, the stats are the real effect of resolutions).

Why should the people of Laio be forced to assist in controlling the mis-use of organic narcotics by decadant Americans and Europeans.

Um, going on the assumption that by 'Americans and Europeans' you mean 'NationStates nations with strong economies and strict drugs legislation':

You're not being forced to control narcotics or their use. You're being asked to tell us where they are. Why? So that you can be granted the right to continue your own domestic narcotics policy without the big nations harassing you or your people. May I repeat myself: this doesn't force you to change your internal policy. It forces you to be informed about it.
As for religious persecution - I don't think anybody considers duty on alcohol to be anti-Catholic because it raises the cost of sacramental wine. And what we're proposing here is far weaker than imposing a tax.

Myopia: yeah, this annoyed me too. Technically the only options on drugs policy are 'legalise', 'illegalise' and 'promote', none of which are anything close to what we're trying to achieve here. I vacillated between Free Trade and Security, with lowest possible strength; but frankly there are nations who will oppose any Free Trade proposal on exactly the same grounds. I'm of the opinion that if you're in the UN, raw stats can't be your priority.

Mikivity: 'synthetic' is far too limiting. It wouldn't protect the Rehochipean marijuana crop from attack by foreign GM viruses, for one thing. And I see no reason why a religion shouldn't use synthetic psychoactives.

Description: Within the UN, there is a broad spectrum of legal attitudes towards psychoactive substances of recreational application (hereafter referred to as recreational drugs). While seeking to avoid imposing on national sovereignty with regard to this, it is desirable that agreement be reached to prevent such substances illegally crossing national borders, and likewise to prevent nations hostile to such substances from taking punitive action against more liberal nations.

The General Assembly,

Recognising the right of individual nations to illegalise, legalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit, within the bounds of existing or future UN resolutions concerning same,

Conscious that in some cases, nations with widely differing policies on such substances share land or maritime borders,

Aware of the high priority many nations place on preventing the illegal production and import of such drugs into their own nation,

Fearing that lack of accord over such issues may produce conflict and division between UN member states, victimisation of innocent states or individuals ostensibly to prevent narcotics traffic, and / or aggressive support of illegal imports in order to destabilise, subvert and strain the law enforcement agencies of nations,

Aware of the importance of enforcing the No Embargoes on Medicine resolution of Oct 24 2003,

1) Declares that from here on in the export or attempted export of recreational drugs to a nation in which they are illegal shall be considered a serious offence in the nation of origin, regardless of domestic narcotics policy; punishable by a minimum jail term of no less than one year and no more than five, if the substances are judged to be intended for personal use, or five years if the substances are judged to be intended for distribution; with individual member-nations allowed to set maximum terms at their discretion; or to substitute equivalents according to the punitive code of the nation of origin; or may, by mutual consent of nations, be handed over to the nation of origin for punishment under their legal code,

2) Demands that all nations, in conducting actions in their efforts to suppress illegal drug imports, recognise the sovereignty of other nations; neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their narcotics policy, nor violating international borders in military or policing actions, covert or otherwise; nor restricting legitimate travel by citizens of either nation between said nations; nor using domestic narcotics policy as a justification for any other breach in human rights or international law,

3) Requires that no nation take action against narcotics production within their own borders by biological or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be reasonably judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, under pain of international prosecution,

4) Asserts that nations on both sides of any international border are equally responsible for the prevention of the illegal traffic of any goods, in either direction, across said border; and that the respective law enforcement, customs and border control agencies of said nations share such information as is judged relevant in order to better prevent illegal traffic,

5) Requires that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish reports upon the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances for other than personal consumption; as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal,

6) Recognises the right of vessels, engaged in the export of recreational drugs legal in both the importing and exporting nations, to use international waters without threat of impediment or harrassment from other nations; recognising also the right of other nations to monitor such shipping in order to prevent illicit activity, and the duty of both importing and exporting nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival,

7) Recognises the right of nations to forbid use of airspace or national waters to craft transporting narcotics illegal within that nation,

8 ) Recognises the right of nations to conduct breath, blood, urine or other drug-detecting tests upon their own returning nationals, at point of reimmigration or elsewhere, and to take action against them as they see fit, including but not limited to forbidding re-entry; but forbids them to perform such tests upon nationals of any other UN nation at point of immigration, or at any time excepting when their suspected intoxication threatens others, or they seek to obtain citizenship or dual nationality in that nation, or are convicted of some other crime,

9) Recognises the right of nations to punish according to their own legal system foreign nationals convicted of the production, transport, purchase or supply of illegal substances within their borders; except with regard to those enjoying diplomatic immunity as the UN may see fit to define it at some later time,

10) Requires all UN nations to levy the strongest possible sanctions against any nation judged by the UN to be in non-compliance with the Articles of this Accord; and to close their borders against its nationals; insofar as this is sanctioned by existing UN legislation.

11) Proclaims that, in the case of a nation changing its drugs laws, enforcement of the above Articles with respect to reclassified substances shall not be carried out, until the elapsement of one month after the nation in question has informed the UN and its neighbours of said change.

12) Requests that, if in wartime a nation's domestic policy be considered to be in contravention of the No Embargoes On Medicine Resolution, that the matter be taken up in the courts of the UN, which shall be granted authority to enforce said Resolution if judged in breach; requesting however that no such distribution occur except under the guidance of accredited and neutral medical staff; recommending the Internation Red Cross for this role.

lets all chew some mushies!!!!!!!! :roll: :shock: :roll: