NationStates Jolt Archive

Below is the new proposal Mauiwowee has presented to the U.N. Please vote for this proposal. Ensure medicine that can help the sick is not outlawed based on unjustified fears that it will be abused. This is a humanitarian matter.

MEDICINAL MARIJUANA:

WHEREAS: The marijuana plant grows naturally and "in the wild" in almost every single country which has joined the U.N.;

WHEREAS: A significant number of countries belonging to the U.N. have either competely legalized or at least decriminalized the personal possesion and use of marijuana; and

WHEREAS: The medical community of U.N. nations has documented, repeatedly, the beneficial effects of smoked marijuana upon those suffering from intractable pain, cancer and chemotherapy related nausea and other nervous disorders such as multiple sclerosis.

BE IT RESOLVED: No country belonging to the U.N. shall prohibit, or otherwise criminalize, the use of marijuana by any person for any condition when said use is recommended or prescribed by a physisician licensed to practice medicine in said countries and said recommendation or prescriptions is for the treatment of any medically recognized condition, ailment or disorder.

PROVIDED THAT: This resolution shall not require that a country legalize the use of marijuana for recreational or intoxicating purposes. Also, the dispensation of marijuana pursuant to the foregoing resolution shall be subject to the internal laws of each nation regarding the dispensation of prescribed medications.

Dear Members.

I am sorry to say that this proposal is not a valid matter for decision by the UN. As stated in the proposal, many nations have already taken steps towards this issue. It is, by its very nature, a sovreign state's right to allow or criminalize marijuana as the nation sees fit. It would be of poor practice to forbid a nation from making its own laws regarding this issue.

Lastly, the practice and expectations are to make decisions that affect a global population by eliminating global dangers, and addressing global concerns. Whether a country allows or criminalizes does not qualify as either.

Dear Members.

It would be of poor practice to forbid a nation from making its own laws regarding this issue.
.

But yet it seems ok to force countries to take stands on moral issues such as abortion or capital punishment. I truly hope that there are no hypocrits around, even though the world is filled with them.

Ezzee
President of Kazooland.

Dear Members.

I am sorry to say that this proposal is not a valid matter for decision by the UN. As stated in the proposal, many nations have already taken steps towards this issue. It is, by its very nature, a sovreign state's right to allow or criminalize marijuana as the nation sees fit. It would be of poor practice to forbid a nation from making its own laws regarding this issue.

Lastly, the practice and expectations are to make decisions that affect a global population by eliminating global dangers, and addressing global concerns. Whether a country allows or criminalizes does not qualify as either.

It may be their right to criminalize or de-criminalize marijuana for recreational or intoxicating useage. HOWEVER, that right is recognized in the proposal. This is a matter of HUMANITARIAN, MEDICAL need. To say a country can deny a medicine to its people when the efficacy of the medicine cannot be disputed is to say the U.N. endorses the suffering of the sick and dying and supports those countries who have determined the sick should suffer. Surely this is not the case with this great body!

But yet it seems ok to force countries to take stands on moral issues such as abortion or capital punishment. I truly hope that there are no hypocrits around, even though the world is filled with them.

Ezzee
President of Kazooland.

Being new to the UN, I did not vote on the abortion issue. I was not here. Nor would I endorse a ban on capital punishment, as I feel that too is a sovreign right.

As for the issue of medicinal use only, I still believe it is an individual nation's right to consider marijuana a substance that is illegal. Perhaps in their nation, there are high drug rates. Perhaps they worry that sick people will sell their medicinal use marijuana to others. Perhaps they feel that opening the door to medicinal use would create a landslide effect towards the drug itself. Whatever their reasoning, if a nation has decided it does not wish to allow marijuana for any reason, they should not be forced by our resolutions to allow it.

The UN seems too concerned with passing resolutions that remove the right to sovreignty from nations, and this is yet another proposal which would do just that.

I say again, the UN is not a governing body that should seek to change regional control over certain issues, unless those issues are a threat to others or to global society. The allowance of marijuana in one's sovreign state is not such a threat.

Good, bad, good, bad, good... hmmm.

Good: Excellent, clearly-worded proposal. A relief after some of the UN doozies we have seen, so kudos Mauiwowee. :)

Bad: will likely result in cartels and a black market anyway in countries without adequate infrastructure to control marijuana cultivation and supplies, in effect setting up a drug culture where previously it may have not existed.

Good: relatively cheap, organically grown medecine, an economically attractive alternative to expensive pain-killing medications.

Bad: does infringe on national sovereignty rights.

Good: would make an excellent national daily issue rather than a UN international issue. This approach would guarantee that nations best in positions to act regarding this issue would receive it.

Bad: pharmaceutical multinationals lobbyists will scream (or is this more of a good? ;))


Just some points to ponder. We do recommend that this issue belongs at the national, rather than international level, however, but well done and thanks, Mauiwowee!

Freelander
Reiki Practitioners

I'm sorry, I don't buy the national sovereignty argument. All this proposal does is guarrantee that a medicine is available on a world wide basis. The countries of the U.N. are free to regulate, control, tax, whatever the method of distribution of marijuana. It doesn't affect their sovereignty at all.

I'm sorry, I don't buy the national sovereignty argument. All this proposal does is guarrantee that a medicine is available on a world wide basis. The countries of the U.N. are free to regulate, control, tax, whatever the method of distribution of marijuana. It doesn't affect their sovereignty at all.

Esteemed member of Mauiwowee

I must disagree with your statement. The control of narcotic substances is very much a national issue. If your aim is truly medicinal, I believe it would be better to structure a proposal that member states will not withhold the chemical compounds contained in narcotic substances that could have a health benefit. A drug can still have the desired medical benefit without the narcotic side affects. Many compounds derived from illegal substances are already being used in medicines such as in the treatment of Narcolepsy.

Worded in this way I feel a government still have the sovereign right to ban narcotic substances for re-creational use, but do charge them with a responsibility to investigate potential health benefits.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

Esteemed Mauiwowee.
In regards to endorsements, 2 are needed to be able to submit a proposal. These endormsements can only come from other UN members in your home region. UN members from outside your region can not endorse you.

Esteemed Mauiwowee.
In regards to endorsements, 2 are needed to be able to submit a proposal. These endormsements can only come from other UN members in your home region. UN members from outside your region can not endorse you.

Thank you, I had misunderstood this point.

Esteemed Mauiwowee.
In regards to endorsements, 2 are needed to be able to submit a proposal. These endormsements can only come from other UN members in your home region. UN members from outside your region can not endorse you.

Thank you, I had misunderstood this point.

This proposal is now before the U.N. awaiting delegate approval to become a full resulotion. Please vote for it!

*bump*

come on guys, where is the debate and reasoned support or lack thereof? You who support it, tell your regional delegate to back it so it becomes a full resolution, not a lingering proposal. We need this!

No... WE dont need this.

As I have said before, passing such a resolution on a world-wide scale is taking away a countries SOVEREIGNTY.

Did you join the UN so that you could decide what all the other UN countries can and cant have in their country? It certainly seems that way, with the ridiculous number of absurd proposals that people want to pass.

Making a controlled substance legal for all of the UN is NOT your decision to make. It is the decision of regions. It is the decision of countries. It is not the decision of the UN.

A drug can still have the desired medical benefit without the narcotic side affects.

Not necessarily so. With marijuana, many of the medical effects are indivisibly related to the narcotic ones.

For instance, those with depression may be prescribed the depressant valium (or generic clones thereof) to help combat the very real danger of major depressive episodes - in spite of the fact that it's very addictive. Marijuana's narcotic effect does much the same thing, and has vastly less potential for addiction. Similarly, benefits gained from marijuana on multiple sclerosis sufferers are derived from its effect on their nervous system - you can't seperate narcotic effect from medical effect, unless you combine it with a second drug to kill the high - which would be very bad medicine indeed. Okay, some of the benefits of marijuana - such as the 'munchies' effect which researchers are attempting to reproduce in order to fight anorexia - aren't totally linked to the high, but a great many are.

Morphine, heroin and other strong opiates are illegal in most countries - but in all these countries they're still available for medical use where they're needed. We don't see why a vastly more benign drug should be any different.

Not necessarily a UN issue, though.

No... WE dont need this.

As I have said before, passing such a resolution on a world-wide scale is taking away a countries SOVEREIGNTY.

How so? You still get to define what conditions it can be used for and under what circumstances it can be prescribed.

Did you join the UN so that you could decide what all the other UN countries can and cant have in their country? It certainly seems that way, with the ridiculous number of absurd proposals that people want to pass.

I agree that many ridiculous, idiotic proposals exist. This, however, is the ONLY proposal we have put forth. We did not join the U.N. to decide what another country "can and cannot have in their country." We did set this proposal out for consideration though because we think a country should not be permitted to deny an effective medicine based on paranoid governmental philosophy about its possible misuse. I take it you prohibit the use of morphine and related opiods to treat pain (they are addictive you know), valium and related benzodiazipines to treat aniexty disorders (they are addictive you know), ephridine and related amphetamines to treat allergies and obesity (they are addictive you know). What medicines can your people have? Aspirin? Oh wait, that causes stomach irritation and bleeding ulcers, better ban that as well.

Making a controlled substance legal for all of the UN is NOT your decision to make. It is the decision of regions. It is the decision of countries. It is not the decision of the UN.

You are right, making a drug legal for all of the nations of the U.N. is not my decision, that is why I have requested the U.N. put it in the form of a resolution and let ALL countries vote on it. Making it ILLEGAL for any country is not your decision either.

Bottom Line, Marijuana helps people, to allow a country to ban it from medicinal use because of paranoia over its potential for misuse should be prohibited. It is a cheap and readily available source of relief for millions of sick people, why should it be banned (Unless you are heavily invested in Eli-Lilly, Bayer, etc. you're not one of those are you? Or are you?)

Respectfully,
His Highness,
King 'Lude II

Dear Whited Fields:

We offer our royal apology for the somewhat sarcastic tone of our last post. However we stand behind the basic position asserted in that post. All this proposal does is prohibit a country from forbidding the use of marijuana as a medicine. You would be free under the proposal, if adopted, to pass a law that said, for example:

"Marijuana shall not be prescribed unless 5 seperate, independent physicians recommend its use in circumstances under which the patient is certified to die within 1 hour of prescribing by all 5 physicians"

In other words your freedom and sovereignty is not taken away except insofar as your ability to completely ban it as a medicine is concerned.

Respectfully,
His Royal Highness,
King 'Lude II

Dear Members.

I am sorry to say that this proposal is not a valid matter for decision by the UN. As stated in the proposal, many nations have already taken steps towards this issue. It is, by its very nature, a sovreign state's right to allow or criminalize marijuana as the nation sees fit. It would be of poor practice to forbid a nation from making its own laws regarding this issue.


In fact, I'd go a step further. This proposal is in violation of the Rights and Duties resolution from earlier this year.

With that in mind, my nation hereby is going place an additional tax on all products from Mauiwowee, in response to that nation's failure to respect the sovereign rights of nations by its abuse of the United Nations. Pursuant to existing UN resolutions, these tariffs will not include medical supplies.

Furthermore, I ask all nations to not only ignore this proposal, but to join my nation's economic sancations of Mauiwowee until such a time that that nation can provide either a solid international justification for abusing the United Nations or an apology for its inappropriate proposal.

My nation regrets taking such a hard-line stance, but sadly younger / smaller nations don't respond to logic.

I will also be taking my nation's request to all of the nations of the North Pacific (which is literally thousands of nations).

The sad irony, is that my nation already has legalized marijuna for recreational use, and stands to loose nothing by this inappropriate resolution.

10kMichael
UN Ambassador of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity

Dear Members.

I am sorry to say that this proposal is not a valid matter for decision by the UN. As stated in the proposal, many nations have already taken steps towards this issue. It is, by its very nature, a sovreign state's right to allow or criminalize marijuana as the nation sees fit. It would be of poor practice to forbid a nation from making its own laws regarding this issue.


In fact, I'd go a step further. This proposal is in violation of the Rights and Duties resolution from earlier this year.

With that in mind, my nation hereby is going place an additional tax on all products from Mauiwowee, in response to that nation's failure to respect the sovereign rights of nations by its abuse of the United Nations. Pursuant to existing UN resolutions, these tariffs will not include medical supplies.

Furthermore, I ask all nations to not only ignore this proposal, but to join my nation's economic sancations of Mauiwowee until such a time that that nation can provide either a solid international justification for abusing the United Nations or an apology for its inappropriate proposal.

My nation regrets taking such a hard-line stance, but sadly younger / smaller nations don't respond to logic.

I will also be taking my nation's request to all of the nations of the North Pacific (which is literally thousands of nations).

The sad irony, is that my nation already has legalized marijuna for recreational use, and stands to loose nothing by this inappropriate resolution.

10kMichael
UN Ambassador of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity

And since marijuana is a is a medical supply, your tariffs won't affect us either.

Respectfully,
His Highness,
King 'Lude II

P.S. How are we "abusing" the U.N. by asking it to require member nations to make an effective medicine legal under such cirmcumstances as the member nations individually deign as being reasonable. See our previous post please.

And since marijuana is a is a medical supply, your tariffs won't affect us either.

Respectfully,
His Highness,
King 'Lude II

P.S. How are we "abusing" the U.N. by asking it to require member nations to make an effective medicine legal under such cirmcumstances as the member nations individually deign as being reasonable. See our previous post please.

That is a naivee statement, unless the ONLY thing your country imports is marijuana. Miervatian wool is still a much sought after commodity in many nations, as are Miervatian made watches and nanotech-related machines.

The UN resolution does not require my nation to allow imports, it only states that my nation can not enforce an embargo on medical supplies.

Your abuse is in ignoring the Rights and Duties resolution and proposing a UN resolution that has no international standing.

International standing is one of the most basic concepts of international politics ... something that high school students usually have a grasp of. It can be summerized as:

International standing is when the problem or consequences of an action cross international borders.

What a Miervatian child chooses to read is something that crosses an international border. There is no standing for your nation to suggest to mine what sort of laws it should have reading, since clearly Miervatian children aren't going to read many books from outside the North Pacific.

Similarly the drug policies of your nation are of no concern to a Miervatian child. Prohibiting or legalizing marijuana is something best left up to your government ... in fact, it already is ... there are no doubt "issues" that you are confronted with on a daily basis, and some of them no doubt concern drug use.

My nation is not so arrogant to attempt to dictate to the world what it should do when it comes to problems that never impact our people, and yet your nation is completely "full of it" because you are doing nothing less than IMPOSING your belief system on my people, when frankly there can be no positive or negative impacts of how my government reacts on your people.

Bottom line: if the problem is not likely to spill over borders, leave the issue the hell out of the international community. Bringing the issue here is something a high school kid might do. It is beyond ignorant, it is INSULTING to think that you believe that a nation of over 700 million people can't think for themselves. Look at my nation for a minute ... it has some of the highest civil and political freedoms around and its economy is doing pretty good. The standard of living of a Miervatian is such that we don't appreciate young nations telling us how to make domestic policy.

If you want to be active in the UN, let's talk about issues such as the environment, weapons, gross violations of human rights, and other problems that not only spill across borders, but by doing so increase the risk of war.

No nation will go to war over pot. And yet you are determined to waste this assemblies time with an issue that is moot in most of our nations. Many of our nations already have legalized drugs.

It is true that you are not alone and that others like this idea, but often people share the same bad ideas ... case in point: gas chambers of the 1940s. Clearly a bad idea, but it wasn't the dumb idea of one man alone.

I'm hoping you'll actually just take your need to debate drug policies to the Got Issues forum here on NationStates and continue it there, since the positive point is that you really are just trying to reinforce the idea that nations have a right to choose. Give them that right, proposal a new issue, and nations will do just that.

My nation's anger may be directed at yours right now, but the truth is this sort of irresponsible behavior is something common to many UN nations, and is exactly why so many nations refuse to join the UN. Their taking a stance, such as imposing economic sancations on your nation, will not have much effect, since many of you seem to ignore them anyways. But another UN member boycotting your nation, will do your national international harm, because my nation's resistance to this abuse is public and may be joined by other UN members.

10kMichael

Dear 10kMichael/Mikitivity:

Let me ask you to answer one question: If a U.N Nation (most likely a theocracy, but not necessarily so) announced that it would no longer allow the practice of medicine of any kind within its borders and that people would live or die pursuant to the whims of nature (or God(s) if it were a theocracy) would you hold that the matter is one of national soveriegnty or that of international human rights concern? If you say it is OK for a country to treat its people in this fashion, then we have a substantial disagreement on how the U.N. should handle civil rights and I will respectfully agree to disagree with your position. However, if it is your position that a country cannot outlaw ALL medical treatment, then your oppostion to our proposal that requires all countries to allow one specific form of medical treatment is illogical. As noted many times, the countries can decide how, when and where the treatment is to be provided; it just cannot completely outlaw it all together under our proposal.

Sincerely
His Royal Highness,
King 'Lude II

P.S. I've spoken with my country's minister of foreign trade, I did not realize how highly praised your woolen products were. We do not import a significant amount of them, but the loss of trade over this issue would seem to us to be nothing more than the exercise of spite. I'm sure if you check with your foreign trade personnel, you'll find that our leather products are likewise of significant value and in some demand by your citizens. At a bare minimum, I would suggest we agree to disagree over this issue, but since neither of them have any bearing on whether we import/export wool or leather with or without tariffs, I would ask that we leave things as they are between our countries on the exchange of these items. This is a political disagreement over the function of the U.N. and what is and is not to be controlled by them, not an issue that should prevent the citizens from either of our countries to obtain "creature comforts" that they deign desirable.

Again, Respectfully yours,
His Highness,
King 'Lude II

Did you join the UN so that you could decide what all the other UN countries can and cant have in their country?

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.

This proposal is in violation of the Rights and Duties resolution from earlier this year.

That resolution was only allowed not to be deleted, as far as I remember, because it was written so as not to dictate what future proposals can and cannot do. Any proposal which actually banned any type of future proposal would be deleted on grounds of game mechanics (there are a few passed like the Spelling + Grammar resolution, but these were before the mods began deleting proposals, and the mods ruled, I think, that these are not law but guidelines because they are unenforcable).

Anyway, since no previous resolution can dictate what can be passed in future, this proposal cannot be in violation of any resolutions.

Plus:

Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

The proposal does not violate this, it merely restricts what legal powers a member has with regards to this clause.

Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Again, this proposal simply creates another "immunity recognized by national law" to which a member government's right to sovereignty is subject.

Article 11 § Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

_Myopia_ once told me that he believed all drugs should be legalized so everybody would be too stoned and pissed to notice when he seized power. Its not because hes a liberal, its because he wants to become a dictator!

Dear Members.

It would be of poor practice to forbid a nation from making its own laws regarding this issue.
.

But yet it seems ok to force countries to take stands on moral issues such as abortion or capital punishment. I truly hope that there are no hypocrits around, even though the world is filled with them.

Ezzee
President of Kazooland.

I agree. Such controversial issues are best left to smaller beurocracies, rather than letting hundreds or thousands of nations feel slighted. But certainly there is a double standard in this, where other nations raise to vote the issues of abortion and/or homosexual "marriages"/"civil unions," which are of the utmost controversy, cause moral strangling, and cannot be decided by one giant organization covering possibly trillions of people.