NationStates Jolt Archive

I just thought I would post this message in an effort to drum up more support for my proposal which can be found in the main site on page 7 of the proposals list.

It basically outlines legalising all forms of drugs for whatever use.

I am willing to debate so if you take issue to my proposal, post below and I will discuss it with you


Thank you

Legalise everything
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.

Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: The Artificial World

Description: The war on drugs has been lost. We should legalise all drugs, then we can control them and tax them. By placing it outside of our jurisdiction we are placing our citizens at risk from bad products or drug related crime. In addition many criminal organisations draw most of their funding from drug money. If we take away illegal drugs - we remove a lot of crime.

And so the resolution is thus:
1)All drugs are legal and available from government outlets
2)The tax benefits can be partially spent on providing care for those who choose to partake, and also to provide better information for young people.
3)We buy our drugs from third world countrys and so help stimulate they're economys

Approvals: 4 (The Artificial World, Kortepohja, Novoslobovia, Coolet)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 131 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Sep 3 2004
Please consider a spellcheck before posting. There are far too many of these sorts of "Legalise Everything" proposals every week to consider supporting one with many obvious errors.

Yes I concede there is one obvious error where I have typed "they're" instead of their but other than that the proposal is grammatically correct and the rest of it is spelled correctly as well.

What were the other "errors" you noticed?

3)We buy our drugs from third world countries and so help stimulate their economies.


Yeah, I'm being picky. I'm also opposed to the resolution. Why? Because it makes assumptions that just aren't true in the nation of Frisbeeteria. We don't have a war on drugs. We don't want ALL drugs legal. Our Drug Safety Administration board prefers to choose based on citizen/employee heath risk/benefit analysis. We already tax them, in the sense that corporate profits are the form that taxes take in Frisbeeteria. We don't have 'criminal organizations'. Anyone that manages to organize intelligently eventually ends up on our corporate boards. Citizens can buy what they need at commerical pharmacies. The government does not interfere with retail trade. We already have UN mandated health care and education. We don't need another law mandating it. We don't buy from 'third world' countries. Our own production facilities are far superior to imports, as you would expect from a nations with a strong pharmaceuticals industryIn short, not one single aspect of this proposal has any bearing on Frisbeeterian health, safety, or economy ... except to possibly damage it. This is a national issue. You choose your path, we'll choose ours.

I support the general concept of drug law ultra-liberalism, but as Fris has pointed out, the way your proposal does it is not really suitable for every nation.

*The Rep of Komokom frowns on general principle of content of proposal, and proceeds to investigate it.Legalise everythingNot the best title possible ...A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.Something to demonstrate this better in the title would be better.Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: The Artificial WorldYeah, clearly the title should be changed to better reflect its intent " legalise everything " is way way way to ambiguous ...Description: The war on drugs has been lost.1) Yes, what war is this you speak of ?

2) Once again, I have to say, even accepting such a war exists, I don't think it is one we can simply proclaim as lost. Defeat only happens when one side gives up completely or is wiped out. " We " are still here, are we to surrender our principles ? I'd also like to point out Idon't see us having reached some turning point where drugs officially become "good " and fighting the operations behind pushing them into countries where they are criminalised is now " bad ". For us nations who criminalise them, I feel.We should legalise all drugs, then we can control them and tax them.You mean, we should conditionally legalise them.By placing it outside of our jurisdiction we are placing our citizens at risk from bad products or drug related crime.Drugs are not out-side our jurisdictiction, they are within our jurisdiction as we, well, some of us, have criminalised them. Hence, they are within our ( Oh, I do mean national governments ) jurisdiction. I also doubt I want my government being responsible for getting its citizens " high ", considering the long-term effects of such drugs as being considered here ( No doubt, narcotics, because quite frankly, could this wording include performance enhancing drugs too ? Alchohol ? What about strict Islamic nations ? Could this be contradictory to religious rights ? ( garg, I feel dirty now, ;) ) ... )In addition many criminal organisations draw most of their funding from drug money. If we take away illegal drugs - we remove a lot of crime.But what about the effect on society ? Just because I legalise murder, do I remove alot of crime ? But what about those being murdered ? What about the effect on them ? And, like wise, what about the effect on those who proceed to take drugs or proceed to take them in easier circumstance ? Oh, and those drug cartels are going to get real rich thanks to this, because their already set up in place for production. We are basically decriminalising their past and future nefarious activities. Tell that to the families of dead addicts and DEA or DEA analogue agents ... I certainly will not.And so the resolution is thus:
1)All drugs are legal and available from government outletsThis is not very well worded, again, in that we don't quite know what drugs you mean. I know, I know, I'm being a little picky, but there are different applications of drugs, some clearing up will help. I also remember at least 1 national issue with an effect similar to this.2)The tax benefits can be partially spent on providing care for those who choose to partake, and also to provide better information for young people.Okay, I think this is in principle quite contradictory, your basically admitting we are legalising something to make you sick and you will pay us for it so we can take care of you. Hmmm. And how can we educate them if their parents can go out and purchase them a " rock " at age 5 ?
3)We buy our drugs from third world countrys and so help stimulate they're economysNo definition of 3rd world country. And in priciple ? I think this is socio-economic discrimination. Okay, maybe I'm acting like the white guy calling out against black guys being racially abusive to him, if you know what I mean, but I don't see why my first worlder nation should be prevented from selling its drug cops ( if I had any ) to other first worlder nations. I don't see why the U.N. should be institutung irreversable economic discrimination and consequently setting a free-trade restrictive principle precedent.

Its fairly well written, but needs some alteration I feel. Not that I actualy agree with it, but, " meh " hope that helps in some way.

Umm...doesn't this directly interfere with a national issue presented immediately upon establishing your nation?

IMHO, if it's a core issue decided in the game mechanics of founding your nation, it doesn't seem like fair game for the UN. File under the "Too Intrusive" label.