NationStates Jolt Archive

I have recently proposed a resolution to promote the use of all recreational drugs. The benefits of such an action are twofold. First, we will eliminate wasteful spending in our jails and free up space for more dangerous offenders. Second we will make a large profit off of government sales of narcotics. With this new capitcal we can bolster the military, provide for new programs of social welfare, and help to strengthen the economy.

For too long the governments of nations have spent tax dollars protecting citizens from themselves. The consequences of strict drug laws neither safen the streets nor eliminate the rampant demand for recreational drugs. Similar to the age of prohibition, the best way to eliminate the black market and the dangers the come with it is to take over the distribution ourselves, thus cutting costs and making a profit.

I call for the approval of all nations who are ready for a new, more realistic solution to the drug epedemic sweeping our nations. Cigarettes kill over 400,000 people per year. Marijuana caused zero deaths. Heroin caused 400. Cocaine caused 200. It's time to be consistant and logical in our drug policies. Please support the Right to Pursue Happiness act.

Thank you,
The Angry Junkies

Please post the actual text here. Until I have an actual text to comment on, all I can say is that _Myopia_ may be prepared to support a legalisation proposal, mainly on the basis of the principle of individual sovereignty (although we aren't too keen on legalising LSD and other drugs because of the unacceptable risk to others), but we will not support a proposal to promote drug use.

By the way, those statistics (apart from the marijuana one) in no way constitute a logical argument - the important number is not simply how many die (because far more people smoke than use heroin) but the ratio of users to fatalities, which better reflects the relative dangers of different drugs.

Cigarettes kill over 400,000 people per year. Marijuana caused zero deaths. Heroin caused 400. Cocaine caused 200. It's time to be consistant and logical in our drug policies. These statistics do not reflect Frisbeeterian experience, as we've had quite a few fatal auto accidents due to stoned drivers. Nor are recreational drugs banned in Frisbeeteria, though cigarettes are.
Our government is prohibited by law from competing with the Retail sector. No nanny-state government stores in OUR nation!
In fact, none of the arguments mentioned are relevant in Frisbeeteria. Perhaps you should rephrase your arguments (and probably your proposal) into something that is actually relevant to the UN nations of NationStates. These are quite thoroughly unconvincing.

Have a look at this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=355995) for additional arguments.

In regards to fatalities with stoned drivers, this law in no way promotes the use of drugs when endangering others in the process. Obviously laws will remain in place as with alcohol that legalization, and the legality of using a vehicle while impared are two seperate issues.

As for the number of drug related deaths in a ratio to how many people use them, there are approximantely 450 thousand heroin users and 2,000 deaths per year among those (in 1996, the numbers may be off but the ratio should remain relitively the same today). In terms of smoking there are over 440,000 deaths annualy in the united states alone among 58.6 million smokers. The ratio of heroin users who die per year is about 1 in 225 and the ratio of smokers who die per year is approximately one in 133.

Cocaine is used by about 3.8 million americans every year and about 1,000 people die from it annually. The ratio is 1:3,800 deaths to users. These statistics aren't perfect, however they do paint a general picture and provide the depth of analysis you requested, Myopea.

Some interesting information at http://www.olywa.net/when/bib06.html
where I dug up some of these statistics, other sources include the department of health and social services.

The Angry Junkies

The Right to Pursue Happiness

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

Category: Recreational Drug Use Decision: Promote Proposed by: The Angry Junkies
Description: It has come to my attention that a number of barbaric nations still believe that the government must protect people from themselves. Obviously this costs us taxes when we enlist police and jail offenders.

I believe we can profit twofold by selling the drugs freely to the public, and by not jailing them. Obviously we might run into a few violent addicts, but the money we make selling the drugs will pay for our police to use flying cars and laser guns.


Approvals: 3 (The Angry Junkies, Carlus, Waderow)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 132 more approvals)

Cocaine is used by about 3.8 million americans every year and about 1,000 people die from it annually.
Again, this isn't America. This is NationStates. Make it relevant to this world, and we might help you.

You make a valid point but you come to the wrong conclusion.

You are absolutely correct about the dangers of smoking and drinking and how they can be as bad or worse than other illicit drugs. That is why our nation also bans those substances and imposes the exact same maximum death penalty for possessing them that you face for marijuana, heroine, and cocaine.

It is no coincidence that those nations who have drug problems are the same ones that talk about "prevention" and spend all their time going after distributors and suppliers. It is those nations that take a firm stand against the user that are truly able to say they have defeated the problem.

This is simply a misguided, short-sighted proposal. Please don't try to impose your rationalizations for your dope-smoking on the rest of us.

Obviously we might run into a few violent addicts, but the money we make selling the drugs will pay for our police to use flying cars and laser guns.
It's silliness like this that keeps you from being taken seriously. And of course the other legitimate points that others have also raised.

Come up with compelling, in-game reasons why this is a good idea. Either that, or quit promoting the concept.

Or perhaps we should again look to the fact that there is no kind of international concensus on this issue, and that the nature of drug-use policy is explicitly a domestic concern. Drug use laws in Frisbeeteria have no effect whatsoever on drug laws in Sophista, Rajaria, or Myopia. Especially so in Sophista, where someone would have to take a boat or plane to get to another country. The two-day boat ride provides plenty of time for detox, and our laws prevent people under the influence from boarding an airplane.

Why, then, are you justified forcing the legalization of drugs in my country, or any other. Do you even know what a Sophistan looks like? Or which city is the largest? Or what kind of government we have? The complete disinvolvement from your government with the nations who's soveriegnty you're trampeling on is amazing.

"It is no coincidence that those nations who have drug problems are the same ones that talk about "prevention" and spend all their time going after distributors and suppliers. It is those nations that take a firm stand against the user that are truly able to say they have defeated the problem."

Heroin has put many users in jail in the united states, and during the years 1980-1996 the government claims that use has more than quadrupled.

In 2001 there were over 1.1 million new cocaine users.

The percentages of smokers has actually dropped over time in the united states.

As you can see the evidence proves the exact opposite of your statement. Drugs that are made illegal and enforced with drug laws are becoming more popular over time, while a legal drug such as tobacco, coupled with prevention education and increasing awareness, has become less popular.

The demand for drugs clearly is not impacted by legal deterants as well as it is impacted by increased awareness and leniancy.

It's silliness like this that keeps you from being taken seriously. And of course the other legitimate points that others have also raised.

Come up with compelling, in-game reasons why this is a good idea. Either that, or quit promoting the concept.

This wasn't meant to be taken literally, but rather to illude to the incredible inroads we can make with the money we will make putting dangerous drug cartels out of business with safer government intervention.

Whilst I agree with the general aim, that proposal is not of good enough quality to win our support. Read the sticky at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342360 for an appropriate format, avoid insulting the majority of your readers by calling them barbaric, and follow my other hints below:

The main argument should be the political principle - that government should not tell adult citizens what they can and cannot put into their bodies, especially if they are informed about the dangers.

Governments should not be made to sell drugs to the populace, rather they should be allowed simply to allow private companies to sell drugs.

If you're to have a chance of passing this, you need to develop the arguments to persuade people. Here are the arguments I would include (obviously, they need to be written out in full):

- individual sovereignty
- if they were legal, quality controls could be enforced if governments so wish - many deaths from certain drugs are actually due to impurities and "cutting"
- governments would still be free to do their utmost to educate their populaces about the dangers
- taking the drugs trade out of the underground would hamper the funding of organised crime and terrorism - making citizens safer, saving large amounts of money on law enforcement, reducing corruption, and allowing police to concentrate on crimes that harm citizens who didn't choose to be harmed
- legalisation would drive down prices, so addicts wouldn't be driven to steal to fund their habit nearly so much
- governments could tax the drugs to a reasonable extent (though not to such an extent that purchase becomes impossible for significant numbers of adult citizens), both to discourage use and to increase revenue. If they wish, this increased revenue could be applied to treatment for drug addicts and/or education about drugs
- economy would benefit greatly

Lose the lasers and flying cars - that's just stupid.

Don't use such cynical arguments as that we'll profit from it.

I have to go, I may have more to say later

Two logical analogies one can liken this argument two are as follows.

#1
the effect of prohibition
During prohibition the illegal use of alcohol flourished because of the static demand coupled with decreased supply. The legislation had very little effect on peoples desire to drink, while the supply was shifted from american businesses to gangs and mafias. This simply put money into criminal hands and damaged the economy. The major lesson from this is that a country cannot legislate consumer demand.

#2
Abstinance vs safe sex
The promotion of abstinance has been shown to actually have a detrimental effect when compared to the promotion of safe sex. When taught abstinance teens are more likely to be unprepared and engage in unprotected sex. Likewise if we encourage drug use to be safe and educated, instead of simply legislating against it, we will likely curtail many of the problems users run into on the streets due to the health dangers of impurities and the social danger of money filtering into the hands of people willingly breaking the law.

Whilst I agree with the general aim, that proposal is not of good enough quality to win our support. Read the sticky at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342360 for an appropriate format, avoid insulting the majority of your readers by calling them barbaric, and follow my other hints below:

The main argument should be the political principle - that government should not tell adult citizens what they can and cannot put into their bodies, especially if they are informed about the dangers.

Governments should not be made to sell drugs to the populace, rather they should be allowed simply to allow private companies to sell drugs.

If you're to have a chance of passing this, you need to develop the arguments to persuade people. Here are the arguments I would include (obviously, they need to be written out in full):

- individual sovereignty
- if they were legal, quality controls could be enforced if governments so wish - many deaths from certain drugs are actually due to impurities and "cutting"
- governments would still be free to do their utmost to educate their populaces about the dangers
- taking the drugs trade out of the underground would hamper the funding of organised crime and terrorism - making citizens safer, saving large amounts of money on law enforcement, reducing corruption, and allowing police to concentrate on crimes that harm citizens who didn't choose to be harmed
- legalisation would drive down prices, so addicts wouldn't be driven to steal to fund their habit nearly so much
- governments could tax the drugs to a reasonable extent (though not to such an extent that purchase becomes impossible for significant numbers of adult citizens), both to discourage use and to increase revenue. If they wish, this increased revenue could be applied to treatment for drug addicts and/or education about drugs
- economy would benefit greatly

Lose the lasers and flying cars - that's just stupid.

Don't use such cynical arguments as that we'll profit from it.

I have to go, I may have more to say later

I will likely incorporate some of your suggestions in the next revision if (and more likely when) this resolution fails to pass. The main goal of the first draft was to get people to comment on the issue and react, and later to inform and revise. The next draft will doubtless be more cordial and serious.

Heroin has put many users in jail in the united states, and during the years 1980-1996 the government claims that use has more than quadrupled.

As you can see the evidence proves the exact opposite of your statement. Drugs that are made illegal and enforced with drug laws are becoming more popular over time, while a legal drug such as tobacco, coupled with prevention education and increasing awareness, has become less popular.


Who said I'm presenting the United States as an example of what works? I meant very much the opposite. In our government's view they coddle users with their mild laws and Betty Ford drug centers.

I see your statistics regarding the United States. Now what are the number of drug addicts and drug related deaths in Saudi Arabia and Singapore... just for comparison?

One side who is drowning in this toxic morass puts almost all it's resources attacking the source (whether it is distribution, dealing, or harvesting), but others who have almost no problem whatsoever attacks the demand with sensible drug laws usually featuring the death penalty.

As for singapore drug use is ranked among the highest on a per capita basis. Amnesty International has commented that there is "no convincing evidence" that executions have helped curb the drug epidemic.

In Saudi Arabia crime rates are in fact relitively low, except for violence fueled by cultural disputes. In terms of drugs, however, many friends of the royalty import narcotics without fear due to their ties with power and corruption is rampant. I don't know what to conclude from this example.

I don't know what to conclude from this example.
...maybe that it should be a national issue?

I don't see how a country that corruptly gives it's population narcotics and then executes them for it leads you to believe that nations can solve this issue on their own.

Again, this isn't America. This is NationStates. Make it relevant to this world, and we might help you.


If I can't quote real statistics and trends how am I supposed to convince you, with fake ones?

If I can't quote real statistics and trends how am I supposed to convince you, with fake ones?
Again, you miss the point. We don't have these problems. Safe recreational drugs are LEGAL in Frisbeeteria.

You can't promote an American (Singaporan, Saudi, Whatever-istani) agenda in NS, because one-size-fits-all solutions don't work here. If you want to sell us on your proposal, you HAVE to do it in game terms.

Somebody asked why there is no passed drug resolution in the NS UN. Because it's HARD to do so in this game. You have to come up with a program that works in Theocracies, Dictatorships, Corporate Meccas, etc. This isn't the Real World, it's NationStates. Work with that framework, or don't bother. US statistics (hell, ANY statistics) are meaningless here.

I think you miss the point if you believe promoting narcotics is a saudi arabian/singaporian or american idea. I list these nations to provide relavent information on the topic. Regardless of how hard a resolution is to pass, I dont think doing research is meaningless unless we want to flame at each other endlessly. At some point in providing an idea i'm going to have to acknowledge reality, and if that offends you i'm sorry. Believe it or not ideas based on factual information can also be relavent to NS. We're not playing dungeons and dragons, it's ok to look out the window sometimes. This forum isn't a vacuum, it's a place to promote political ideas. Believe it or not sometimes political ideas come from facts and research. If you want to defend your point of view by shouting facts don't count go right ahead, but i'd rather found my views on history rather than fantasy. As for the relavence to NS this would help improve world health by increasing awareness and setting standards, increase civil liberties, take money away from terrorist organizations, and put money back into the economy.

Angry Junkies, you're absolutely right in that there's an important place for serious research here. But the issue is that, just because something's a problem in the real world, you shouldn't assume that it's a problem here... and you certainly shouldn't assume that a solution which would work in the USA will work for all NationStates UN members. To name just one assumption, you say that governments would profit from the sale of drugs... but what about those ultra-libertarian states that have no taxes? What about those governments that aim to avoid harming their citizens, regardless of the financial rewards to be had?

We're broadly in favour of relaxing controls on drug use, but we'd need to be persuaded that it's something the UN should enforce rather than allowing individual nations to make those decisions. If you want broad support in these halls, you'll need to make that case.

Now, Angry Junkies, I'm totally on your side here. I'm of the opinion that countries with drug problems would be better off legalising them completely, which would not only remove all the drug problems with one piece of legislation, but also allow the government tax it and to get rich off the profits.

Ever read High Society by Ben Elton? Great book. Not only does it tackle the issue it also sneaks in a nice parody of how the media distorts politics to sell papers.

But as everyone has also been saying, this isn't the real world. UN resolutions actually have weight and they become law, and there's a huge variety of governments and policies you wouldn't see in real life. Do you get what I'm trying to say? You can't cut across all boundaries here.

...but [Singapore] who have almost no problem whatsoever attacks the demand with sensible drug laws usually featuring the death penalty.

If you consider the death penalty for possession "sensible", I think you need your head checked. Thanks to this law, Singapore leads the world in executions per capita - more than Saudi Arabia, a country noted for public beheadings. Though of course, I guess you can expect this from a country which has outlawed chewing gum. And has it curbed the drug problem? Not really. It becomes a transit stop for trafficking because customs see a flight from Singapore and think, "ahh, these guys are clean".

There is also the fact that many, if not most, NS nations believe that drug legislation is a national issue, rather than an international one. They prefer to work within their own borders, or in specific partnerships with other nations. It is a very difficult thing to take to the United Nations. If you can come up with a way to present this as not interfering with national sovereignty, then half the battle's over.

That said, there is something in your proposal that I find quite confusing.

I believe we can profit twofold by selling the drugs freely to the public, and by not jailing them.
Que? How do you sell something freely, yet still have a profit? Please explain.

Que? How do you sell something freely, yet still have a profit? Please explain.

Presumably, it means "without restrictions". Obviously, this needs clarification, and hopefully changing - we want to retain the right to set an age limit, and hopefully to maintain the prohibition of LSD and similar drugs, because of the risk to others.

Well you have a point. That's why i agree that we should legalize illigal substances. If we keep wasting money on keeping things from people are gonna find a way to get drugs anyway, it's a total waste. I suggest that the government screens all sales, and profits, and claims a percentage of the earnings, making most happy, except the dealers, who if don't comply should be sent to jail.

Well you have a point. That's why i agree that we should legalize illigal substances. If we keep wasting money on keeping things from people are gonna find a way to get drugs anyway, it's a total waste. I suggest that the government screens all sales, and profits, and claims a percentage of the earnings, making most happy, except the dealers, who if don't comply should be sent to jail.

You may do this if you wish, but IMO, it would be better not to mandate it in any proposal legalising drugs - what about ultra-libertarian nations who don't tax their drugs now?