NationStates Jolt Archive


revamped RtPH

The Angry Junkies
21-09-2004, 02:39
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 is time the world considered an alternative stance to the drug problems that have been plaguing the world. I propose that the UN encourage either the government or corporations of nations to market narcotics to informed adults who wish to use their bodies as they see fit. Morally it is no business of the UN to tell informed adults what is or is not good for them, such an ideal would be fascist.

Let us weigh the benefits of this proposal
#1 It will provide a stimulus to the economy at the expense of the black market, allowing a country to better itself in any way it sees fit.
#2 It would user in a new era of civil rights, declaring that a person's body is their own. So long as they do not endanger or interfere with the livelyhood of others, their human freedoms over their body are a part of their inalienable rights.
#3 The shift from a black market would become taxable, and these taxes could go to promote awareness and education, as well as to fund other public works.
#4 It would hamstring rouge orginizations who wish to gain power through ill attained wealth, and cripple their ability to raise funds at the expense of the worlds citizens.
#5 By acknowledging the problem as opposed to punishing it, we can promote safer drug use and enforce quality control in order to protect the consumers.

Some examples that promote this logic throughout history:

During the period of abolition, speakeasys and the black market of alcohol flourished, and a great deal of capitcal was flooded into the hands of lawbreakers. Many of these criminals used this added funding and power to commit further crimes and do more damage than they previously would have been able to.
In terms of teaching sex education, when taught abstinance children run into far more problems than when they are taught to practice safe sex. Telling children simply to say "no" leaves them completely unprepared and uneducated when they do say "yes." It is impossible to teach an entire society to conform to such an idea, and in doing so we put all of our stock in a inevitably fallable plan.

Throughout history the attempts to legislate the demand for drugs and alcohol has failed. Even the death penalty has had no effect in culling this tide. It is in the worlds best interest to eliminate this black market, and to take over it so that it can be made as ethical and humanitarian as possible.

Make no mistake, our objective is to phase out unsafe drug use. It simply seems that the strongest action we can take is to grab hold of this drug epidemic and bring it to light. There is no better way to control narcotics than to handle the distrubution and use ourselves.

Who else would we rather leave this up to?


Thoughts ideas?
Sophista
21-09-2004, 05:57
Once upon a time, there was a person who tried to pass drug legislation through the United Nations. Much to his surprise, a half-dozen nations stood up and said, "Good sir, this has no international justification. You're blatantly trampling on the soveriegnty of nations. This would violate Rights and Duties." Apparently, the lawless law-passer didn't listen. His proposal still has no international scope, or justification for kicking nation's in the face on their right to determine internal policy.
TilEnca
21-09-2004, 17:57
Once upon a time, there was a person who tried to pass drug legislation through the United Nations. Much to his surprise, a half-dozen nations stood up and said, "Good sir, this has no international justification. You're blatantly trampling on the soveriegnty of nations. This would violate Rights and Duties." Apparently, the lawless law-passer didn't listen. His proposal still has no international scope, or justification for kicking nation's in the face on their right to determine internal policy.

You can say that about any UN resolution though.


(edit) Okay - almost any UN resolution :}
_Myopia_
21-09-2004, 19:11
Proposals without international scope aren't technically illegal, Sophista.

While I like the idea of this proposal, I still have fairly major issues with it. First, please read Sophista's guide to resolution format, and follow it. Second, this is NS, not reality, so you can't reference the USA's prohibition. Third, why use the "promote" category, and encourage marketing drugs?! Make them available for sale, by all means, but why should we actively encourage their use?

Fourth, some capitalist nations won't want to enforce quality control and education etc in law, preferring to have the market demand them - and to have a hope in hell of passing this you'll need the libertarians' support. You need to make very clear that these are merely options.

Fifth, once you deal with these, please check grammar etc.
Sophista
21-09-2004, 20:47
You can say that about any UN resolution though.

That's not true at all. Nations, by default, should be allowed to decide what kind of tomfoolery goes on within their own nations. Resolutions like "Free Health Care," "Free Education," and "Citizen Rule Required" are also injustifiable, just like this one. Just because a bad idea has been used before doesn't mean future bad ideas are justified. In fact, the only way to turn back the stem of bad ideas is to stop allowing them to be presented before this body.

Proposals without international scope aren't technically illegal, Sophista.

But they are inappropriate. The only proposals that are illegal by definition are ones that go contrary to the moderator's feelings on game mechanics and specific technicalities. That doesn't mean that all other proposals, by default, are wonderful ideas that should be swept up in legislation. Proposals like this are the ones that give people ammunition to fire off about the UN invading their country.
The Angry Junkies
21-09-2004, 22:27
Proposals without international scope aren't technically illegal, Sophista.

While I like the idea of this proposal, I still have fairly major issues with it. First, please read Sophista's guide to resolution format, and follow it. Second, this is NS, not reality, so you can't reference the USA's prohibition. Third, why use the "promote" category, and encourage marketing drugs?! Make them available for sale, by all means, but why should we actively encourage their use?

Fourth, some capitalist nations won't want to enforce quality control and education etc in law, preferring to have the market demand them - and to have a hope in hell of passing this you'll need the libertarians' support. You need to make very clear that these are merely options.

Fifth, once you deal with these, please check grammar etc.

I make it quite clear that education, quality control, and public works funding is an option by using the word "could" in my proposal. In no way do I designate a set a strict quota of what should be done with the revenue provided.

Despite the fact that this is NS, it seems to be the best way to make my point is to research it. If historical arguments have no place in NS, then I would ask what kind of arguments I am supposed to make to further my case? I believe stating facts is a better way to win an argument than making them up.

Finally I apologize for my grammar and admit promoting drug use is a bit extreme.
Carlemnaria
22-09-2004, 09:24
we do not believe the recreational consumption
of neurotropic substances effectively contributes diddily
to the persuit of happiness.

we do however aggree whole heartedly that persicuting anyone
on no other basis then their doing so is both harmful and
utterly gratuitous.

harmful both for its expense and that it accomplishes no
other end then to create a market for organized crime,
however sincerely motivated the proponents of doing so.

for some neurotropic substances to be lawful while others
remain contraband for no rational reason then accidents of
history and economic convenience is unconscounably absurd.

honest and accurate labeling however, must be required so
that potential consumers can make rational and objective
decissions.

=^^=
.../\...
_Myopia_
22-09-2004, 18:44
I make it quite clear that education, quality control, and public works funding is an option by using the word "could" in my proposal. In no way do I designate a set a strict quota of what should be done with the revenue provided.

I know, it's just that if it were me I would make it more obvious.

Despite the fact that this is NS, it seems to be the best way to make my point is to research it. If historical arguments have no place in NS, then I would ask what kind of arguments I am supposed to make to further my case? I believe stating facts is a better way to win an argument than making them up.

But your references may actually be illegal, and the mods may delete your proposal. Also, it detracts from the experience for those of us who like to take the game a little more seriously. If you could make it a little more general.

Finally I apologize for my grammar and admit promoting drug use is a bit extreme.

Thanks :)

I'd still prefer it if you used Sophista's official format, described in the guide in the sticky http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342360


But they are inappropriate.

In you opinion. In my view, any subject which we choose to legislate on which can practically be dealt with at an international level is appropriate for the NationStates UN.