NationStates Jolt Archive

All UN delagates need to review and vote on the Pro-Rec. Drugs Referendum. Here is an overview:


Many people may feel that recreational drugs are a menace to society. I think that that is wrong. There are many thousands of farmers that grow the bases for drugs and it is the only way for them to support their family. Closer to home, the use of recreational drugs would raise moral among users, who would be 'enlightened.' Therefore the use of recreational drugs would further a peaceful, more content world, while also supporting the empoverished farm workers of the world. The people that deal these drugs could create multi-national corperations and could use their wealth to contribute to non-profit organizations that would benefit the poor, the diseased, and the non-drug users that fail to see the good in the world.

Please support this resolution and promote peace.

Vote now!

All UN delagates need to review and vote on the Pro-Rec. Drugs Referendum. Here is an overview:



Vote now!
While Domnonia is all for legalization and regulation of recreational drugs, your argument isn't quite strong enough for our support.

I voted no to this resolution. The DRA is very much in favour of the principle of this resolution but I feel that a much better resolution is needed. I think you should shift your focus from the rather weak argument of helping third world farmers and instead argue that domestically this would help to reduce the usage of dirty needles, lower the rates of HIV and Hepatitus C, lower the number of drug over doses, lower crime, etc. If you draft a resolution using these arguments I think you will have a much better chance of getting the endorsements needed for this to go to vote and the DRA will most definitely support it.

I voted no. Ignoring my own views on what should be illegal, this resolution lacks a strong arguement for allowing such.

I vote no, Its all a big pain, If you legalize recreational drugs then you have to supply it (which will seem like an economic bennefit), but it is more negative because a drugged out population wouldn't work as hard, plus drugs are dangerous and addictive, most health care systems couldn't handle the add on. Plus legalizing it, is just like promoting it, your telling people its ok to wreck your body, I'm not sure about you but my Society's morals value health and freedom.

Whilst recreational drugs are legal in Telidia, we cannot see any reason why this should become an issue for international concern. We feel this complex issue need to be decided by individual governments internally.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Against !!!

We must strictly ban all recreative drugs, such as Alcohol, Nicotine, Chocolate, Religion or Television !!!

I also voted No on this reolution, for if we start legalizing more recreational drugs, we create a slippery slope that this UN body should not start going down, though prostitution is apparently legalized. And also, farmers should strive to sell food commodities, not narcotics.

Stacy Proe
UN Member
Region: South Pacific
Nation: Proestonia

Although we have legalised drugs we do not support this resolution.

We would approve a better argued resolution with the same intent, in case anyone is thinking about it.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The Culture Ulterior always supports the recreational use of drugs. you can't build a utopia without a few drugs

Every society is different and it would be very big of us to force such a touchy subject as legalization of drugs.


Homelife
Napier Hall Delegate

The Culture Ulterior always supports the recreational use of drugs. you can't build a utopia without a few drugs
The Clognomerated Gnarlyoch of TerFrisbia agrees that, with the added use of drugs, it no longer matters to us what our nation is actually called, and we don't seem to mind as much when nobody listens to us when we ramble incoherently.

I approved your proposal and I will vote "yes" if it becomes a resolution.

Although we have legalised drugs we do not support this resolution.

We would approve a better argued resolution with the same intent, in case anyone is thinking about it.

_Myopia_ holds a similar position. I've been thinking of writing a proposal for a while, but it would probably just be a waste of time and effort with UN members that won't even pass a resolution legalising marijuana.

Is there a resolution that has made recreational drugs ILLEGAL world wide?

While I may be uninformed, I do not believe that such a resolution exists.

So if this resolution passes, we will make recreational drugs legal in all UN countries.

I'm sorry for my lack of decorum....but this is one of the most retarded proposals I have seen.

Would it be hard to let each country decide? There is a difference between telling someone that they can do something, versus they have to. Leave it up to each individual nation to decide something so frivilous as this.

(Out of Character: Okay, people, seriously. Let's grow up a little. This is really, really assinine. No one with a shred of real responsibility would ever support a proposal to force recreational drugs to be legal world wide. While I'm all for smoking a joint every now and then, this is being approached with the maturity of a ten year old.)

Already the world is poisoned with alcohol and nicotine. We do not need to give the people any more options to destroy their minds and bodies. Drugs are not needed to have a good time. A legalisation would be stupidity, a total ban a possibility, but I believe it is better to let every country to decide that for themselves, and with some cooperation between nations we can come to whole zones that ban drugs.
About the alcohol and nicotine : my country has not banned these, and will not in the future, but we discourage the (over-)use of them. With campaigns against alcoholism, especially concerning traffic casualties, and against smoking, we want to create a common sense within our nation's people, so they would be wary of the dangers involved and would act accordingly.

Further, on the original text quoted in the first message : All those poor farmers can be encouraged to grow other plants than those used as a basis for drugs. We do not see this as a valid argument. Nor will the money made by drug contribute to world peace. Has the wealth of the sigaret corporations ever helped the world ? This legalisation can only result in a bigger health care bill, because of all the new addicts running around in our cities. And that also brings me to my last argument, already pointed out by collegues : the productivity of our people would drop.

Therefor, I will not support this endeavour. A legalisation of drugs for medical use would be a different thing...

About the alcohol and nicotine : my country has not banned these, and will not in the future, but we discourage the (over-)use of them. With campaigns against alcoholism, especially concerning traffic casualties, and against smoking, we want to create a common sense within our nation's people, so they would be wary of the dangers involved and would act accordingly.

So why don't you apply the same logic to marijuana and speed? And if those, why not ecstasy? And if that, why not cocaine? Applying liberal harm reduction strategies to two types of drug, one of which is one of the most addictive known, and illiberal prohibition to other drugs, is hypocritical.

There is a difference between telling someone that they can do something, versus they have to.

Exactly - which is why prohibition is wrong, and allowing people to make their own personal choices is right. We're not advocating forcing people to take drugs.

Leave it up to each individual nation to decide something so frivilous as this.

So frivolous as the question of whether adult citizens' bodies are their possessions, with all the rights of ownership that accompany this status? If I go to a shop and buy something, I can break it and abuse it as long as I don't harm other people or their stuff. This is seen as a perfectly reasonable legal situation. Why then do we act aghast when anyone suggests that the same should apply to our own bodies?

Individual sovereignty takes precedence over national sovereignty.

As to the charge that the notion of legalisation is irresponsible and foolish, I would counter that prohibition is in fact the ridiculous strategy.

- It puts a massively lucrative industry into the hands of criminals, fuelling gang warfare, organised crime and corruption, and putting the industry out of reach of government's ability to tax it and regulate it for safety and quality standards - if legalised, governments could insist on certain levels of purity so you could be safe in the knowledge that your drugs weren't cut (the majority of heroin-related deaths are caused not by the heroin itself, but impurities), you would also know the strength of the dosage you were receiving so responsible users could regulate their intake.
- It creates hugely inflated prices which both takes users' money away from other sectors of the economy and drives addicts to acquisitve crime to fund their habits.
- It wastes huge amounts of police and justice system time, not only on violent/acquisitive crimes committed by suppliers and addicts, but on the victimless crime of personal use, preventing the devotion of sufficient time and effort to real crimes, such as rape, murder and theft.
- It drives the over-filling of prisons and thus the deterioration of rehabilitation standards, so recidivism rates are increased.
- It causes massive instability, corruption and violence in the countries where drugs are produced, these are often third world nations which could harness drug production to be a sustainable, lucrative industry to fund development if only it was a legal trade.
- It criminalises and thus alienates addicts who are in need of our help. If drug use was legal, it would be easier to reach these people and offer rehabilitation services.
- It promotes poorly-judged education strategies - education on illegal drugs is not detailed, and we seem to rely mainly on taboo and illegality to discourage use among young people. Legal drugs tend to be treated far more sensibly in education, young people learn the real dangers and can make informed decisions without the temptation of taboo. (I know about current drug education because I am at school and have experienced it first hand) It would also be easier to educate adults on the risks, and encourage responsible drug use practices.
- Especially with soft drugs, the results of a conviction for use in many countries can be far more harmful than the drug itself.

To the charge that drug legalisation would increase the burden on health services, this is true, but additional funding for health and education services could be taken from that increase in revenue from the taxation of a massive industry, and from the savings made on police and justice system time and prisons.

the productivity of our people would drop

First, it is not necessarily true that legalisation would lead to a large decrease in productivity. The vast majority of people would probably either abstain from drug use (especially harder drugs) or use them responsibly.

Second, how can you sacrifice human rights such as the right to one's body for economic productivity?

Would it be hard to let each country decide?
Through a resolution; yes.
In general; no but it's kind of the point of the UN

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

No