NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a new proposal, It is for advances in Economics, Enviroment, Civil Rights and Safety. I'd like to know your feelings about this






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


Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: Olde York

Description: The first and most basic reason that marijuana should be legal is that there is no good reason for it not to be legal. Some people ask 'why should marijuana be legalized?" but we should ask "Why should marijuana be illegal?"

The Marijuana Tax Bill of 1937 was pushed into existance by William Randolph Hearst because it threatened Hearst's timber investments (the pulp for his newspapers) and Du Pont's petrochemically based oils and synthetics.

Enviroment:
One acre of Cannabis (the plant that Marijuana is derived) produce as much pulp for paper as 4 acres of trees. The chemicals used to make wood chemical pulp paper today could cause us a lot of trouble tomorrow. Environmentalists have long been concerned about the effects of dioxin and other compounds on wildlife and even people. Beyond the chemical pollution, there are agricultural reasons why we should use cannabis hemp instead. When trees are harvested, minerals are taken with them. Hemp is much less damaging to the land where it is grown because it leaves these minerals behind. Cannabis can also be used to create enviromental friendly Food, Clothing, Fuel, Medicine and over 10,000 other creations.

Economic: Cannabis can be used to create over 10,000 products that are forbidden from manufacturing until it is Legalized. It can help the economy and the enviroment at the same time.

Liberty: People deserve freedom to use Marijuana. All freedoms that can be afforded to the people are deserved by the people.

Safety: It is significantly less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol. U.S. government studies conclude that it DOES NOT kill brain cells. It is phsyically impossible to die from an overdose. U.S. Army studies conclude that it DOES NOT make you lazy and unmotivated. Marijuana produces no withdrawal symptoms no matter how heavy it is used. It is habit forming (psychologically addictive), but not physically addictive. The regulation of Marijuana prevents it from being laced or tainted by other drugs.

William Randolph Hearst dosn't run any NationStates nations, to the best of my knowledge, and I've not seen a nation named DuPont. The US Government and the US Army do not have any bearing here either. Resolutions should confine themselves to the known worlds of NationStates.

Frisbeeteria has no laws restricting the growing of pulp hemp. Nor are there restrictions on the manufacture of products, much less 10,000 of them, due to these non-existant laws. We tend to prefer synthetic fabrics, but that's marketing, not law.

Olde York, this proposal has less to do with legalizing recreational drugs than it does for the economics of free trade. Under NationStates UN submission policies, your proposal is illegal in terms of coding and outside (and irrelevant) references. Please consider altering any proposals in future along the lines of legal, NSUN guidelines.

You do not have our support.

Olde York, this proposal has less to do with legalizing recreational drugs than it does for the economics of free trade.

They are indeed, one and the same. The freedom to use this substance in any matter, shape or form, and not confining it to a drug use only, or a manufactoring use only, or a economic use only, or a enviromental friendly alternative substance use only, makes it a as much for legalizing recreational drugs as it does for the economic possibilities of it.

Under NationStates UN submission policies, your proposal is illegal in terms of coding and outside (and irrelevant) references.

So if I don't reference outside sources it becomes a legal proposal?

Go read the stickied topic Before you make a proposal (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176) for a list of illegal actions. Then read United Nations Resolution Writing Guide (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342360) for some structural tips. Then post it on the forums and get some feedback before you submit it again.

I don't like pro-drug legislation in general because I consider it a national issue, but there may be folks here who would help you make it better. I have yet to see a Recreational Legalization proposal make it past 50% of the approvals listed, but maybe you can make it work. It's never going to happen until somebody puts some real effort into it. Maybe that someone is you.

The first and most basic reason that marijuana should be legal is that there is no good reason for it not to be legal.

When proposing such a legalization, much more detail as to its pros vs. cons should be considered rather than making such a blanket statement. This alone would encourage me to contact my UN Delegate not to endorse your proposal.

Some people ask 'why should marijuana be legalized?" but we should ask "Why should marijuana be illegal?"

Again, a pros vs. cons blanket statement.

The Marijuana Tax Bill of 1937 was pushed into existance by William Randolph Hearst because it threatened Hearst's timber investments (the pulp for his newspapers) and Du Pont's petrochemically based oils and synthetics.

Real life scenarios cannot be used within UN proposals in this manner, because The Marijuana Bill Tax of 1937 does not exist within the NationStates world, nor do as Frisbeeteria pointed out, Hearst or Du Pont.

Cannabis can be used to create over 10,000 products that are forbidden from manufacturing until it is Legalized.

What types of products? More importantly, What impact will this have economically on a government that supports it and produces it?

People deserve freedom to use Marijuana. All freedoms that can be afforded to the people are deserved by the people.

People also deserve the freedom to murder, rape, and pillage villages, if they so desire, this doesn't automatically make it right. Just because one sect of a society deems this as an issue that denies them freedom doesn't necessarily mean it does.

It is significantly less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol. U.S. government studies conclude that it DOES NOT kill brain cells. It is phsyically impossible to die from an overdose. U.S. Army studies conclude that it DOES NOT make you lazy and unmotivated.

The US government and army does not exist in the NS world.

First and foremost I'd like to thank both of you, this is my first proposal. (I think it is blatantly obvious to you, though)

I have revised the proposal and submitted it as a new one. It is clearly defines what is proposed.

I have revised the proposal and submitted it as a new one. It is clearly defines what is proposed.

Can you post it here so we can look at it further?

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


Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: Olde York

Description: Desiring a safer and freer society.

Seeking better ways to protect our environment without harming our economy.

Taking into account that one-acre of Cannabis can produce as much pulp for paper as 4 acres of trees. The chemicals used to make wood chemical pulp paper today could cause us a lot of trouble tomorrow. The effects of dioxin, created from the processing of wood chemical pulp paper, on wildlife and people can be harmful to the environment. Cannabis is much less damaging to the land than trees. Cannabis can also be used to create environmental friendly Food, Clothing, Fuel, Medicine and over 10,000 other creations.

Welcoming increased competition from more environmentally friendly products.

Hoping to secure higher safety in nations belonging to the United Nations while expanding on civil liberties.

Taking note that the consumption of Marijuana is significantly less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol. It DOES NOT kill brain cells. It is physically impossible to die from an overdose. It DOES NOT make you lazy and unmotivated. Marijuana produces no withdrawal symptoms no matter how heavy it is used. It is habit forming, but not physically addictive. The regulation of Marijuana by legalization prevents it from being tainted by dangerous substances.

Believing that government should not infringe on safe choices made by citizens.

Enacts the following:

1. The right of harvest of Cannabis, by businesses and citizens alike, cannot be infringed.

2. Products derived from Cannabis must be completely legal to sell within the nation.

3. Possession of Cannabis cannot be deemed a crime.

4. The right of every nation to regulate imports/exports of products derived from Cannabis.

5. The right of every nation to tax products derived from Cannabis as they deem fit.

National Sovierginty

National Sovierginty

Surely you have more to say than just that? Two words is not an argument.

"2. Products derived from Cannabis must be completely legal to sell within the nation."

ALL products derived from Cannabis? Like maybe a nuclear weapon made from Cannabis?

I think this is a great idea, and marijuana is completely legal in my nation, and its a popular treat for children. But I respect that many other nations would disagree, and since this does not deal with an international issue, I'm not convinced yet.

"2. Products derived from Cannabis must be completely legal to sell within the nation."

ALL products derived from Cannabis? Like maybe a nuclear weapon made from Cannabis?

I think this is a great idea, and marijuana is completely legal in my nation, and its a popular treat for children. But I respect that many other nations would disagree, and since this does not deal with an international issue, I'm not convinced yet.

I think you have opened up a whole new field of WMD to be explored!! (I am already getting an idea about mixing an incendiery device with a payload of weed. It does very little damage, but gets the entire area stoned out of their minds, so that you can just walk in and say "we are taking over" and they willl be all "yeah - go ahead")

Anyway.....

The arguement for being an international issue is the production and sale of the drug. If it were legal everywhere then trade would be a lot easier, and you would not have problems of going through a nation where it is banned to sell it in a nation where it isn't.

The arguement for being an international issue is the production and sale of the drug. If it were legal everywhere then trade would be a lot easier, and you would not have problems of going through a nation where it is banned to sell it in a nation where it isn't.

The idea behind it is, if it is legal to sell in your nation then you would have no problem supporting trading it with other nations. However there is a clause in it that maintains the power of Sovereignty of all countries to have the right to restrict trade.

Also, the argument behind WMDs and Nukes from Cannabis is hilarious, however unfounded.

The idea behind it is, if it is legal to sell in your nation then you would have no problem supporting trading it with other nations. However there is a clause in it that maintains the power of Sovereignty of all countries to have the right to restrict trade.


There are three nations - A, B and C (I am using them hypothetically so forgive me if they are real!).

Nation A borders Nation B. Nation B borders nations A and C. Nation C borders Nation B.

Nations A and C both legalize drugs, but nation B doesn't.

What is the legal status of someone stopped in Nation B if they are trading between nations A and C, but NOT selling drugs in nation B at all?


Also, the argument behind WMDs and Nukes from Cannabis is hilarious, however unfounded.

But - I already started my scientists researching it :}

I endorse this proposal by the mandate of the majority of my region.

Though I am reluctant to say this, if you have a proposal waiting to become a resolution. Just telegram me through NationStates, tell me what the proposal is, and if I can find I will bring it before the 10000 Islands. After three days, I will act in accordence with the majority.

-TheSensitiveNewAge

Nation A borders Nation B. Nation B borders nations A and C. Nation C borders Nation B.

Canada, America and Mexico, hmm? ;)

Nations A and C both legalize drugs, but nation B doesn't.
What is the legal status of someone stopped in Nation B if they are trading between nations A and C, but NOT selling drugs in nation B at all?

Well, I would asasume that if that was the case, you wouldn't use over-land freight shipping, and would stick with ship or air transportation.

I'm assuming that for this example, A and C are in the UN and B isn't (if B was UN, the argument would be moot as they'd have legal marijuana). If this is the case, then it would be up to B to decide if they wanting to allow over-land freight shipments through their country. They might require that the trailer be sealed, or that the pallets be sealed, or what-have-you.

Of course, in America, medical morphine is shipped, and it's not legal for common consumption. I would assume similar precautions would be required. That, or you'd have to find a way to bypass B.

Canada, America and Mexico, hmm? ;)


I swear that they were all hypothetical. The idea of any real world nations did not enter my head :}


Well, I would asasume that if that was the case, you wouldn't use over-land freight shipping, and would stick with ship or air transportation.


I want to say "but airspace is still the sovereign territory of Nation B" but I do get your point.


I'm assuming that for this example, A and C are in the UN and B isn't (if B was UN, the argument would be moot as they'd have legal marijuana). If this is the case, then it would be up to B to decide if they wanting to allow over-land freight shipments through their country. They might require that the trailer be sealed, or that the pallets be sealed, or what-have-you.

Of course, in America, medical morphine is shipped, and it's not legal for common consumption. I would assume similar precautions would be required. That, or you'd have to find a way to bypass B.


Olde Yorke said
However there is a clause in it that maintains the power of Sovereignty of all countries to have the right to restrict trade.


So nation B might also be in the UN.

I like the idea of things being sealed and so on, but I would like to seek further clarification (if you don't mind) from the author of the proposal, just so as I know where people stand in this situation.

Well, I would asasume that if that was the case, you wouldn't use over-land freight shipping, and would stick with ship or air transportation.
I want to say "but airspace is still the sovereign territory of Nation B" but I do get your point.

Well, yes, but I always assumed that B's problem would be that if shipping by truck or rail, it would be easier for the drugs to be waylaid and then sold on the street. While B's airspace is still sovereign, the chances of cargo leaving the plane are much less likely.

"Why's this VCR so cheap?" - "Um... it fell off a truck..."

Well, yes, but I always assumed that B's problem would be that if shipping by truck or rail, it would be easier for the drugs to be waylaid and then sold on the street. While B's airspace is still sovereign, the chances of cargo leaving the plane are much less likely.

"Why's this VCR so cheap?" - "Um... it fell off a truck..."

I understand now. Sorry :}

So nation B might also be in the UN.

I like the idea of things being sealed and so on, but I would like to seek further clarification (if you don't mind) from the author of the proposal, just so as I know where people stand in this situation.

Enacts the following:

1. The right of harvest of Cannabis, by businesses and citizens alike, cannot be infringed.

Just that, legalizing Cannabis... under the conditions of 2-5

2. Products derived from Cannabis must be completely legal to sell within the nation.

This is for the buisness aspect. Country A cannot deny buisnesses within its own borders from selling it, however as shown in 5, they can tax it (to make money for the country or as a deterant tax)

3. Possession of Cannabis cannot be deemed a crime.

Reaffirms 1

4. The right of every nation to regulate imports/exports of products derived from Cannabis.

This is the one that you are all confused about. It is meant to allow nations to place tariffs or embargos on this good, in any fashion that they fancy. Nations are not forced to put any kind of tax on it if they don't want to.

5. The right of every nation to tax products derived from Cannabis as they deem fit.

Self-explanitory

I think you have opened up a whole new field of WMD to be explored!! (I am already getting an idea about mixing an incendiery device with a payload of weed. It does very little damage, but gets the entire area stoned out of their minds, so that you can just walk in and say "we are taking over" and they willl be all "yeah - go ahead")

Yes, when are you giving us our city back?

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

3. Possession of Cannabis cannot be deemed a crime.


Which means if you are trading it through a UN nation then you can not stop people carrying it through your nation?


4. The right of every nation to regulate imports/exports of products derived from Cannabis.

This is the one that you are all confused about. It is meant to allow nations to place tariffs or embargos on this good, in any fashion that they fancy. Nations are not forced to put any kind of tax on it if they don't want to.


Right.

I am happy with the way all this is listed and defined. And my Council of Ministers agrees that we should put this in the hands of the people. So, assuming this makes it to the floor for a vote (which I am not convinced it will) I would be happy to support it. (Note - this might change as more discussion goes on, so if I end up voting against it, don't think I am evil lying person!)

So, assuming this makes it to the floor for a vote (which I am not convinced it will) I would be happy to support it. (Note - this might change as more discussion goes on, so if I end up voting against it, don't think I am evil lying person!)

Well, there is nothing else on the floor and this is one of the closest to making it to it. It should get interesting if it gets to the floor.

We have approved it.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Looks like it didn't make it. Are you going to resubmit?

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

Yes, when are you giving us our city back?

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

I asked if you wanted to sell your entire nation for two dozen boxes of saltines, and you said "woah dude - that would be so cooooool!!!"

But I am not an unfeeling person. Just give me back the crackers and I'll call it quits :}

I don't know what happened to the proposal. Today was supposed to be the last day it was there

It said it was running out on Saturday. I have no idea what time zone that was. I would like to see this resubmitted.

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

Resubmitted with a better defined article 3.

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


Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: Olde York

Description: Seeking better ways to protect our environment without harming our economy.

Taking into account that one-acre of Cannabis can produce as much pulp for paper as 4 acres of trees. The chemicals used to make wood chemical pulp paper today could cause us a lot of trouble tomorrow. The effects of dioxin, created from the processing of wood chemical pulp paper, on wildlife and people can be harmful to the environment. Cannabis is much less damaging to the land than trees. Cannabis can also be used to create environmental friendly Food, Clothing, Fuel, Medicine and over 10,000 other creations.

Welcoming increased competition from more environmentally friendly products.

Hoping to secure higher safety in nations belonging to the United Nations while expanding on civil liberties.

Taking note that the consumption of Marijuana is significantly less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol. It DOES NOT kill brain cells. It is physically impossible to die from an overdose. It DOES NOT make you lazy and unmotivated. Marijuana produces no withdrawal symptoms no matter how heavy it is used. It is habit forming, but not physically addictive. The regulation of Marijuana by legalization prevents it from being tainted by dangerous substances.

Believing that government should not infringe on safe choices made by citizens.

Enacts the following:

1. The right of harvest of Cannabis, by businesses and citizens alike, cannot be infringed.

2. Products derived from Cannabis must be completely legal to sell within the nation.

3. Possession of products derived from Cannabis by citizens of the nation in which they are granted citizenship cannot be deemed a crime.

4. The right of every nation to regulate imports/exports of products derived from Cannabis.

5. The right of every nation to tax products derived from Cannabis as they deem fit.

If this proposal were to be submitted, it is in need of work. The way it is written, it still does not make cannbis products legal for human consumption. While it can be harvested and used for production of certain materiale, no where is it made legal to be consumed as a recreational drug.

So, this proposal is, in effect, bunk.

If this proposal were to be submitted, it is in need of work. The way it is written, it still does not make cannbis products legal for human consumption. While it can be harvested and used for production of certain materiale, no where is it made legal to be consumed as a recreational drug.

So, this proposal is, in effect, bunk.

It makes no mention of it directly, however...

2. Products derived from Cannabis must be completely legal to sell within the nation.

3. Possession of products derived from Cannabis by citizens of the nation in which they are granted citizenship cannot be deemed a crime.

...it is a product derived from Cannabis and therefor cannot be arrested

It makes no mention of it directly, however...

2. Products derived from Cannabis must be completely legal to sell within the nation.

3. Possession of products derived from Cannabis by citizens of the nation in which they are granted citizenship cannot be deemed a crime.

...it is a product derived from Cannabis and therefor cannot be arrested

It says you can not be arrested for possessing it or selling it. That does not directly translate to not being able to be arrested it for using a product, or smoking a product.

It says you can not be arrested for possessing it or selling it. That does not directly translate to not being able to be arrested it for using a product, or smoking a product.
A technicality, but a valid point. RL Analogy: When I was a kid, it was perfectly legal to sell, own, and buy fireworks in Indiana. However, you couldn't actually use them. Without a specific clause stating that use of cannabis products is legal, a nation could still outlaw smoking/eating cannabis.

Also, if you really wanted to split hairs, you could claim that pot isn't a "cannabis derived" product, as it is cannabis.

Still, It is more for the economic effects rather than the right. And no, Smokable Marijuana is only a part of the plant, therefore has to be prepared and therefore is a product derived from it.

Still, It is more for the economic effects rather than the right.

It should be both. And I am more interested in the freedom than the economic effect, so please do edit this before your next submission.

It doesnt seem that difficult to understand. It is legal no matter what to carry it, however it is illegal to undermind the regulations of a country by smuggling it. It is legal to grow it, however, if your country does not allow the international trade of it, then it is illegal.

Still, It is more for the economic effects rather than the right. And no, Smokable Marijuana is only a part of the plant, therefore has to be prepared and therefore is a product derived from it.

With lots and lots of respect (because the phrase "all due respect" just sounds like an insult") I think you are missing the point.

The proposal says you can not be arrested for possessing it, or for selling it.

It does not say that using it, smoking it, ingesting it or burning it is legal. So under this proposal I would be perfectly within my rights to arrest anyone found smoking it, because it doesn't say that I can't.

If this is going to actually legalize drug use then you are going to have to state that those things are permissible to.

The Weapons Research Station of the Republic of Tekania is presenltly working on a device that will spread powdered cannibis over an enemy nation... This device, when launched, will enable Tekanian forces to enter and take over an area, with little to no casualties, as the opposing citizenry and forces, will be too busy eating twinkies, ding-dongs and watching I Love Lucy reruns...

The Weapons Research Station of the Republic of Tekania is presenltly working on a device that will spread powdered cannibis over an enemy nation... This device, when launched, will enable Tekanian forces to enter and take over an area, with little to no casualties, as the opposing citizenry and forces, will be too busy eating twinkies, ding-dongs and watching I Love Lucy reruns...

Are you spying on my weapon developments? (grin)