NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submitted a proposal to make all recreational drugs legal.

"Legalise All Drugs
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.


Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: Nova Terra Australis

Description: Hithertofore, the attainment of any recreational drug shall be fully leagal (as long as it is obtained from the appropriate vendor as indicated by the state) and endorsed by all national governments within the UN. This is not to say that drugs cannot be used inappropriately (the defenition of this may be set by individual nations), only that all recreational drugs are made legally available by nations.
As such, illegal drug dealing shall be eliminated as no gain stands to be made. In turn, quality of drugs can be regulated and the world's population safer.
As a result of this proposal, should it form a resolution, overall druguse will likely decrease. If not, at least drug use will be safer and criminals fewer.


Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 142 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Dec 16 2004"



Please post any feedback.

I would approve it -- I think thats a great idea -- i think it would profit greatly looking at it from a business viewpoint..

So, unlimited supplies of morphine may be purchased by anyone, as long as they do so from a State-sponsored store. All prescription drugs that may be used in a recreational manner may now be used without a doctor's supervision. Dosage controls and oversight are tossed on the rubbish heap. All this is 100% true under the language of this proposal.

Yes, crime will go down substantially, as there will be no more drug crimes. Making stupid behavior legal has a tendency to reduce the number of illegal activities. Naturally, the number of deaths and permanent health damage cases will go up substantially due to the absence of oversight by government or medical authorities, but it's all about freedom, right?

All recreational drugs are fully legal in _Myopia_, and we would support a comprehensive, well-thought-through and well argued proposal to implement similar policies across the UN. However, this is not in its current form something we can support.

Legalising recreational drugs is unlikely in most places to lower drug use. What it can do, if done correctly and with appropriate accompanying measures, is eliminate an awful lot of the problems associated with recreational drug use in a prohibitionist situation, both for users and non-users.

There are sooo many of these proposals floating round at the moment :-)

Sorry - but we cannot support this proposal. You are not awfully clear as to what you are doing, how to approach it, repercussions, etc.

Also - our anti-drug standpoint doesn't help!

I have half a mind to write one of my own, but to be honest I don't think I can be bothered with the whole mess-around of campaigning on proposals. My last few attempts at proposals kinda fizzled out even before submission.

The last thing the Orange administration wants is a resolution like this to be passed. We've got enough crackheads as it is; shit, take a trip down to Miami, you'll see what we mean. We certainly don't need anymore, thankyou very much.

So, unlimited supplies of morphine may be purchased by anyone, as long as they do so from a State-sponsored store. All prescription drugs that may be used in a recreational manner may now be used without a doctor's supervision. Dosage controls and oversight are tossed on the rubbish heap. All this is 100% true under the language of this proposal.

You make a good point, but I made the proposal ambiguous to give nations a relatively large power of interpretation. Inappropriate use of the drugs may be made illegal. therefore, yes, unlimited supplies of morphine or any other drug deemed able to be used in a recreational manner may be perchased. However, certain drugs may require by law a doctor's supervision in order to be used "appropriately". Drugs could also be confined to use in the home, banned in public places. In fact, consumption of the drugs made legally attainable by the proposal could actually be illegal, so, despite being a bit silly, it does give nations plenty of leg room on the matter.

Yes, crime will go down substantially, as there will be no more drug crimes. Making stupid behavior legal has a tendency to reduce the number of illegal activities. Naturally, the number of deaths and permanent health damage cases will go up substantially due to the absence of oversight by government or medical authorities, but it's all about freedom, right?

Reduction of crime as a direct result of relaxation of laws was not at all what I had in mind. By making drugs illegal in the first place, nations open the doors to illegal dealings as so much money now stands to be made. As such, dealers encourage people to become addicted by forcing people or offering drugs for next to nothing, then increasing the price rediculously when the person is addicted. The person then has to steal to get enough money to buy the drugs. If we remove the oppertunity for drug dealers by selling everything legally, people will not be coxed into taking addictive drugs in the first place and the associated theft rate would be reduced. If implimented well, death rates would decrease, not increase. ...and no, it is not at all about freedom. By the same token, in a better society than the one I live in (RL), it would not be up to the state to regulate everything to minute detail, deciding exactly what one can and can't do, it should be up to the individual who, as a result of proper education, upholds vitue and morals and can decide what is best for themselves and others as result of their actions (taking into account the possable consequences etc.).

The other thing is, people inherantly do things because they're not allowed to (even me, though I've never taken illegal drugs). That is another thing the proposal attacks.

So, unlimited supplies of morphine may be purchased by anyone, as long as they do so from a State-sponsored store. All prescription drugs that may be used in a recreational manner may now be used without a doctor's supervision. Dosage controls and oversight are tossed on the rubbish heap. All this is 100% true under the language of this proposal.

Yes, crime will go down substantially, as there will be no more drug crimes. Making stupid behavior legal has a tendency to reduce the number of illegal activities. Naturally, the number of deaths and permanent health damage cases will go up substantially due to the absence of oversight by government or medical authorities, but it's all about freedom, right?

I completley agree with Gnomewathcers. And Nova Terra is totally wrong. There will be a increase of death, and like it or not it will not decrease crime. Movies are legal yet there are still people that sale copied movies, by piratcy or by downloading them off the internet. There will still be blackmarket drug dealing because the drug dealers will just sale for less money. Also, there are people that don't want to be seen buying drugs, so they will go to the black market where the won't be known and/or seen.

Your proposal will not work and it will not pass.

I think the proposal will decrease associated crime, even if it doesn't eliminate it. Dealing would most likely continue, but in fewer numbers and their prices would be significantly lowered to compete. People will also have the alternative of the state endorsed vendors.
Pirated videos - if illegal drug dealing was reduced to the level of pirated videos, the world would be in a much better position.
People not wanting to be seen purchasing drugs is a good point, perhaps nations could devise a system whereby people won't feel any more public buying drugs officially than off the streets.
As for the proposal not passing, well, c'est la vie.

Everyone here (including the author of the proposal) is missing the whole point of drug legalization. It's not a question of pragmatic results, but rather of objective moral principle. An individual owns his own body; therefore, it is solely his decision what is put in it and what is done with it. Any government act taken in opposition to that is illegitimate and must be opposed with all available force.

The Holy Empire of Kutonia would gladly agree to this proposal if the legistics were explained in a better manner. We are a nation that strongly agrees that one's body is there own and they have the right to use it in whatever sense. Please re-draft this proposal and then we can perhaps come to a better understanding.

Everyone here (including the author of the proposal) is missing the whole point of drug legalization. It's not a question of pragmatic results, but rather of objective moral principle. An individual owns his own body; therefore, it is solely his decision what is put in it and what is done with it. Any government act taken in opposition to that is illegitimate and must be opposed with all available force.

My feelings are identical, however many people refuse to accept this argument, therefore we must persuade them of the practical benefits as well as arguing the ethical principle.

You make a good point, but I made the proposal ambiguous to give nations a relatively large power of interpretation. Inappropriate use of the drugs may be made illegal. therefore, yes, unlimited supplies of morphine or any other drug deemed able to be used in a recreational manner may be perchased. However, certain drugs may require by law a doctor's supervision in order to be used "appropriately". Drugs could also be confined to use in the home, banned in public places. In fact, consumption of the drugs made legally attainable by the proposal could actually be illegal, so, despite being a bit silly, it does give nations plenty of leg room on the matter.

Allow me to see if I understand what you propose. You are saying that while a nation has to provide unlimited quantities of these drugs for purchase, it is free to ban their usage? I must respectfully voice my objection.
If we were to make using a firearm illegal, but allow our citizens to purchase as many as they wish, do you honestly expect us to have the same rate of firearm related fatalities as we would if all firearms were banned? Of course not. As if handing out the drugs themselves was not incentive enough, the flagrantly hypocritical position of a government that provides a substance illegal to use practicly encourages people to break the law!

Furthermore, while we might agree with you on the matter that the crime of drug trafficking would decrease under this law, have you considered the prospect of drug related crimes? Should a substance be made legal, and provided by the government, use of that substance is bound to increase. As a result, the number of people who abuse that substance will also increase - with all the societal ills that go along with chronic substance abuse increasing as well.
Now, you may counter by saying that this 'drug money' could go towards funding 'rehabilitation' and 'education' programs, but really, why attempt to partially fix problems that we can instead remove?

Yes, you understand. However, although it is possable to ban any use of drugs with this proposal, it would be fairly stupid to actually do that.

Everyone here (including the author of the proposal) is missing the whole point of drug legalization. It's not a question of pragmatic results, but rather of objective moral principle. An individual owns his own body; therefore, it is solely his decision what is put in it and what is done with it. Any government act taken in opposition to that is illegitimate and must be opposed with all available force.

Not to be a stickler here but what about countries that offer socialized health care? I would agree in an open market where your right to healthcare is determined by your means to acquire it. In a socialized system however every slip up you make is felt within society as a whole. While an individual might have the right to make the decision does he have the right to decide that society should support him in it?

Before you suggest that they might opt out of healthcare that would, for some countries, require a change in their constitution.

Now don’t get me wrong Nova Hope has a policy of anything goes, and due to our economic good fortune this has not been detrimental yet. One noted downfall of this legalization has been the fortification of class lines. The potential side effects of a drug seem to increase as you go lower down the pay scale; meaning that the uneducated layman seems to be using heroin while the upperclassmen on a lunch hour dabbles in valium. While paternalism is never a good goal in government some societies are simply self destructive. Would it not be better for each society to petition their own legislative bodies to decide what is best for them based on how annalistic and or educated each society is?

Furthermore, while we might agree with you on the matter that the crime of drug trafficking would decrease under this law, have you considered the prospect of drug related crimes? Should a substance be made legal, and provided by the government, use of that substance is bound to increase. As a result, the number of people who abuse that substance will also increase - with all the societal ills that go along with chronic substance abuse increasing as well.

The "societal ills" you blame on drug use are in large part connected to drug use under prohibition. Legalisation of drugs coupled with appropriate regulation at least decreases many of the problems (apologies for the use of RL examples, but they are there to illustrate points which I think are valid in the NS world too):

Educating individuals properly on the dangers so they can make informed decisions becomes easier, and you can also put warnings on the packets in the interests of informed decision-making.

Users can reliably know the strength and purity of what they're taking, making responsible drug use much easier.

A huge portion of drug-related health damage under prohibition is from impurities - a legal industry can be regulated to ensure a safer product.

Prohibition causes vast wastage of police, customs and judicial system time, and prison space, chasing and punishing people in a largely futile war on personal choice (in RL UK, the Metropolitan - London - police saved 50,000 hours on drug-related crime after cannabis was downgraded so they could just confiscate it without always having to arrest the user. Think of the effect if all drugs were fully legalised). Legalisation allows police to concentrate on catching criminals who actually harm others, and so police should easily be able to deal with the few more cases of drug-induced violence - which will occur less often in proportion to the amount of drug use, since the drugs can be made safer.

Even with heavy taxation, legal drugs are generally substantially cheaper than artificially inflated prohibition prices- this means addicts are less likely to resort to theft to fund their addiction. It is also good for other recreation industries, as users can have more leisure money left over for other recreational activities.

Legal, regulated retailers are much less likely to sell to kids (when there's an age limit) than drug dealers who are already breaking the law. It's probably easier for the average 14 year old (under drug prohibition in a nation where alcohol is legal over 18) to obtain marijuana than alcohol. I know at least anecdotally from friends.

Drug-related agriculture, transport, retail etc. is a large industry, which when legal can provide lots of employment and tax revenue (look at the sizes of the alcohol and tobacco industries in reality). Cultivation of the plants can be a sustainable and profitable industry for developing nations. Under prohibition, this money is funding organised criminals and sometimes terrorist groups, while poor farmers who are forced to grow drug crops in order to survive sometimes find themselves the victims of military attacks on their livelihoods (RL: think Columbia and the US war on drugs).

The tax revenue can in part be spent on costs to health services (if you have state-funded health services. I seem to remember hearing that in RL taxes on cigarettes easily account for the UK's health service expenditure on smoking-related problems, although I'm not totally sure of that) - remembering that drug use will be safer once you legalise and regulate it - and on education and rehabilitation services.

It is easier to offer rehabilitation services, as users will have no reason to fear punishment or legal difficulties. It is much more helpful to treat addiction as an illness than a crime.

Legitimate corporations tend to compete for customers with marketing (this would actually provide a strong incentive to develop less harmful forms of the drugs to appeal to consumers). Illegal drug dealing gangs often tend to compete for customers with guns.

Would it not be better for each society to petition their own legislative bodies to decide what is best for them based on how annalistic and or educated each society is?

Many governments in the NS world are totalitarian and would not necessarily pay attention to such a petition. Additionally, even in democratic societies which could probably actually benefit from legalisation, the majority of citizens may be too conservative to accept the ideas of personal choice. Why should that majority get to tell the minority who wish to use drugs that they don't have the right to decide what to put in their own bodies?

Many governments in the NS world are totalitarian and would not necessarily pay attention to such a petition. Additionally, even in democratic societies which could probably actually benefit from legalisation, the majority of citizens may be too conservative to accept the ideas of personal choice. Why should that majority get to tell the minority who wish to use drugs that they don't have the right to decide what to put in their own bodies?
By the basis that that society will be responsible for the drooling potato they might become. How can one person make the decision to subject their family to the horrors of drug abuse? How can their right to liberty be held sacrosanct over another’s right to security?

While I believe that yes the drugs should be made legal it is not up to me to enforce an arbitrary rule on another; thereby taking the decision out of their hands. Democracy is a gentle dance between individual rights and majority rule; there is no way a universally applied law in this area could possibly show uniform improvements in so many diverse societies.

The points raised about conservatism and totalitarianism have merit; but with these types of people in power regardless is it your belief that this law would not cause the animosity and persecution you seek to avoid? Or would it perhaps pass the job of discrimination onto society as government turned a blind eye.

By the basis that that society will be responsible for the drooling potato they might become. How can one person make the decision to subject their family to the horrors of drug abuse? How can their right to liberty be held sacrosanct over another’s right to security?

First, like I said, drug users without prohibition are much less likely to become a "drooling potato". Second, with appropriate taxation and application of the revenues gained, taxes on drugs, the drug industry, and drug users combined can balance out the costs, at least financially (i.e. burdens on socialised health services etc.).

If we're going to make laws to restrict people on the basis that their families might dislike their actions or the results of those actions, where can you draw the line? Any distinction between things more and less objectionable to families will be totally arbitrary. Plus, different families will be upset to different extents by different things, and some people don't even have surviving family members, so you can't restrict their behaviour on this basis.

Regarding the right to security, I've already pointed out that legalisation actually results in a safer society - one in which organised crime is massivley weakened, one in which far fewer addicts resort to theft, and one in which police forces are free to concentrate on protecting citizens from each other.

While I believe that yes the drugs should be made legal it is not up to me to enforce an arbitrary rule on another; thereby taking the decision out of their hands. Democracy is a gentle dance between individual rights and majority rule; there is no way a universally applied law in this area could possibly show uniform improvements in so many diverse societies.

If you can say that it isn't up to you to enforce a rule on another, how can it be up to the majority to force this kind of rule on the minority, thereby taking decisions about their own bodies out of their hands?

Democracy may have to compromise majority rule and individual rights, but this is out of necessity rather than that actually being a good thing. IMO at least, if the majority can be prevented from removing individual rights (e.g. by a NSUN resolution), they should be.

I think that allowing conservative majorities in so many societies to continue to enforce prohibition is worse than forcing all nations to legalise and regulate. But perhaps a suitable compromise would be to force the legalisation of soft drugs only for now, since these are even less likely to significantly impact those who aren't using them.

The points raised about conservatism and totalitarianism have merit; but with these types of people in power regardless is it your belief that this law would not cause the animosity and persecution you seek to avoid?

Do you mean that some governments would punish drug users in some other way? Well, perhaps something could be worked into any proposal legalising drugs (remember I'm still against the one being put forward in this thread) to protect users and the industry.

The "societal ills" you blame on drug use are in large part connected to drug use under prohibition. Legalisation of drugs coupled with appropriate regulation at least decreases many of the problems (apologies for the use of RL examples, but they are there to illustrate points which I think are valid in the NS world too):

We understand that a large degree of the 'organized crime' element would be reduced, if not eliminated, by the removal of prohibition on recrational drugs, but our Government still has lingering concerns about the possibility of extreme addiction and self-ruin that could be created by the easy availabilty of highly potent substances such as opiates. We understand and respect that the government of Myopia holds the belief that what a person does to their own body is their own buissness, but our own nation holds slightly different values. If we were to see an indication that legalization of all drugs, including ones like methamptamine and heroin, would lead to an environment that allowed someone to use these substances recreationally, without detriment to themselves, it would go a long way towards alleviating many of our concerns.

Educating individuals properly on the dangers so they can make informed decisions becomes easier, and you can also put warnings on the packets in the interests of informed decision-making.

I'm afraid I don't see how programs designed to educate people on the dangers of substance abuse would become more effective, or easier to implement, but legalizing those drugs. In fact, I feel it would actually serve only to send a hypocritical message. Also, I'd say that by the time they've purchased the packet, they've already made their decision. (;))

Users can reliably know the strength and purity of what they're taking, making responsible drug use much easier.

A huge portion of drug-related health damage under prohibition is from impurities - a legal industry can be regulated to ensure a safer product.

In that, our government wholeheartedly agree's with you.

Prohibition causes vast wastage of police, customs and judicial system time, and prison space, chasing and punishing people in a largely futile war on personal choice (in RL UK, the Metropolitan - London - police saved 50,000 hours on drug-related crime after cannabis was downgraded so they could just confiscate it without always having to arrest the user. Think of the effect if all drugs were fully legalised). Legalisation allows police to concentrate on catching criminals who actually harm others, and so police should easily be able to deal with the few more cases of drug-induced violence - which will occur less often in proportion to the amount of drug use, since the drugs can be made safer.

While true, this is slightly tangental to most of the issues our government has with the resolution. One could argue that the legalization of any currently illegal activity would reduce crime, as quite naturally that activity would no longer be added to the total. It does little to dispeal our qualms and reservations about the nature of that activity though.

Where you do have a very good point is with the reduction of organized crime. Not only are there many drug 'related' crimes that would also be eliminated, but the main source of funding for many criminal organizations would also be removed.

Even with heavy taxation, legal drugs are generally substantially cheaper than artificially inflated prohibition prices- this means addicts are less likely to resort to theft to fund their addiction. It is also good for other recreation industries, as users can have more leisure money left over for other recreational activities.

That's a valid point as well.

Legal, regulated retailers are much less likely to sell to kids (when there's an age limit) than drug dealers who are already breaking the law. It's probably easier for the average 14 year old (under drug prohibition in a nation where alcohol is legal over 18) to obtain marijuana than alcohol. I know at least anecdotally from friends.

Again, a very good point.

Drug-related agriculture, transport, retail etc. is a large industry, which when legal can provide lots of employment and tax revenue (look at the sizes of the alcohol and tobacco industries in reality). Cultivation of the plants can be a sustainable and profitable industry for developing nations. Under prohibition, this money is funding organised criminals and sometimes terrorist groups, while poor farmers who are forced to grow drug crops in order to survive sometimes find themselves the victims of military attacks on their livelihoods (RL: think Columbia and the US war on drugs).

True, but like the 'crime' issue, it does little to address the lingering qualms we have about the nature of substance abuse itself.

The tax revenue can in part be spent on costs to health services (if you have state-funded health services. I seem to remember hearing that in RL taxes on cigarettes easily account for the UK's health service expenditure on smoking-related problems, although I'm not totally sure of that) - remembering that drug use will be safer once you legalise and regulate it - and on education and rehabilitation services.

The only problem with this is that 'fixing' the problem is not always the same as averting the problem in the first place. For example, while we might have the funds to save the life of an overdose victim, that does not remove the fact that they experienced the overdose in the first place. Likewise, the fact that the state could pay for the treatment and upkeep of a person with resultant neurological damage in no way cancels out the fact that they now live a far more limited life than before.

It is easier to offer rehabilitation services, as users will have no reason to fear punishment or legal difficulties. It is much more helpful to treat addiction as an illness than a crime.

Our government already has laws with regard to this, dealing with the fact that an 'addict' currently undergoing active rehabilitation is in most instances free from prosecution for past drug use crimes.

Legitimate corporations tend to compete for customers with marketing (this would actually provide a strong incentive to develop less harmful forms of the drugs to appeal to consumers). Illegal drug dealing gangs often tend to compete for customers with guns.

A good point. As we mentioned before, we really only have one concern remaining, and that would be the harmful effects of drugs on the users themselves.

Many governments in the NS world are totalitarian and would not necessarily pay attention to such a petition. Additionally, even in democratic societies which could probably actually benefit from legalisation, the majority of citizens may be too conservative to accept the ideas of personal choice. Why should that majority get to tell the minority who wish to use drugs that they don't have the right to decide what to put in their own bodies?

This is simply a difference in values. We believe in protecting our citizens, while you value their freedom. Both viewpoints are valid, and in that regard I feel we just have to agree to disagree.

The governments right to limit what a person may put into their system begins when using a substance leads a person to harm others. Otherwise,. drink and drive until your heart desires. Because, as you have a license to drive, you are allowed to do so, and who is the government to say how much alcohol you put in your system?

I'm afraid I don't see how programs designed to educate people on the dangers of substance abuse would become more effective, or easier to implement, but legalizing those drugs. In fact, I feel it would actually serve only to send a hypocritical message. Also, I'd say that by the time they've purchased the packet, they've already made their decision. (;))

OOC: Well, merely anecdotally, I know that in the course of my school career, I have received in depth education about the dangers of cigarettes. I know all the potential dangers, and have been throroughly put off taking up smoking as a regular habit by the information around me. Growing up surrounded by discouragement from smoking has even reversed the peer pressure problem, at least for some kids - there is actually peer pressure amongst people I know NOT to smoke. Illegal drugs, however, are a different story. I have received far less specific information on illegal drugs, instead the message has mainly been a general "Drugs kill - don't do them", with little distinction between hard and soft drugs or between occasional and habitual use - which is a far less effective deterrent. Education, including warnings on packets, has two purposes - it serves to deter use, and it allows people to make informed choices, and whatever people decide I believe that it is far better that that decision is informed.

A good point. As we mentioned before, we really only have one concern remaining, and that would be the harmful effects of drugs on the users themselves.

...

This is simply a difference in values. We believe in protecting our citizens, while you value their freedom. Both viewpoints are valid, and in that regard I feel we just have to agree to disagree.

_Myopia_'s government does recognise that drugs can have a very harmful effect on those who choose to use them, and we do care deeply for those people. Our stance is simply that it is better that an individual has the ability to make an informed choice to harm themselves, even that they will take that choice and do themselves harm, than that an individual is harmed by someone else (organised criminals involved in the drug trade, addicts stealing in order to pay artificially inflated drug prices, or indeed government harming them by removing their rights), or harms themself due to an uninformed choice. We also feel that legalisation makes it significantly safer to use drugs. Therefore, we do not believe that your priorities are incompatible with ours on this issue.