NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think about my proposal:

UN submitted proposals p.17

"The criminalisation of drugs and drug users (including the cost for penitentuaries, police force and ensuing problems like drug-related crime, social discrimination - bringing drug users into a vicious circle without proper help, medical problems because of badly manufactured drugs etc.) is costing governments huge amounts of money each year.

The war on drugs is a war that cannot be won in the way its been fought in the past. The proposed legalization (state organized manufacturing/distribution) of all drugs would be a new answer for the worldwide drug-problem.

The money made from illegal drugs is helping corrupt governments, crime in general and paramilitary/terrorist organizations (and so consequently threatens human rights and helps the organised crime - in the worst case paving way for corruption on every political and legal level).

The money that would be spent on the war on drugs could be used for other, more useful purposes. Drug use can´t be stopped so it should be properly supervised.The illegal profits of the drug trade would be stopped and could benefit the state.

1. Legalization of all drugs
1.1.Each state will have the freedom to produce it´s drugs and sell them under it´s individual conditions (age of user, conditions of sale etc.) or can grant this right to supervised third party corporations.

2. Drugs will be made available at pharmacies (only legal location of sale) and sold with proper medical guidance referring to all the effects that could ensue e.g. addiction.

3. Only people of a certain age (e.g. 21) are legally able to use drugs.

4. People who use drugs will be encouraged to talk without charge with a medical counsellor about their drug use once in a year. If their drug use seems out of hand, a treatment with their medical counsellor
shall be encouraged.

5. Production of drugs by individuals will still remain illegal.

6. Public use of drugs will remain illegal, also will driving a vehicle under the use of drugs (e.g. drug use on the street remains illegal - this would result in a fine). "



I think this resolution could help the UN´s economy by reducing taxpayers money for crimefighting and police force and could bring money (the state acting as a monopol - controlling an very large market - on this economic sector - drugs) to the individual states by allowing them to control their drug trade.
Also this resolution in my opinion would increase civil rights and could cut cost in healthcare and public welfare (welfare -> people not falling out of the social net because of formerly illegal drug use and all its problems -> and healthcare costs being reduced because of clean, better drugs with proper instructions and medical guidance).

my 2cents

?

Don't bump. If people want to reply, they will.

Don't bump. If people want to reply, they will.

And bumping a thread to the top of the forum increases the chances those that would like to repeal will reply. You seem to overlook the fact that not everyone has time or desire to fish around for a thread on the forum. I also believe the default setting for the Jolt forums is to make viewable only freshly updated threads.

This isn't your little sandbox in which to attack those performing acts "unliscened by DLE" or, even worse, "annoying to DLE". Bumping, within reasonable limitations, is against no rule, however annoying it may be to you.

I think it's absolute genius.

And bumping a thread to the top of the forum increases the chances those that would like to repeal will reply. You seem to overlook the fact that not everyone has time or desire to fish around for a thread on the forum. I also believe the default setting for the Jolt forums is to make viewable only freshly updated threads.

This isn't your little sandbox in which to attack those performing acts "unliscened by DLE" or, even worse, "annoying to DLE". Bumping, within reasonable limitations, is against no rule, however annoying it may be to you.

Actually, bumping is against general forum policy when it comes to the users on this forum. Talk to Vastiva and a few others. It's not a rules policy, but you'll still get yelled at for it. Besides, right now is a dead time on the forum anyway.

My job on here is to shoot down proposals and resolutions I see as harmful to my nation or the UN as a whole and promote those I see as beneficial. I'm also here to point out when people break rules about resolutions, threads, or post a generally bad arguement or some other practice that is against the minisociety of this forum. I don't dictate the rules of this forum, just go with what has been in place as practices since before I started posting on here under this nation.

You might want to ask around before assuming. You only embarass yourself when you don't.

Actually, bumping is against general forum policy when it comes to the users on this forum. Talk to Vastiva and a few others. It's not a rules policy, but you'll still get yelled at for it. Besides, right now is a dead time on the forum anyway.

Hm, that's curious, how come I've never seen any of the experienced posters telling people not to bump? Oh, I know why: they have much more important things to do, and they aren't nearly so egocentric as to insultedly impose "general forum policy" upon others, especially the inexperienced.

Beyond that, it isn't "general forum policy" not to bump. For as long as I can remember, way before the Jolt forums, bumping has been a legitimate, honorable way of reiterating or reintroducing a thread. Even during dry spells. Why it is even your concern that others are bumping (especially in a "dry time"), is beyond me.

My job on here is to shoot down proposals and resolutions I see as harmful to my nation or the UN as a whole and promote those I see as beneficial. I'm also here to point out when people break rules about resolutions, threads, or post a generally bad arguement or some other practice that is against the minisociety of this forum.

You were never interviewed, hired. You receive no pension. You have no wage. I'm not sure how it's your "job" to do any of those things. Your "job" is whatever you make your job to be. You have been given no mandate to point out others foibles and weaknesses, except that given by yourself. If you choose to be forum grouch, I'm not going to stop you. But don't try to assert your annoyances as the rule or the norm. A little bit of tact goes a long way.

You might want to ask around before assuming.

I'm sorry. I apologize. Next time I choose not to be negative and abrasive as to proposal authors and other forum denizens, I'll ask first.

Hm, that's curious, how come I've never seen any of the experienced posters telling people not to bump? Oh, I know why: they have much more important things to do, and they aren't nearly so egocentric as to insultedly impose "general forum policy" upon others, especially the inexperienced.

Look up some of Vastiva's past posts. I'll get a link to a few if you want.

Part of why I do it still is mainly because, as you said, I'm egocentrical. That is the DLE persona and I do not hide it.

Beyond that, it isn't "general forum policy" not to bump. For as long as I can remember, way before the Jolt forums, bumping has been a legitimate, honorable way of reiterating or reintroducing a thread. Even during dry spells. Why it is even your concern that others are bumping (especially in a "dry time"), is beyond me.

Yes, just not on this forum. Count the number of threads that are hit by bumps in its history. Hell, check the past month and count how many.

The only reason I'm concerned about it is I really don't want to come on here, see a three-page thread, and find it's full of nothing but bumps instead of discussion of the actual topic.

You were never interviewed, hired. You receive no pension. You have no wage. I'm not sure how it's your "job" to do any of those things. Your "job" is whatever you make your job to be. You have been given no mandate to point out others foibles and weaknesses, except that given by yourself. If you choose to be forum grouch, I'm not going to stop you. But don't try to assert your annoyances as the rule or the norm. A little bit of tact goes a long way.

Forum grouch? I've been downright nice compared to what I could be. I've got a few examples of me being far worse somewhere around here.

And my annoyances being asserted are due to the fact doing something that annoys people (such as the tabbing of one proposal) tends to bias them against you right off the bat. My annoyances are a bit uncommon, but they're not exactly rare either.

In this case, his only problem is not being patient. People will reply to this when they want and the best thing bumping it can do is get hostile responses. The only reasons people are not generally replying to this is they are either not here or they don't support it and don't feel like posting.

Also, keep in mind what day it is. The new year starts very soon, so naturally this is going to be a bit on the slow side for replies. Patience is what you must have around this time.

I'm sorry. I apologize. Next time I choose not to be negative and abrasive as to proposal authors and other forum denizens, I'll ask first.

Negative and abrasive? Go ahead and be those. Just make sure your information backing you is accurate. That way, when they call you on it, you can beat them with evidence as well. And if you happen to be disproven, then is a good time to be gracias and move on. I've been beaten in arguements before.

Oh, I'm glad to see you're still around. Just remembered you from the last time I spent a bout of lurking.

This Proposal is just funny.

Look up some of Vastiva's past posts. I'll get a link to a few if you want.

Vastiva's just one source, and, beyond that (all due respect to Vastiva) wasn't one of the "experienced members" I was referring to. Not that Vastiva isn't an experienced poster, he just isn't one of those that set precedents and atmosphere for this forum for me. Those posters over the summer set an atmosphere that was less interested in fashion policing the forum and more interested in engagement in good debate, proposal encouragement, and good humor.

The only reason I'm concerned about it is I really don't want to come on htere, see a three-page thread, and find it's full of nothing but bumps instead of discussion of the actual topic.

If there were a three-page thread, nothing but bumps, then I wouldn't object to your complaining. However, this is just one bump, or in the case of my Great Library updates, a small series of bumps. And, for the record, there were legitimate reasons to update.

Oh, I'm glad to see you're still around. Just remembered you from the last time I spent a bout of lurking.

Huh? I'm still around? I've "been around" for a while. How else could I've gotten me herpes?



Anyway on the topic of this proposal, I think, for a "legalize drugs" proposal, it's awfully sober. Keep with it, open it up in draft form, and this could be passed.

Vastiva's just one source, and, beyond that (all due respect to Vastiva) wasn't one of the "experienced members" I was referring to. Not that Vastiva isn't an experienced poster, he just isn't one of those that set precedents and atmosphere for this forum for me. Those posters over the summer set an atmosphere that was less interested in fashion policing the forum and more interested in engagement in good debate, proposal encouragement, and good humor.

Meh.

If there were a three-page thread, nothing but bumps, then I wouldn't object to your complaining. However, this is just one bump, or in the case of my Great Library updates, a small series of bumps. And, for the record, there were legitimate reasons to update.

Name the number of topics where that kind of update happens. I'll admit I was speaking more from personal annoyance at it in this case. Reaching quorum not even I will object to as being an update.

Huh? I'm still around? I've "been around" for a while. How else could I've gotten me herpes?

Uh, that I didn't know about.

I mean, I'm glad to see you're still here. When I first saw you, I thought your nation was going to be another one that didn't coontribute much or just vanished after awhile. Then again, I also thought that of one of the most popular alliances in NS history and was wrong.

Anyway on the topic of this proposal, I think, for a "legalize drugs" proposal, it's awfully sober. Keep with it, open it up in draft form, and this could be passed.

I'm not sure. I'll watch it a couple days while examining my nation to see whether or not I will benefit.

The war on drugs is a war that cannot be won in the way its been fought in the past. The proposed legalization (state organized manufacturing/distribution) of all drugs would be a new answer for the worldwide drug-problem.this is just like legalize murder to solve the murders world wide problem.

1. Legalization of all drugs
1.1.Each state will have the freedom to produce it´s drugs and sell them under it´s individual conditions (age of user, conditions of sale etc.) or can grant this right to supervised third party corporations.some of the drugs like heroin could be fatal even if they produced by the goverment. other could be addicative, and ruin the user's lives exactly like illegal drugs.
legalization can't be on all the drugs.

3. Only people of a certain age (e.g. 21) are legally able to use drugs. exactly like the situation with beer and cigarrets, teens always can get what they want, when the adults get that easily. if they can't get the drugs from the pharamedics, the mafia will stay with their most valuable costumers, and you loose all the proposals benefits.

4. People who use drugs will be encouraged to talk without charge with a medical counsellor about their drug use once in a year. If their drug use seems out of hand, a treatment with their medical counsellor
shall be encouraged. first, I think you had to set monthly meets, so you could see the problem sooners.
second, I think you had to set meet before you let your citizen use drugs, so you could see if the drugs will be fatal to him (as it happen in some cases)
5. Production of drugs by individuals will still remain illegal. come on, if you make private use production illegal, you can't lower your police budget, because that is the most hardly part.
also, I think you better remain some drugs production as marijuana legal, and sell the seeds in pharamedics.

that is some comments I had on your proposal. I think it great one and green israel would likely support it, but I just want to insure your ideas about my comments.

This is crazy! What kind of nation (I know, I know Holland as "Coffe Shops") wants to poison their people.
Not me, this will create problems and YES police funds will rise. Do you think that "high" people will be good citizens, NO, they will do what they allways do make trouble.
I am more willing to raise funds to the military, police and education to try to stop this trash and the useless people that sell and make it.

First of all, after further looking at it, I disagree with the part about only government being able to manufacture and distribute drugs. It should be opened up to private companies.


this is just like legalize murder to solve the murders world wide problem.


Well, i would relate this much closer to the brief Prohibition of Alcohol period, and the legalization of cigarettes. Legalizing both, and letting PRIVATE companies sell it, but also strictly regulating both industries, has resulted in products where neither is excessively harmful (a pack of cigarettes or a mug of beer is not going to kill you).

some of the drugs like heroin could be fatal even if they produced by the goverment. other could be addicative, and ruin the user's lives exactly like illegal drugs.
legalization can't be on all the drugs.

With government regulation, you can set Safety Standards on all of the drugs. Types of drugs that did not pass the safety regulations would not be able to go on the market, and would have to go back into the lab for further tweaking to make them less potent.

exactly like the situation with beer and cigarrets, teens always can get what they want, when the adults get that easily. if they can't get the drugs from the pharamedics, the mafia will stay with their most valuable costumers, and you loose all the proposals benefits.

But see, exactly like the situation with cigarettes, the overwhelming market is the group of 40+ age adults who are addicted to the stuff. (Alcohol is somewhat different... i'll get into that) Maybe it's because I live in California (where the state's been real adamant about cracking down on tobacco) but virtually no kids or even young adults here smoke. In fact, it's the opposite, a sort of peer pressure NOT to smoke. This, I believe mostly, is due to a ban on tobacco advertising (both on television and on those targeted toward children) and strong health-education courses about the health effects of smoking.

I believe, with strong policies against drugs, the legalization of it will slowly bring down drug use from something that is underground and cool to something that is open, but frowned upon, and slowly dying away (as it is with tobacco right now)

first, I think you had to set monthly meets, so you could see the problem sooners.
second, I think you had to set meet before you let your citizen use drugs, so you could see if the drugs will be fatal to him (as it happen in some cases)

Yes, I agree that everyone should consult a doctor before taking drugs. And, they should be issued "drug cards" OKing them to take drugs (therefore, anyone who wants to go to a pharmacy and buy drugs must be "certified" with a card to do so.) The card requirements must be really lax, basically, no allergenic effects to drugs, otherwise people would just resort to buying them illegally. However, the card system would ensure that no drug dealers or underage kids could get a hold of them, and would also serve as a way to keep track of how much drugs the person is buying (once they start buying in excessive amounts, someone should be sent to check up on them)

Also, as Green israel stated, you need to let production and distribution up to the private companies. The government just simply does not have the know-how and capital power to operate that kind of business. However, you would have government licenses to make drugs (like any other industry) and federal inspectors to oversee the manufacturing process.

Taxes on drugs should come LATER, however. Initially, they have to be as cheap or cheaper than the street price to attract people. Basically, you need to create a Big Drug monopoly to stamp out the street vendors. Afterwards, after you have eliminated all the illegal street dealers from the market, THAT's when you can start taxing it liberally to discourage drug use.

On a side note, i think a "smaller step" idea that would more likely pass would be to legalize the use of drugs in rehabilitation centers.

Authorize the use of progressively lower doses of drugs to gradually wean addicts off of it. I think for a lot of people it works better than the "cold turkey" approach.

tejasdom
you right, and I agree with your comments. but as citizen of Israel, I see other things: the using of drugs and ciggarets just keep to go up, altough huge compaign and ban laws are on the rise. we can't make anything with too little police budget, and crime families that only strengh.

I think Israel could be eg. to third world leadership in first world state. after I see how anything could be ruin by some stupidness, I just want to insure the proposals close every important issue, and I don't had to heard "if you don't want it, make your on laws" comments.

but I don't had problem with the drugs (my countrey already legalize them), I just want the UN regulate the subject.