NationStates Jolt Archive

Delagates should vote for it the banning of recreeational drugs is a violation of human rights.

How is it a violation of human rights?

If anything banning recreational drugs is a violation of human rights.

Exactley the banning of drugs is a violation of ones human rights.

Civil rights, maybe. And civil rights are pretty much up to the government to allow or restrict.

I don't see how not allowing your citizens to endanger themselves with mind-altering substances is a violation of human rights.

As a delegate who has been somewhat active (OOC: more like hyperactive) on this forum of late, I need something more compelling than:

the banning of recreeational drugs is a violation of human rights.

It doesn't matter in the slightest to me how many times one repeats that or slight variants of that. Krioval suppresses certain rights all the time. For example, the Commander of Krioval is indirectly elected by Parliament for life. He holds veto power and commands all Krioval's armed forces. Krioval has restrictions on what constitutes acceptible behavior in public. So it goes. Since we are not an anarchy, we don't get upset whenever an individual potential civil right is considered threatened. Instead, we evaluate the impact of allowing versus curtailing the behavior and make an informed decision.

In this case, Krioval sees no reason to fight your proposal, but there is no reason seen to endorse it either. Good day.

Lord Darvek Tyvok
UN Ambassador - Krioval
Regional Delegate - Chaotica

We here in wallachsland have legalized all drugs. We find it leaves the police force free to deal with REAL crime ie: murders, rape, door to door selling. We feel that if someone wishes to destroy themselves with drugs fine. It is their choice. Instead we try through education and equal opportunity and the ability of the common man to rise up and become whatever he wants to be, to remove the stimulus of drug abuse. Drug abuse is a symptom of a wider problem, the problem of corporate greed, of social inequality caused by the class system, which relies on wealth to support it. Banning drug use does nothing but push the this oppresion underground, where the wealthy can ignore it in the ignorant bliss they are used to.

The proposal in question is this, I believe:
Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: Wilhelmgrad

Description: This Act shall, legalize Recreational Drugs for all.
With the condition, These Recreational Drugs must be manufactured and sold by the government. This will help improve profits for the government, reduce wasted police time pertaining to drugs, and will help Recreational Drug users by providing them with safer drugs.

The Government shall achieve this by simple business practices such as monopolies.

i don't agree that the government should have a monopoly, but any competition would have to be very well regulated.

The government should have a monopoly, if only to control quality and volume. This way people purchasing items could be registered, and there usage monitored, purchasing for resales to other people would be a crime, with heavy punishiments. Then registered users who's useage has become chronic, could be refered to rehab centre's for treatment.

Civil rights, maybe. And civil rights are pretty much up to the government to allow or restrict.

I don't see how not allowing your citizens to endanger themselves with mind-altering substances is a violation of human rights.


If it's okay, I'd like to interject...

The idea of "allowing" citizens to put certain substances into their bodies, is not the same as "allowing" them to commit murder. I know, that wasn't part of this discussion - near as I've seen - but it's been brought up before, in many other drug-war shootouts.

I'm a libertarian. However, I'm not the garden-variety kind that wants all drug laws repealed. That may sound contradictory, but I think it's a matter of degrees. The only good idea Jimmy Carter had was "harm reduction"; IOW, the laws governing drug use should correspond to the damage they do to society. For instance, methamphetamine - drop the hammer on it. Marijuana: Only arrest those who sell it to kids, or use it while operating airplanes or other machinery, cars included. We waste resources busting someone for growing a couple of plants in their closet, when we should be going after cocaine cartels, meth labs, and other more damaging activity.

Hope you didn't mind me jumping in.

Yeah, I guess you have the "right" to use recreational drugs, kinda like I have the "right" to beat the crap out of anyone I come across for no particular reason.

Right?

Yeah, I guess you have the "right" to use recreational drugs, kinda like I have the "right" to beat the crap out of anyone I come across for no particular reason.

Right?
Umm, where did that come from?
I cannot see the analogy.

The criminilisation of drugs is not a violation of human rights. Not everything is a human right. And if you continue to try to make EVERYTHING a human RIGHT then you devalue them.

Human rights should be no more and no less than the basic NECESSITIES required to lead a full life. And I don't think you can argue that drugs fall into that category.

Besides which,the individual's right to do what they want extends only so far as that it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. Drugs violate this rule- while under the influence of certain drugs, people can become unsafe, especially if the drugs are mind-altering, etc. They can be a danger to themselves and others.

The criminilisation of drugs is not a violation of human rights. Not everything is a human right. And if you continue to try to make EVERYTHING a human RIGHT then you devalue them.

Human rights should be no more and no less than the basic NECESSITIES required to lead a full life. And I don't think you can argue that drugs fall into that category.

Besides which,the individual's right to do what they want extends only so far as that it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same. Drugs violate this rule- while under the influence of certain drugs, people can become unsafe, especially if the drugs are mind-altering, etc. They can be a danger to themselves and others.


Would you then be in favor of a proposal which said that nations had the right to decide the legality recreational drugs on their own?

A human must have the right to live his or her own life the way they would like, with the exception of being a danger to others.

i also ask u why not allow drugs or at least allow each nation to choose for themselves? My proposal not only helps the people by granting them with more rights, but also the gov't by helping provide them with aditional funds.
So why not?

Approve!!

We here in wallachsland have legalized all drugs. We find it leaves the police force free to deal with REAL crime ie: murders, rape, door to door selling.
Okay, this quote is from a few posts ago, but I'm going to reply to it anyhow. (I'm like that)

Join me in a theoretical nation in a moment. Say that I've legalized drug use, so that we can deal with the "real" crimes - murders, rape, door-to-door selling. Well, first off, the last really shouldn't be an issue if drugs are legalized, so that doesn't make sense.

Secondly, you allow people to use drugs as they wish, which will likely lead to addiction. People might lose their job and income because of their addiction. When they have no money, they'll still have the addiction and still crave the drug. Who's to say that "real" crime won't *increase* by legalizing drugs?

Mary Jane over here wants some Marijuana bad, but she can't pay for it. So in a withdrawl state, she goes and kills someone to get either money to buy the drugs, or the drugs themselves. Also, some drugs (such as ecstasy) increase you sense organs, and that could lead to rape. A person high on ecstasy might have sex with an unwilling person largely because of the drugs that they were on, and their lack of care (at that moment) for anything other than their pleasure.

So if legalizing drugs can lead to the "real" crime that you mentioned above (minus the one that really shouldn't be a crime anymore), why would I want to legalize drugs? Within reason, perhaps, but all recreational drugs are not legal within my nation for pretty much the reasons I've just outlined.

Obviously I'm against this proposal. If it was well-written out with logical arguments, I'd consider it. However, what you have said here and said in the proposal isn't nearly enough to convince me that you're right. Still, it's nice to know that my pharmacy schooling isn't going to waste and that there are applicable uses of my knowledge - even within NS.

Mary Jane over here wants some Marijuana bad, but she can't pay for it. So in a withdrawl state, she goes and kills someone to get either money to buy the drugs, or the drugs themselves. Also, some drugs (such as ecstasy) increase you sense organs, and that could lead to rape. A person high on ecstasy might have sex with an unwilling person largely because of the drugs that they were on, and their lack of care (at that moment) for anything other than their pleasure.

I truly dislike arguments of this nature, as it implies that the moment a person uses a drug, they have no will of their own. This defense has been quite popular, and has been used quite successfully by those who wish to further control the activities of others. See... we can't let you smoke that joint because then you might be a danger to others. Whatever happened to "I don't care how much weed you were smoking, you know you can't do that?" and lower the boom.

Either way... this is an issue that is best determined by individual nations.

Oh... and withdrawal? From marijuana? <sigh>

_Myopia_ would be prepared to support a more detailed, well-argued proposal to legalise drugs. I would first recommend including a range of arguments, and using the format in Sophista's Resolution Writing Guide (sticky near the top of the forum). Also, take a hint from the sex worker act, and say it must be regulated for safety and openness, but don't insist on specific regulations except that the consumer must be guaranteed that what they're buying is exactly what it says on the packet, and nothing else.

I don't think it's wise to insist on a government monopoly. Some nations could produce a perfectly suitable system, with sufficient protection for the consumer, in the private sector. Let nations work out the best route to the ideal situation, because different economies and societies will work best under different circumstances.

Mousebumples, you raise a valid point that drugs can cause people to become more dangerous. However, there are several points that need to be taken into account.

First, as Zamundaland says, the loss of will is often overestimated. Second, prohibition of drugs artificially inflates prices. Even with heavy taxes, legal drugs in _Myopia_ are significantly cheaper than in countries with prohibition. Therefore, there is much less financial pressure on those with habits, and they are less likely to be driven to steal. Third, once drug addicts are no longer treated as criminals, their problems can be treated as medical ones, so it is much easier to get help to those who need it before they are driven to desperate measures. Fourth, if you regulate, you can insist that producers label drugs with a consistent guide to strength, so users can much more accurately control their level of intoxication.

Finally, remember that as well as wiping out drug crimes, you can also wipe out a lot of drug-related crimes. Organised crime loses a major source of funding, and drug suppliers are no longer fighting for turf with guns. You can also save a lot of resources that previously had to be devoted to border control to stop smuggling. With the freeing-up of other resources, and the income from taxes, you can devote greater effort to policing crimes by drug users.

I truly dislike arguments of this nature, as it implies that the moment a person uses a drug, they have no will of their own. This defense has been quite popular, and has been used quite successfully by those who wish to further control the activities of others. See... we can't let you smoke that joint because then you might be a danger to others. Whatever happened to "I don't care how much weed you were smoking, you know you can't do that?" and lower the boom.

Either way... this is an issue that is best determined by individual nations.

Oh... and withdrawal? From marijuana? <sigh>
It was an extreme argument. It was more of a what-if clause. And I know that marijuana doesn't cause extreme withdrawl symptoms. It was more of a hypothetical. The ecstasy bit is a bit more real - not that such crimes happen frequently, but I was more trying to make the point that unless a very clear and well-argued proposal is presented, I think that the issue of drug legalization should remain in the hands of individual member nations. My apologies if that wasn't clear.

Erm, double post. The same thing doesn't need to be in here twice ....

big difference between non-addictive recreational drugs like pot and acid and ecstasy, and addictive drugs like crystal meth and coke and heroin.








uh, actually... not so much. i've done most of the drugs mentioned above and am not addicted to anything but nicotine gum. i have a family, i have a job, i even have a career...

maybe part of it is i just don't find those addictive drugs as fun as the ones that happen to be non-addictive. anyway, it makes it easy for me to rationalize that non-addictive drugs should be legalized.

The problem with recreational drugs is an age old issue.
In Homers ( the greek poet, not simpson) the Oddysey, which tells of the return of a king and his men from the trojan wars and his encounter with the Island of the lotus blossom eaters. The Islanders were addicted to the drugging effect of the blossoms and tried to get Oddyseus and his crew to partake of the bee shaped weed.

Its a fable of the dangers of communal drug taking and abuse and it stands to this day. As long as their is breath in my body i will heed this tale and therefore i cant support any proposal which allows for the unregulated taking of recreational drugs.

President Murphy,
The Realm of Hibernia. (previously Lotus Blossoms) :)

The problem with recreational drugs is an age old issue.
In Homers ( the greek poet, not simpson) the Oddysey, which tells of the return of a king and his men from the trojan wars and his encounter with the Island of the lotus blossom eaters. The Islanders were addicted to the drugging effect of the blossoms and tried to get Oddyseus and his crew to partake of the bee shaped weed.

Its a fable of the dangers of communal drug taking and abuse and it stands to this day. As long as their is breath in my body i will heed this tale and therefore i cant support any proposal which allows for the unregulated taking of recreational drugs.

President Murphy,
The Realm of Hibernia. (previously Lotus Blossoms) :)
Forgot about that one.

Yeah, opium doesn't do much for me either.

It's sort of like ludes, and I haven't particularly enjoyed those either.

It's a bit of a myth that legalising drugs would reduce crime. Even if Mousebumples is incorrect in asserting that it would raise crime levels (and I think s/he is correct), legalising drugs reduces crime in the same way that legalising murder reduces crime- it reduces crime, but it doesn't reduce murder (the opposite, it would increase the murder rate, they just wouldn't be called crimes anymore).

In fact, why not legalise everything! Then we would have a CRIME-FREE SOCIETY!!! I wouldn't want to live in it though.

An other argument, on a different note, is that people should be free to live their lives as they choose. However, addiction to any drug does not lend itself well to notions of freedom. And addiction is only one problem.

Economies all over the world would suffer- as employees either became addicted and unable to work eficiently, or even if employees started coming in to work high.

Drunk crime is bad enough as it is, especially after the clubs close on a weekend night. I can't help but think that if drugs were legalised too that this sort of problem would become huge, in scope and in intensity. Unless, of course, we legalise rape, vandalism, assault, murder, manslaughter, DUI, etc etc.

Vastiva's position remains the same.

You can imbibe, inject, snort, rub, insert, eat, puff, or slurp whatever you want. "Recreational pharmaceuticals" are available from pharmacies or licensed dealers (yes, really, we have them).

Upon purchase, your identification is noted for age identification and tracking.

By purchasing, you void certain parts of your insurance coverage, pursuant to a rise in your premiums. Treatment programs can alter this, depending on certifications - this is rather involved, far more then most nations.

The use of a drug does not give reason for any crime. If you commit murder under the influence of alcohol it is still murder; your condition, as a voluntary condition, is not relevant to the charges against you.

In short, personal responsibility.

It's a bit of a myth that legalising drugs would reduce crime. Even if Mousebumples is incorrect in asserting that it would raise crime levels (and I think s/he is correct), legalising drugs reduces crime in the same way that legalising murder reduces crime- it reduces crime, but it doesn't reduce murder (the opposite, it would increase the murder rate, they just wouldn't be called crimes anymore).

In fact, why not legalise everything! Then we would have a CRIME-FREE SOCIETY!!! I wouldn't want to live in it though.

An other argument, on a different note, is that people should be free to live their lives as they choose. However, addiction to any drug does not lend itself well to notions of freedom. And addiction is only one problem.

Economies all over the world would suffer- as employees either became addicted and unable to work eficiently, or even if employees started coming in to work high.

Drunk crime is bad enough as it is, especially after the clubs close on a weekend night. I can't help but think that if drugs were legalised too that this sort of problem would become huge, in scope and in intensity. Unless, of course, we legalise rape, vandalism, assault, murder, manslaughter, DUI, etc etc.


We disagree with your first assumption. Legalizing drugs has dropped crime, particularly robbery. As clinics exist which allow one to stupify themselves into nonexistance if they so choose, if they want drugs, they can get them for free if they desire.

This removes the need for criminal action to fulfill the need.

In short, Vastiva legalized drugs. However, we hold fast to personal responsibility - the use of drugs is not a reason nor an excuse for a crime, and is dismissed as relevant by the courts.

As to the second arguement - "employees would all get high and be useless" - our method is draconian and effective. Those who get addicted and do not seek treatment self-destruct at the "freely available" clinics. This removes them from society. Those who seek treatment, get treatment, with no onus or cost attached.

In short, social Darwinism. We remove those who cannot help themselves, support those who can help themselves. Those who want their puff of mary jane - and tolerate it - can do so without fear from the law. Those who want to drink - and tolerate it - can do so.

It remains true and enforced, that no condition - including those created by voluntary ingestion of pharmaceuticals - is relevant in a court of law. If you get drunk and end up with a pregnant woman, when she has the child you have a child (...if...). If you get high and run over someone, the charge is murder. Simple, efficient.

We disagree with your first assumption. Legalizing drugs has dropped crime, particularly robbery. As clinics exist which allow one to stupify themselves into nonexistance if they so choose, if they want drugs, they can get them for free if they desire.

This removes the need for criminal action to fulfill the need.



There is a huge difference between legalising drugs and giving them away for free. There is no way that most states would adopt your policy of establishing clinics that distribute drugs at no cost- it would likely bankrupt most economies- why buy drugs when you can book yourself into a clinic and get drugged up for nothing. Why, I do believe that many people would choose never to leave!

I am not against letting countries legalise drugs. In Gwenstefani, although marujana is not legal, it is decriminilased to the extent that individual users cannot be punished for having it (dealers on the other hand...). The state, however, neither supplies nor approves of the habit. Employers have the right to ask employees not to use the drug, just as they would have the right to fire an employee who came to work drunk.

We disagree with your first assumption. Legalizing drugs has dropped crime, particularly robbery.

You seem to think that making something legal stops it from causing problems. As i have already stated, billions of nodoubts are spent repairing damage caused by, and bringing to justice people who have committed crimes while under the influence of alcohol. Crimes the person would not commit sober. Legalising drugs would only worsen the problem, and given that they often induce much stronger reactions in people than mere alcohol, the increase in crime could be exponential.

And while we value the ideal of personal responsibility, too many people simply lack it, and thus we cannot unleash such a system. The world, and its people, are not perfect.

we are pleased that we are no members of the Marxist organization called United Nations, exactly because of lunatic ideas like this.

Our policy is to execute those caught with any kind of none authorized drugs.

There is a huge difference between legalising drugs and giving them away for free. There is no way that most states would adopt your policy of establishing clinics that distribute drugs at no cost- it would likely bankrupt most economies- why buy drugs when you can book yourself into a clinic and get drugged up for nothing. Why, I do believe that many people would choose never to leave!

And those who would do so effectively remove themselves from society, injuring no one. This drops costs across the board as those addicts eliminate themselves, with all their material goods becoming property of the state.

This effect is also publicized, creating a negative feedback to society. We do, however, leave the mousetrap door open.

You book yourself in - you are permanently high until you die, at which time your body is sharkbait. Society does not have to suffer or see you. End of problem.



I am not against letting countries legalise drugs. In Gwenstefani, although marujana is not legal, it is decriminilased to the extent that individual users cannot be punished for having it (dealers on the other hand...). The state, however, neither supplies nor approves of the habit. Employers have the right to ask employees not to use the drug, just as they would have the right to fire an employee who came to work drunk.

If an employee comes in drunk, you send him home and the State furnishes you sufficient to cover the missing person, whether in time or money. That individual has missed a day of work. If it spirals down, they will lose employment, and possibly self-destruct. We are all for that end.

Those who cannot control themselves are removed from society, left to enjoy their habits onto destruction. Society therefore grows more able to deal with its addictions as - Darwinically - those who cannot are destroyed.

You seem to think that making something legal stops it from causing problems. As i have already stated, billions of nodoubts are spent repairing damage caused by, and bringing to justice people who have committed crimes while under the influence of alcohol. Crimes the person would not commit sober. Legalising drugs would only worsen the problem, and given that they often induce much stronger reactions in people than mere alcohol, the increase in crime could be exponential.

And while we value the ideal of personal responsibility, too many people simply lack it, and thus we cannot unleash such a system. The world, and its people, are not perfect.

And you seem to lack comprehension.

How is damage done by a drunkard in a closed area who never becomes sober?

Someone who commits a crime while high, is tried for that crime. The condition is irrelevant. As such, a higher level of convictions is established. As most of our penalties include death, we again Darwinically remove that element from our society.

We should note here, cameras are omnipresent. We will find you, we will try you, and if necessary, we will execute you. Publicly, usually televised, with recordings available.

Immense societal pressure exists. We exploit it. If the cost is allowing fools to kill themselves, so be it. Drugs are very cheap, compared to the costs associated with their illegality. So have them if you wish them, enjoy them as you will...

Break our laws, suffer the penalty.

You shall have to introduce an example for more clarity.

we are pleased that we are no members of the Marxist organization called United Nations, exactly because of lunatic ideas like this.

Our policy is to execute those caught with any kind of none authorized drugs.

If you are not a member, do leave. Your name itself is an insult.

You book yourself in - you are permanently high until you die, at which time your body is sharkbait. Society does not have to suffer or see you. End of problem.


I'm afraid all you are succeeding in doing is convincing me that you are entirely deluded about the negative consequences of your drugs programme. You seem to think that it is cheap to house, feed, and provide an unlimited supply of drugs to thousands, if not millions of people, as well as to pay the staff to provide all these services.

Society may not need to see these people, but I imagine they might resent them for draining them of their tax dollars- hardworking people must pay to let deadbeats sit around and take drugs. And you feel this is justified?? This all seems like a very high price to pay for the legality of drugs.

The legality of drugs pales in comparison to what your country is doing. And your attitudes underlying the programme are disturbing, what with your talk of social darwinism, and addicts becoming the state's property.

I have very few issues with the acceptance of recreational drug use (although I would reject a proposal to enforce this on all nations). However, I draw the line where a state offers (even promotes and defends) complete and total addiction to the point of overriding all other aspects of life as a valid lifestyle. A lifestyle which is not only self-destructive for the individuals involved, but which rips apart families and destroys lives. "Mummy, where's daddy?" "Oh, he's happily living in a clinic where they give him free drugs every day. Now hurry up and pack your clothes before the bailiffs arrive..."
I think you ignore a great deal of consequences to those outside of the clinics.

And as for your claims that drug-induced crimes will not rise because drug-users will be safe in the confines of the clinic, well, are you suggesting that ALL drugh users will reside there? I would have assumed it was only the very worst cases who ended up there? Which leaves the rest of the recreational users to stir up trouble at closing time. Or maybe your entire society is one giant drug clinic? And everyone is too high or hallicinating to be able to notice the horrendous state of affairs in your country?

Maybe you are too...?

In short, social Darwinism. We remove those who cannot help themselves, support those who can help themselves.

Social Darwinism? While I certainly don't disagree that it's fine that Vastiva has implemented this principle, I would hardly agree that this would be anything to base even portions of UN legislation on. This seems a very customized form of social capitalism.

How is damage done by a drunkard in a closed area who never becomes sober?

Someone who commits a crime while high, is tried for that crime. The condition is irrelevant. As such, a higher level of convictions is established. As most of our penalties include death, we again Darwinically remove that element from our society.

This removes the need for criminal action to fulfill the need.

If drugs are legal, there are many, many drug-users--too many to realistically confine and inclose. Under the influence of drugs, poeple's critical thinking and judgement are greatly diminished. Illegal activity is much more likely. Yes, legalizing drugs would slow illegal activities to acquire drugs (it wouldn't stop it; there will always be illegal activities of acquiring goods in high demand), but it would increase the illegal activities of users. I understand this might not be the case in Vastiva (with it's all-seeing surveillance, and all-pervasive police force--I think) but this would, I firmly believe, be the case in any state not so interdicting of its citizens' privacy.

Immense societal pressure exists. We exploit it. If the cost is allowing fools to kill themselves, so be it. Drugs are very cheap, compared to the costs associated with their illegality. So have them if you wish them, enjoy them as you will...

I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps it's true in Vastiva, but if the UN forced legalized drugs in Powerhungry Chipmunks the much hieghtened strain cast upon PC's social net--since we don't practice the same branch of social darwinism as Vastiva--would far outweigh any monetary commitment to enforcing illegal recreational drugs. To force member nations to legalize recreational drugs and expect governments to save money (if we're still on that issue) would require all nations to at least partially adopt Vastiva's "survival of the fittest" (not meant as derrogatory) attitude towards member societies.

Fourth, if you regulate, you can insist that producers label drugs with a consistent guide to strength, so users can much more accurately control their level of intoxication.

They can, but how many cases do we see for abuses of legal drugs which have a consistent guide to strength, such as alcohol, nicotine, vicodin etc.? The ability to control dosage does not equate actual controlling of dosage. Consider food. People have the ability to limit their food intake. Many people, though--because food is yummy--don't. They often become obese. Imagine if people were doing the same with pot, which is arguably far yummier, and has doesn't make people obese, but unable to discern between good judgment and bad judgment.

It would be used much like alcohol: except on a much larger, more deadly, and more government-costing scale. People have every opportunity to limit their alcohol intake. Yet, still--with full-fledged regulation--there are still drunk drivers killing others and themselves. There are still alcohol related domestic abuse cases and rapes. There are still campus and sports riots largely induced by alcohol. People would abuse marijuana or heroine or cocaine the same way--except these abuses would have even more severe societal repercussions. The cost of this increased lawlessness-stupor would far outweigh any savings gained by not outlawing drugs.

My position, though, is hardly to make UN nations outlaw drugs. I do think there is place for drug legislation in the UN. I don't think it should dictate legalized or outlawed recreational drugs.

I'm afraid all you are succeeding in doing is convincing me that you are entirely deluded about the negative consequences of your drugs programme. You seem to think that it is cheap to house, feed, and provide an unlimited supply of drugs to thousands, if not millions of people, as well as to pay the staff to provide all these services.

It is rather cheap, overall. We nationalize all they own when they check in. Then again, our economy is fantastic, so a slight cost to remove the element from society is not beyond our means.



Society may not need to see these people, but I imagine they might resent them for draining them of their tax dollars- hardworking people must pay to let deadbeats sit around and take drugs. And you feel this is justified?? This all seems like a very high price to pay for the legality of drugs.

Vastivans tend to think long term. A short period of allowing an addict to self-destruct is infinitely better then their being a detriment to society. Everyone appears perfectly happy with the arrangement. You will, perhaps, show how your countries arrangement promotes peace all the more?



The legality of drugs pales in comparison to what your country is doing. And your attitudes underlying the programme are disturbing, what with your talk of social darwinism, and addicts becoming the state's property.

Oh? And how so? Those who use know the price they can pay, so voluntary use of the detox programs is far more common. Those who can't stop, are removed by their own action. You will of course explain why you find this so disturbing, when most likely your nation does the same thing in an involuntary manner, and pays far more for it.



I have very few issues with the acceptance of recreational drug use (although I would reject a proposal to enforce this on all nations). However, I draw the line where a state offers (even promotes and defends) complete and total addiction to the point of overriding all other aspects of life as a valid lifestyle. A lifestyle which is not only self-destructive for the individuals involved, but which rips apart families and destroys lives. "Mummy, where's daddy?" "Oh, he's happily living in a clinic where they give him free drugs every day. Now hurry up and pack your clothes before the bailiffs arrive..."
I think you ignore a great deal of consequences to those outside of the clinics.

What a cute attempt at humor! We do commend you.

We find the process of manditory divorce works just fine. People do tend to get on with their lives, as the addict usually burns out and self-destructs soon enough. Death is death, it does not matter how it comes.



And as for your claims that drug-induced crimes will not rise because drug-users will be safe in the confines of the clinic, well, are you suggesting that ALL drug users will reside there? I would have assumed it was only the very worst cases who ended up there? Which leaves the rest of the recreational users to stir up trouble at closing time. Or maybe your entire society is one giant drug clinic? And everyone is too high or hallicinating to be able to notice the horrendous state of affairs in your country?

Maybe you are too...?

We shall ignore the flame at the end.

Once again, this is a voluntary program - you go if you want to go. Having gone, it is one way. We do not mandate the program upon anyone.

We do, however, mandate sentencing on those who break our laws. There is a long difference between a voluntary surrender to addiction, and execution for commission of a capital crime. Many decide the former is the easier course, and as a result, crimes do not happen - why would you bother?

So, do tell how your system is superior. We would enjoy hearing your tale.

In short, social Darwinism. We remove those who cannot help themselves, support those who can help themselves.

Social Darwinism? While I certainly don't disagree that it's fine that Vastiva has implemented this principle, I would hardly agree that this would be anything to base even portions of UN legislation on. This seems a very customized form of social capitalism.

We like it. It's cheaper then enforcement of ridiculous laws. It requires far less monitoring, and is far less expensive then any restrictionary schema we have seen.

As far as the UN legislating - we are not attempting to have the UN enforce anything about this. We do not expect other nations to follow in our footsteps. They are free to do as they wish, including mimic us if they so choose.



How is damage done by a drunkard in a closed area who never becomes sober?

Someone who commits a crime while high, is tried for that crime. The condition is irrelevant. As such, a higher level of convictions is established. As most of our penalties include death, we again Darwinically remove that element from our society.


This removes the need for criminal action to fulfill the need.

If drugs are legal, there are many, many drug-users--too many to realistically confine and inclose. Under the influence of drugs, poeple's critical thinking and judgement are greatly diminished. Illegal activity is much more likely. Yes, legalizing drugs would slow illegal activities to acquire drugs (it wouldn't stop it; there will always be illegal activities of acquiring goods in high demand), but it would increase the illegal activities of users. I understand this might not be the case in Vastiva (with it's all-seeing surveillance, and all-pervasive police force--I think) but this would, I firmly believe, be the case in any state not so interdicting of its citizens' privacy.

Again, so? How does the condition of other nations here affect us? We are not pushing for global legalization.

Our position is our nations position. National Soverignty - do as you will.

We find punishing those who break the law - and having removed any sort of "under the influence" as a relevant defense - has cut our crime rate significantly. You are perfectly safe remaining home and enjoying your high however you like. Just don't infringe on the liberty of another while you are doing it, or you will suffer the consequences.

We even make available discreet, legal, and free clinics to treat addiction. Purely voluntary.

And we make available broadcast and video of those who have chosen to break our laws. Apparently, these have some sort of value, as they are well viewed.



Immense societal pressure exists. We exploit it. If the cost is allowing fools to kill themselves, so be it. Drugs are very cheap, compared to the costs associated with their illegality. So have them if you wish them, enjoy them as you will...

I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps it's true in Vastiva, but if the UN forced legalized drugs in Powerhungry Chipmunks the much hieghtened strain cast upon PC's social net--since we don't practice the same branch of social darwinism as Vastiva--would far outweigh any monetary commitment to enforcing illegal recreational drugs. To force member nations to legalize recreational drugs and expect governments to save money (if we're still on that issue) would require all nations to at least partially adopt Vastiva's "survival of the fittest" (not meant as derrogatory) attitude towards member societies.

We did not ask nor do we endorse the UN taking any sort of position on this, as it would indeed cause much strain. We save money - here is our model - do as you will.



Fourth, if you regulate, you can insist that producers label drugs with a consistent guide to strength, so users can much more accurately control their level of intoxication.


They can, but how many cases do we see for abuses of legal drugs which have a consistent guide to strength, such as alcohol, nicotine, vicodin etc.? The ability to control dosage does not equate actual controlling of dosage. Consider food. People have the ability to limit their food intake. Many people, though--because food is yummy--don't. They often become obese. Imagine if people were doing the same with pot, which is arguably far yummier, and has doesn't make people obese, but unable to discern between good judgment and bad judgment.

Our method has been better education, consistant packaging and purity standards, freely available "toxication" checks from any member of the Police Force - with no "strings" attached.

We do not arrest or detain people for acting sensibly. And yes, we do incurr the costs where a public conveyance is required to take someone home. No charge, no onus.



It would be used much like alcohol: except on a much larger, more deadly, and more government-costing scale. People have every opportunity to limit their alcohol intake. Yet, still--with full-fledged regulation--there are still drunk drivers killing others and themselves. There are still alcohol related domestic abuse cases and rapes. There are still campus and sports riots largely induced by alcohol. People would abuse marijuana or heroine or cocaine the same way--except these abuses would have even more severe societal repercussions. The cost of this increased lawlessness-stupor would far outweigh any savings gained by not outlawing drugs.

As I have said repeatedly, we use a "carrot and stick" approach. It works.

Then again, cars are not as common as public transportation, so we have far fewer vehicular problems. A riot would be "impolite", which Vastivans do not do as a general rule. And the rest we appear to have well in hand.



My position, though, is hardly to make UN nations outlaw drugs. I do think there is place for drug legislation in the UN. I don't think it should dictate legalized or outlawed recreational drugs.

Then we agree here.

Social Darwinism? While I certainly don't disagree that it's fine that Vastiva has implemented this principle, I would hardly agree that this would be anything to base even portions of UN legislation on. This seems a very customized form of social capitalism.



What do you mean by social capitalism?

In either event, social Darwinism is an excellent measure for UN Resolutions. It works for nature. If you want a socialist society where everyone recieves the same benefits and is valued equally by society, then you need to accept the proper means of reaching that goal. Namely Social Darwinism.

Did Vastiva Use National Soveriegnty? How long have I been gone? :)

Watch it, AP. You might break down and argue on my side once. And then where would we be?

It is the fifth sign of the Apocalypse, after all.

My Nation and the Region I represent stand in the way of this proposal and will fight it at every turn.
The drugs issue within the region is settled and heavily enforced. You want to tackle drugs take it to the source THE GROWERS and PRODUCERS!

Vastiva - you seem to know an awful lot about your nation - more than appears in the short summary on your nation's page, I'm sure. This leads me to believe you are making this up, in which case your points don't really apply. I would need proof that you could run a free-drugs-for-all-who-want-them clinic at a low cost and with the rest of society content with the project (by proof I mean a cut and paste from your NS page which states the things you have described).

Vastiva - you seem to know an awful lot about your nation - more than appears in the short summary on your nation's page, I'm sure. This leads me to believe you are making this up, in which case your points don't really apply. I would need proof that you could run a free-drugs-for-all-who-want-them clinic at a low cost and with the rest of society content with the project (by proof I mean a cut and paste from your NS page which states the things you have described).
OOC:
Much of NationStates is about roleplaying. NationStates on its own doesn't afford a whole lot to do other than answer issues and sit back and wait. That's where the roleplaying comes in. "Making things up" is what roleplaying is all about.

Thy speekest wise words again Neo-Anarchist. :rolleyes:

Vastiva - you seem to know an awful lot about your nation - more than appears in the short summary on your nation's page, I'm sure. This leads me to believe you are making this up, in which case your points don't really apply. I would need proof that you could run a free-drugs-for-all-who-want-them clinic at a low cost and with the rest of society content with the project (by proof I mean a cut and paste from your NS page which states the things you have described).

The Caliph looks up from his desk at the half-turkey before him, wondering briefly if Thanksgiving is close at hand and if so, where he left his hatchet.


OOC: Yet another individual who does not understand what "ROLE PLAYING" means. I'll add you to the list of those who don't read FAQs as well. And we'll invite you to click on our signature where it says "World Factbook". Our clicking on your name will have another effect.