NationStates Jolt Archive

I would just like to ask everyone to take a look at the Narcotic Legalization Act that is now in the list of U.N. proposals and needs your approval, if you are a U.N. delgate. Thanks a lot.

Here's the proposal text:

Narcotic Legalization Act
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.


Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: Wojcikiville

Description: To all respected member nations of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that the use and abuse of narcotics (marijuana, cocaine, opiates, hallucinogens, etc.), commonly referred to as “drugs,” is a significant societal issue, as such behavior can be a serious detriment to one’s health,

CONSIDERING the fact that, despite the ban put on narcotics, drug use and abuse is still a rampant occurrence,

EMPHASIZING the fact that drug use and abuse is a “victimless” crime, as the user/abuser is only exposing himself to the possible dangers of narcotic usage,

REALIZING, in addition, that the supposed “War on Drugs” has never achieved its said goals, and is, in fact, a futile and senseless drain upon the tax dollars of many nations,

CONCERNED that the ban of narcotics has actually caused more harm than good for society in its apparent indirect creation of a criminal underworld, which operates for the sole purpose of distributing said controlled substances (in this case, sharing stark similarities with past failed attempts to ban alcohol [e.g. Prohibition in the United States of America during the period of 1919 to 1933]),

ASSERTING that the legalization of all narcotics could possibly produce a valuable source of income for the government of any U.N. member nation, through the imposition of taxes and the sort upon said substances,

The Libertarian Nation of Wojcikiville hereby proposes that the following actions be taken by the United Nations:

1) That all laws prohibiting the possession, use, trafficking, distribution, sale, or manufacture of narcotics will be required to be lifted and wiped from all legal books in its member nations within a period of one year following the ratification of this resolution,

2) That all citizens in said nations currently incarcerated for crimes related to the possession, use, trafficking, distribution, sale, or manufacture of narcotics will be required to be released from their imprisonment within a period of six months following the ratification of this resolution,

3) That the United Nations will strongly encourage its member nations to continue with any public educational efforts to make its population aware of the adverse effects of drug use and abuse, or if no such effort exists, that the member nation in question seriously consider initializing such programs,

4) That all United Nations member nations will be barred from making any more laws that would work to prohibit the possession, use, trafficking, distribution, sale, or manufacture of narcotics in their respective nations,

5) That the United Nations will allow its member nations to independently decide on all matters concerning any possible future taxes, tariffs, duties, etc. placed upon the sale of narcotics in their respective nations, so long as these decisions do not violate the terms of Proposed Action #4.

The Libertarian Nation of Wojcikiville sincerely hopes that the United Nations and its member nations will take this resolution into serious consideration and would like to thank said nations for their close attention to this important matter.

bump

bump because i like the idea... lets do this one guys... because he's right all thats happening is the United States Citizens are spending their tax dollars on a worthless law.. now while its going to help keep people sober (TO A POINT) you also understand that kids will still get their hands on Marijuana if its kept illegal... and really when we incarcerate folks for using we are just hurting them more by doing it... just like alchoholism the abuse of marijuana can have adverse effects when tring to come down without help.. so what i think should be done is we just Legalize Marijuana make it like cigarettes where you have to be 18 or 21 even to purchase it... and really because its illegal kids are going to do it but if it wasnt illegal they may not do it as much because most people i know that smoke marijuana smoke it because of the "Thrill" of being above the law... now just think if they make it legal it wouldn't hurt anything... i mean shit you hear of more car crashes where people die from being under the influence of Alchohol rather than being under the influence of Marijuana... so also take that into consideration... you cant hold the abuse by a few people against the drug using population as a whole... now am i for the rest of those to be legalized NO but Marijuana YES... thats why i ask you legalize marijuana or just pass this proposal... thanks have a good day

Regards,
The United States of Habbakah

I agree. It's time to get off our moral high horses and accept the idea that nacotics can be regulated better through legalization. Besides, this could be a very good trade oppurtunity for many countries. The wonderful nation of Bellawyre agrees this should be brought to the fore front and passed.

(OOC: You can't reference real world events/countries in your arguments).

You speak as if legalizing drugs would completely eliminate the crime behind it. If a dealer doesn't get his money, whether drugs are legal or not, he'll still come after the person who ripped him off. You also state that drugs harm the user, which is more reason NOT to legalize them. The last thing the Most Serene Republic of Myxx wants is its youth wasting their days getting high; a temporary buzz at what cost? Health, money, respect, trust... is it worth it? No! I refuse to allow such substances to ruin this wonderful land.

You do realize what you're talking about here, right? You want to legalize drugs. I can understand medicinal marijuana and all that, but such drugs have good intentions behind them. In addition to that, you want to free convicts who have been convicted for drug-related crimes; people who could possibly have some resentment against the fact that they were convicted in the first place. People like that were asking for trouble before they were convicted. I mean, there's a reason people resort to drugs in the first place.

I just don't see why people keep bringing this up (OOC: I figure people are trying to be funny and just enjoy thinking that drugs should be legal... for their own selfish reasons). Perhaps not as annoying as how often it's proposed to the UN. Multiple times weekly, methinks. It will be a long time before UN Member nations take such proposals seriously, much less UN Delegates.

I agree with Myxx mostly: I don't think sweeping changes like this adequately address the complex issue of drug legalization. There are easy counter-arguments to the claims in the preambulatory clauses here, counter-arguments which make it reasonable that a nation can rightly disagree with taking narcotics as a basic human right. Also the references to apparent failures of drug law enforcement, assumptions of what nations drug laws are, and realignment of those laws to UN fancy feels a bit like micromanaging.

With a lack of a basic human right this is protecting for individuals and a seemingly heavy-handed method of dealing with individual nations' current drug laws, I disagree with this proposal. I think there are drug laws to be made, but I think this proposal needs changes and some redirection before it is one of those drug laws.

OOC:
Personally I agree. It's a complex subject, and drugs (especially hard drugs) are bad. However, I can't let that influence my character....hence the approval from my ambassador.

IC:
Drug laws are inherently complex, however if we do not internationally agree on a policy, then there would be potential trouble. If we are very strict, I am under the impression that drug usage by minors can be reduced, and there is great money to be had by all.

Perhaps I'm out of line by mentioning the financial gains we can enjoy with this, but I know that my country is not alone is saying money is always a concern. With a new source of money, perhaps education or health care can be boosted.

I just don't see why people keep bringing this up (OOC: I figure people are trying to be funny and just enjoy thinking that drugs should be legal... for their own selfish reasons). Perhaps not as annoying as how often it's proposed to the UN. Multiple times weekly, methinks. It will be a long time before UN Member nations take such proposals seriously, much less UN Delegates.

Yes I agree with you, thats one of the reasons I tend to greet these legalise drugs proposals with a huge yawn. This one is a lot better written than most of them though :).

I'm not a delegate but if this makes it to the floor will be voting on it so feel I can have a bit of a say ;).

Point 1 - No way. I have no objections to marujana (or however you spell it) and have already legalised its use in a persons own home but there is no way in hades we're going to legalise hard drugs.

Point 2 - Again no way. They committed the crimes when drugs were illegal and broke the laws of the land that were in place at that time, in full knowledge of what they were doing.

Point 3 - No problem at all with this point. In fact we have those programs in place now to try to educate our young people away from drugs in the first place.

Point 4 - No. If (and its a big if) drugs are legalised in our nation, the government must regulate and control their manufacture and distribution for the protection of users. Laws will be kept or put in place to prevent sale to children, control purity, prevent high people operating machinery etc.

Point 5 - No problem with this.

(OOC: You can't reference real world events/countries in your arguments).

You speak as if legalizing drugs would completely eliminate the crime behind it. If a dealer doesn't get his money, whether drugs are legal or not, he'll still come after the person who ripped him off. You also state that drugs harm the user, which is more reason NOT to legalize them. The last thing the Most Serene Republic of Myxx wants is its youth wasting their days getting high; a temporary buzz at what cost? Health, money, respect, trust... is it worth it? No! I refuse to allow such substances to ruin this wonderful land.

You do realize what you're talking about here, right? You want to legalize drugs. I can understand medicinal marijuana and all that, but such drugs have good intentions behind them. In addition to that, you want to free convicts who have been convicted for drug-related crimes; people who could possibly have some resentment against the fact that they were convicted in the first place. People like that were asking for trouble before they were convicted. I mean, there's a reason people resort to drugs in the first place.


The Libertarian Nation of Wojcikiville respectfully asks that the Most Serene Republic of Myxx actually read the proposal. This proposal does recognize drug use as a serious problem, and advocates for the promotion of anti-drug education. However, it also sees the "War on Drugs" as a futile waste of resources that has not accomplished anything. Your nation also mentioned drug dealers still coming after "the person who ripped him off," and yet, this would not occur, because narcotics would be absorbed in the economy as a new commodity, and would be sold in legitimate stores, no longer on dark street corners. Maybe the Most Serene Republic of Myxx wishes to outlaw everything that has the potential to cause harm (e.g. guns, knives, beer, cars, food, air, etc.) but the Libertarian Nation of Wojcikiville prefers the sanity of freedom to rule over its nation.

Legalizing anything will never fully eliminate any related criminal activity. For example, there is a strong black market for firearms in countries that allow for their legal sale.
Yes, drugs can harm the user, but that is no reason to keep them out of people's hands. A car, gun, knife, rope, electric razor, or even a toothpick can harm the user. Of course, you might argue that these have more practical uses than getting a 'buzz', along with a drug's possible medicinal uses. What other drugs, currently legalized, has been used primarily for getting a 'buzz', opted for medicinal uses, and can harm/kill the user if taken extensively? Tobacco and Alcohol.
The United States of Zoanthropia has completely done away with drug laws, but the people are well-educated and know the risks involved in either use or overuse of certain substances. If they know the risks involved with a product and still want to use it, why stop them?

Nevermoore allows its people to do as they would, so long as it does not mean they harm the nation and the government. If the people would destroy themselves with drugs, it is better we get the money as opposed to some pathetic 3rd world country's drug farmers. We will support this, if it should come to vote. Our delegacy is... contested as of now. Contested in the fact we misplaced it.

we will come out plain and say that we will not be for an UN bill either legalising or banning drugs. at this point in time, TLA only allows the use of marijuana and only for medicinal purposes. the concept of legalising the drugs, then taxing them is interesting, yet ineffective. currently we have noticed in many nations a black market for un-taxed tobbacco. we can see the same thing happenening for other drugs, should they be legalised, organised and taxed. thus, you would still be spending money trying to stop illegal sellers. thus, the only benefit we see in this proposal is offset by enforcement costs anyway. also, there are the costs in setting up quality control as well. we dont need a strain put on our health system by an impure product that can be more harmful than the pure form

_Myopia_ is in full support of the legalisation cause, and would like to compliment the delegate from Wojcikiville for producing a proposal of far higher quality than most on this subject.

I believe that Groot Gouda might have been working on a drug liberalisation proposal some time ago - you might want to contact them to see what they wrote (I seem to remember it being particularly good) and to see if you might combine your efforts.

As to your text, there are a few improvements I'd recommend:

RECOGNIZING that the use and abuse of narcotics (marijuana, cocaine, opiates, hallucinogens, etc.), commonly referred to as “drugs,” is a significant societal issue, as such behavior can be a serious detriment to one’s health,

I would refer to them as "recreational drugs", to avoid any confusion.

CONSIDERING the fact that, despite the ban put on narcotics, drug use and abuse is still a rampant occurrence,

Not all nations have a ban on drugs, and some will claim that they have managed to control it effectively. So this should say:

CONSIDERING the fact that, despite the ban put on certain narcotics in many nations, recreational drug use and abuse is still widely a rampant occurrence,

REALIZING, in addition, that the supposed “War on Drugs” has never achieved its said goals, and is, in fact, a futile and senseless drain upon the tax dollars of many nations,

Minor quibble - don't reference RL currency. Call it a drain upon government resources obtained by taxation or something.

CONCERNED that the ban of narcotics has actually caused more harm than good for society in its apparent indirect creation of a criminal underworld, which operates for the sole purpose of distributing said controlled substances (in this case, sharing stark similarities with past failed attempts to ban alcohol [e.g. Prohibition in the United States of America during the period of 1919 to 1933]),

None of that happened in NS, so you'll need to remove the reference. Try something like this:

CONCERNED that attempts at prohibition of various narcotics has actually caused more harm than good for society, as in many nations it has indirectly created a criminal underworld, which operates for the sole purpose of distributing said controlled substances. Rather than the profits going to legitimate organisations which operate within the law, prohibition often directs profits from the drug trade into other criminal activities, thus driving organised crime,

In this section, I'd also include an argument stating that once legalised, narcotic production could be regulated as governments see fit to ensure that the products are free from dangerous impurities. If you like, maybe also something stating that prohibition leads to an artificial price inflation, so if drugs were legalised and more affordable, addicts may be less likely to commit acquisitive crimes to fund their habits.

1) That all laws prohibiting the possession, use, trafficking, distribution, sale, or manufacture of narcotics will be required to be lifted and wiped from all legal books in its member nations within a period of one year following the ratification of this resolution,

2) That all citizens in said nations currently incarcerated for crimes related to the possession, use, trafficking, distribution, sale, or manufacture of narcotics will be required to be released from their imprisonment within a period of six months following the ratification of this resolution,

It's not necessary to set time limits - more than anything else, it will cause confusion depending on how fast players are RPing the passage of time (some will claim for a full real year that drugs are still illegal, while others will be working on, for instance, a 1 real day = 1 NS year scale).

4) That all United Nations member nations will be barred from making any more laws that would work to prohibit the possession, use, trafficking, distribution, sale, or manufacture of narcotics in their respective nations,

5) That the United Nations will allow its member nations to independently decide on all matters concerning any possible future taxes, tariffs, duties, etc. placed upon the sale of narcotics in their respective nations, so long as these decisions do not violate the terms of Proposed Action #4.

I'd recommend saying that taxation must not be so high as to make it impractical for most citizens to obtain drugs. Also, at least make it clear that nations can (or better, actively encourage them to) impose regulations such as laws to deny children drugs, ensure purity or mandate the labelling of products with accurate information. Might also be worth endorsing the establishment of treatment programmes, and suggesting funding them from drug-related taxation.

The Libertarian Nation of Wojcikiville sincerely hopes that the United Nations and its member nations will take this resolution into serious consideration and would like to thank said nations for their close attention to this important matter.

This branding isn't necessary and may in fact put some nations off.

My nation is opposed to a resolution forcing all UN member nations to lift their drug laws. Maybe a proposal stating that a nation CAN have no drug laws, but not one saying that they MUST have no drug laws.

My nation has indeed been working on a similar act. However, contrary to the Sex Industry Worker Act, we decided that it was unwise to use too strong language. We therefor only URGED to legalize drugs, but left the decision on the individual nations.

Category: Recreational Drugs
Action: Legalize


The NSUN,

AFFIRMING the right of each individual to take responsibility for their own body, and make their own decisions about their body as long as no other person is harmed;

CONSIDERING the difficulties that arise when some nations forbid recreational drug use while others allow it;

RECOGNIZING the objections of many nations with regards to morality, national sovereignity and healthcare;

EXPECTING a drop in crime rates if drug use is legal and tolerated, like it is with more commonly accepted drugs such as nicotine and alcohol;

Hereby:

1. EMPHASIZES that what citizens do to their own body is of their own concern, not the government's, and should not be intervened with unless there is a good reason to;

2. DEFINES "recreational drugs" as those drugs not taken primarily for medicinal use;

3. URGES all nations to decriminalize the use, possession, supply and production of recreational drugs;

4. ADVISES to reinvest the money saved on prosecuting drug use into social welfare, educational and health programs;

5. ENCOURAGES all nations to apply quality control to recreational drugs in the same sense that food is checked, to limit the dangers and addictiveness; and

6. CONDEMNS nations who try to outlaw all recreational drugs regardless of their citizen's wishes;

With additional input by _Myopia_.

The Libertarian Nation of Wojcikiville respectfully asks that the Most Serene Republic of Myxx actually read the proposal. This proposal does recognize drug use as a serious problem, and advocates for the promotion of anti-drug education. However, it also sees the "War on Drugs" as a futile waste of resources that has not accomplished anything. Your nation also mentioned drug dealers still coming after "the person who ripped him off," and yet, this would not occur, because narcotics would be absorbed in the economy as a new commodity, and would be sold in legitimate stores, no longer on dark street corners. Maybe the Most Serene Republic of Myxx wishes to outlaw everything that has the potential to cause harm (e.g. guns, knives, beer, cars, food, air, etc.) but the Libertarian Nation of Wojcikiville prefers the sanity of freedom to rule over its nation.And the Most Serene Republic of Myxx asks that the Libertarian Nation of Wojcikiville not insult Myxx by assuming things they have no right to assume. I did read the proposal and I still disagree. Perhaps in your nation drugs are a problem that you feel inclined to attempt to fix. However, in Myxx, they are not. Another concern: at what cost will these drugs be available? If they are too high, people will resort back to the dealers. If they are too low, then the dealers suddenly stop making all the money and I don't think they'd just hang it up and change professions. Sometimes, you have to deny people what they want for their own damned good. That is a principle that defines the Most Serene Republic of Myxx and my final advice to you regarding the issue of legalizing drugs.

Sometimes, you have to deny people what they want for their own damned good.

There is no objective definition of a good life - therefore, the only measure worth using is what each individual wants in his/her own life. If a person knows the dangers of drug use, but believes that the trade-off is worth it and feels that their lives would be better with drugs than without, on what basis can a government legitimately say that to deny them this is "for their own good"? For a government to do this is to force upon the citizen the government's idea of what constitutes a fulfilling lifestyle.

There is no objective definition of a good life - therefore, the only measure worth using is what each individual wants in his/her own life. If a person knows the dangers of drug use, but believes that the trade-off is worth it and feels that their lives would be better with drugs than without, on what basis can a government legitimately say that to deny them this is "for their own good"? For a government to do this is to force upon the citizen the government's idea of what constitutes a fulfilling lifestyle.

Is it the UN's right to tell a government they can't do that? Sure, a dictatorship could outlaw drugs against the people's will, but if a democratic nation got together and reached a concensus that they didn't want the people there to do drugs, does the UN have the right to interfere?

Is it the UN's right to tell a government they can't do that? Sure, a dictatorship could outlaw drugs against the people's will, but if a democratic nation got together and reached a concensus that they didn't want the people there to do drugs, does the UN have the right to interfere?

I believe it does. An infringement on the rights of the individual is no less wrong if it is done by a tyranny of the majority than by a tyranny of the minority, and to _Myopia_, the UN is a useful tool for ensuring that other governments do not infringe on the rights we believe all sapient beings should have.

And seeing as it would take a majority of UN nations to approve this proposal, I don't see your logic. :eek:

The passing of Resolution #91 proved that there is a majority of UN nations willing to vote for a resolution that provides individual freedoms at the expense of the state influence.

There is no objective definition of a good life - therefore, the only measure worth using is what each individual wants in his/her own life. If a person knows the dangers of drug use, but believes that the trade-off is worth it and feels that their lives would be better with drugs than without, on what basis can a government legitimately say that to deny them this is "for their own good"? For a government to do this is to force upon the citizen the government's idea of what constitutes a fulfilling lifestyle.

It's not always "for their own good". Some governments recognize that recreational drugs impede mental capacity and personal judgment, making drug users a possible dangerous to those around them. To make drugs legalized everywhere is posing a danger to society as a whole.

In that sense, recreational drug legality is a cultural issue. Each culture, society, nation has a different tolerance for how much they allow people to hurt themselves or diminish their ability for judgment. I understand creating a utopian, guilt-free, individually free arena essentially without arbitrary laws (ie. just about all laws) is tempting, and, in an individual nation, realizable. But to do so universally is not good in my eyes. The way I see it, there isn't objective definition of where the height of personal freedom is, either. Is it more personally free to allow everyone do what they want and create situations which inevitably will encroach on others rights (such as drug use leading to car accidents or physical violence--an infringement on the rights of the victims)? Or is it more personally free to provide some control over substances which lead an individual to damage those around him in society? The surest way to determine this, I find, is to allow the UN to secure the most basic freedoms (protection under law, freedom of speech, press, etc.) and allow individual nations, cultures, societies decide how much they want their neighbors to be doped up while driving to work.

I have to comment on the statement by Powerhungry Chipmunks, because I think it takes the issue the wrong way. Drug use in itself is not harmfull to other people - only to the person taking them. But that's up to themselves. As soon as there is a danger to other people, the state should intervene. Giving individual freedom to people does not mean "no rules", if only because there has to be a rule giving people that individual freedom. But there will always be people who will cross the line from individual freedom to damaging other individuals. For those, rules are needed.

That doesn't mean that those rules should interfere with those individual freedoms. Countries with tolerant approaches to drug use tend to have less problems with drugs. As an OOC example, in the Netherlands kids (12-18) are using less drugs each year. It's simply not exciting when you can just buy them. So why restrict individual freedom if individuals show that they can restrict themselves?

Also, when drug use goes bad, there's usually different circumstances. Psychiatric problems, social problems, an uncaring home environment. Solve those, and you'll solve a lot of other problems, without denying the majority a right to, in this case, enjoy drugs.

There is no problem in allowing drugs, but restrict where there is a risk of damage, such as driving with drugs, or people who respond badly to drugs. Just like using a knife is legal, but sticking it into somebody else isn't. For that reason, my nation will support efforts into legalizing drugs. However, because we know this is a sensitive issue, and many nations in the NSUN are holding on to less-than-enlightened policies, our resolution only URGES for legislating, but does not force it. We think that is the best first step to take.

I respectfully disagree. I am against any proposal that would force a nation to legalize drugs, which have a proven detrimental effect on the human body. Check out my nation. We allow the use of marajuana in private places. But do I want ALL drugs to be legal in my country? URGING this to happen is the first step to MAKING this happen.

Is it more personally free to allow everyone do what they want and create situations which inevitably will encroach on others rights (such as drug use leading to car accidents or physical violence--an infringement on the rights of the victims)? Or is it more personally free to provide some control over substances which lead an individual to damage those around him in society?

Prohibition brings its own crime problems too, which generally require massive resources to deal with - policing against organised crime, increased border control against smuggling, masses of time and money in judicial and prison systems, not to mention the police efforts against the users themselves. Legalisation might see an increase in various problems from users, but you'll have all these freed-up resources to deal with them (plus a pile more from taxing the industry and sales). Institute appropriate controls against, for instance, use in public of certain drugs, driving under the influence, and an equivalent to "drunk and disorderly" and use them to deal with these situations.

Plus, as Groot Gouda pointed out with the example of the Netherlands, the problems are often overestimated.

I respectfully disagree. I am against any proposal that would force a nation to legalize drugs, which have a proven detrimental effect on the human body. Check out my nation. We allow the use of marajuana in private places. But do I want ALL drugs to be legal in my country? URGING this to happen is the first step to MAKING this happen.

There is good scientific evidence for the detrimental effects of many, many things. Thing is, the bodies belong to your citizens, not to you, the government, and so it really ought to be their decision whether the risks are worth it, not yours.

EDIT: And to the URGING becoming MAKING - if anything, I'd guess that an "urging" resolution would probably reduce the efforts to enforce legalisation, since a lot of nations in favour of liberalisation will simply settle for the compromise

Like its friends, "repeal the Hydrogen powered car", yawn, and " repeal Gay Rights" Snooze, This is Recurrent and as such deserves to be rated.

This thread has been rated.

DLEBR = 7

thank you.

I respectfully disagree. I am against any proposal that would force a nation to legalize drugs, which have a proven detrimental effect on the human body. Check out my nation. We allow the use of marajuana in private places. But do I want ALL drugs to be legal in my country? URGING this to happen is the first step to MAKING this happen.

Just as smoking and drinking can be restricted so someone taking them has less or no impact on others who don't, you could impose regulation that restricts drug use to private places. I'll see if I can add a clause to my act to make clear that legalizing does not mean "everything goes".

Prohibition brings its own crime problems too, which generally require massive resources to deal with - policing against organised crime, increased border control against smuggling, masses of time and money in judicial and prison systems, not to mention the police efforts against the users themselves. Legalisation might see an increase in various problems from users, but you'll have all these freed-up resources to deal with them (plus a pile more from taxing the industry and sales). Institute appropriate controls against, for instance, use in public of certain drugs, driving under the influence, and an equivalent to "drunk and disorderly" and use them to deal with these situations.

Style and type of government, such as weighing of pros and cons to outlawing or legalizing drugs are for my nation to decide. My nation (through whatever form of government) is more aware of its individual concerns and individual preferences and individual budgetary standing than the UN will ever be. My national government is 150 times more likely to make an informed decision on its fiscal policy than the UN. Just because a fiscal decision may be a good fit in one nation (or many nations) is not a reason for the UN to mandate it to all member nations. Good ends don't equate good means.

There is good scientific evidence for the detrimental effects of many, many things. Thing is, the bodies belong to your citizens, not to you, the government, and so it really ought to be their decision whether the risks are worth it, not yours.

Really? Individuals are the only ones allowed to weigh risks of personal behaviors? So, national governments shouldn't be allowed to decide that owning a gun is too much of a risk for individual citizens? National governments can't stop people from viewing child pornography, which risks taking advantage of the child participant and could encouraging sexual assault? And national governments aren't supposed to make its citizens wear seat belts (a personal decision that only really affects the individual)?

All these are instances of personal decisions which might seem to only effect the individual participating in them. Yet a national government's right to make decisions in these areas is still protected and has never been threatened. If a decision being classified as "personal" makes it so untouchable by national governments, I want to see a resolution protecting the "right to unbuckle" and the "right to own a firearm" right along side one that protects the "right to dope up".

If there's a strong correlation between one individual behavior and a public disruption or the damaging of others' rights I feel it is the right, perhaps even the duty, of the national government to restrict that individual behavior. If there's a recreational drug that tends to make people jump in front of cars--hurting the car's occupants--it's my right as a national government to determine that that substance is just too contributing to an infringement on others' rights to allow the public to use it.

Besides this, just a second ago, you seemed to be arguing that it isn't my nation's right to decide whether to take the "lesser financial burden" of legalizing drugs--that the UN should mandate fiscal policy of nations based on how much it perceives the 38,000 national governments in the UN will benefit from it. Now you're saying that since the nation doesn't own the individual's body it isn't adequate to make decisions for it? That doesn't seem to match up.

For one, if it's a fundamental right to take recreational drugs without government interference, it shouldn't matter what the government gains by from legalizing it. If it's a fundamental right, it's a fundamental right, regardless of how much money it's expected my nation will save. And second, if more representation is better (individuals representing themselves in personal decisions instead of nations making those decisions for them) it would seem to follow that individual nations are better at determining their own fiscal policy than the UN, which doesn't own or represent the citizens of that nation.

EDIT: And to the URGING becoming MAKING - if anything, I'd guess that an "urging" resolution would probably reduce the efforts to enforce legalisation, since a lot of nations in favour of liberalisation will simply settle for the compromise

So long as it's URGING I don't really care as my national right to determine drugs' contribution to infringement on others' rights is still intact. But I do not agree with the idea of MAKING. There's a reason the UN has gone through 100 resolutions without touching recreational drug control: It's too national of an issue.

So, national governments shouldn't be allowed to decide that owning a gun is too much of a risk for individual citizens? National governments can't stop people from viewing child pornography, which risks taking advantage of the child participant and could encouraging sexual assault? And national governments aren't supposed to make its citizens wear seat belts (a personal decision that only really affects the individual)?

Seat belts - children should be obliged to wear them, and if you're sitting behind someone in a car, choose not to wear a seatbelt and you kill or injure them in a crash, there's a case for making you bear some responsibility for the negligence. But mandating that all adults wear seatbelts is not something that national governments should be doing. Of course, _Myopia_'s government always advises as strongly as possible that people buckle up, in same way that we warn our citizens of the dangers of drugs.

Child porn is a different matter entirely. By its very nature, there can be no item of child pornography that can be anything other than an infringement upon the rights of the child featured (unless it is in the form of an animation or the written word, not a depiction of a real event or child, in which case we find it disturbing but cannot justify prohibition). By comparison, infringement upon the rights of others is not an inherent feature of drug use. Drugs can be and generally are used without infringing upon anyone's rights - it's in a definite minority of cases that other people are negatively affected.

As to guns, we don't feel that this is quite comparable as an issue, since a gun is engineered to harm another, not the user. However, we are open to further debate and persuasion on the matter (OOC: I'm actually personally undecided on the issue of gun control - dispute with myself whether guns really fall into the same category).

If there's a strong correlation between one individual behavior and a public disruption or the damaging of others' rights I feel it is the right, perhaps even the duty, of the national government to restrict that individual behavior. If there's a recreational drug that tends to make people jump in front of cars--hurting the car's occupants--it's my right as a national government to determine that that substance is just too contributing to an infringement on others' rights to allow the public to use it.

What do you define as a strong correlation? Because it's a small minority of drug users that pose a threat to others - should a government ban the use of cars because some people are killed in car accidents?

Besides this, just a second ago, you seemed to be arguing that it isn't my nation's right to decide whether to take the "lesser financial burden" of legalizing drugs--that the UN should mandate fiscal policy of nations based on how much it perceives the 38,000 national governments in the UN will benefit from it. Now you're saying that since the nation doesn't own the individual's body it isn't adequate to make decisions for it? That doesn't seem to match up.

For one, if it's a fundamental right to take recreational drugs without government interference, it shouldn't matter what the government gains by from legalizing it. If it's a fundamental right, it's a fundamental right, regardless of how much money it's expected my nation will save. And second, if more representation is better (individuals representing themselves in personal decisions instead of nations making those decisions for them) it would seem to follow that individual nations are better at determining their own fiscal policy than the UN, which doesn't own or represent the citizens of that nation.

Individual sovereignty is my own reason for my belief. I have offered the fiscal benefits as a counter to the argument that is often put up that controlling legalisation is too expensive - its a reason for other people if they disagree with the personal choice argument.

I don't believe that better decisions are necessarily made at lower levels, but simply that it isn't the place of governments or societies to make decisions for citizens on what they believe to be in the best interests of the citizen from whom they have removed the decision.

Really? Individuals are the only ones allowed to weigh risks of personal behaviors? So, national governments shouldn't be allowed to decide that owning a gun is too much of a risk for individual citizens?

You confuse personal risk with risk to society. There is a difference, as I have already argued, and I agree with your as far as society is concerned. That doesn't mean that personal rights have to be ignored.

Although in the case of firearms, it's different. Most drug users enjoy them without doing any damage, because drugs are meant for personal pleasure. Firearms however are meant to threaten, kill or wound.

So long as it's URGING I don't really care as my national right to determine drugs' contribution to infringement on others' rights is still intact. But I do not agree with the idea of MAKING. There's a reason the UN has gone through 100 resolutions without touching recreational drug control: It's too national of an issue.

Drugs are very much international as an issue. Because if one nation has a liberal approach to drugs, while others are more restricting, the inhabitants of that nation will turn to the liberal nation and may cause disturbance and problems because of the restricting's country lack of education on the subject, or because they have criminalized the issue. It is unfair for progressive nations to bear the burden of these conservative nations.

And resolution #91 proved that there are nations willing to accept forcing certain progressive policies on others, because of the advantages for everybody. Because I also value good international relations, I do not intend to put such enforcement in any of my resolutions which I might write on this subject, though, which should lessen your worries.

You confuse personal risk with risk to society. There is a difference, as I have already argued, and I agree with your as far as society is concerned. That doesn't mean that personal rights have to be ignored.


Well, I don't think I'm confusing them as much as I'm arguing that when there's a correlation between personal risk and risk to society, it's within a national government's rights and mandate to step in and possibly prohibit or restrict certain society-risking activities.

Drugs are very much international as an issue. Because if one nation has a liberal approach to drugs, while others are more restricting, the inhabitants of that nation will turn to the liberal nation and may cause disturbance and problems because of the restricting's country lack of education on the subject, or because they have criminalized the issue. It is unfair for progressive nations to bear the burden of these conservative nations.


By that argument one could also say that it's unfair that conservative nations are made to bear the burden of increased drug traffic originating from or emigration to more progressive nations. And the last time I checked progressive nations have just as much ability as every other nation to regulate immigration, trade, and tourism (just as in RL--ie. possible influx of US drug users hasn't really seemed to be so much of a problem in The Netherlands for them to suggest that the US needs to make recreational drugs legal).

I just don't see why the individual concerns of the progressive nation warrant so much international clout for the UN to address them with a UN proposal. The progressive nation can full well resolve its issues on its own.


Although in the case of firearms, it's different. Most drug users enjoy them without doing any damage, because drugs are meant for personal pleasure. Firearms however are meant to threaten, kill or wound.

(Is this via RL sources or are you supposing it to be a fundamental property of recreational drugs--that they usually only harm the user?)

Drugs, by design, diminish cognitive ability. People with diminished cognitive ability do not regard laws or respect others' rights. This quite often results in the the infringement of rights of others. Consider alcohol, a RL substance, already legalized in most places, which limits cognitive ability. Bar fights, drunk driving, domestic violence, riots--all caused by alcohol's cognitive diminishing effects.

Having spent extended periods of time on a US campus (full of acohol-consumers) I can testify to the danger, especially at nights. Those that choose to recreate via alcohol make it dangerous, and they've personally cost me and some of my friends much collective money, time, and/or pain. One can't say that drugs which of cognitive diminishing abilities even more potent than alcohol (as is the case with many of the recreational drugs which likely would be legalized) won't produce similar and magnified problems.

And drugs and drug users vary between nations. Not all recreational drugs or drug users are conducive or willing to the weekend doper going into a drug den and quietly respecting others' rights not to be accosted by him or her in a drugged up state (the situation which seems to be the expected result according to arguments I've seen so far). Under a blanket legalization by the UN--even were it worded very carefully--there would be very dangerous drugs (which would absolutely, on a large scale, pose a risk to society) which nations would be forced to legalize. Even if most recreational drugs weren't to cause a risk to society, there'd be drugs that do pose a risk to society that would be legalized by a UN resolution. Unless, of course, as I admit that you're advocating, it were phrased more moderately.

And resolution #91 proved that there are nations willing to accept forcing certain progressive policies on others, because of the advantages for everybody. Because I also value good international relations, I do not intend to put such enforcement in any of my resolutions which I might write on this subject, though, which should lessen your worries.

Strictly speaking, I don't think Resolution #91 proved anything. There was no control. There was no experiment. There isn't an accurate way of determining how much of the issue was comprehended by the UN voters. It proves that teenage boys on the internet like reading the words "sex worker" just as much as it proves UN nations are willing to push progressive policies forward. I am grateful you're advocating a more moderate approach to the resolution's wording. I'm just wary of pointing to a passed resolution as a reason to believe that the UN will behave in a certain way.

What do you define as a strong correlation? Because it's a small minority of drug users that pose a threat to others - should a government ban the use of cars because some people are killed in car accidents?

Perhaps the word I'm looking for is causation. If a drug causes (or greatly contributes to the cause of) certain society risking effects, my nation should have the right to restrict and possibly outlaw it. Nations need flexibility with regard to a drug's negative effects on society in order to defend its public, not restriction.

I don't believe that better decisions are necessarily made at lower levels, but simply that it isn't the place of governments or societies to make decisions for citizens on what they believe to be in the best interests of the citizen from whom they have removed the decision.

Obviously national governments need to be able to restrict behaviors that pose a risk to the public. I feel that recreational drugs, especially the most potent among them, can definitely do so. I believe, most importantly, that individual nations need the right to decide the risk of recreational drugs on their own, without the lagubriousness of the UN overly interfering.

I'm going to answer just a short bit now, because the rest may become repetetive arguments so I want to think them over for a bit longer. This point I can answer right now, though.

(and it's OOC)
By that argument one could also say that it's unfair that conservative nations are made to bear the burden of increased drug traffic originating from or emigration to more progressive nations. And the last time I checked progressive nations have just as much ability as every other nation to regulate immigration, trade, and tourism (just as in RL--ie. possible influx of US drug users hasn't really seemed to be so much of a problem in The Netherlands for them to suggest that the US needs to make recreational drugs legal).

Not US drug users, no. French and German, drug users, yes. Perhaps "influx" is an overstatement, but there are certainly a lot of them coming to the Netherlands, and they are causing more trouble than "native" drug users. This ranges from simple stuff like parking problems to heavy stuff like attracting hard drug dealers and generally the wrong kind of crowd. Of course, the dutch policy (it's illegal, but coffeeshops may sell it and it's tolerated for personal use) doesn't help much in that respect, still partly criminalizing drugs.

But the problems are big enough for a mayor down south saying that drugs should be legalized throughout Europe to stop the problems.

My nation is opposed to a resolution forcing all UN member nations to lift their drug laws.
The Republic of Yuunli has laws to protect its inhabitants from drug abuse, and to help addicts. The nation strongly believes the proposed UN resolution would drive more people into addiction rather than helping to achieve the goal of a drug-free society.

Considering the drug problems of other countries, the Embassador of the Republic to the United Nations would like to emphasize that this policy encompasses alcohol and tobacco as well.

PC - Can I ask if your nation also prohibits alcohol? If not, how are you deciding exactly where on the scale of increasing risk you draw a seemingly arbitrary line to divide the legal from the illegal?

And drugs and drug users vary between nations. Not all recreational drugs or drug users are conducive or willing to the weekend doper going into a drug den and quietly respecting others' rights not to be accosted by him or her in a drugged up state (the situation which seems to be the expected result according to arguments I've seen so far). Under a blanket legalization by the UN--even were it worded very carefully--there would be very dangerous drugs (which would absolutely, on a large scale, pose a risk to society) which nations would be forced to legalize. Even if most recreational drugs weren't to cause a risk to society, there'd be drugs that do pose a risk to society that would be legalized by a UN resolution. Unless, of course, as I admit that you're advocating, it were phrased more moderately.

Yes - of course there would probably be an increase in drug-induced crime. But I think pretty much every nation which now has prohibition policies, upon legalisation, would see a coinciding drop in drug-related crime - not only the obvious elimination of possession crimes, but a drop in acquisitive crime by addicts, and a massive drop in crimes committed by the former suppliers.

The policing efforts that were put into this fight can be moved to deal with the behaviour of those under the influence, and so the net change in risk to other members of society most likely wouldn't be nearly as bad as you're suggesting - it's not as if drugs would become legal but all other conditions would remain constant.

And yes, this won't necessarily hold true everywhere. But I believe it will be true in the vast majority of places, and so, to me, it is worth passing UN legislation to end the draconian controls that so many states exert on their citizens' bodies.

PC - Can I ask if your nation also prohibits alcohol? If not, how are you deciding exactly where on the scale of increasing risk you draw a seemingly arbitrary line to divide the legal from the illegal?


I don't think my nation prohibits alcohol. I don't necessarily believe in the practicality of that prohibition, or in its rightness or wrongness--though I may have forgotten that at some time when answering random issues. In my opinion, the line between legal and illegal, due to increasing risk, is drawn along the perceived risks to public health and safety (as perceived by my nation's government) and the perceived practicality of keeping people generally away from recreational drugs if outlawed (again as perceived by my government). So, as alcohol seems impractical to outlaw, and somewhat of a reasonably controllable substance (relative to other drugs, or in the relative view of my government), my nation allows it. For some recreational drugs though, outlawing them is practical, and they, if legalized, would pose too great a threat to public safety (or so believes my government).

I have a problem with the idea that the UN is going to decide that my nation's judgment and individual knowledge regarding the public risk of legalized recreational drugs to itself is overruled by the fact that someone, somewhere, removed from my nation's circumstances determines otherwise.


Yes - of course there would probably be an increase in drug-induced crime. But I think pretty much every nation which now has prohibition policies, upon legalisation, would see a coinciding drop in drug-related crime - not only the obvious elimination of possession crimes, but a drop in acquisitive crime by addicts, and a massive drop in crimes committed by the former suppliers.

The policing efforts that were put into this fight can be moved to deal with the behaviour of those under the influence, and so the net change in risk to other members of society most likely wouldn't be nearly as bad as you're suggesting - it's not as if drugs would become legal but all other conditions would remain constant.

And yes, this won't necessarily hold true everywhere. But I believe it will be true in the vast majority of places, and so, to me, it is worth passing UN legislation to end the draconian controls that so many states exert on their citizens' bodies.

First, this assumes that all of us "draconian" UN nations treat possession as a crime. I don't believe this is true. I think the issues in this game go out of their way to differentiate between those that prefer a rehab-oriented drug legislation structure, and those that prefer an incarceration-oriented drug legislation structure. Not all of us backwards UN nations that think it's okay to outlaw some recreational drugs are punishing the users.

This also assume that UN nations have been unsuccessful in policing drugs and limiting drug-related crime--and that it represents a large investment on the part of those governments. That just isn't true. I disagree with the assertion that no national governments has found meaningful solutions to drug crime or actually having some success in the 'war on drugs'. The monetary and legal benefit from legalizing drugs rests on those two assumptions and I don't think they're as universally applicable as you're suggesting.

(OOC: I think universal recreational drug legalization would diminish the ability for UN nations to have fun in the game. I believe a lot of the fun in NS has to do with the ability for you and your national government to find creative ways to deal with issues facing government--one of which is drug use. Instead of creating/RPing their government style, I think this would force many UN nations to turn their creativity towards finding ways around the resolution. Granted, there's a diminished ability for UN nations to determine their own fate with every UN resolution, but I think recreational drug legalization would hurt that self-determination-fun factor especially so. So, as a player, I'm opposed to it.)

So, as alcohol seems impractical to outlaw, and somewhat of a reasonably controllable substance (relative to other drugs, or in the relative view of my government), my nation allows it. For some recreational drugs though, outlawing them is practical, and they, if legalized, would pose too great a threat to public safety (or so believes my government).

The problem I see here is that many nations reason along the lines of "outlaw = problem away". But that's not true, of course. It was the reason I wrote Resolution #91, because I think that outlawing relatively harmless activities has much more negative side-effects.

But, then again, we don't necessarily disagree because my own resolution text doesn't mandate legalization.

Vastiva holds the position - all recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, are legal. They are sold through pharmacies with proper identification.

At the time of purchase, the purchase is recorded. This removes certain protections under insurance, for example.

Further, intoxication (etc) is not considered by any court when adjudicating any crime.

We adhere absolutely to the theory of self-responsibility. If you did it to yourself, you're responsible.

Well, I don't think I'm confusing them as much as I'm arguing that when there's a correlation between personal risk and risk to society, it's within a national government's rights and mandate to step in and possibly prohibit or restrict certain society-risking activities.

That's true, but I think that recreational drugs are no more a risk to society as a whole than alcohol and kitchen knives.

I just don't see why the individual concerns of the progressive nation warrant so much international clout for the UN to address them with a UN proposal. The progressive nation can full well resolve its issues on its own.

But it is about promoting individual freedom. In certain cases, it is necessary to let the UN speak on whether something is a personal issue, in which the state should have less involvement, or a society issue in which the state has more say. I think recreational drugs is an issue like that.

Plus the international aspect where nations gaving different policies does create problems. Basically, with a resolution like this we're asking the UN: should the progressive or the conservative nations "suffer" from negative spillover effects? Very much something for the UN to address.



I don't have an exact source, but from personal experience I can say that drugs, if they do any harm, do so to the user.

(OOC: in the Netherlands, there is less drug-related crime, and fewer drug-induced crime than might be expected because of the tolerance. If there are problems, they're usually attributable to the criminalization, not legalization.)

[quote]Drugs, by design, diminish cognitive ability. People with diminished cognitive ability do not regard laws or respect others' rights. This quite often results in the the infringement of rights of others. Consider alcohol, a RL substance, already legalized in most places, which limits cognitive ability. Bar fights, drunk driving, domestic violence, riots--all caused by alcohol's cognitive diminishing effects.

Yes, and a government should be allowed to take action on the negative effects of that. But that should not mean taking away the freedom to take drugs for the huge majority who do not cause such problems. Just like we punish those drinking and driving.

Having spent extended periods of time on a US campus (full of acohol-consumers) I can testify to the danger, especially at nights. Those that choose to recreate via alcohol make it dangerous, and they've personally cost me and some of my friends much collective money, time, and/or pain. One can't say that drugs which of cognitive diminishing abilities even more potent than alcohol (as is the case with many of the recreational drugs which likely would be legalized) won't produce similar and magnified problems.

I can say that drugs won't produce magnified problems. I live in a country which hasn't such problems, despite both cannabis and alcoholic beverages being available for people from the age of 16. In fact, (soft)drug use by teenagers is slowly declining. Alcohol use is going up though, mainly because of mix drinks like Bacardi Breezers which lower the barrier to drinking alcohol (sweet stuff, instead of foul tasting drinks like beer and wine).

Costs are low for society. You'll have to invest in terms of education, but get paid back in terms of tax on drugs for example. A whole formerly illegal economic sector is suddenly added to your GDP.

And drugs and drug users vary between nations. Not all recreational drugs or drug users are conducive or willing to the weekend doper going into a drug den and quietly respecting others' rights not to be accosted by him or her in a drugged up state (the situation which seems to be the expected result according to arguments I've seen so far). Under a blanket legalization by the UN--even were it worded very carefully--there would be very dangerous drugs (which would absolutely, on a large scale, pose a risk to society) which nations would be forced to legalize. Even if most recreational drugs weren't to cause a risk to society, there'd be drugs that do pose a risk to society that would be legalized by a UN resolution. Unless, of course, as I admit that you're advocating, it were phrased more moderately.

I am advocating the moderate approach, but even if there would be blanket legalization, that should not mean you can't impose reasonable restrictions. Just like it is normal that food is checked, and bad food not allowed to be sold , drug sales can be restricted in the interest of public health if damage to society is too big.

Strictly speaking, I don't think Resolution #91 proved anything. There was no control. There was no experiment. There isn't an accurate way of determining how much of the issue was comprehended by the UN voters. It proves that teenage boys on the internet like reading the words "sex worker" just as much as it proves UN nations are willing to push progressive policies forward

Except, of course, that there was less resistance than with the previous resolutions on this subject.

I think we mostly agree on this subject. Only our approaches are different. I'm coming from the "open" side, while you appear to looking from a more "restricting" point of view. The outcome is rather similar, though.

I think we mostly agree on this subject. Only our approaches are different. I'm coming from the "open" side, while you appear to looking from a more "restricting" point of view. The outcome is rather similar, though.

Well, I guess that's what matters most.


Except, of course, that there was less resistance than with the previous resolutions on this subject.


That's true. But then again, none of the previous had the word "sex worker" in the title, either--or contained the same arguments that #91 did. I'm not disputing that it was well-received or that it might demonstrate something about the UN's voting styles. It's just that any ounce of scientific training I've had tells me that statistical significance (that more voted FOR #91 than past prostitution proposals) is not necessarily a mark of practical significance (that it happened for x reason). I mean, I think it's fully possible that #91 displays the UN's feelings on progressive treatments of issues. But I think there's also credence to the idea that #91 displayed other things, too, such as the UN's susceptibility to certain types of arguments, wordings, etc. regardless of what is actually done in a proposal or actual merit behind a proposal (I don't mean "susceptibility" in a negative way).

First, this assumes that all of us "draconian" UN nations treat possession as a crime. I don't believe this is true. I think the issues in this game go out of their way to differentiate between those that prefer a rehab-oriented drug legislation structure, and those that prefer an incarceration-oriented drug legislation structure. Not all of us backwards UN nations that think it's okay to outlaw some recreational drugs are punishing the users.

Regardless, if a nation is attempting to control drug use, there will be expenditure on that control. If a nation finds that its citizens generally do not want to use drugs, so don't need to spend much on control, it stands to reason that if they continue their education programmes and whatever else is helping to reduce interest, use, and therefore any associated problems will in most places remain fairly low even with legalisation. Unless, of course, they are resorting to deterring drug use through the imposition of disproportionate penalties such as execution - in which case we're opposed to their prohibition on the basis that their enforcement system is disturbingly inhumane.