NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is a draft of a new proposal which my advisors feel I should bring before the UN floor in the near future. We would appreciate all possible feedback before we submit it officially as a proposal.

Many drugs are currently banned from the world market. Such restrictions harm the economy by encouraging crime, depriving ruling governments of the ability to tax drugs that may be used by a substantial portion, or even the majority, of the population anyway. Restrictions also force illegal operations to create drugs that are needlessly harmful due to irresponsible manufacture. Such drug 'factories' cause explosions which damage property and innocent passers-by.

Because of this, we should legalize all drugs. Drugs are defined as “A substance which causes a marked altered state of mind or body.” However, due to the often harmful effects of certain drugs, a second portion of this proposal is necessary.

In addition, an international organization shall be founded with the sole purpose of distributing, buying, and selling all recognized drugs. Users of now-illegal drugs, and future drugs which are deemed harmful to the Human body, will be registered and prohibited from receiving social welfare benefits for health problems which occur as a result of drug use.

This proposal will not only allow the taxation of drugs, but ensure a higher measure of personal freedom to all countries who adopt this resolution. Crime will be reduced, since gangs will no longer have a source of heavy income from drug sales, and as a result of the legalization, use of the more dangerous drugs will decline, due to the availability of better and safer drugs. With so many benefits, and with only people who choose to harm their bodies suffering a draw-back, the question is not “Why should we adopt this resolution,” but “Why shouldn’t we?”

Your plan contradicts each other. Why legalize it when the users will still suffer from government legislation? Dicomte disagrees with this proposal.

Your paragraph made no sense, I'm afraid. Are you new to English, my esteemed colleague?

Your plan calls upon legalizing drugs but then you say this

prohibited from receiving social welfare benefits for health problems which occur as a result of drug use.

It makes no sense then why you would even bother to legalize drugs if you are just going to take benefits away.

What? What I said makes perfect sense. Perhaps you should try an English dictionary, honored ambassador. Social Welfare benefits are taken away. How would you take away the benefits of using the drug? Please, think before you reply.

Yeah that didn't make sence so i am declining it tooo

Apparently my proposal makes no "Sence" to people who can't spell. Oh well.

The problem is, while there are quite a few nations in the UN where drugs are already legal and also which would be happy to support a proposal extending this across the UN, your specific proposal will put most of us off because of its disturbing attempt to withdraw benefits from people, just because their problems are their own fault. Is your next proposal going to state that we ought to stop offering treatment and benefits to sexually-transmitted AIDS sufferers, because they should have practised safe sex?

Your attempt to create a global monopoly on the drug market for a UN organisation will also put quite a lot of people out of work. We already have an established drug industry.

That draft appears to both overrun the UN mandate but also sets a dangerous precedent that if it is accepted would mean the UN can remove social welfare from states.
And as such could force socialist states to privatize welfare in order to keep them out of the reach of such acts or in worse case revoke welfare.

As such it would be best to leave this with the states to legalize perhaps with an advisory decided by the UN.

The Eternal Kawaii cannot support this proposal, and has many serious objections to it. Mind- and body-altering substances are heavily regulated and in many cases banned outright in Our nation, due to their harmful effects not only on the individual but on society as a result of that individual's impairment. We note, for example, Our recent decision to ban tobacco. This was done not only to protect the health of any citizen who may otherwise decide to use the subtance to their detriment, but also to protect the local environment from smoke pollution.

We would like to point out the many erroneous implications in the proposal:

Many drugs are currently banned from the world market. Such restrictions harm the economy by encouraging crime...

This statement is implying that nations should not outlaw certain acts simply because to do so would be harmful to the economy. By that argument, any immoral deed should be legalized if it can be proved to be profitable.

...depriving ruling governments of the ability to tax drugs that may be used by a substantial portion, or even the majority, of the population anyway.

This statement implies that governments should become complicit in activities that they otherwise would outlaw, simply to earn tax revenue. Why would We wish to profit off of the misery of Our citizenry? Furthermore, it implies that Our citizens will engage in drug use despite it being criminalized. Are you suggesting that We are unable to enforce Our own laws?

In addition, an international organization shall be founded with the sole purpose of distributing, buying, and selling all recognized drugs.

We cannot support this part of the measure on the grounds that it is in unacceptable intrusion into Our economy. We do not support state-owned enterprise, much less some tenuous international corporation accountable to no-one.

Crime will be reduced, since gangs will no longer have a source of heavy income from drug sales...

We note that this statement is self-contradictory. When properly enforced, laws against illegal drugs ensure that citizens do not buy said drugs, therefore the criminal gangs will have no such source of heavy income.

...as a result of the legalization, use of the more dangerous drugs will decline, due to the availability of better and safer drugs.

This statement is also self-contradictory. If the drugs in question were "better and safer", they would not be banned in the first place.

...with only people who choose to harm their bodies suffering a draw-back...

And here comes Our most serious objection to this proposal. It is simply untrue that only the people using harmful drugs suffer the consequences of them. Their families and communities also suffer, due to the impairment of the individual and their inability to "pull their weight", so to speak. Our obligation to protect the right of these families and communities to have fully-functioning members outweighs any perceived right of the individual to harm themselves.

With so many benefits, and with only people who choose to harm their bodies suffering a draw-back,

What about second-hand smoke? This causes many citizens to develop the same problems of a smoker, without having smoked a day in their life. This obviously doesn't just harm the person using the drug, but the people around them.

Also, if drugs are legalized, they are available to the public easier, and thus an increase in people buying drugs increases. When it is easier for people to buy, and deemed exceptable by the government, it increases the temptation, and thus creates a bigger problem with new people buying drugs.

The amount of arrogance and misconceptions in your arguments against my draft are astounding. For example, it is claimed that when the law is enforced properly, gangs will not sell drugs. How arrogant are you to think that you can stop crime completely? You can't, without becoming a dictatorship that destroys the freedom of its citizens. That kind of government has no place in the UN.

For a second example, someone else claims that increased availability reduces the amount of people who take drugs, when in fact, anyone who wants drugs can get them. They simply pay more for needlessly dangerous products that have been procured with dirty money, crime, and blood. Increased availability also increases awareness about the harmful effects of a drug, and keeps it out of the hands of minors.

Not a single valid point has been made against this draft. Try again.

We will not support this proposal.

This issue is a national issue to be determined by each and every nation for themselves. As it was stated many nations already legalize drugs other allow only certain types. Each nation is perfectly capable of deciding this for themselves. Forceing a nation to legalize drugs would be just a bad as forceing one to make them illegal.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

Not a single valid point has been made against this draft. Try again.

And yet you accuse others of arrogance, when you dismiss all points made as invalid without even addressing half of them.

What about the injustice that is your proposed denial of welfare? What about the destruction and ruin of so many who work in our drug production and distribution industries, so that you can put it into the hands of some immense UN-wide corporation, the likes of which have never been seen before, but for which no regulations are laid down. They could be feeding us mind-control drugs, and nobody would be any the wiser, because you haven't even set them

Your proposal even fails to distinguish between recreational drugs, medicinal drugs, and just about anything else. “A substance which causes a marked altered state of mind or body” covers everything from nuclear waste to cyanide and plastic explosives to nerve gas.

The amount of arrogance and misconceptions in your arguments against my draft are astounding. For example, it is claimed that when the law is enforced properly, gangs will not sell drugs. How arrogant are you to think that you can stop crime completely?

We should like to point out that the UN has classified the crime rate in Our nation as "well under control", whereas in the Exaio it has been classified as "a problem". Exiao is in no position, therefore, to criticize Our ability to prevent gangs from selling drugs.

It seems obvious that few will support this proposal. There need be no more discussion of this matter.

While our nation is known for having legalized drugs, in fact drug laws are nearly nonexistant we can not support this resolution. Our nonsupport is due simply to its prohibition from receiving social welfare benefits for health problems which occur as a result of drug use. Our government already pays for people to be treated for problems that occur due to drug use and this resolution would take away a part of our Nationalized health care that many citizen of ours see as a right. While we would be happy to see drugs legalized across the UN so our economy could grow due to international drug sales we will not do so at cost to our citizens rights.


General Arthur Hendrik representing the Dominion of Yrneh

The Allied States of West Kiljaro CANNOT and WILL NOT support this proposal in any way. The government has also decided to take ANY measures deemed morally and politically acceptable to prevent this legislation from coming into effect. Under the Constitution of the A.S.W.K. all controlled substances are deemed illegal when not being used for medicinal purposes with authorization of the National Drug Administration.


-Supreme Commander Allied States Defense Forces (SCASDF), Vatislav Majdanek.

Ok - to the proposer - while I agree with your rebuttle to Kawaii, outside that, you have done a ridiculous job of defending your position. Ignoring an argument or declaring it invalid without explaining why means the argument is still there.

To the early responders, a request for more explanation of your positions. One line posts are as bad as one line resolutions.

Many drugs are currently banned from the world market.

For good reasons

Such restrictions harm the economy

As does banning slavery, your point?

by encouraging crime, depriving ruling governments of the ability to tax drugs that may be used by a substantial portion, or even the majority, of the population anyway. Restrictions also force illegal operations to create drugs that are needlessly harmful due to irresponsible manufacture.

Ah - legalizing the production of manufacturing drugs - just not the sale or use - may address this concern. I think someone else proposed a similar idea earlier

Such drug 'factories' cause explosions which damage property and innocent passers-by.

As does the legal production of munitions and the odd grain silo....

Because of this, we should legalize all drugs.

You've made a case for legalizing the sale and production (weak, strong cases respectively)

Drugs are defined as “A substance which causes a marked altered state of mind or body.” However, due to the often harmful effects of certain drugs, a second portion of this proposal is necessary.

Let's see - a drug is from everything from marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, hard drugs, viagra, etc to medicinal drugs to CHOCOLATE, Gatorade, Pepsi, etc. They may contain drugs, but by this definition, they are also drugs themselves.

I believe a dildo would be classified as a drug by this definition....

In addition, an international organization shall be founded with the sole purpose of distributing, buying, and selling all recognized drugs.

Note: this is a distribution system. You make the drugs, sell them to this UN organization, who sell them to your stores who sell them to the customers. That's all that this does. Basically, this company takes over....the trucking industry (and adds a layer of bureacracy (spelling is slipping my mind) to the distribution method - which is just plain BS....)

Users of now-illegal drugs, and future drugs which are deemed harmful to the Human body, will be registered and prohibited from receiving social welfare benefits for health problems which occur as a result of drug use.

Resolution killer. If you were to recommend it as a way to address an issue of responsibility, then it might be feasable.

This proposal will not only allow the taxation of drugs, but ensure a higher measure of personal freedom to all countries who adopt this resolution.

In areas that are....rather dangerous to them

Crime will be reduced, since gangs will no longer have a source of heavy income from drug sales,

Assumption: drugs are gang's only source of income. Assumption: gangs need a source of income to exist. Assumption: gangs can't take another source of income

and as a result of the legalization, use of the more dangerous drugs will decline, due to the availability of better and safer drugs.

Even safe cocaine does brain damage

With so many benefits, and with only people who choose to harm their bodies suffering a draw-back,

Amongst second hand smoke and drunk fighting and.....dildo wars....

the question is not “Why should we adopt this resolution,” but “Why shouldn’t we?”

Because it isn't well worded and needs to go through a serious editing phase on content before it would be worthwhile to adopt in any nation. It really is a question of "Why shouldn't we?" - because the reasons of "Why we should" are rather irrelevent to its flaws.

Loophole: ok, all drugs are legal, but you need to get a prescription to take anything
Failed consideration: There are many medicinal drugs that are illegal in most countries or are pulled from the shelves in some countries because it becomes clear that the drug has a serious side effect (eg: death). If some company made a brand of suicide pills, should the nation be required to allow depressed people to purchase these pills?

IMO, drugs like cocaine, heroin, and especially crystal meth, need to be illegal, and some makers of said drugs should be shot, to DEATH. :sniper:

In nation states (and RL) drugs that cause that kind of harm to the body and give a short lasting burst of pleasure, should be banned, with a possiabnle death penalty for mass production of any banned drugs.

IMO, drugs like cocaine, heroin, and especially crystal meth, need to be illegal, and some makers of said drugs should be shot, to DEATH. :sniper:

In nation states (and RL) drugs that cause that kind of harm to the body and give a short lasting burst of pleasure, should be banned, with a possiabnle death penalty for mass production of any banned drugs.

Hmm.....can't remember the actual quote, but it's to the effect of:

"Why do people think that death penalty for Gang Leaders (or Drug Lords) is a deterrent? These guys have the threat of death from the competing gangs every day...." - West Wing

if you can't handle people's feedback coz they don't agree with you, why bother posting