NationStates Jolt Archive

Drug Clarification Law 01
Our populations are in need of some relief from the monotony of work and shopping for consumer goods...therefore i propse to open up a new market for them to spend their cash in...and actively promote/enforce if your government is so inclined, for the population to take it up.
This market should be controlled tightly,with revenue returning to the nation in the long run.....this would mean no need for a black market in drugs, and this new income could therefore be taxed....and addictions lead to high profits

In order to make this rule legal thru the UN i need endorsements...so plz..help your population, and your economy and vote for this

In a word, no. Darkumbria thrives on its consciousness. Our citizens are happy, hard workers. There are various outlets for their happiness. I see no need to add addiction to that set of outlets.

This is not an issue that transcends national boundaries; furthermore, we fail to see how having our workers coked up to the eyeballs will increase our economy

You speak as if recreational drugs aren;t already available. In _Myopia_, and many other nations, some or all recreational drugs are already legal.

And the argument you present is particularly weak. We should be legalising drugs because it is the right of adults to do what they will to themselves, and because prohibition is a counter-productive policy - not because you want to drug up your populace to distract them from the boredom of their mindless consumerist lives, or profit from their addictions (drug tax revenue ought in part to be used to fund the health and rehabilitation services).

This is a matter for individual nations to decide for themselves. This will not pass.

We have no problem allowing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc and endorsing them as human rights that transcend borders. I don't understand why the right to ingest whatever substances into your body (so long as they do not harm others directly) is not viewed in the same light.

So long as the drugs aren't derived from endangered animals or plants, then why should any state be allowed to prescribe what people take.

If this was "access to medicine" we would certainly consider this. How are recreational drugs and medicine any different? Self-medication in the form of recreational drugs works.

so long as they do not harm others directly

So the fact that affects others indirectly isn't problem; such as when they start burgling to feed the habit, or abuse their spouse, or run over a kid, or turn up in hospital with an overdose an need treatment which has to be paid for by tax money, or are too stoned to work...

But that just doesn't happen. Can you name a place that has progressive drug laws where these problems are greater than those with draconian drug laws (such as the US)?.

The original post included something to do with education about the drugs, which is an important step in harm reduction.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid this proposal does not recieve the backing of Isate. Your argument lacked substance and falls quite easily. The 14 million of Istate are liberal enough at this current time; they do not need drugs to make them happy and free.

I understand your concerns but is not not up to the people to decide if they take drugs ???
In many countries oppresion and fear is used by the government to control their populations......this is a way of controlling the population in a more economically-sound, and pleasure driven way.
People will take drugs regardless of what happens, and this is usually illegal in most countries....therefore, it is a revenue stream that is not being taken advantage of, and market driven countries cannot, and should not, ignore this.
i agree however, that the law should not just apply to recreational drug use, but that was the only section on drugs available......hence the fact that the law is named 'Clarification 01'
Post or email me your thoughts and this law can be focussed into an accepatable piece of legislation

Can you name a place that has progressive drug laws where these problems are greater than those with draconian drug laws (such as the US)?.

Rotterdam springs to mind...

I think that you would be hard pressed to show that the cause of high crime rates in Rotterdam is due to lax drug laws, considering that the Netherlands has some of the lowest crime/addiction rates in Europe.

Rotterdam is unfortunate in that many of the city's inhabitants are economically and politically disenfranchised- many of the city's inhabitants are new immigrants from less developed nations that have no established roots or connections in Europe.

I think that drug addiction and crime problems in Rotterdam are a result of social woes, not vice-versa.

This proposal would appeal to me if it were not for the fact that people who are on these drugs can hurt others including themselves. I mean, of course we should tax the drugs because people are going to do them whether they are legal or illegal so why not make money off of them. There is also a theory that has spread that less people will do drugs if they are legal because it is only considered “cool” because it is rebellious. This may be true but I’m not so sure.

Like I said if the person doing the drugs was the only one that could get hurt, I would support this law. Of course, they aren’t. Innocent people can lose their lives because of another person’s stupidity. Perhaps if they could only do drugs in the safety of their home and couldn’t leave while still under the influence of the drugs or they would be arrested. This might help.

The point is, if you can find a way to make this safe, Combiland will support it. Until then, we should leave it up to individual nations and rely on the responsibility of their citizens.

I agree. after all, opium is the opiate of the people....
However, your reasoning is not sound. I say, use it to placate the people.


thos who would hurt themselves should be allowed to do so - self abuse is a sign of weakness. The weak should be helped - but only to the extent that they are willing to help themselves.

im sorry, but Joe crackfeind has no interest in self-improvement...

I agree with Combiland that security is an issue......however...I put forward the idea that many countries have lax policing systems anyway...therefore, would drugs not be a useful way to promote infighting between crime gangs, after all, one unified force will be easier to deal with than the many, the police would have to make less of an effort to control the population as the gangs would eventually do it themselves - fighting is bad business for the gangs after all.
As to Rotterdam, I am half-Dutch and can tell you that despite the common stereotype drug laws aren't that lax.
Drug usage is only permitted in some areas (like LICENSED coffee shops) and as such, addiction rates are kept low.
What Holland is lax on is drug shipping - it is one of the major ports for drugs coming into Europe, and then drugs going out of Europe - it is a major 'throughfare' as it were.
Combiland, out of all the posts you appear to see the reasoning economically behind this rule, and as such maybe you could message me, or post further suggestions/tweaks on this message board.
As to the other nations.....you have either criticised this in relation to your countries' views, or based on your own suppositions/beliefs...however, these comments are not constructive to the creation of a new piece of legislation - suggestions are needed, not criticisms, you must approach this in a open-minded way or the UN will cease to function due to a lack of originality and progressive thinking.

OOC: Just wondering, did anyone else think of soma in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World while reading this proposal? The whole thing about drugged up workers doing better, and not being sad...

OOC: Um, Enn, Soma is a real drug. I was prescribed some after a car accident back in the 80s.

http://www.somasafari.com/

IC:

Why do we need these drug proposals? No, please, explain it in a logical and concise manner.

OOC: Um, Enn, Soma is a real drug. I was prescribed some after a car accident back in the 80s.

http://www.somasafari.com/
DLE, have you ever read Brave New World? If not, this entire discussion is pointless. Also, Huxley was writing in the 30s, well before this soma was introduced.

DLE, have you ever read Brave New World? If not, this entire discussion is pointless. Also, Huxley was writing in the 30s, well before this soma was introduced.

Enn, that book caused endless amounts of confusion and accusations between myself and my doctor about twenty years ago. He was honestly confused as to why I was reacting badly to his suggestion, and I was honestly confused as to what Soma had to do with pulled muscles. Hell, if I wanted to be in a constant delirium, I'd just become a morphine addict like the others.

This Soma was probably named after the book. Why, I don't know. The two drugs are entirely different. Probably has to do with the feel-good effect.

OOC: Just wondering, did anyone else think of soma in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World while reading this proposal? The whole thing about drugged up workers doing better, and not being sad...

OoC: I was thinking of the film "Equilibrium"; same idea...

I agree with Combiland that security is an issue......however...I put forward the idea that many countries have lax policing systems anyway...therefore, would drugs not be a useful way to promote infighting between crime gangs, after all, one unified force will be easier to deal with than the many, the police would have to make less of an effort to control the population as the gangs would eventually do it themselves - fighting is bad business for the gangs after all.

I'm struggling to make head or tail of this. Are you suggesting that we legalise it by simply allowing criminal gangs to continue as before, just without the police chasing them down? Because this type of legalisation is counter-productive. You need to allow a proper, regulated, licensed industry, otherwise legalisation won't bring benefits such as assurance that drugs aren't cut with rat poison etc.

The issue of intoxicated individuals harming others should be dealt with the same way most RL modern Western nations deal with drunkeness. Ban the use of cars etc. under the influence, allow police to arrest people and hold them at least temporarily if they are high in public and posing a danger to others, and regulate licensed points of sale.

As to the other nations.....you have either criticised this in relation to your countries' views, or based on your own suppositions/beliefs

That's how debates usually go - of course we're going to base our arguments on our principles.

...however, these comments are not constructive to the creation of a new piece of legislation - suggestions are needed, not criticisms, you must approach this in a open-minded way or the UN will cease to function due to a lack of originality and progressive thinking.

Well, some nations (not this one), don't want any legislation on this. _Myopia_ and others want drug legalisation legislation, but I don't believe _Myopia_ can productively work with you on this because you are approaching this from an utterly different philosophical standpoint. Your motives appear to be the promotion of state control of individuals via drugs and the generation of revenue from addiction, which makes your position anathema for a nation which believes strongly in the liberty of the people from the state and abhors states which seek to control individuals like this or profit from their suffering.

If you want suggestions - scrap the entirety of this text, read the stickies on writing proposals, and draft something arguing for freedom of choice and the benefits of legalisation to users and other members of society, not the state. In fact I'd prefer if the resolution condemned states which attempt to manipulate the emotions and thoughts of healthy citizens using drugs without their prior informed consent.

We seem to have come to a split, some believe that this law is positive action and that countries' economic strength will be improved, and that it is all about the free choice of the people, whilst others have argued against the law on the basis of (on the whole) personal prejudices.
Therefore the only way that this issue can be solved is through a vote, and thus my request is for endorsements from as many as countries as possible so that this issue can be decided by everyone, and I am sure of a positive result.

some believe that this law is positive action and that countries' economic strength will be improved, and that it is all about the free choice of the people, whilst others have argued against the law on the basis of (on the whole) personal prejudices.
Ah, that old chestnut.

"Those who agree with my position are using sound reason and logic in their decision."

"Those who oppose my position are misguided souls blinded by their own shortcomings."

Based on that logic, I don't even bother to read the arguments. I just default to my personal prejudices about authors who refuse to consider the possibility that there might in fact be two or more valid sides to any issue, and oppose them because it amuses me.

You raise a good point about authors' beliefs, but if you backtrack through the posts you'll c that the issue of controlling the usage of drugs, not via criminal gangs, but through the organs of the government.....of course i will push forward and advocate my view, but i have listened to peeps comments and responded......
Howeva, me agree that the law is no where near perfect, as such I will be producing, within the next day or so, a few variants of the original blueprint. Hopefully one will be found adequate, and if not, i will *smiles* 'concede' that my 'brainchild' is an impossible to legislate rule

and addictions lead to high profits


You would use people who have a problem to make money? that is sick.

Myraith, your generalisation is rather offensive - we have nothing but the highest respect for the freedom of the individual. However, we do object to proposals which suggest that governments could enforce drug use or use drugs to control citizens, which advocate drug use to alleviate boredom, and which characterise profiting from addiction as acceptable.