NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: In the United Nations the right for people to have a choice is held sacrosanct. This is proven by all the countless number of bills the support human rights and the rights of everyday citizens. Should it not be a person's right to choose what he/she puts into their bodies?

Lady's and gentlemen of the United Nations it is every individuals right to choose whether or not they will put drugs into their own system. Legalizing Cannabis (a.k.a. hemp, weed, marijuana) would not only give people the right to choose, but also help nations who are struggling with money.

Lady's and gentelmen, Cannabis can ruin lives. Thus, this act will have the following rules:

1. An age limit of 21 will be put into effect due to the loss of motorary skills during use.
2. Stricter punishments for minors caught in possession of Cannabis and for individuals or companies selling or giving Cannabis to minors.
3. Only distributors with a license may distribute Cannabis.
4. Strict punishments for crimes caused by and individual while under the influence of Cannabis (driving, assault, rape, murder).
5. Due to Cannabis's second hand smoke, which can effect other individuals not wishing to be under the influence, Cannabis is strictly prohibited in public.
5a. Special businesses may be established in order to use Cannabis in them (the equivelent of a bar).
6. More funding will be put into the anti-drug program during a child's schooling in efforts to discourage use.
7. Import taxes on all imported Cannabis will be put in place.

Governments may tax the drug to the level of their choosing, but a tax on this substance may help to bring in many extra funds into the economy. Heavy taxes may also discourage the use of Cannabis.

Summary- Cannabis is not an addicting substance, nor is it a healthy substance, but legalizing Cannabis will give an individual the right to choose. The right that we hold most sacrosanct.

I have read through your proposal, and I must say it is much better written than "Marajuana The Misunderstood." This is perhaps the best written argument for cannabis legalization that we have read on this forum. However, we must look out for the safety of our own citizens first. Fatus Maximus has recently annexed a small tropical island twenty miles southeast of our mainland. It is inhabited by a peaceful race of intelligent, sentient purple pygmy gorillas. They have proved to be model citizens, happily becoming part of our society, both as island residents and as immigrants to the mainland. However, as our criminal element found out the hard way, when exposed to smoke cannabis, they grow twelve feet tall, develop razor sharp claws and teeth, and charge around lusting for the blood of all around it while emitting blasts of heat vision from it's eyes. Acting in the best interest of our populace, we regret that we cannot support any proposal that would allow our purple citizens access to this bill, no matter how well written. Perhaps if we could allow our other citizens access and ban the gorrillas from using it we could reconsider, but the present version of this bill does not allow for it.

7. Import taxes on all imported Cannabis will be put in place.


Since this would become a UN resolution if approved by the vote and the UN is not permitted to impose taxes... Is this legal as written.. Also if it is then is this not the UN getting into local government of individual nations and telling them when and what to tax. Some may not want to tax it at all but this means they have to. Others may not have any import taxes thus this makes them have one on this.

I will say that the rest of it looks good but the matter of taxes troubles me.. and until I see some reading on it will hold my support for the proposal..

First post here in a while. Let's see what we have here:


1. An age limit of 21 will be put into effect due to the loss of motorary skills during use.

Some nations have the age of majority as low as 14. Your best bet is to not specify an age and leave that up to the nations.


2. Stricter punishments for minors caught in possession of Cannabis and for individuals or companies selling or giving Cannabis to minors.
3. Only distributors with a license may distribute Cannabis.

*thumbs up*


4. Strict punishments for crimes caused by and individual while under the influence of Cannabis (driving, assault, rape, murder).

Could be going off on a limb here, but this may cover Fatimus Maximus' concerns.


5. Due to Cannabis's second hand smoke, which can effect other individuals not wishing to be under the influence, Cannabis is strictly prohibited in public.
5a. Special businesses may be established in order to use Cannabis in them (the equivelent of a bar).

*thumbs up* I like this idea.


6. More funding will be put into the anti-drug program during a child's schooling in efforts to discourage use.

Iffy. I know it may be the same priciple as alcohol, but I don't really like proposals that makes something "legal but discouraged", because that's almost like making the product illegal.


7. Import taxes on all imported Cannabis will be put in place.

I think this should be specified as, "member nations are allowed to place import taxes on imported cannabis", because some nations may not want to tax imports to help the economy.

but also help nations who are struggling with money


This also bothers me with the idea of taxing imports.. How can they make money bringing it into their country if they tax it so high that it will result in illegal acts to get it cheaper. Also if they themselves grow it and everyone else has a high import tax on it who realy gains here. You would have a hard time trading it outside your own nation because it would first be cheaper only in your nation... Thus you promote the use in your own borders but you want to teach children early on not to use it... This sounds like another smoking product, tobacco, of today.. They get you hooked on it then later... ban it and make you the one has to go outside to smoke or use it.

The more read this the more conflict in it as a whole... do you want it or not want it.. still holding support...

My biggest concern is who will pay for all the added health care costs associated with the use of marijuana (seeing how not all of us force all our citizens to pay 100% healthcare out of their own pockets). The logical response would be the taxes collected on the marijuana, but that eliminates the supposed benefit from legalizing it. Also, the potential mass litigation against the marijuana industry would further ruin any attempt to create a massive tax revenue source in said industry.

but also help nations who are struggling with money


This also bothers me with the idea of taxing imports.. How can they make money bringing it into their country if they tax it so high that it will result in illegal acts to get it cheaper. Also if they themselves grow it and everyone else has a high import tax on it who realy gains here. You would have a hard time trading it outside your own nation because it would first be cheaper only in your nation... Thus you promote the use in your own borders but you want to teach children early on not to use it... This sounds like another smoking product, tobacco, of today.. They get you hooked on it then later... ban it and make you the one has to go outside to smoke or use it.

The more read this the more conflict in it as a whole... do you want it or not want it.. still holding support...

It'd be the same concept as different kinds of beer- each country may produce a different kind of marijuana, meaning that a country may not produce all of its marijuana. These different products can be viewed as "imports" and can be taxed if the country so wishes, like imported beer.

It'd be the same concept as different kinds of beer


Thus we'd end up with making regulations on how much strenght it can or can not have just like we do the content of beer.. If I see say .4% whatever is my nations limit and another produces MJ with say to much then problems.. Here we go with legal standards and such on another item that for us has more problems around it than benifits. Also consider the land use to grow it and what it might do to other food crops or to the land in general. We already have limited land space now. Look at what cotton and tobbacco have done to the land... As our need for food crops grows adding MJ as a crop here would be taking from lands where foods are grown or animals are raised so somebody can have their MJ. Most of my citizens prefer to eat a good meal than smoke period.



I know the proposal does not make it mandatory for any nation but I see future problems here with it.... Like later a UN resolution that says I can't stop your citizens from smoking it anywhere they might want to even in my nation where we don't want it. Like saying later we have to let you smoke it in public or church or a lunch.. or on a work break, best keep this beast in it's cage.

Remove the mention hemp. Hemp may come from the same plant but it has very little to no use as a recreational drug because it is only made from certain parts of the plant. I don't belive that implicating in this issue would be wise, to either hemp farmers or stoners who accidentally smoke their jacket ;)

While we agree with the ideas underlying this proposal, Ausserland could not support its enactment. We believe that this is a subject on which each nation must be left to make its own judgment, based on its moral, cultural and religious standards and beliefs.

We are certainly not among those nations that fume and rage about their precious national sovereignty every time a resolution comes up for discussion. We believe that, when a nation joins the UN, it cedes a certain amount of sovereignty to the larger body for the greater good. In this case, though, we see the matter as one best left to the individual nations to decide.

(In case anyone is interested.... In Ausserland, cannabis products and alcolholic beverages are both covered by Section 207 of the Statutes of the Principality: "Control of Certain Intoxicants and Psychotropic Substances". In essence, the provisions governing use, sale, and possession of both types of substance are exactly the same, except for some minor technical points. These provisions are very close to those stated in this proposal.)

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

My concern with this proposal is that it's still a bit prescriptive. 'Yeah, you can smoke this, but we're still going to say it's bad and put in a load of mitigating clauses'. If someone wants to lie in a public park and smoke a joint, why shouldn't they be able to?

Re: point 5a - Amsterdam has a policy that individual cafes can serve either alcohol, or cannabis, but not both. (Though in practice this is quite frequently violated with impunity - double the fun :confused: :) ).

I'm considering making a drug legalisation proposal involving not only cannabis but all naturally occuring drugs - like mushrooms and cacti - on the basis that it's ridiculous to criminalise plants that grow on large quantities of the earth's surface (among other reasons).

The trouble with this one and the other one to legalize it is both those who propose it to me know how bad it is but can't come out and drop that as here they want it but will educate not to use it. Defeating possibly markets for the crops once they do grow it because everyone will have educated their people and nobody want it. In the other one the proposer came out and linked it to a mental dissorder in his defense of it not leading to moving to other drugs.... waiting over there for a responce on that issue.

The problem with legalising something like this, si that it gives way to legalising harder drugs. Besides, what's the point of legalising something if it's going to be discouraged? I only approve cannabs for mediacal uses.

Signed:

President Jason Curtis

Ruler of The Majin Ideal

it is somewhat like smoking(which should not be banned)...It is legal and many people do it...but it is discouraged at a younger age. This obviously hasnt ruined the tabbacco industries profit...

and my taxes are supposed to be worded so that individual nations can set their own tax limit as well as import taxes via each nation

and the reason i ban it in public is because the second-hand smoke alone may cause a loss in motorary skills for people who do not wish to be subject to the effects of the drug.

Maybe what this proposal needs is a re-wording...

it is somewhat like smoking(which should not be banned)...It is legal and many people do it...but it is discouraged at a younger age. This obviously hasnt ruined the tabbacco industries profit...




The word here is SOMEWHAT....... like smoking.... we know the medical concerns on this as well as smoking... Why add another problem to deal with in the social welfare systems that already drain funds from where they would better be used. Nuke Power systems lack here and we need to build them yet do not have suited funds because we have to deal with healt needs and starvation and other problems. This crop will need land to grow on and since you can't eat it just smoke it land will be lost for food crops to grow this as it already is for cotton and tobacco... The tobacco industry came in at a time when nations were growing and not sure the path they might take or needed to take thus it slipped in and hooked people before anyone knew the problems around it... We, I hope, are more aware of the dangers of MJ and thus will keep it in it's cage... away from us.