NationStates Jolt Archive

Our nation believes it should be the individual should be permitted to self-determine their behavior as long as such behavior does not harm another individual. Two classes of crimes - drugs and sex - are a major drain on resources that could be better allocated elsewhere.

Sex is not a crime as long as it is between consenting adults. Attempts at regulating sex have always failed.

Use of drugs is not a criminal act - murder of or theft from others to support the habit is. If someone chooses to abuse the privelege, and thence commit a crime against another, the punishment should be sure and quick, not rehabilitation.

Is that the proposal?

As a Goldwaterian Conservative, I'm willing to go half way. I agree with the view of governments keeping out of the bedrooms. Howerver I wholeheartedly disagree with your view on drugs. What about the costs to society and others in the form of lost work, health problems that cause an increase in insurance premiums, emotional damage to family members, and through drug usage allowing the continued funding of narco-terrorists. Many unsavory type of terrorists use the drug trade to fund opperations either through the production,or marketing of said substances( in RL. FARK, the Taliban, and the Coke Cartels come to mind).

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
The Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine

Is that the proposal?

Here's the full proposal:

Description: WHEREAS it is believed that a person with normal mental capacity is capable of making their own free choices; and

WHEREAS many alleged crimes are in reality an attempt at legislating morality; and

WHEREAS the use of drugs is a personal choice; and

WHEREAS consensual sex is a personal choice; and

WHEREAS no person should have the authority to dictate to another what that person does so long as said behavior does not harm a non-consenting adult or minor child:

WE HEREBY RESOLVE -

1. That all laws criminalizing the use or possession of any drug that is a direct product, by-product, or derivative of any naturally occurring substance are henceforth repealed and made illegal; and,

2. That all laws criminalizaing the sexual behavior of consenting adults, so long as such behavior solely involves consenting adults with normal mental capacity, are henceforth illegal; and

3. That all laws that in any way support (financially or through services rendered) persons who abuse these freedoms of choice are hereby repealed and made illegal; and,

4. Any person found guilty of causing bodily harm or injury to another person in the commission of, to support, or to promote these behavior(s) shall be guilty of a capital offense.

All governments shall remain free to regulate and tax these behaviors to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens who have chosen not to partake in these behaviors, so long as such laws do not prohibit the behaviors outright.

As a Goldwaterian Conservative, I'm willing to go half way. I agree with the view of governments keeping out of the bedrooms. Howerver I wholeheartedly disagree with your view on drugs. What about the costs to society and others in the form of lost work, health problems that cause an increase in insurance premiums, emotional damage to family members, and through drug usage allowing the continued funding of narco-terrorists. Many unsavory type of terrorists use the drug trade to fund opperations either through the production,or marketing of said substances( in RL. FARK, the Taliban, and the Coke Cartels come to mind).

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
The Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine

I have attempted to address these issues, but I will happily entertain language to address them further.

The reason so much money is raised in marketing these substances is the risks involved. The street price for any naturally occurring substance or its derivatives (i.e. marijuana, cocaine, opium, etc.) would drop dramatically if the individual could produce their own! If they can grow opium poppies in the desolate terrain available in which it is currently produced - just imagine what you - as an individual - could do in your own backyard. Or a farmer with the latest in technology at his disposal.

In my humble nation, two substances legal in most nations - alcohol and tobacco - are produced, heavily regulated, and taxed to the gills - if for retail sale. Not so if for personal use. These two substances fall into the same category of substances my proposal attempts to address.

I agree with you 100% - but I think the way most nations go about handing the issues with drugs is all wrong and creates the very situations you note.

We believe the burdens for choosing to abuse substances should fall on the individual choosing to do so, not on society as a whole.

WHEREAS many alleged crimes are in reality an attempt at legislating morality

We should like to point out to the esteemed representative of MumbleButt that "legislating morality" is the common, ordinary function of government. Law is, after all, the expression of public morality.

The HOCEK freely admits that Our government heavily regulates both activities addressed by this resolution. Unlike some other governments, We do not labor under the delusion that there is such a thing as a "victimless crime". Recreational drug use can and often does result in great harm, both to the user and to the surrounding public--in the form of accidents, destroyed health, and loss of productivity, to name a few. Likewise, "consensual sex" can hardly be called such if, as is frequently the case, a child is produced from it--a child brought unwillingly into this world without a proper family to support it if that sexual union has not been regulated through the act of marriage.

We disapprove of this resolution, as yet another example of people confusing "liberty" with "license".

We should like to point out to the esteemed representative of MumbleButt that "legislating morality" is the common, ordinary function of government. Law is, after all, the expression of public morality.

The HOCEK freely admits that Our government heavily regulates both activities addressed by this resolution. Unlike some other governments, We do not labor under the delusion that there is such a thing as a "victimless crime". Recreational drug use can and often does result in great harm, both to the user and to the surrounding public--in the form of accidents, destroyed health, and loss of productivity, to name a few. Likewise, "consensual sex" can hardly be called such if, as is frequently the case, a child is produced from it--a child brought unwillingly into this world without a proper family to support it if that sexual union has not been regulated through the act of marriage.

We disapprove of this resolution, as yet another example of people confusing "liberty" with "license".

To the esteemed Eternal Kawaii delegate:

Our philosophical stances are obviously at great odds with each other. Our belief is that the individual should dictate their own personal choices so long as those choices cause no harm to another person.

I will agree with you in one small part - the child coming from a sexual union needs the support of its biological parents or that child will come to harm. We in Mumblebutt support the concept of both parents sharing the responsibilities of bringing a child into this world, since that child was the result of the choice of at least one of those parents.

If the child is the result of rape (an extremely rare occurrence), the rapist is placed in a prison labor camp to support the child until the child reaches majority, at which time the rapist's body is harvested for spare parts. (We don't take kindly to NONconsensual acts around here, hence our call for capital punishment for the abuse of these freedoms which causes harm to another individual.)

Duplication is illegal, so the first half of your plan is gone

Resolution #7: Sexual Freedom
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

The rest is drugs, a wonderfully unpopular field of UN resolutions.

1. That all laws criminalizing the use or possession of any drug that is a direct product, by-product, or derivative of any naturally occurring substance are henceforth repealed and made illegal; and,
Our drug laws are lax, to say the least. However, we are not inclined to impose our drug policies on the rest of the UN. Thus, we cannot support this.

We view this as a wonderfully inventive attempt to enforce the introduction of capital punishment across all UN nations. Well done.

Duplication is illegal, so the first half of your plan is gone



The rest is drugs, a wonderfully unpopular field of UN resolutions.

I reviewed Resolution #7 before proposing this resolution - and this extends it even further, it does not duplicate it.

We view this as a wonderfully inventive attempt to enforce the introduction of capital punishment across all UN nations. Well done.

Choices always come with consequences.

And if you read it again, you will see that I called for it to be a "capital offense" not a call for "capital punishment." Each nation is free to self-determine the penalties for a "capital offense" whereas "capital punishment" would clearly indicate the death penalty.

While we in MumbleButt condone capital punishment, we understand that not all nations do.

The Oppressed Peoples of Anglo-Saxia support decriminalisation of any sexual act between consenting adults with the exception of those involving near-death experiences.

However, we oppose the relaxation of drugs laws on the basis that they impose an unreasonable burden on the welfare state and health services and because of the anti-social element of drug use.

The Oppressed Peoples of Anglo-Saxia support decriminalisation of any sexual act between consenting adults with the exception of those involving near-death experiences.

However, we oppose the relaxation of drugs laws on the basis that they impose an unreasonable burden on the welfare state and health services and because of the anti-social element of drug use.

To the esteemed delegate -

I would be happy to entertain amendments; however, I believe I have addressed the issue of the "burden on the welfare state and health services." All nations would be required to lift any form of support for the individual who chooses to abuse this freedom of choice. This would free a portion of your nation's economy from the slavery of supporting the bad choices of individuals.

Your "anti-social element of drug use" comment leaves me at a quandry - has your nation outlawed all forms of drugs that are covered by this, including alcholol and tobacco? Or do you heavily regulate and tax them?

Any time a product is so wildly popular as drugs is prohibited, there will be an element willing to take on the risks of providing those products - and that is the criminal element. When the potential of economic gain is so huge, and since they are already engaging in a criminal act, taking the next step and committing an even larger crime to enforce their marketing schemes is a very small one. In fact, I am surprised that someone has not threatened my assassination for trying to turn their illegal operation into a state-regulated industry.

Here's the full proposal:

Description: WHEREAS it is believed that a person with normal mental capacity is capable of making their own free choices; and

WHEREAS many alleged crimes are in reality an attempt at legislating morality; and

WHEREAS the use of drugs is a personal choice; and

WHEREAS consensual sex is a personal choice; and

WHEREAS no person should have the authority to dictate to another what that person does so long as said behavior does not harm a non-consenting adult or minor child:

WE HEREBY RESOLVE -

1. That all laws criminalizing the use or possession of any drug that is a direct product, by-product, or derivative of any naturally occurring substance are henceforth repealed and made illegal; and,

2. That all laws criminalizaing the sexual behavior of consenting adults, so long as such behavior solely involves consenting adults with normal mental capacity, are henceforth illegal; and

3. That all laws that in any way support (financially or through services rendered) persons who abuse these freedoms of choice are hereby repealed and made illegal; and,

4. Any person found guilty of causing bodily harm or injury to another person in the commission of, to support, or to promote these behavior(s) shall be guilty of a capital offense.

All governments shall remain free to regulate and tax these behaviors to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens who have chosen not to partake in these behaviors, so long as such laws do not prohibit the behaviors outright.

I'm very much opposed to this for the usual national sovereignty reasons. The Federation prefers to decide for itself on such issues, and we favor far greater liberty than that expressed in this proposal.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I'm very much opposed to this for the usual national sovereignty reasons. The Federation prefers to decide for itself on such issues, and we favor far greater liberty than that expressed in this proposal.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Would you be so kind to let me know how you would have this grant greater liberty?

Here's the full proposal:

Description: WHEREAS it is believed that a person with normal mental capacity is capable of making their own free choices; and

WHEREAS many alleged crimes are in reality an attempt at legislating morality; and

WHEREAS the use of drugs is a personal choice; and

WHEREAS consensual sex is a personal choice; and

Combine those two lines, and mix up your statements a little (5 lines of "WHEREAS this" gets rather boring rather fast)

WHEREAS no person should have the authority to dictate to another what that person does so long as said behavior does not harm a non-consenting adult or minor child:

WE HEREBY RESOLVE -

Aside from boring formatting, preamble is good

1. That all laws criminalizing the use or possession of any drug that is a direct product, by-product, or derivative of any naturally occurring substance are henceforth repealed and made illegal; and,

*Notes that trafficking and growing are still not addressed

2. That all laws criminalizaing the sexual behavior of consenting adults, so long as such behavior solely involves consenting adults with normal mental capacity, are henceforth illegal; and

Ok - if you are supposedly extending the rights from resolution 7, the only possible place this would be an issue is what's known as "Public Indecency". How would you like it if you're wandering through a cafeteria and you realized that there was a couple there going at it....naked and all. Certainly, sex in public is not unheard of, but it currently is used as a manner of adventure. The goal is not to get caught, because if you do get caught, you can be arrested. If we legalize it, there is no limit to what they're allowed to do.

That is the ONLY way it extends resolution 7

3. That all laws that in any way support (financially or through services rendered) persons who abuse these freedoms of choice are hereby repealed and made illegal; and,

Hmm.....what about the service of a lawyer for your defense?

4. Any person found guilty of causing bodily harm or injury to another person in the commission of, to support, or to promote these behavior(s) shall be guilty of a capital offense.

Wait, a "capital offense"? You're going to sentence these people to death? I don't sentence my serial killers to death, and you want me to sentence and you want me to kill someone because he punched his wife while they were having sex?

All governments shall remain free to regulate and tax these behaviors to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens who have chosen not to partake in these behaviors, so long as such laws do not prohibit the behaviors outright.

Yes, governments are going to be taxing people having sex in their room :rolleyes:

Absolutely unsupportable. What little it does beyond resolution 7 is unsupportable, and like many I tend not to approve drug resolutions (even though I might vote for it if it hit the floor, but that's unlikely).

Would you be so kind to let me know how you would have this grant greater liberty?

I would not have it grant greater liberty. I would have your proposal burned and the ashes scattered over the shrine to Supercarious.

The Federation; however, provides far greater liberty to its citizens. We do not criminalize anything, including causing harm to other persons.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Anglo-Saxia recognises the provision for unburdoning the state contained within the proposal but does not feel that this is compatible with current human rights legislation in Anglo-Saxia.

Anglo-Saxian human rights legislation does not allow the refusal of free treatment to those who are unable to afford private treatment. Free medical treatment is available to all citizens of Anglo-Saxia and can only be refused on the grounds of self-infliction if the patient can afford private treatment.

Smoking in public and in the company of non-smokers is illegal in Anglo-Saxia. The infliction of passive smoking on a non-smoker is classed as assault under Anglo-Saxian law. Alcohol consumption is largely unrestricted and causes minimal problems thanks to 24 hour drinking laws and a specialist law enforcement agency paid for by taxes on alcohol which polices pubs, bars, hotels and restaurants. Alcohol consumption outside of a 50 yard radius of a pub, bar, hotel, restaurant or the drinkers home is illegal.

The penalty for posession of a controlled substance carries a fine and rehabilitation order for the first offence and a mandatory prison sentence for subsequent offences on a sliding scale.

This legislation would be incompatible with existing Anglo-Saxian law and would impose an unnecessary burdon on our national health service, social service, welfare state and law enforcement agencies.

Although we agree wholeheartedly with the sexual portion of this resolution, Olwe cannot support the resolution for environmental reasons.

Now, I know most of you are scratching your heads wondering where the environment comes into this, so I'll tell you: Smoking, not just of tobacco but of any substance, is banned in Olwe on the grounds that the smoke pollutes the atmosphere. Ecstasy (the drug of choice for most people), mushrooms, heroin, acid and other non-smoking drugs are perfectly legal in Olwe, but we would have major issues with the UN forcing us to legalize tobacco or marijuana.

I will agree with you in one small part - the child coming from a sexual union needs the support of its biological parents or that child will come to harm. We in Mumblebutt support the concept of both parents sharing the responsibilities of bringing a child into this world, since that child was the result of the choice of at least one of those parents.

We are glad the esteemed representative of MumbleButt agrees with Us that a child requires the support of both parents. It is for this reason We outlaw "cohabitation without benefit of marriage", as the term is generally known, since the generation of children is a common, even if unexpected, consequence of such activity.

The alternative would be to regulate sexual activity literally in the bed through the enforcement of contraception, and surely the esteemed representative would not consider that as promoting human rights?

Combine those two lines, and mix up your statements a little (5 lines of "WHEREAS this" gets rather boring rather fast)

Good suggestion, thank you.

*Notes that trafficking and growing are still not addressed

Yes, they are. "1. That all laws criminalizing the use or possession of any drug that is a direct product, by-product, or derivative of any naturally occurring substance are henceforth repealed and made illegal"

Hmm.....what about the service of a lawyer for your defense?

You still permit lawyers to breed in your country? For shame!

Wait, a "capital offense"? You're going to sentence these people to death? I don't sentence my serial killers to death, and you want me to sentence and you want me to kill someone because he punched his wife while they were having sex?

Only if the nation so chooses to deem the death penalty as the suitable punishment for a capital offense. Not every nation does so.

Yes, governments are going to be taxing people having sex in their room :rolleyes:

You're right here - I failed to consider that possibility. But I do believe the government should be permitted to regulate and tax sex-for-profit enterprises.

Ok - if you are supposedly extending the rights from resolution 7, the only possible place this would be an issue is what's known as "Public Indecency". How would you like it if you're wandering through a cafeteria and you realized that there was a couple there going at it....naked and all. Certainly, sex in public is not unheard of, but it currently is used as a manner of adventure. The goal is not to get caught, because if you do get caught, you can be arrested. If we legalize it, there is no limit to what they're allowed to do.

That is the ONLY way it extends resolution 7

I respectfully disagree, read below. You also said:

Absolutely unsupportable. What little it does beyond resolution 7 is unsupportable, and like many I tend not to approve drug resolutions (even though I might vote for it if it hit the floor, but that's unlikely).

I must disagree with you on 'what little it does' to extend Resolution 7, which states:

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

1. This limits it to the privacy of their homes. What about hotels? Brothels? Swingers clubs? Someone else's home? Planes, trains and automobiles? Privacy I absolutely agree with - please re-read the proposal language:

2. That all laws criminalizaing the sexual behavior of consenting adults, so long as such behavior solely involves consenting adults with normal mental capacity, are henceforth illegal

Your hypothetical situation fails to address that if someone did so choose to carry out this behavior in the presence of children or in the absence of any children failed to obtain the consent of the adults around them, thereby involving them, they are potentially committing a capital offense. In some cultures, sex in front of children is the norm - in many others, it is not. Let the individual nation decide how they wish to handle this.

Anglo-Saxian human rights legislation does not allow the refusal of free treatment to those who are unable to afford private treatment. Free medical treatment is available to all citizens of Anglo-Saxia and can only be refused on the grounds of self-infliction if the patient can afford private treatment.

You would not classify this as a self-infliction? You cannot possibly have universal health coverage with the low tax rate your nation asseses, and I am surprised you would provide coverage for self-inflicted harm.

Smoking in public and in the company of non-smokers is illegal in Anglo-Saxia. The infliction of passive smoking on a non-smoker is classed as assault under Anglo-Saxian law. Alcohol consumption is largely unrestricted and causes minimal problems thanks to 24 hour drinking laws and a specialist law enforcement agency paid for by taxes on alcohol which polices pubs, bars, hotels and restaurants. Alcohol consumption outside of a 50 yard radius of a pub, bar, hotel, restaurant or the drinkers home is illegal.

So your smoking laws are already close to alignment with what I am proposing - since you do not permit non-consenting adults to be in its presence if used in a combustible form, and you consider it a violent crime.

I'm a bit puzzled about your alcohol laws since they fail to address what happens if someone consumes alcohol legally and subsequently injures another party.

Your idea of defining the places in which alcohol may be consumed makes fine sense - and regulating other mind-altering substances in a similar manner would be a grand idea.

The penalty for posession of a controlled substance carries a fine and rehabilitation order for the first offence and a mandatory prison sentence for subsequent offences on a sliding scale.

Thereby helping the drug traffickers increase prices and their motivation to stay in the business. And continuing the global circle of violence surrounding it.

Although we agree wholeheartedly with the sexual portion of this resolution, Olwe cannot support the resolution for environmental reasons.

Now, I know most of you are scratching your heads wondering where the environment comes into this, so I'll tell you: Smoking, not just of tobacco but of any substance, is banned in Olwe on the grounds that the smoke pollutes the atmosphere. Ecstasy (the drug of choice for most people), mushrooms, heroin, acid and other non-smoking drugs are perfectly legal in Olwe, but we would have major issues with the UN forcing us to legalize tobacco or marijuana.

Substances such as ecstasy, acid, and methamphetamines are not the product, by-product, or derivative of any naturally occurring substance. They are all artifically-created compounds created in the minds of men and not covered under this proposal.

This proposal would not prevent you from regulating how a drug is used - tobacco and marijuana are both highly effective if consumed through mastication, you don't have to smoke them.

I would not have it grant greater liberty. I would have your proposal burned and the ashes scattered over the shrine to Supercarious.

The Federation; however, provides far greater liberty to its citizens. We do not criminalize anything, including causing harm to other persons.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Then you are already in compliance with what I am proposing.

Investigations into crime by Goobertopia Police have revealed that many high profile crimes such as theft, murder, destruction of property and assault are often related to drug use and or abuse.

So would not this repeal of laws against drugs dramtically increase world crime? And are there no proposed restrcitions on use of these drugs? For example, it is illegal to drive intoxicated, are there any proposed restrcitions on when and how much these drugs are to be used? Or can people walk around in a drug induced state at all times?


Goobertopia Political Representive

Good suggestion, thank you.

No problem

Yes, they are. "1. That all laws criminalizing the use or possession of any drug that is a direct product, by-product, or derivative of any naturally occurring substance are henceforth repealed and made illegal"

Possession != Traffiking. You sell a drug to a police officer who's undercover, you can get arrested for traffiking.

Possession != Growing. Growing means that you are developing the drugs in your basement/shop/etc. If they are able to observe you doing this or catch you with marijuana leaves in your basement, you will be arrested and charged with producing drugs.

In both of these cases, your chances of getting charged with possession is low - especially the latter (in the latter one, they actually couldn't charge you unless you were still holding the final product). Part of the reason is possession normally results with a slap on the wrist for first offense, slightly more extensive for subsequent offenses. Trafficking and Producing will get you extensive sentences in prison.

You still permit lawyers to breed in your country? For shame!

Resolution 7 says I cannot become involved in their mating process if done in the privacy of their home. Your own resolution would make it illegal to become involved in their mating process at any point. So let's stop with the smart-ass comments

Only if the nation so chooses to deem the death penalty as the suitable punishment for a capital offense. Not every nation does so.

capital offense

n : a crime so serious that capital punishment is considered appropriate

Gee, that's the only definition for capital offense, I think this guy is getting executed.

You're right here - I failed to consider that possibility. But I do believe the government should be permitted to regulate and tax sex-for-profit enterprises.

Then you're looking at the passed resolution 91 which permits governments to regulate and tax sex-for-profit - as long as they don't ban it

I respectfully disagree, read below. You also said:

I must disagree with you on 'what little it does' to extend Resolution 7, which states:

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

1. This limits it to the privacy of their homes. What about hotels? Brothels? Swingers clubs? Someone else's home? Planes, trains and automobiles? Privacy I absolutely agree with - please re-read the proposal language:[/QUOTE]

One after another:
- private area
- legalized by resolution 91, regulated, all issues addressed
- not addressed
- irrelevant. If they have the permission of the homeowner, the resolution extends to protect them. Otherwise, you're claiming that no couple that doesn't jointly own a piece of property can't have sex in there. You're either right or that's the biggest freaking loophole I've heard yet.
- public, public, debatably public

If I were to endorse anything, I would go for a rewrite of resolution 7 - that's fine. However, you have created an ammendment to resolution 7 on minor issues and have openned up much more major issues in the process. Further, you have attached a Human Rights issue to a Recreational Drug Issue - something that might even get ruled illegal by the mods for that reason alone

2. That all laws criminalizaing the sexual behavior of consenting adults, so long as such behavior solely involves consenting adults with normal mental capacity, are henceforth illegal

Your hypothetical situation fails to address that if someone did so choose to carry out this behavior in the presence of children or in the absence of any children failed to obtain the consent of the adults around them, thereby involving them, they are potentially committing a capital offense. In some cultures, sex in front of children is the norm - in many others, it is not. Let the individual nation decide how they wish to handle this.

WTF? My hypothetical situation? My hypothetical situation was taken to fire a direct hole into your resolution. Sex in public only involves the consenting adults. They aren't forcing anyone else to be a part of it, they are just having sex with each other. While it might be disturbing to some viewers, or other nations might find it to be ok to do, the fact of the matter is that this is automatically legal because NO ONE ELSE IS ACTUALLY INVOLVED. Your resolution still fails to address the problem, and no matter how you try to work your way around it, you have a dual category, ammendment - and a clearly flawed understanding of legal jargon.

Then you are already in compliance with what I am proposing.
Ah, but there's is a drastic, very important difference between being in compliance with a certain ideological viewpoint by choice and being in compliance with it because you're being forced to.

I, for one, prefer to retain my nations' right to determine the specifics in privacy legislation (including the often pragmatically influenced issue of drug legalization), since my nation more adequately knows the specifics of its situation than you or any other idealistic UN nation does. I find it good government. I find it democratic.