NationStates Jolt Archive

Text of the proposal:

Description: Recreational drug use is on the rise in more than just marijuana. Cocaine, crystal meth, heroine and other designer drugs are fast becoming a recreational activity.

Without taking away the freedom to use such drugs, the following restrictions are proposed:

1. All drugs excepting marijuana would be locally grown and cultivated by the government of each UN nation to insure the purity of the drug. This will result in less deaths resulting in "bad cuts" of a drug that uses outside substances such as baking powder, baby powder, bleach, et al.

2. Taxes would be levied to cover costs of health issues that arise from the use of such harder drugs.

3. Free enterprise would be established to allow governmentally regulated, accredited and licensed entrepreneurs a legal business associated with either the production, packaging, distribution, and sales (or any composite of the previous as seen fit by local government) of such drugs including marijuana.

4. Drugs such as heroine and meth would be prescription only. The result would be that any current addicted users would have to be evaluated by a licensed medical doctor for addiction and when found to be addicted could receive a prescription that, over time, slowly reduces the amount of heroine allowed by the user. The user would also have to report to governmentally licensed pharmacies for their prescribed injections.

5. Age limits would be imposed on the consumption of drugs.

Marijuana - 18
Cocaine - 21
Heroine/Meth/other harder drugs - 25

The benefits of the above outlined actions would be as follows:

1. Jobs would be created and consumer spending would be up. Health care costs would spike initially, but eventually drop.

2. Taxes would bring in much needed funding for many nations with less than stellar health care plans.

3. Again more jobs and consumer spending.

4. A massive reduction in harder drug use due to cleaner drugs. Less deaths means more taxes paid each year to help the budget as well as keeping consumer spending up. A side effect would be an almost virtual elimination of black market versions of these drugs which in turn would lower organized crime, gang related crime, and drug related crime rates.

Approvals: 4 (San Cannabis, Hoegsholt, Jellydom, Weewant)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 124 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Oct 6 2005


Any support would be appreciated.

This is not an issue that transcends national boundaries

This proposition contravenes the sovereign right of a nation to define its own internal laws. The U.N is not allowed to interfer in internal politics of any nation. Uelium warns of severe consequences if this proposition was to pass.

Karl Lutz
Uelium Ambassador to the United Nations.

Clause #2 forces all UN members to tax the drugs sold, when not all member nations nescessarily even have taxes.

Clause #3 forces all UN members to allow drugs to be manufactured and sold by means of private enterprise, which is a breach of national sovereignity as the UN does not have the right to impose an economical system on member nations.

Clauses #4 & 5 seem a bit contradictory, allowing heroine sold only to people over the age of 25 by prescription, but what about herion addicts who are younger than 25? Additionally it shouldn't be the UN's job to impose fixed age-limitations like that.

Numerous problems:

1) As previous commentors have noted, the good people of Discordinia do not believe this is an issue that transcends national boundaries and see this proposal as unnecessary and illigitimate interference with our internal affairs.

Even if this weren't the case...

2) "Drugs" are not defined at all, save for references to marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin. Read literally, Clause I would require the governments of all nations to take over their respective pharaceutical industries (if any). The good people of Discordinia believe this would not sit well with the stockholders of said companies. Don't even get us started on Clauses III and IV.

3) Clause V is also troublesome to the good people of Discordinia, who disfavor arbitrary, agist policies.

If your nation wishes to laws such as these, have at it. The good people of Discordinia, however, would not force this measure on other nations.

All Hail Eris!

Cookie I, El Jefe

We would be happy to support legalisation of drugs. However, we cannot support this proposal. For starters, "drug" has not been defined properly.

Our main objection, however, is that this proposal would constitute a reduction in liberty in many nations, and many of the conditions you have attached are unreasonable or at least not ones we wish to follow:

Clause 1 - some nations do manage to regulate a private recreational drugs sector satisfactorily. If their private industries are adhering to safety standards and quality control, why should they necessarily be forced to nationalise the industry? Additionally, as your proposal reads, it would probably ban the export of all drugs except marijuana - which would damage our already weak economy and be unfair to users in nations where the climate is not conducive to producing certain types of drug.

Clause 2 - you assume that all nations have nationalised healthcare systems. Whilst we are already in compliance with this clause, it would be quite meaningless for many nations which do not provide for healthcare via taxation.

Clause 3 - why should nations with a functional nationalised system be forced to open up the industry to the private sector? Additionally, this conflicts with clause 1

Clause 4 - currently, hard drugs are legal for general purchase in _Myopia_. This would constitute a deliberalisation of drug laws in our nation.

Clause 5 - Setting UN-wide age limits is a bad idea, because our cultures and species vary so much. For instance, in _Myopia_ age limits are almost solely dependent on addictiveness. Marijuana and alcohol can be purchased at 16, tobacco and cocaine are at 18, and heroin at 21. These limits work well for our society - maybe other societies would need harsher limits, but that doesn't mean we should have to conform to that standard.

Finally, your justifications assume that most drugs are currently illegal - but in many nations this is clearly not the case.

1. All drugs excepting marijuana would be locally grown and cultivated by the government of each UN nation to insure the purity of the drug. This will result in less deaths resulting in "bad cuts" of a drug that uses outside substances such as baking powder, baby powder, bleach, et al.

Denies Capitalistic nation-states the right to free-market freedoms within their respective realms.


2. Taxes would be levied to cover costs of health issues that arise from the use of such harder drugs.

Also problematic... What about non-subsidized medical industriess in free-market states?


3. Free enterprise would be established to allow governmentally regulated, accredited and licensed entrepreneurs a legal business associated with either the production, packaging, distribution, and sales (or any composite of the previous as seen fit by local government) of such drugs including marijuana.

Within libertine states, licensure is not part of the system.


4. Drugs such as heroine and meth would be prescription only. The result would be that any current addicted users would have to be evaluated by a licensed medical doctor for addiction and when found to be addicted could receive a prescription that, over time, slowly reduces the amount of heroine allowed by the user. The user would also have to report to governmentally licensed pharmacies for their prescribed injections.

Same


5. Age limits would be imposed on the consumption of drugs.


At least one thing that seems somewhat agreeble.


1. Jobs would be created and consumer spending would be up. Health care costs would spike initially, but eventually drop.

eventual economic concerns are of no final interest to this government. Such is handled by society in general.


2. Taxes would bring in much needed funding for many nations with less than stellar health care plans.

But deny the basic right of free-market healthcare as found in such states.

...

In the end, I do not see this resolution as carrying enough international importance as to be needed.