NationStates Jolt Archive

Here it is http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=ban recreational drug use

Check it out people...

Here it is http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=anti-terrorism

Check it out people...


Bad link!

but tentatively rejected as I don't like the title

Ok, link fixed. Thanks for telling me! :)

Well written, but however, I fail to see how this is an issue that transcends national boundaries.
That said, it is one of the best proposals on the subject I have seen, and as it is only a GA (i.e. urging) proposal, I would have no problem if it were to pass.

*takes a pull on his hookah*

Not a chance of Cluichium supporting this.

*cough*

This proposal is a prime example of excessive 'nannying'. No support.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

The Black New World can not support a resolution banning recreational drug use.


Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

As no definition of 'recreational drugs' is actually included, does it cover alcohol?

Never. Drug prohibition is an affront to individual citizens' rights to make their own choices about their own bodies. It is for individual citizens to decide whether the risks of drug use outweigh the pleasure they may derive from use. And why should responsible drug users be penalised because of a small number of violent and/or disruptive abusers? If your police didn't waste so much time chasing down and arresting decent people for hurting themselves, they might be able to deal with people committing real crimes, whether under the influence of drugs or not.

Well, I support it, partly because of the fact I am in the ECC with you, and and it's sort of a regionally written proposal, and because I've seen what supposedly "harmless" drugs can do to you.

This only urges, so usually we wouldn't be fussed. On this issue, though, no: sorry, no support.

but it still bans all recreational use of drugs, as it is written "decision:outlaw"

but it still bans all recreational use of drugs, as it is written "decision:outlaw"

So? Your resolution states:

URGES all UN member nations to ban the use of drugs for recreational purposes.

You've only urged us. Categories don't determine effects; that's up to the resolution author.

Unless the author can make a good argument for how this is an international issue, Ateelatay will not support it.

And, as others have stated, there is a disagreement between the wording of the proposal and the effect. The effect should be changed to discouraged because the language only urges nations to ourlaw recreational drugs.

I also agree that "recreational drugs" must be defined. Nicotine and caffiene can be classified as "recreational drugs" and, as far as I know, neither has caused anyone to "get violent and break the law."

Unless the author can make a good argument for how this is an international issue, Ateelatay will not support it.

And, as others have stated, there is a disagreement between the wording of the proposal and the effect. The effect should be changed to discouraged because the language only urges nations to ourlaw recreational drugs.

I also agree that "recreational drugs" must be defined. Nicotine and caffiene can be classified as "recreational drugs" and, as far as I know, neither has caused anyone to "get violent and break the law."

Actually, you can't discourage as an effect. But, I agree, a far larger problem is with recreational drugs. Which is why this proposal doesn't bother me: after all, I don't think heroin is that fun.

the term 'drug' is rather vague and 'recreational drug' is even vaguer.

these have already been mentioned

* nicotine
* alcohol
* caffine

as it stands this proposal would also ban those.

also some 'recreational drugs' have medical uses. Marijana is a pain relieving drug and is used in the same way as opium used to be.

i feel this needs more defination.

Actually, you can't discourage as an effect.

Huh, I didn't realize that. Seems a bit lopsided that you can legalize or promote drug use, but only outlaw, not discourage it.

Huh, I didn't realize that. Seems a bit lopsided that you can legalize or promote drug use, but only outlaw, not discourage it.

I agree...but as we've stated here, it's not so much the effect as the wording that's important. In practice, you can adopt almost any stance.

Well regardless of its catagorization, no support here. I'm not sure its even all that well written of a discourgement. I think some of the arguements presented are a bit suspect and that encouraging government action against drugs based on the reasons given is a strech to say the least. (Not that I would likely support a ban/recommendation for a ban on any drug use anyway)