NationStates Jolt Archive

The General Assembly,

Recognising the right of individual nations to legalise, illegalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit, within the bounds of any passed or future UN resolutions concerning such substances,

Aware that in some cases, nations with widely differing policies on recreational drugs share land and/or maritime borders,

Conscious of the high priority many nations place on maintaining strong border control,

Asserting that nations on both sides of any international border are equally responsible for the prevention of the illegal trafficking of any goods, in either direction, across said border,

Worried that lack of accord over such issues may lead to conflict and division between UN member states, persecution of innocent states or individuals ostensibly to prevent traffic of recreational drugs, and/or aggressive support of illegal traffickers in order to strain, subvert and destabilise national law enforcement agencies,

1) Defines "recreational drugs" as those drugs not taken primarily for medicinal use;

2) Declares that the export or attempted export of recreational drugs to a nation in which they are illegal shall be considered a serious offence in the nation of origin, regardless of domestic policy concerning such substances;

3) Demands that all nations, in taking actions in their attempts to suppress illegal drug trafficking, recognise the sovereignty of other nations; neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their recreational drugs policy, nor violating international borders in military or policing actions without consent, covert or otherwise; nor using domestic recreational drugs policy as justification for any breach of human rights or international law;

4) Requires that no nation take action against recreational drug production within their own borders by biological, chemical or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, or may be judged likely to create health risks;

5) Requests that the law enforcement, customs and border officials of any nations sharing borders share such information as is judged relevant in order to better prevent illegal traffic;

6) Requests that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish records dealing with the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances other than for personal consumption; and as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal;

7) Recognises the right of vessels, engaged in the transport of recreational drugs legal in both exporting and importing countries, to use international territory without threat of impediment or harassment from other nations; recognising also the right of other nations to monitor such vessels in order to prevent illicit activity; and further recognising the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival;

8) Recognises the right of nations to prevent the use of sovereign territory to vessels transporting recreational drugs illegal within that nation;

9) Recognises the right of nations to punish, according to their own legal system, foreign nationals convicted of the production, transport, purchase or supply of illegal substances within their borders.

Co-authored by Rehochipe

---

Yes, I'm re-entering the proposal part fo the game personally, after more than a year since Habeas Corpus. Finally got over the shock of actually getting that through after 15 attempts.

Based upon a proposal attempt by Rehochipe about 18 months ago, hence the co-author credit. I would appreciate helpful suggestions.

In particular, I would like help working out what category this would fit under. Before submitting I'll get a mod to give it a look over, but I'd like to know what people suggest.

First, I'm bumping this.

Second, lacking the time to fine-tooth-comb this legislation, I would like to point out that after some perusal, we agree with the overall spirit of this draft, and it is likely something the Federal Republic would support. We are highly doubtful that, barring any major changes, the final draft will be disagreeable to us, so we offer the Triumvirate our support.

We bid Consul Fulton the best of luck on advancing this important measure to the UN floor.

I'd say either Social Justice (as it limits trade, more or less) or Moral Decency.

Presumably clause 4 is because of possible effects if those treatments spread into neighbouring nations? What if there are no neighbours close enough to be affected, or if the only ones that could be affected would be willing to agree with that policy?

Presumably clause 4 is because of possible effects if those treatments spread into neighbouring nations? What if there are no neighbours close enough to be affected, or if the only ones that could be affected would be willing to agree with that policy?

Given the 'which may be judged likely' disclaimer, I doubt this would then be a problem.

----

Category: Moral Decency? You could argue it was a right, before, to trade in legal drugs to countries where they were illegal.

The General Assembly,

Recognising the right of individual nations to legalise, illegalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit, within the bounds of any passed or future UN resolutions concerning such substances,

Aware that in some cases, nations with widely differing policies on recreational drugs share land and/or maritime borders,

Conscious of the high priority many nations place on maintaining strong border control,

Asserting that nations on both sides of any international border are equally responsible for the prevention of the illegal trafficking of any goods, in either direction, across said border,

Worried that lack of accord over such issues may lead to conflict and division between UN member states, persecution of innocent states or individuals ostensibly to prevent traffic of recreational drugs, and/or aggressive support of illegal traffickers in order to strain, subvert and destabilise national law enforcement agencies,

1) Defines "recreational drugs" as those drugs not taken primarily for medicinal use;

2) Declares that the export or attempted export of recreational drugs to a nation in which they are illegal shall be considered a serious offence in the nation of origin, regardless of domestic policy concerning such substances;

3) Demands that all nations, in taking actions in their attempts to suppress illegal drug trafficking, recognise the sovereignty of other nations; neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their recreational drugs policy, nor violating international borders in military or policing actions without consent, covert or otherwise; nor using domestic recreational drugs policy as justification for any breach of human rights or international law;

4) Requires that no nation take action against recreational drug production within their own borders by biological, chemical or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, or may be judged likely to create health risks;

5) Requests that the law enforcement, customs and border officials of any nations sharing borders share such information as is judged relevant in order to better prevent illegal traffic;

6) Requests that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish records dealing with the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances other than for personal consumption; and as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal;

7) Recognises the right of vessels, engaged in the transport of recreational drugs legal in both exporting and importing countries, to use international territory without threat of impediment or harassment from other nations; recognising also the right of other nations to monitor such vessels in order to prevent illicit activity; and further recognising the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival;

8) Recognises the right of nations to prevent the use of sovereign territory to vessels transporting recreational drugs illegal within that nation;

9) Recognises the right of nations to punish, according to their own legal system, foreign nationals convicted of the production, transport, purchase or supply of illegal substances within their borders.

Co-authored by Rehochipe

---

Yes, I'm re-entering the proposal part fo the game personally, after more than a year since Habeas Corpus. Finally got over the shock of actually getting that through after 15 attempts.

Based upon a proposal attempt by Rehochipe about 18 months ago, hence the co-author credit. I would appreciate helpful suggestions.

In particular, I would like help working out what category this would fit under. Before submitting I'll get a mod to give it a look over, but I'd like to know what people suggest.

Might I just begin by congratulating the two authors of this resolution proposal, Enn and Rehochipe, for their fine work in putting forwards a text that, in my opinion, expertly balances the need for international consensus on trafficking, yet recognises the rights of individual states to implement and form policy in this area.

I would like to express my complete agreement with articles 1-9, all of which offer comprehensive solutions and outline firm guidlines for the application of international and domestic law with regards to this trade.

It cannot be considered legal, I would stress, for the U.N. to permit the harassment, if the trade is being conducted legally. Yet it should be noted that legitimate protest by those who consider the drugs trade, legal or not, to be immoral, must not be circumscribed or prohibited. Equally, might I ask as to whether a drug that has both medical and recreational use, be given dual identity or classified as one or the other?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

This is an exceptionally well-written proposal and we agree with its general thrust and most of its specific provisions. We hope to be able to support it. We do have two concerns....

Would the definition of "recreational drugs" include such things as ethyl alcohol, caffeine and nicotine? Or how about psychoactive substances like nutmeg and various glues and solvents? This may seem like the ultimate in nit-picking or carrying things to extremes, but it could have important consequences in light of item 6 of the proposal.

We'll hold off on commenting on item 6 (the source of our other concern) until the authors of the proposal have had a chance to respond to this posting.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

OOC: It is very well written. *I* like it. Mikitivity however does not -- legalized drugs are one of the earliest quirks of my PR. ;)

IC:
My government must protest this draft, and we'll start with our first objection: "2) Declares that the export or attempted export of recreational drugs to a nation in which they are illegal shall be considered a serious offence in the nation of origin, regardless of domestic policy concerning such substances;"

As you may know, Spice Melange is outlawed in some nations (for reasons my government can't fathom). It, like alcohol and tobacco, is a recreational substance, but the people of Mikitivity find the negative conatations of the word "drug" to be problematic. Despite the proven medical benefits of Spice Melange, many nations seem to regulate it in ways my people find oppressive.

While we certainly would like to encourage our citizens to honor and respect the laws of other nations, we simply do not have the resources to encourage all the laws of other nations and resent the implication of something that is legal in Mikitivity as becoming illegal.

It is my government's recomendation that this clause be removed. It is really unfair to ask governments to consider something illegal despite our own sovereign laws and then to ask that we enforce these external (not even international) laws.

-Howie Katzman

Midori Kasigi takes the chance to speak in her first debate as a deputy ambassador.

still a little nervous she takes a deep breath and starts.

"my government can agree with a lot of this first draft but they feel that the definition of a recreation drug can vary from nation to nation.

Caffine and alcohol could well be considered a recreation drug, especially alcohol in some theocracies as the ambasador from Ausserland has already stated.

in reply to the ambassador from Mikitvity they don't have to worry about another nations drug laws as long as their product is consumed internally. its only once the product leaves your boundaries that a nations sovereign right to set its own laws kicks in."

OOC:

It cannot be considered legal, I would stress, for the U.N. to permit the harassment, if the trade is being conducted legally. Yet it should be noted that legitimate protest by those who consider the drugs trade, legal or not, to be immoral, must not be circumscribed or prohibited. Equally, might I ask as to whether a drug that has both medical and recreational use, be given dual identity or classified as one or the other?
Your first point: Hmm. Does this help?

nor using domestic recreational drugs policy as justification for any breach of human rights or international law
Legitimate protest would count under human rights, wouldn't it? Surely one of the huge bevy of HR resolutions gives right of protest? Mental note: need to check that.

Second point: Will probably need to tighten up the definition. Personally, I'd say it depends on the intent of the drug user (eg Marijuana taken for a 'trip' vs THC taken to ease pain), but the definition doesn't yet cover that. Will be changed in the next draft, probably on Monday.

Would the definition of "recreational drugs" include such things as ethyl alcohol, caffeine and nicotine? Or how about psychoactive substances like nutmeg and various glues and solvents? This may seem like the ultimate in nit-picking or carrying things to extremes, but it could have important consequences in light of item 6 of the proposal.
I believe that they should all count as recreational drugs. That's why Article 6 is a "Requests" rather than "Requires", which it was initially.

OOC: It is very well written. *I* like it. Mikitivity however does not -- legalized drugs are one of the earliest quirks of my PR.
Yes, I know the feeling. Thanks anyway.

IC:
My government must protest this draft, and we'll start with our first objection: "2) Declares that the export or attempted export of recreational drugs to a nation in which they are illegal shall be considered a serious offence in the nation of origin, regardless of domestic policy concerning such substances;"

As you may know, Spice Melange is outlawed in some nations (for reasons my government can't fathom). It, like alcohol and tobacco, is a recreational substance, but the people of Mikitivity find the negative conatations of the word "drug" to be problematic. Despite the proven medical benefits of Spice Melange, many nations seem to regulate it in ways my people find oppressive.

While we certainly would like to encourage our citizens to honor and respect the laws of other nations, we simply do not have the resources to encourage all the laws of other nations and resent the implication of something that is legal in Mikitivity as becoming illegal.

It is my government's recomendation that this clause be removed. It is really unfair to ask governments to consider something illegal despite our own sovereign laws and then to ask that we enforce these external (not even international) laws.

-Howie Katzman
I'm afraid I can't really answer this particularly well - article 2 is the main point of the proposal. If it is a government's responsibility to prevent illegal trafficking across its borders, then there needs to be some way of upholding that responsibility.

I'm also answering queries on another board, so the next draft will have changes not discussed here on Jolt.

"my government can agree with a lot of this first draft but they feel that the definition of a recreation drug can vary from nation to nation.

Caffine and alcohol could well be considered a recreation drug, especially alcohol in some theocracies as the ambasador from Ausserland has already stated.
Quite. And I see no reason for impeding on a nation's ability to prohibit alcohol if it sees fit. If alcohol is banned by a country, I see no reason why it should be legal to send alcohol to that country.

in reply to the ambassador from Mikitvity they don't have to worry about another nations drug laws as long as their product is consumed internally. its only once the product leaves your boundaries that a nations sovereign right to set its own laws kicks in."
Well stated - much better than I could've put myself.

I'm afraid I can't really answer this particularly well - article 2 is the main point of the proposal. If it is a government's responsibility to prevent illegal trafficking across its borders, then there needs to be some way of upholding that responsibility.


Pazu-Lenny Nero share the reflexions of Howie Katzman about clause 2), and LAE will appreciate the removal of this clause, or appreciate 2) to be be limited to "border nations" and to be non effective for tabacoo, alcohol, red bull (mayby some few others)

Many people in LAE are also concerned about clause 9).
Many young people worldwide can be non fully aware of the legal risks they take when dealing with drug (in particular legalized drugs in their native nation), while travelling abroad.
{OOC: i'm pretty sure you have hear about several similar scenario in RL}
and then we would like to invite the estimeed Ambassador of Enn to soften the clause 9) by limiting the punishment in clause 9) for foreign consumer or very small dealer to only exclusion of the country, future visa banishment and financial fine (but please, no prison or death penalty)

Pazu-Lenny Nero share the reflexions of Howie Katzman about clause 2), and LAE will appreciate the removal of this clause, or appreciate 2) to be be limited to "border nations" and to be non effective for tabacoo, alcohol, red bull (maby some few others)

Gruenberg obviously opposes this attempted cultural imposition, which would see our ritual sacrament remain illegal in many nations whilst the filthy piss that is alcohol is allowed to flow like some abhorrent arterial spurt.

Many people in LAE are also concerned about clause 9).
Many young people worldwide can be non fully aware of the risks they take when dealing with drug (in particular legalized drugs in their native nation), while travelling abroad.
{OOC: i'm pretty sure you have hear about several similar scenario in RL}
and then we would like to invite the estimeed Ambassador of Enn to soften the clause 9) by limiting the punishment in clause 9) for foreign consumer or very small dealer to only exclusion of the country, future visa banishment and financial fine (but please, no prison or death penalty)

Then leave off teaching your people sexual positions and teach them something useful. If they get caught breaking Gruenberg's drugs laws (which would, admittedly, be hard), then we shall have their heads.

Gruenberg obviously opposes this attempted cultural imposition, which would see our ritual sacrament remain illegal in many nations whilst the filthy piss that is alcohol is allowed to flow like some abhorrent arterial spurt.


thanks for having answering to me, but i don't get the meaning of this sentence, please, if you can explain me (sorry my english is once again lacking here):(

Ahem.

thanks for having answering to me, but i don't get the meaning of this sentence, please, if you can explain me (sorry my englsih is once again lacking here)

Right, sorry, that was wordier than I'd intended.

Basically, the sacrament of Christianity is alcohol (and bread, but that's less exciting). The sacrament of Wenaism is psilocybin. Now, in Gruenberg, that's not a 'recreational drug'. In many other nations, it would be classed as such. As such, we're wary of any drugs-related legislation, as we tend to view them as unfair. Now, if you get an exemption for alcohol, that would be because it is seen as 'softer'. Emphatically more deaths are caused by alcohol than psilocybin; the latter is under any rational analysis less damaging. Nonetheless, it tends to be classified as a 'harder drug'.

Simply put, we believe the definition does extend to alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine...and we have no problem with that.

Ahem.



Right, sorry, that was wordier than I'd intended.

Basically, the sacrament of Christianity is alcohol (and bread, but that's less exciting). The sacrament of Wenaism is psilocybin. Now, in Gruenberg, that's not a 'recreational drug'. In many other nations, it would be classed as such. As such, we're wary of any drugs-related legislation, as we tend to view them as unfair. Now, if you get an exemption for alcohol, that would be because it is seen as 'softer'. Emphatically more deaths are caused by alcohol than psilocybin; the latter is under any rational analysis less damaging. Nonetheless, it tends to be classified as a 'harder drug'.

Simply put, we believe the definition does extend to alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine...and we have no problem with that.


Thanks, it's me

If you don't care i will take a RL example, if between 1920 and 1933, "Drugs Trafficking Act" was an active resolution, then canada should have condemned his citizen trying to export alcohol in the US, and then to fine the seagram compagny
also beer was prohibited in Iceland until 1989

Thanks, it's me

If you don't care i will take a RL example, if between 1920 and 1933, "Drugs Trafficking Act" was an active resolution, then canada should have condemned his citizen trying to export alcohol in the US, and then to find the seagram compagny
also beer was prohibited in Iceland until 1989

I'm sorry, I don't follow. How is banning alcohol relevant? The proposal isn't trying to change domestic drugs policy. I'm arguing that I wouldn't want the UN to express an implicit bias by exempting some drugs from consideration.

I agree with the this andminmint

I'm arguing that I wouldn't want the UN to express an implicit bias by exempting some drugs from consideration.


ok, lol
i'm arguing that I would favour the UN to express an implicit bias by exempting some drugs from consideration, in particular if 2) is not deleted:D

ok, lol
i'm arguing that I would favour the UN to express an implicit bias by exempting some drugs from consideration, in particular if 2) is not deleted

Right. And you understand that:
I will oppose that. Vehemently.
OC2 seems to me to be, you know, 'the proposal'.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. How is banning alcohol relevant? The proposal isn't trying to change domestic drugs policy. I'm arguing that I wouldn't want the UN to express an implicit bias by exempting some drugs from consideration.:sniper:

I'm sorry, I don't follow. How is banning alcohol relevant? The proposal isn't trying to change domestic drugs policy. I'm arguing that I wouldn't want the UN to express an implicit bias by exempting some drugs from consideration.:sniper:

Here's an idea. If you have nothing to add...

...dont't add it?

Midori speaks up again.

"i believe that this proposal could well be used to define an international approach to the issue of drug trafficking.

we should be respecting a nations right to set and maintain their own drugs laws.

that means letting nations define what they regard as illegal drugs and recreational drugs. if a nation whats to declare caffine, nicotine and alcohol as recreational drugs that is their right.

therefore if someone was trying to bring heroin into Kirisubo they would know thats its a class 1 drug and posession punishable by imprisonment. Supplying or dealing heroin carries a more severe punishment.

ignorance of the law is no excuse and we have at all Kirisuban ports of entry a summary of major laws that visitors should know about as well as the chance to dispose of any illegal substances they have on them before they hit customs.

once a nation has set their defination of a recreation drug then its commonsense that exporting that product is illegal according to the laws of that country.

we have a chance to put in place a law that protects a national sovereign rights and discourages drug trafficking "

The problem with exempting some drugs would be defining which ones to exempt. This drug is important to your country, this one is important to his country, so on and so forth, and pretty soon every drug is exempted and the resolution is meaningless. And remember that the resolution does nothing to impede the citizens of your nation from using the drugs within your borders. So if it is part of religious ceremony, that ceremony will not be messed with within your nation. And if there is a nearby nation where many of your citizens routinely visit and would be prevented from doing their ceremony, make a treaty with that nation wherein they will allow your citizens to use the drug within their borders for purposes of the ceremony in exchange for something. The problem with the resolution is in definition of what is a drug. Alcohol? Nicotine? Caffeine? As others have said, this is where the resolution is at fault. Define in the resolution what is and is not a drug, and it would be great.

The problem with exempting some drugs would be defining which ones to exempt. This drug is important to your country, this one is important to his country, so on and so forth, and pretty soon every drug is exempted and the resolution is meaningless. And remember that the resolution does nothing to impede the citizens of your nation from using the drugs within your borders. So if it is part of religious ceremony, that ceremony will not be messed with within your nation. And if there is a nearby nation where many of your citizens routinely visit and would be prevented from doing their ceremony, make a treaty with that nation wherein they will allow your citizens to use the drug within their borders for purposes of the ceremony in exchange for something. The problem with the resolution is in definition of what is a drug. Alcohol? Nicotine? Caffeine? As others have said, this is where the resolution is at fault. Define in the resolution what is and is not a drug, and it would be great.

And therein lies the problem: the proposal has already defined a drug. It rightly includes alcohol, nicotine and caffeine, because they are all drugs. We will stomach no exceptions.

If I may quote the resolution:

1) Defines "recreational drugs" as those drugs not taken primarily for medicinal use

No mention of what is a drug, beyond usage. If I have missed a part of the resolution, please, let me know, but any speculation on "what is a drug" has been solely in debate, not in the resolution itself.

Bazalonian Ambassador,

Bazalonia would like to support this proposal. I though, as has been said, think the issue of the definition of recreational drugs is something that needs to be further looked into. Any nation that supports international drug between any two nations where at least one involved treats that substance as illegal. The power of the the UN needs to be firm in respecting the sovereignty of all nations, allowing legal trade and barring illegal trade even though the same goods may be being traded.

Bazalonia suggests that this proposal be expanded to all 'illegal substances' and not refer specifically to 'recreational drugs'

'illegal substances' being defined as any substance that is considered illegal to obtain, supply or posess by the laws of the nation that any international trade containing said substances are destined for.

The ambassador from Bazalonia presents a good idea, but it is not without problems. The resolution requires the nation from which the drug is being exported / where it is produced to strictly monitor drug production, use, and distribution to cut down on illegal trade. This applies to all drugs considered illegal by the resolution. Under your interpretation, any drug made illegal by any nation would be considered illegal under the resolution, because trade is certainly possible between those two nations, if not currently active.

Yes, I'm wrong. Sorry. Originally it referred to 'psychoactive substances': it seems that definition has now been removed.

Midori Kasigi takes the chance to speak in her first debate as a deputy ambassador.

still a little nervous she takes a deep breath and starts.

"my government can agree with a lot of this first draft but they feel that the definition of a recreation drug can vary from nation to nation.

Caffine and alcohol could well be considered a recreation drug, especially alcohol in some theocracies as the ambasador from Ausserland has already stated.

in reply to the ambassador from Mikitvity they don't have to worry about another nations drug laws as long as their product is consumed internally. its only once the product leaves your boundaries that a nations sovereign right to set its own laws kicks in."

Katzman politely listens to Kaigan Miromuta while taking notes. After waiting out a few other speakers he raises to the floor, "Ambassador Miromuta, it isn't that Mikitivity would ever encourage recreational drug use, but between Spice Melage and beer, my government counts on the high quality of Mikitivian made consumibles that are benefical and recreational to be a substantial part of our exports. We certainly have a sovereign right to determine what should and what should not be sold within Mikitivity, and given that products like Spice Melange and Sudwerk's (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sudwerks) many beers, just to name to popular international exports, are legal in our nation, we should not be forced to spend police time tracking down what is essentially other nations' problems.

My government actually agrees with provisions related to the trafficking in international waters or in other countries, and I can assure you, our Lufftwaffe will not come into action should a Mikitivian be foolish enough to break one of your laws in your nation, but activating clause two is a ballant violation of sovereignty. It basically says if any nation has a rule in conflict with your laws, you are responsible for making sure they don't break the law by bringing something *out* of your country into a nation where it is prohibited.

Frankly that sounds a hell of a lot like "future crimes" to me. If you want to arrest somebody, wait til they travel into your nation. If they flee back to my nation, then my government is more than willing to entertain the idea of extradition proceedings provided their is ample evidence. But if your police can not enforce your laws in your territory, we are not going to dedicate our tax dollars to making Spice Melange or beer illegal!"

Katzman politely listens to Kaigan Miromuta while taking notes. After waiting out a few other speakers he raises to the floor, "Ambassador Miromuta, it isn't that Mikitivity would ever encourage recreational drug use, but between Spice Melage and beer, my government counts on the high quality of Mikitivian made consumibles that are benefical and recreational to be a substantial part of our exports. We certainly have a sovereign right to determine what should and what should not be sold within Mikitivity, and given that products like Spice Melange and Sudwerk's (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sudwerks) many beers, just to name to popular international exports, are legal in our nation, we should not be forced to spend police time tracking down what is essentially other nations' problems.

My government actually agrees with provisions related to the trafficking in international waters or in other countries, and I can assure you, our Lufftwaffe will not come into action should a Mikitivian be foolish enough to break one of your laws in your nation, but activating clause two is a ballant violation of sovereignty. It basically says if any nation has a rule in conflict with your laws, you are responsible for making sure they don't break the law by bringing something *out* of your country into a nation where it is prohibited.

Frankly that sounds a hell of a lot like "future crimes" to me. If you want to arrest somebody, wait til they travel into your nation. If they flee back to my nation, then my government is more than willing to entertain the idea of extradition proceedings provided their is ample evidence. But if your police can not enforce your laws in your territory, we are not going to dedicate our tax dollars to making Spice Melange or beer illegal!"

the young deputy ambasador speaks up again, her confidence growing.

"honourable ambassador Katzman, i believe i can clarify this point.

the point in question can be easily dealt with. If the nation of Mikivity has banned products all they have to do is inform the UN and then every member will know about it.

if we know about the ban we won't be exporting those products in the first place and advising our citizens accordingly.

it may be a good idea to add to the draft a line or two which covers this eventuality

we can enforce our own laws and our police are very efficent at it"

The ambassador from Kirisubo should consider this - her idea requires that every nation producing a banned product (remember, what is a banned product?) would have to report it to the UN so other countries would know about it. Consider the number of nations and the administrative backlog this would create. Such a proposal is not feasible.

As I understand this proposal, the desire is to make exporting drugs which are illegal in the destination country an illegal act in the country of origin.

If this is correct, I must ask... why limit the scope of the resolution to just drugs?

If smuggling drugs should be an offense in the source nation as well as the country to which they are being smuggled, shouldn't ANY contraband be treated the same? Weapons, pornography, polyester golf pants... if the product is illegal in the destination, shouldn't the logic of this proposal also apply?

As I understand this proposal, the desire is to make exporting drugs which are illegal in the destination country an illegal act in the country of origin.

If this is correct, I must ask... why limit the scope of the resolution to just drugs?

If smuggling drugs should be an offense in the source nation as well as the country to which they are being smuggled, shouldn't ANY contraband be treated the same? Weapons, pornography, polyester golf pants... if the product is illegal in the destination, shouldn't the logic of this proposal also apply?

This was a point I raised earlier in the drafting process. Given the difficulties we're encountering over a definition of 'drug', I think it's a point worth restressing.

This was a point I raised earlier in the drafting process. Given the difficulties we're encountering over a definition of 'drug', I think it's a point worth restressing.

I missed that. (of course, I am also new to NS, and still familiarizing myself with the U.N.)

Though this is probably not the best place for it (but, since I can't make proposals myself anyway, someone might want to use this as a springboard), I would prefer a Resolution which acknowledes members' varied cultures, legal systems, etc.

For example (probably not in acceptable NS terminology, and definitely needing refinement):

WHEREAS, any State may be adversely affected by smuggled contraband, and
WHEREAS, smuggling contraband may cause contention between the States which are the points of origin and destination of said contraband, and
WHEREAS, it is a goal of the U.N. to reduce contention between member States,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT each member State shall consider exportation of products or materials to another member State which has banned or restricted those products or materials to be comparable to the importation of products or materials which the State has itself banned or restricted.

I feel that you need to correctly define smuggling. Also, if two nations agree that a recreational drug can be traded can this be legal?

Also, if two nations agree that a recreational drug can be traded can this be legal?

Yes.

the young deputy ambasador speaks up again, her confidence growing.

"honourable ambassador Katzman, i believe i can clarify this point.

the point in question can be easily dealt with. If the nation of Mikivity has banned products all they have to do is inform the UN and then every member will know about it.

if we know about the ban we won't be exporting those products in the first place and advising our citizens accordingly.

it may be a good idea to add to the draft a line or two which covers this eventuality

we can enforce our own laws and our police are very efficent at it"


After pausing another few speakers to mull over Ambassador Miromuta's comments, Katzman again approaches the microphone to address the draft committee. "Ambassador Miromuta, thank you for clarifying this ... this is begining to really reach a point where I think we might be able to resolve some of the issues my government will have with the text of this draft proposal. The idea of say your government compling a list of banned substances sounds very realistic, and I personally would urge my government to support the idea of the UN creating a clearing out similar to its "World Heritage List" (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List) so governments can pass along to our citizens what substances are banned.

However, the idea that we'd inspect let alone care where our citizens are planning to go is something Mikitivity does not support. Our current customs ports screen incoming traffic, not out bound. (And even then, our regional trade agreements grant fast access to Sober Thought and Keeslandia transports traveling through the Thuvian passes.)

So perhaps the draft could be amended to incorporate your idea and also remove operating clause 2. Certainly my government recognizes (with sadness) the sovereign right of other nations to refuse the medicinal benefits granted by the consumption of Spice Melange and Spice Melange based products. We won't force this "currency" upon others, but Mikitivity did not join the United Nations to become the NationState's policemen."

Upon finishing his statement, Katzman sends a polite nod in the direction of Ambassador Miromuta's direction and then looks at the empty tables of his neighbors delegations.

I feel that you need to correctly define smuggling.
I fail to see the need for a definition of a word which does not appear anywhere within the draft.
Also, if two nations agree that a recreational drug can be traded can this be legal?
If the drug is legal in both countries, then there is absolutely nothing in the draft to prevent those countries trading that drug.

I missed that. (of course, I am also new to NS, and still familiarizing myself with the U.N.)
The first couple of drafts were on a separate private forum, not the Jolt UN Forum.

Mik: I'm starting to understand your point of view here. Will mull over it before putting up the next draft.

On the topic of 'shouldn't this be about all illegal substances': I've been considering doing that. However, I'll continue with it just being on drugs for the moment, at least until the next draft gets critiqued.

I will look at the definition of recreational drugs, but let me be clear: alcohol, nicotine and caffeine should be counted as recreational drugs. They are not taken for medicinal benefit (except possibly alcohol used as an analgesic in some past-tech nations).

Enn the higher-ups command that we must support you regardless. Even so we like your proposal. We think it's cute and we would like to send it some flowers…

Excuse me I need to fire my secretary.

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

Very well written proposal.

I find myself in agreement with the representatives from Gruenberg and Enn: recreational drugs are recreational drugs. People do not consume alcohol for medical reasons (except for the possible exception the representative from Enn pointed out), they consume it for entertainment and recreation. Likewise for nicotine. One could argue that caffeine isn't exactly a recreational drug, but the abscence of medical usefulness means that it should still be covered under this resolution. Perhaps if the wording were changed to include "recreational and non-medicinal drugs," it would eliminate the loophole that caffeine and similar drugs could slip through.

To the representative from Miktivity, I'm afraid I'm not really understanding your point. Under this proposal, the UN would have no problems with Spice Melange being used within your nation, nor would it have a problem with Spice Melange being exported to The-Republic, or any nation where Spice Melange is also legal. The UN simply asks you to ensure that when your Spice Melange shipments leave your borders, you ensure that they are headed for The-Republic instead of The United Provinces of We Hate Spice Melange.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

This was a point I raised earlier in the drafting process. Given the difficulties we're encountering over a definition of 'drug', I think it's a point worth restressing.
If it remains a "drug" proposal, then I think there is going to have to be fairly detailed definition of what a "drug" is, plus a further definition of "recreational". If the resolution were to cover "contraband" in general, then the definition part becomes considerably easier. I like the idea of keeping it about drugs, but either way it's a very well written proposal and Yelda will be supporting it.

The-Republic']To the representative from Miktivity, I'm afraid I'm not really understanding your point. Under this proposal, the UN would have no problems with Spice Melange being used within your nation, nor would it have a problem with Spice Melange being exported to The-Republic, or any nation where Spice Melange is also legal. The UN simply asks you to ensure that when your Spice Melange shipments leave your borders, you ensure that they are headed for The-Republic instead of The United Provinces of We Hate Spice Melange.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

I'll be speaking in Mr. Katzman's place ... as he is working on the current resolution.

The way customs ports work in most nations is you check what flows into your borders. In a few situtations, a customs port can be set up to check outflowing traffic, but even in those situtations police jurisdictions end at national borders, and unless you have a tracking system in place, you can't ever be absolutely sure if the cargo you saw leaving your country is going were the iternary and manifest claim the shipment is going or not.

The object my government raised is the idea that my government is somehow being required to inspect outgoing cargoes and then "forecast" where that cargo might go.

For example, let's pretend there are three nations: Mikitivity, The-Republic, and Anti-Fun Land, and that all three nations trade with one another. Now let's assume that a shipment of milk is travling from Anti-Fun Land to Mikitivity. Who's responsibility is it to check the milk shipment for illegal contraband? Mikitivity and Anti-Fun Land of course. But let's also assume, that Mikitivity really wants milk (though in reality what we need is meat) and feels that Anti-Fun Land is so paranoid that they'll be sure to arrest anybody bring so much as pornography (which is fine in Mikitivity), so Mikitivity waives its right to search incoming traffic *from* Anti-Fun Land (they are doing us a service).

Now the (empty) milk truck wants to go home. Who needs to search it now? Mikitivity or Anti-Fun Land. Let's assume that Mikitivity still doesn't care, afterall, the truck is empty and it certainly poses no risk to Mikitivity. The task falls upon Anti-Fun Land ... and let's pretend they find the worst thing a paranoid communist hater can find, a book talking about free speech! *gasp* Mikitivity isn't at fault for a private shipping firm trying to smuggle free speech books into Anti-Fun Land, that is their problem.

My government has no problem with Anti-Fun Land keeping the milk truck and whatever else, but it isn't Mikitivity's job to police something that isn't a problem in our country.

Now let's pretend that the empty milk truck decided to go into The-Republic prior to going home to Anti-Fun Land. Who's responsibility is it to search the milk truck? Mikitivity, The-Republic, or Anti-Fun Land.

-C. Thonberger

If it remains a "drug" proposal, then I think there is going to have to be fairly detailed definition of what a "drug" is, plus a further definition of "recreational". If the resolution were to cover "contraband" in general, then the definition part becomes considerably easier. I like the idea of keeping it about drugs, but either way it's a very well written proposal and Yelda will be supporting it.

A definition for drug should not be hard. Online dictionary + minor editing yields:
"A chemical substance that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and potential addiction."

Since this proposal maintains the freedom of nations to choose which drugs are legal, I have no problem defending a definition which includes alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine.

The "recreational" part is harder, specially if one goes loophole-hunting. I would favour a white-list approach, where all drugs are considered recreational unless:
- They belong to some list of legitimate medical substances, as decided by some expert panel/comittee, etc.
and
- They are used under explicit medical advice and supervision.

In any case, Fonzoland supports this proposal. We allow drug use, and grow most hard drugs within our own borders, to control their quality and thus minimize health risks. Nonetheless, this sector is heavily regulated, and it is not allowed to engage in foreign trade.

After further consideration, Miktivity's point has become somewhat clearer, as I would certainly be opposed to requiring that tracking devices be installed on all international vessels. However, what if Anti-Fun Land discovered that Miktivity's exports of jars of sugar to AFL weren't really jars of sugar at all, but jars of bleached Spice Melange? Assume that the vessel began at Miktivity and headed straight for AFL, and AFL intercepted the illegal shipment at its borders. Should Miktivity be held liable for allowing illegal shipments of Spice Melange to AFL?

The way I read the resolution now, Miktivity would indeed be responsible, although now I'm not certain that that would be fair. Perhaps the resolution should be reworded to place more of the burden of border control on the importing nation.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

A definition for drug should not be hard. Online dictionary + minor editing yields:
"A chemical substance that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and potential addiction."
Model airplane glue? Gasoline? Morning glory seeds? Banana peels? Certain species of frogs? All of these are (or contain) chemical substances which affect the central nervous system, cause changes in behaviour and in certain individuals, addiction. Perhaps we could say that the primary purpose for using the substance should be to "affect the central nervous system and cause changes in behaviour/mood" for it to be considered a drug. This would exclude substances/products whose primary purpose is something other than causing intoxication.

Since this proposal maintains the freedom of nations to choose which drugs are legal, I have no problem defending a definition which includes alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine.
Aggreed. In all fairness, the definition will have to include these and I don't have a problem with that.

The "recreational" part is harder, specially if one goes loophole-hunting. I would favour a white-list approach, where all drugs are considered recreational unless:
- They belong to some list of legitimate medical substances, as decided by some expert panel/comittee, etc.
and
- They are used under explicit medical advice and supervision.
Agreed. It will be much easier to define what isn't recreational.

Model airplane glue? Gasoline? Morning glory seeds? Banana peels? Certain species of frogs? All of these are (or contain) chemical substances which affect the central nervous system, cause changes in behaviour and in certain individuals, addiction. Perhaps we could say that the primary purpose for using the substance should be to "affect the central nervous system and cause changes in behaviour/mood" for it to be considered a drug. This would exclude substances/products whose primary purpose is something other than causing intoxication.

I agree. However, we don't want to be too restrictive about what individual states categorise as a drug. If some strange nation decided that the use of glue as a drug was a problem, and they decided to ban it as an illegal drug, I would still see it as fair for other nations to be prevented from supplying it. OK, maybe the glue example is idiotic, but think about the frogs. I would argue for alternative wording, not primary purpose, but something on that line is definitely needed.

Many good points have been made. My position has actually changed to being aginst this because of the demand on the exporting nation. This resolution basically means that every nation would have to do the whole customs-search procedure on every leaving its borders as well as entering, which seems like an undue burden. And I personally cannot think of a way the resolution could get around this requirement.

IC: this is a well written proposal, and has our support

(OOC: Enn, is this by any chance inspired by our fellow countrymen currently serving time/being exicuted overseas for drug crimes?)

Many good points have been made. My position has actually changed to being aginst this because of the demand on the exporting nation. This resolution basically means that every nation would have to do the whole customs-search procedure on every leaving its borders as well as entering, which seems like an undue burden. And I personally cannot think of a way the resolution could get around this requirement.

We must disagree with the honorable representative of Chekhov. Nothing in this proposal imposes any such requirement. It states that export of drugs illegal in a nation to that nation will be made a criminal offense in the originating nation. It does not mandate any level of enforcement. Each nation would be left free to decide the means and intensity of its enforcement effort, just as it is now.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Then would the representative from Ausserland care to clarify a few portions of the resolution for me?

6) Requests that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish records dealing with the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances other than for personal consumption; and as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal;

A nation that has a 100% free, unregulated drug trade would be required to establish a system of monitoring production and trade of said drugs, a task that might well be neither easy nor cheap. Some unorganized nations might even find this impossible.

7) Recognises the right of vessels, engaged in the transport of recreational drugs legal in both exporting and importing countries, to use international territory without threat of impediment or harassment from other nations; recognising also the right of other nations to monitor such vessels in order to prevent illicit activity; and further recognising the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival;

There are several clauses to disagree with here. I will quote them specifically.

recognising also the right of other nations to monitor such vessels in order to prevent illicit activity;

This gives any nation the right to search any other nation's shipping for illegal drugs. It gives no requirement for evidence, no limitations of the power of the searchers - this is far, far too loose of a clause.

and further recognising the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival;

Note that here is the requirement for drug-exporting nations to establish customs systems to monitor everything being exported for drugs. Clearly, and unfair and difficult requirement to lay upon every nation.

9) Recognises the right of nations to punish, according to their own legal system, foreign nationals convicted of the production, transport, purchase or supply of illegal substances within their borders.

Basically, this means that nationals of your country can be prosecuted under the laws and in the courts of another country, another country which might not share the same views as your own on law, justice, punishments, etc. Perhaps an ease to extradition would be better than this, because I do not like the idea of making my citizens vunerable to the laws of other nations.

And remember, for all of this, a "drug" is whatever the importing nation says is a drug, as long as it is used for recreational purposes. And since everything could be declared by someone or another to be a drug, everything must be monitored. Every industry. Because someone out there considers apples to be drugs, you have to monitor your apple industry, and someone considers chicken meat to be drugs, you have to monitor your poultry industry, and so on and so on... Not to mention the need for a master list of all the drugs in the world as defined by whom, so countries can keep things straight, which is essentially impossible to keep together and organized.

It just won't work.

Then would the representative from Ausserland care to clarify a few portions of the resolution for me?

With all respect to the honorable delegate, we'll leave it to the author of the proposal to clarify the points raised. We don't want to put words in his mouth. You made a specific statement with which we disagreed, perhaps not clearly enough:

This resolution basically means that every nation would have to do the whole customs-search procedure on every [person?] leaving its borders as well as entering, which seems like an undue burden.

"Closely monitor" does not necessarily mean 100% customs searches at borders. There are many alternative law enforcement techniques that could be employed, including selective random searches.

We do want to respond to this statement, though:

Basically, this means that nationals of your country can be prosecuted under the laws and in the courts of another country, another country which might not share the same views as your own on law, justice, punishments, etc. Perhaps an ease to extradition would be better than this, because I do not like the idea of making my citizens vunerable to the laws of other nations.

The proposal does not establish the right; it merely recognizes it. It is a universal and time-honored principle of law called "jurisdiction of place". It means that, when a person is present in a nation, he is bound to obey the laws of that nation and is subject to prosecution by that nation for violation of them unless specific agreements provide otherwise. The proposal simply acknowledges the state of affairs that exists now.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

"Closely monitor" does not necessarily mean 100% customs searches at borders. There are many alternative law enforcement techniques that could be employed, including selective random searches.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Minister Olembe, if I may ... I appreciate your statements, but the objection my government has is why should Mikitivity police offers be obligated to violate the civil rights of anybody in Mikitivity to search for something that is illegal in some other country.

We have no idea where travelers eventually plan to go. Let's say that you yourself plan to travel into Mikitivity, and yet in some country candy canes are outlawed. Why is it our responsibility to ask you where you plan to go after leaving our country and why should it be our responsibility to possibly guess if that information is accurate and remove your candy canes.

My government has no problems with the provisions that reinforce the sovereign right of nations to outlaw substances, but anything that requires a loss of civil liberties in Mikitivity because somebody else *might* travel somewhere with less freedoms is unacceptable, even if those random searches were conducted only 1% of the time. I think my governments potential no vote can be changed to a yes vote by removing clauses that really force other law enforcement agencies to work beyond the scope of their domestic laws.

-Cassandra Thonberger, Deputy Ambassador

I would argue that "closely monitor" does mean a full customs search. I would further argue that doing anything than the full customs routine weakens the intent of the resolution to the point where it ceases to function.

Here is how, in a few words, I interpret the resolution: Nations that export drugs have an obligation to ensure that those drugs do not go to places where said drugs are illegal. This is very simplified, of course, but I think it is reasonably accurate. But if the exporting nation has to make only a cursory effort to prevent smuggling, then what really is the point? The amount of drugs smuggled might well go down a little, but the trade can still continue largely uninhibited, in my opinion.

I think you may have misunderstood my problem with point #9. None will deny that when someone is in a different country they will be required to follow that country's laws. The problem is this: I am a citizen of Chekhov, who lives in Chekhov, who owns a shipping company. If I export products to Ausserland, then I am subject to Ausserland's drug laws and can be charged in Ausserland's justice system, even though I am a citizen of Chekhov. And what if Ausserland and Chekhov's legal systems are vastly different in terms of an appropriate punishment for crimes? (OoC: This is a real world problem. Recently Singapore sentenced an Australian living in Singapore to death for drug trafficking. Australia is none too happy. Now, back IC) And though I do not wish to fall victim to a fallacy, one should be wary of the slippery slope. Is this a precedent you'd really like to start? Perhaps were this clause were switched for an extradition clause, it might be more agreeable, but as is, the government of Chekhov finds it unacceptable.

And even these two points aside, I feel that in my previous post I raised sufficient issues therein to warrant opposing this resolution which, though is something the government of Chekhov would love to back, would simply be impossible to implement.

I'd also like to apologize for my harsh tone at the beginning of my previous post. I meant no offense to you, or to the creators of this proposal.

Midori takes the stand again and speaks.

"honoured ambassadors, we've presented a few ideas to the proposer, the ambassador from Enn and eagerly await their response.

the alternative to telling the world about whats a banned drug or contraband in your nation is to let traders export out of your country, be stopped at the border and turned back.

what we do already in Kirisubo at our ports of entry and our border is practical. Large posters in english proclaim what drugs are illegal and passengers on the state airline and ferry company recieve a 'basic law' leaflet in english so they know what drugs are illegal in the Empire and the penalties for posessing them.

once we begin to create embassies in other nations this information will also be available there as well so it can be given to visitors while they are applying for visas.

we believe that ignorance of a nations laws is no defence so we make sure that every visitor who enters our country knows our drug laws and has a chance to hand substances into the customs authorites before the police arrest them for possession.

Normally our customs would hold said drugs at the port or border until the person concerned had reclaimed them on their way home"

Midori takes the stand again and speaks.

"honoured ambassadors, we've presented a few ideas to the proposer, the ambassador from Enn and eagerly await their response.

the alternative to telling the world about whats a banned drug or contraband in your nation is to let traders export out of your country, be stopped at the border and turned back.

what we do already in Kirisubo at our ports of entry and our border is practical. Large posters in english proclaim what drugs are illegal and passengers on the state airline and ferry company recieve a 'basic law' leaflet in english so they know what drugs are illegal in the Empire and the penalties for posessing them.

once we begin to create embassies in other nations this information will also be available there as well so it can be given to visitors while they are applying for visas.

we believe that ignorance of a nations laws is no defence so we make sure that every visitor who enters our country knows our drug laws and has a chance to hand substances into the customs authorites before the police arrest them for possession.

Normally our customs would hold said drugs at the port or border until the person concerned had reclaimed them on their way home"


LAE would like to congrats The Empire of Kirisubo for its policy on this matter, for sure LAE will we try to legislate in the same manner (if this policy is not copyrighted), we think it's very good, and we will just add some "COMPASSION" for non-resident foreign young people using drugs, just there with a tourist VISA.

Midori smiles and replies "honourable ambassador, our ideas aren't copy righted so feel free to use them. If you want to pay our government a visit so you can see how this works I can make the arrangements"

Midori smiles and replies "honourable ambassador, our ideas aren't copy righted so feel free to use them. If you want to pay our government a visit so you can see how this works I can make the arrangements"

Pazu-Lenny Nero would like to thanks Midori for her offer, and will be happy to have a visit to The Empire of Kirisubo these days, as his agenda is pretty light until wednesday. He will then be accompanied with Sandra O’Norcon, the President of our Supreme Court. No one of them will not try to introduce some recreational drugs (not even some "soma", the local recreational drug in LAE) in the Empire of Kirisubo.

Midori nods and says "i'd assume that going by UN portal would be the quickest way to Kirisubo. Once the supeme court president gets here we can leave together.

this is actually a good time to visit since we're in our winter sports season"

Midori nods and says "i'd assume that going by UN portal would be the quickest way to Kirisubo. Once the supeme court president gets here we can leave together.

this is actually a good time to visit since we're in our winter sports season"

http://test256.free.fr/kirisubo.jpg

Midori reads the piece of paper passed to her and says "its a deal Mr Nero. i'll set up the appointments and i'm sure that we could manage some time away from work. it's been a fair while since i've been able to ski and i accept your invitation"

She smiles at Pazu-lenny and puts the sheet into the pocket of her jacket.

Midori reads the piece of paper passed to her and says "its a deal Mr Nero. i'll set up the appointments and i'm sure that we could manage some time away from work. it's been a fair while since i've been able to ski and i accept your invitation"

She smiles at Pazu-lenny and puts the sheet into the pocket of her jacket.


Dear Midori,

I'm happy you accepted my invitation for next month and will be glad to spend the next 3 days skiing with you. Sandra O’Norcon agenda is already fully booked with metting and conferences, she proposed me to come to each of them, but i managed to escape by pretending some old school friends to visit and an invitation to a foreign-affairs conference in one of your famous university:p

See you tommorow morning
Best regards
Pazu-Lenny

PS: I will arrange a small surprise for the after-ski, coming in the diplomatic bag

"Miss, we have obtained this leaked document from the government of Love and esterel."

He passed the sheet of paper to Rose. If she cared to look she would have seen a smirk across his face.

"They use Yahoo," she laughed.

"Yes M… Rose?"

"Shut up James."

Midori slips out of the debate and returns to the office she shares with Kaigan on the 40th floor.

as she makes calls and arranges the appointments with the government ministers that the judge will meet with (ministry of justice, the home office and the Kirisuban customs agency) she wonders if this will lead to something more than the visit of two VIP's...

I would argue that "closely monitor" does mean a full customs search. I would further argue that doing anything than the full customs routine weakens the intent of the resolution to the point where it ceases to function.

Here is how, in a few words, I interpret the resolution: Nations that export drugs have an obligation to ensure that those drugs do not go to places where said drugs are illegal. This is very simplified, of course, but I think it is reasonably accurate. But if the exporting nation has to make only a cursory effort to prevent smuggling, then what really is the point? The amount of drugs smuggled might well go down a little, but the trade can still continue largely uninhibited, in my opinion.

It seems that on this point, it may be best for us to "agree to disagree". Should this proposal pass, Ausserland will not institute 100% customs searches of all exiting travelers. We will use a variety of law enforcement and criminal intelligence techniques to insure that the situation is "closely monitored".

I think you may have misunderstood my problem with point #9. None will deny that when someone is in a different country they will be required to follow that country's laws. The problem is this: I am a citizen of Chekhov, who lives in Chekhov, who owns a shipping company. If I export products to Ausserland, then I am subject to Ausserland's drug laws and can be charged in Ausserland's justice system, even though I am a citizen of Chekhov. And what if Ausserland and Chekhov's legal systems are vastly different in terms of an appropriate punishment for crimes? (OoC: This is a real world problem. Recently Singapore sentenced an Australian living in Singapore to death for drug trafficking. Australia is none too happy. Now, back IC) And though I do not wish to fall victim to a fallacy, one should be wary of the slippery slope. Is this a precedent you'd really like to start? Perhaps were this clause were switched for an extradition clause, it might be more agreeable, but as is, the government of Chekhov finds it unacceptable.

We respectfully suggest that the honorable representative of Chekhov is misinterpreting clause 9. Perhaps it would be good to look at it again:

9) Recognises the right of nations to punish, according to their own legal system, foreign nationals convicted of the production, transport, purchase or supply of illegal substances within their borders.

In your example, you are a citizen of Chekhov; you took the action within the borders of Chekhov. You did not do it in Ausserland. Under the principle of jurisdiction of place, acknowledged by clause 9, you can not be charged by Ausserland with a crime. (OOC: In the RL example you cited, the drug trafficking actually took place within the borders of Singapore, did it not? That makes it a whole different kettle of fish.) Now if, as a part of your export scheme, you traveled to Ausserland and acted in furtherance of the scheme, we could charge you with a crime under our laws. Clause 9 only recognizes the existing right of nations to punish crimes committed within their borders.

Now that we think about it, it might be best to delete clause 9 to prevent misinterpretation by others. Since it really only restates an existing principle of law, deleting it wouldn't have any substantive effect.


And even these two points aside, I feel that in my previous post I raised sufficient issues therein to warrant opposing this resolution which, though is something the government of Chekhov would love to back, would simply be impossible to implement.

I'd also like to apologize for my harsh tone at the beginning of my previous post. I meant no offense to you, or to the creators of this proposal.

We don't believe the honorable representative of Chekhov owes us any apology. We certainly don't object to spirited debate or to strong opposition to our own views. We found his comments to be civil and not disrespectful and took no offense.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

"Miss, we have obtained this leaked document from the government of Love and esterel."

He passed the sheet of paper to Rose. If she cared to look she would have seen a smirk across his face.

"They use Yahoo," she laughed.

"Yes M… Rose?"

"Shut up James."

Is The Black New World, a member of the "UKUSA Community", using the "Echelon network":D

Minister Olembe, if I may ... I appreciate your statements, but the objection my government has is why should Mikitivity police offers be obligated to violate the civil rights of anybody in Mikitivity to search for something that is illegal in some other country.

We have no idea where travelers eventually plan to go. Let's say that you yourself plan to travel into Mikitivity, and yet in some country candy canes are outlawed. Why is it our responsibility to ask you where you plan to go after leaving our country and why should it be our responsibility to possibly guess if that information is accurate and remove your candy canes.

My government has no problems with the provisions that reinforce the sovereign right of nations to outlaw substances, but anything that requires a loss of civil liberties in Mikitivity because somebody else *might* travel somewhere with less freedoms is unacceptable, even if those random searches were conducted only 1% of the time. I think my governments potential no vote can be changed to a yes vote by removing clauses that really force other law enforcement agencies to work beyond the scope of their domestic laws.

-Cassandra Thonberger, Deputy Ambassador

In response, let us point out that we were not commenting on the merits of the requirement to "closely monitor" exports; we were addressing the question of the law enforcement measures necessary to fulfill the requirement.

We appreciate Ambassador Thonberger's explanation of Mikitivity's objections to the proposal. We have some lingering reservations about the proposal ourselves, although they are not based on the grounds of civil rights. The civil rights aspect of the issue is a matter on which Mikitivity and Ausserland can rightfully have differing views.

In Ausserland, submission to a search by customs officials is considered a condition of exit, just as submission to a customs search is a condition of entry. This is clearly explained when our citizens apply for passports and stated in the passport itself. We rarely conduct exit searches, but do so occasionally to aid in enforcing our laws prohibiting export of certain historically valuable antiquities and specific, militarily critical technology. Our citizens do not consider this a violation of their civil rights. We hasten to acknowledge, though, that the citizens of Mikitivity may have very different views.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The government of St Edmund shares the concerns that various other nations have already raised concerning clauses 6 (Requests that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish records dealing with the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances other than for personal consumption; and as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal) and 7 (Recognises the right of vessels, engaged in the transport of recreational drugs legal in both exporting and importing countries, to use international territory without threat of impediment or harassment from other nations; recognising also the right of other nations to monitor such vessels in order to prevent illicit activity; and further recognising the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival) of this proposal. We also wonder about situations in which nations disagree about whether a particular drug is 'medicinal' or 'recreational' and, like Gruenberg, about situations in which drugs are intended for sacramental purposes: St Edmund is basically a Christian country, and whilst we are opposed to dealing in illegal drugs in general we would not try to keep our people from smuggling sacramental wine to Christian groups in any nations whose governments had banned that substance's importation...

Perhaps I have mis read or this has been answered already but does this outlaw moving drugs between nations where recrational drugs are legal in both cases or only in cases where one nation outlaws them? I feel it should be allowable to take drugs across borders if they are legal in both the nation of origin and the nation they are moving to.

Given the 'which may be judged likely' disclaimer, I doubt this would then be a problem.

Okay, I must have missed that clause somehow. (I haven't been getting enough sleep lately...)

I agree with the representative from Ausserland that clause 9 should be deleted. We clearly interpreted it two different ways, and both ways make the clause either bad or unnecessary.

See, here's the deal with clause 6. You consider that random searches and other "customs lite" type things qualifies as "closely monitor"ing. Perhaps others may disagree. What happens when somebody smuggles a drug from Ausserland to a place where that drug is illegal? That government may well say "Hey Ausserland! What's the deal? You had an obligation to closely monitor your exports to prevent this!" And then you say "We were closely monitoring!" and they say "No you weren't." and you say...

If that clause should stay in, "closely monitor"ing should be defined. And I further think that it can be defined one of two ways - easy, cheap, and ineffective, or difficult, costly, and effective. If we go the easy way, the proposal is toothless. If we go the difficult way, what happens to the nations who are incapable of carrying out the proposal? A poor nation may find it impossible to carry out the resolution.

I would also like to point out to the representative from Kirisubo that, while their customs system is surely effective and good and all now, the entire point of this proposal is that you would also have to start checking your exports for drugs. In other words, drugs from Kirisubo should never reach any other country (where said drugs are illegal) to be stopped at the border there - Kirisubo should have already caught them.

Midori slips out of the debate and returns to the office she shares with Kaigan on the 40th floor.

as she makes calls and arranges the appointments with the government ministers that the judge will meet with (ministry of justice, the home office and the Kirisuban customs agency) she wonders if this will lead to something more than the visit of two VIP's...

Dj Chus, maybe the most famous "Iberican House" dj, was attended to mix tonight @ Space, but unusually, Pazu-Lenny didn't go clubbing this saturday night.

He had never talk directly to Midori, but had few phone calls with her last week about various topic and had been envouted by her charming voice, a voice which remind him the voice of 'Melanie S" in "That Kid Chris featuring Melanie S - Reflections (Victor Calderone & TKC Remix)", one of the track he was listening often these days with his "4G mp3 flash player mobile phone".

He also have noticed her several times in the corridors of the UN building, he then didn't dare to engage the conversation, but he had found her lovely. He was pretty happy about what happens today, hoping to have some good ski in the next few days, but maybe not only....

Kaigan Miromuta picks up where his deputy ambassador left off.

"since this debate started an idea to ban recreational drugs its blossomed into a ban on contraband items. The Ambassador from Enn has a lot to think about.

its still possible to keep this proposal so each nation can contunue to define its own drugs laws. contraband items although may well have to wait for another proposal.

if we concentrate on a mechanism to prevent drug smuggling (or whatever you want to call it) it'll eliminate the trading issue altogether and all we'll have to deal with is smugglers.

lets give Enn a chance to digest this debate and come back with a 2nd draft. that way we can look at something thats more complete.


**********

meanwhile Midori was back at her apartment and packing for her trip.

having pressed her dark green Imperial Kirisuban Air Force uniform she hangs it up.

she packs a small case with civilian clothing (kimono's and casual clothes) and other things she'll need. knowing that she can hire equipment over at the Mount Tanaka ski resort she settles down for the night her packing complete.

He had never talk directly to Midori, but had few phone calls with her last week about various topic and had been envouted by her charming voice, a voice which remind him the voice of 'Melanie S" in "That Kid Chris featuring Melanie S - Reflections (Victor Calderone & TKC Remix)", one of the track he was listening often these days with his "4G mp3 flash player mobile phone".

Now he was remembering, of course it was Ayu, the voice of Ayumi Hamasaki (the JPop megastar), he had listen so often, in his students' years, at Shibuya's trendy bars and clubs. It was that he felt so special in the voice of Midori.

The website www.flowersonline.lae received an anonymous order without message to deliver 69 red roses in the early morning at a certain adress in Edo, the Kirisuban capital.

Perhaps I have mis read or this has been answered already but does this outlaw moving drugs between nations where recrational drugs are legal in both cases or only in cases where one nation outlaws them? I feel it should be allowable to take drugs across borders if they are legal in both the nation of origin and the nation they are moving to.
Getting back on topic. No, it does not affect transporting drugs between two nations when the drugs are legal in both of them. It only affects transporting them to a nation where they are illegal.

OOC: i've moved this little side story to international incidents and it can be found here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10033542#post10033542

Who says that the NSUN is all work and no play ;)

My government has no problems with the provisions that reinforce the sovereign right of nations to outlaw substances, but anything that requires a loss of civil liberties in Mikitivity because somebody else *might* travel somewhere with less freedoms is unacceptable, even if those random searches were conducted only 1% of the time.

My government agrees. Also note that this point:
2) Declares that the export or attempted export of recreational drugs to a nation in which they are illegal shall be considered a serious offence in the nation of origin, regardless of domestic policy concerning such substances;

effectively means that the Groot Gouda government should punish people for something that isn't a crime in Groot Gouda. If nations decide to outlaw recreational drugs, it's their responsibility to stop people importing it, not my responsibility to stop people from exporting legal substances.

If this section remains unchanged my government will not support this resolution.

effectively means that the Groot Gouda government should punish people for something that isn't a crime in Groot Gouda. If nations decide to outlaw recreational drugs, it's their responsibility to stop people importing it, not my responsibility to stop people from exporting legal substances.

I respectfully suggest that this argument, "we should not be forced to respect the legislation of other countries," is against the main objectives of the UN itself, and potentially leading to avoidable international conflicts.

I sympathise with the idea that enforcing one's own law can be considered a priority, compared to ensuring the respect for other nation's laws, and I do not see this resolution as limiting that right. But, within a nation, we routinely limit individual freedoms when they are directly prejudicial to other individuals. I submit to you that a comparable attitude is required at the international level.

I respectfully suggest that this argument, "we should not be forced to respect the legislation of other countries," is against the main objectives of the UN itself, and potentially leading to avoidable international conflicts.

I respectfully suggest that you are wrong. Well, partly at least. I agree with the fundamental value that the UN should interfere with national legislation to improve international cooperation etc. But that's only usefull in the case of legislation that is the same for all nations. In this case however, it's more like the lowest common denominator. If only one nation wants to criminalize drugs, everybody else has to ignore their own law and arrest people sending drugs to that nation. If this resolution is against nations who have legalized drugs, let it say so loud and clear instead of sneaking it in this way.

I sympathise with the idea that enforcing one's own law can be considered a priority, compared to ensuring the respect for other nation's laws, and I do not see this resolution as limiting that right. But, within a nation, we routinely limit individual freedoms when they are directly prejudicial to other individuals. I submit to you that a comparable attitude is required at the international level.

I suggest to you to check on my history. More than once I have said to others what you are saying to me, and I do not need telling what the UN is to do and what not. However, if the UN makes a decision that affects my nation's laws, at least let it do so the right way. That is either leave it up to the nations (the sovereignity way), or mandate either legal or illegal drugs. But not the way it is written now, trying to leave it up to each nations but disadvantaging some nations compared to others.

In 2 previous post in this thread, LAE asked for a modification of clause [9] including some "compassion".

I would like to put a link to a news about Singarore and Australia very closely related to our debate

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4494704.stm

I would like to put a link to a news about Singarore and Australia very closely related to our debate

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4494704.stm
OOC: i think this is where Enn got the idea from. both Enn and i are from australia. i dont know what Enn's position on the situation is, but mine is that i support the singapore government. both he, and those in indonesia knew the laws over there, and broke them. even if they didnt know the penalties, they knew drug trafficing is against the law in most countries. whilst i am not for CP, and would not support it here, i also respect other nations ability to determin their own laws and sentences. my "tourist information act" proposal was actually inspired by this, as to me ignorance of laws is not a defence, and isnt accepted in courts either.

OOC: Okay, I've been at a workshop over the weekend, and have consequently missed a lot of the discussion. I hope to answer queries, but if I miss something you are concerned about, please post your question again. (I don't want to have a ping-pong post here involving about 50 quotes).

The definition of recreational drugs will be changed in the next draft. Ausserland's definition of drugs works, as well as the 'all drugs are recreational except' idea. Thanks for that, Ausserland.

Article 2: I'm considering changing/deleting it. It's just getting too annoying.

Article 3 seems fine, I didn't see any replies against it. So unless there are new queries, it'll be staying.

Ditto for Article 4.

Same again for Article 5.

Article 6. How many times do I have to say this before people realise? The word used is requests, not requires. Yes, both words start with the same 4 letters, and both end with 's', but surely you can tell the difference?

Article 7: the definition of 'monitor', when used as a verb, is "to check, observe, or record the operation of (a machine, etc.), without interfering with the operation." (Macquarie Dictionary, 4th Edition). Monitoring does not mean invasive searching, because that would interfere with the operation. But hey, if you want to use a stringent definition, go right ahead.

Article 8: will be re-written with correct grammar, but otherwise will stay as is.

Article 9: Will be either dropped altogether or moved to the beginning of the Act, rather than being a separate article.

NB: This wasn't actually begun as a response to anything in particular in the Real World, TLA. The connection only occurred to me after beginning my re-write of Rehochipe's original.

OOC: The definition of recreational drugs will be changed in the next draft. Ausserland's definition of drugs works, as well as the 'all drugs are recreational except' idea. Thanks for that, Ausserland.



OOC:

Er... uh... I don't think I provided any definition. At least, I don't remember it. Or maybe I'm having one of my "senior moments".

;)

::facepalm::

Senior moment of my own (knid of worrying, given I'm only 18). Fonzoland, not Ausserland. Egad.

I suppose Article 6 is acceptable as "requests". Although, I wonder why an nation would participate in an optional program that hampers their own nation's exports and would be an additional beaurocratic cost. Chekhov, at least, (assuming this is passed) will simply elect not to fufill the request.

I, personally, would recommend dropping Article 9. It seems to be a point that people are having much trouble interpreting, and is (in my opinion) a bad thing.

I still have serious problems with Article 7. While your definition is reasonable, it is not specified in the resolution. Perhaps add something in the vein of "as long as it does not interfere with the shipping being monitored". The final part of Article 7 is also questionable.

and further recognising the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival;

The nation of Chekhov feels that this duty is an undue burden on poor or weak nations. Perhaps add "to the best of their ability" at the end. But then, who judges their ability?

Article 6. How many times do I have to say this before people realise? The word used is requests, not requires. Yes, both words start with the same 4 letters, and both end with 's', but surely you can tell the difference?

No, bucaese hamun txet pteratn renotcigtin deosn't wrok taht way.

http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/Cmabrigde/

I suppose Article 6 is acceptable as "requests". Although, I wonder why an nation would participate in an optional program that hampers their own nation's exports and would be an additional beaurocratic cost. Chekhov, at least, (assuming this is passed) will simply elect not to fufill the request.
Well, some nations like bureaucracy. Not entirely sure why, but they do. It's much the same as 'urges', as used in countless resolutions, except this proposal does have basic requirements as well as a request.

I still have serious problems with Article 7. While your definition is reasonable, it is not specified in the resolution. Perhaps add something in the vein of "as long as it does not interfere with the shipping being monitored". The final part of Article 7 is also questionable.
Why ought I to define a word with a clearly established definition? (Unlike recreational drugs, which is still being wrangled over).
I'll have another read-over, see if I can express it clearer.


The nation of Chekhov feels that this duty is an undue burden on poor or weak nations. Perhaps add "to the best of their ability" at the end. But then, who judges their ability?
Makes sense. That would be judged by the nation involved, much like how much information is shared in Article 5.

No, bucaese hamun txet pteratn renotcigtin deosn't wrok taht way.

http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/Cmabrigde/
Yes, but this is a draft form, and I worry about people who misread the very thing that they're quoting.

How would this affect national governments that don't involve themselves in the affairs of hosted companies?

With no governmental duties to check over what the companies are doing and the possibility of private sea/air ports implementing monitoring on any scale may be impossible. Some nations may even have a legislated ban on interference of operations for trade industries.

This seems as though it should be only a responsibility for the nation banning a substance. We believe that a situation as described by the delegate from Kirisubo would be the simplest and most easily workable solution.

This of course would not limit the ability of nations to create agreements between themselves, and would not impose an overly burdensome and complex resolution on all UN Nations.

We'd like to push the argument for the deletion of article 2 further. Kelssek's main concern has been aired by Groot Gouda already - we have to arrest and imprison people for exporting items completely legal in Kelssek, and drugs which are illegal in the vast majority of countries are in fact completely legal in Kelssek.

However, further to this, it infringes on our right to decide on our own drug laws, which article 3 affirms. It's a self-contradiction. We're well aware of the dangers of drug abuse, and we decided to control them in much the same way other nations control alcohol abuse and tobacco addiction. But we're not going to enforce other countries' laws for them, especially when they contradict our own so markedly.

Kaigan Miromuta gets up to speak and after clearing his throat starts.

"honoured ambassador from Kelssek, if article two is removed the rest of the proposal will reflect the way governments handle drug smuggling now. By stopping drugs at their own borders.

This isn't a bad thing and surely its better to have a proposal that states your nations rights. A written contract is always better than a verbal one"

::facepalm::

Senior moment of my own (knid of worrying, given I'm only 18). Fonzoland, not Ausserland. Egad.

I was starting to regret giving my support to the UCPL repeal... ;)

I share the concerns expressed by the delegates from Groot Gouda and Kelssek, though how this would translate in voting terms I'm not yet sure.

Brief commentary from the author of the original draft:

Right. This is intended to give benefits to both sides.

Humourless Puritan Nation X isn't going to be very happy about respecting the rights of Pothead Nation Y if those rights are being used to subvert X's domestic laws. And from where Nation X is standing, Y's failure to control exports, combined with a liberal domestic policy, pretty much amounts to active support for smugglers.
Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

We're looking forward to seeing the revised draft of this proposal and hope to be able to support it. We have the following questions and suggestions....


The definition of recreational drugs will be changed in the next draft. Ausserland's definition of drugs works, as well as the 'all drugs are recreational except' idea. Thanks for that, Ausserland.

We'll withhold comment on this until we see how Fonzoland's definition is incorporated. ;)

Article 2: I'm considering changing/deleting it. It's just getting too annoying.

Our nation has no objection to this clause. Our people don't believe they ever paid rent on the moral high ground and don't feel they have any business judging the laws of other nations unless there is a clear violation of fundamental human rights. And they don't consider getting high to be a fundamental human right. Further, we believe that showing proper respect for other nations and their laws is a positive step in maintaining good international relations. But we would concur with deleting the clause. It seems to be a magnet for objections and might cause the failure of an otherwise worthwhile proposal.

Article 3 seems fine, I didn't see any replies against it. So unless there are new queries, it'll be staying.

Ditto for Article 4.

Same again for Article 5.

Agreed.

Article 6. How many times do I have to say this before people realise? The word used is requests, not requires. Yes, both words start with the same 4 letters, and both end with 's', but surely you can tell the difference?

We can read and we can tell the difference between "requests" and "requires". But we question whether the benefits of this requested measure would justify the costs. This depends to some extent on the final definition of "recreational drugs". But we have serious reservations about even requesting national governments to "closely monitor and publish records " of coffee purchases by the local coffee shop and deliveries of soft drinks containing caffeine to the supermarket. Recommend deletion.

Article 7: the definition of 'monitor', when used as a verb, is "to check, observe, or record the operation of (a machine, etc.), without interfering with the operation." (Macquarie Dictionary, 4th Edition). Monitoring does not mean invasive searching, because that would interfere with the operation. But hey, if you want to use a stringent definition, go right ahead.

If clause 2 is deleted, does the requirement for exporting nations to monitor these activities still remain valid?

Article 8: will be re-written with correct grammar, but otherwise will stay as is.

Suggest replacing "prevent the use" with "deny transit".

Article 9: Will be either dropped altogether or moved to the beginning of the Act, rather than being a separate article.

We agree with moving the clause to the beginning. Also recommend replacing "foreign nationals" with "persons". This might avoid objections by those who fail to understand the concept of jurisdiction of place.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

How would this affect national governments that don't involve themselves in the affairs of hosted companies?

With no governmental duties to check over what the companies are doing and the possibility of private sea/air ports implementing monitoring on any scale may be impossible. Some nations may even have a legislated ban on interference of operations for trade industries.

This seems as though it should be only a responsibility for the nation banning a substance. We believe that a situation as described by the delegate from Kirisubo would be the simplest and most easily workable solution.

This of course would not limit the ability of nations to create agreements between themselves, and would not impose an overly burdensome and complex resolution on all UN Nations.

I'd just like to give my thoughts on the concerns raised by the honourable delegate from Balazaarashan. It is true that prior to this agreement a situation might have existed where hosted companies within a nation were not subject to inspection or oversight. However, in this regard at least, this proposal, if passed, would act to enforce a degree of regulation, welcome or not. As a result the law would mandate regulation, regardless of the preference of the government.

"2) Declares that the export or attempted export of recreational drugs to a nation in which they are illegal shall be considered a serious offence in the nation of origin, regardless of domestic policy concerning such substances;
"

Any bans therefore on regulation would be overuled, unless it could be accomodated by the country on the basis of putting out to tender, any such regulatory requirement (i.e. effective self-regulation).

The drugs agreement here requires co-operation and good faith between nations. If a nation where trade and use of a drug was legal, attempted to export this drug to nation where it was not, what would be the point? It would be illegal and furthermore an act of bad faith on the part of the nation that was exporting the drug.

It is important that a co-operative approach, bringing together national strategies of criminal engagement in order to block abuse of the trade networks or to facilitate international agreements on trafficking of illegal substances. Where possible, such agreements should be implemented, as they would bolster understanding and improve relations between these nations, whilst permitting the exporter nation to continue exports without threatening the national sovereignty with regards to crime, of the other nation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The next draft:

The General Assembly,

Recognising the right of individual nations to legalise, illegalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit, within the bounds of any passed or future UN resolutions concerning such substances,

Aware that in some cases, nations with widely differing policies on recreational drugs share land and/or maritime borders,

Conscious of the high priority many nations place on maintaining strong border control,

Asserting that nations on both sides of any international border are equally responsible for the prevention of the illegal trafficking of any goods, in either direction, across said border,

Recognising the right of nations to punish, according to their own legal system, persons convicted of the production, transport, purchase or supply of illegal substances within their borders,

Worried that lack of accord over such issues may lead to conflict and division between UN member states, persecution of innocent states or individuals ostensibly to prevent traffic of recreational drugs, and/or aggressive support of illegal traffickers in order to strain, subvert and destabilise national law enforcement agencies,

1) Defines drugs as chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and potential addiction, and defining all drugs as being recreational, unless they belong to some list of legitimate medical substances as determined by individual nations, and they are used under expert medical supervision;

2) Demands that all nations, in taking actions in their attempts to suppress illegal drug trafficking, recognise the sovereignty of other nations; neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their recreational drugs policy, nor violating international borders in military or policing actions, covert or otherwise, without consent; nor using domestic recreational drugs policy as justification for any breach of human rights or international law;

3) Requires that no nation take action against recreational drug production within their own borders by biological, chemical or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, or may be judged likely to create health risks;

4) Requests that the law enforcement, customs and border officials of any nations sharing borders share such information as is judged relevant in order to better prevent illegal traffic;

5) Urges that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish records dealing with the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances other than for personal consumption; and as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal;

6) Recognises the right of vessels, engaged in the transport of recreational drugs legal in both exporting and importing countries, to use international territory without threat of impediment or harassment from other nations; recognising also the right of other nations to monitor such vessels in order to prevent illicit activity; and further recognising the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival;

7) Recognises the right of nations to deny transit of sovereign territory by vessels transporting recreational drugs illegal within that nation.

Co-authored by Rehochipe

---
Definition has been re-written, based upon Fonzoland's suggestion. I'd like it to be less wordy if possible, so if someone could make it clearer without changing the meaning, that would be appreciated.

The entire second article of previous drafts has been dropped. While it was an important part, I can see that it is too much of a stumbling block. I may make another proposal in the future based around that article, or maybe not.

The new Article 5 (old article 6) has been changed to 'urges' - it is much clearer, less likely to be confused.

Article 7 (old article 8) has been re-written with better grammar.

Article 9 has been moved to among the opening clauses - it is more about what is already standard practice, less about the effects of this proposal.

[edit]I've put a thread up in Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457688) asking what category this would best fit under, awaiting official response.

Much better. Not only do I feel that it is fairer, etc, it is also a lot clearer. I didn't have a problem with the wordiness of the definition. Is it under the character limit?

It was under the character limit in its previous, longer version, so I dare say it most likely still is.

Regarding the new definition of 'recreational drugs' _
The government of St Edmund notes with regret that this still fails to consider the fact that some drugs may have sacramental uses as well as medicinal &/or recreational ones...

And what about those medicines that are routinely available "over the counter" rather than just on prescription?

Until the definition of drugs accommodates sacramental use, we couldn't support a definition that designates our holy substances as 'recreational'.

And what about those medicines that are routinely available "over the counter" rather than just on prescription?

Most medicines are not drugs, according to this definition. I cannot think of any mood-altering, potentially addictive medicine that is sold "over the counter."

However, I do think the expression "some list of legitimate medical substances as determined by individual nations" should be made sharper, like this it is too open to loopholes.

Thank you, this version will very likely have my government's support. Naturally I'll be bringing a copy of this to Ambassador Katzman for review this week.

-C. Thonberger

Until the definition of drugs accommodates sacramental use, we couldn't support a definition that designates our holy substances as 'recreational'.
The government of St Edmund notes with regret that this still fails to consider the fact that some drugs may have sacramental uses as well as medicinal &/or recreational ones...

Maybe I am being daft, but I fail to see your point. The production and use of sacramental drugs are in no way restricted, except when exporting to countries which do not consider them sacramental drugs.

I also don't understand how a crisp definition of drug types could accomodate all possible religious/ritual/cultural uses of such drugs in NS. If you object just to the word "recreational," then maybe Enn would not mind changing the term to "non-medical," or something of that style.

Maybe I am being daft, but I fail to see your point. The production and use of sacramental drugs are in no way restricted, except when exporting to countries which do not consider them sacramental drugs.

I also don't understand how a crisp definition of drug types could accomodate all possible religious/ritual/cultural uses of such drugs in NS. If you object just to the word "recreational," then maybe Enn would not mind changing the term to "non-medical," or something of that style.

The exception is what matters. Reviewing the draft, however, I'm not sure that exporting a drug to a country where it is illegal is now actionable, so it's really not a problem. "Non-medical" might be preferable, though.

[emphasis added throughout]
2) Demands that all nations, in taking actions in their attempts to suppress illegal drug trafficking, recognise the sovereignty of other nations;

Seems that "in taking actions" is redundant.

3) Requires that no nation take action against recreational drug production within their own borders by biological, chemical or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, or may be judged likely to create health risks;

Nations A and B dont like drugs. Nation A destroys crops in B, and vice-versa, with mutual consent, thereby avoiding this clause altogether. I would remove the "within their own borders."

4) Requests that the law enforcement, customs and border officials of any nations sharing borders share such information as is judged relevant in order to better prevent illegal traffic;

I would add cooperation to information sharing here. The "as judged relevant" part still makes it fairly optional.

7) Recognises the right of nations to deny transit of sovereign territory by vessels transporting recreational drugs illegal within that nation.


I would remove the "illegal within that nation." Fonzoland has a liberal drug policy with respect to consumption, but it is illegal to import such drugs without explicit government permission. We would like to retain the right to produce those drugs internally only, due to quality control and strict regulation of production. In our opinion, any free trade arguments are subdued by public health considerations in this matter.

Dinky McGonall-Official Spokesperson, Hurleyland: As a nation who counts marijauna as its biggest cash crop, I see the concerns that have risen through the ranks of the U.N. We as a nation, would like to put it out there that we trade with other countries of the same mindframe. Simply put, if you don't want the crop, do not bother us for we will not bother you.

[emphasis added throughout]


Seems that "in taking actions" is redundant.
I don't see that as such. The article is about what nations are allowed to do while taking action.


Nations A and B dont like drugs. Nation A destroys crops in B, and vice-versa, with mutual consent, thereby avoiding this clause altogether. I would remove the "within their own borders."
The same article ends with "which may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal" - if the drugs are illegal in both nations, then there is no problem. It is only if the action is likely to affect another country in which the drug is legal that this comes into effect. And if the action is carried out with consent, then it is respectful of national sovereignty, as per article 2.


I would add cooperation to information sharing here. The "as judged relevant" part still makes it fairly optional.
Mistake on my part when I put it up here. It is meanmt to state "as judged relevant by both nations".



I would remove the "illegal within that nation." Fonzoland has a liberal drug policy with respect to consumption, but it is illegal to import such drugs without explicit government permission. We would like to retain the right to produce those drugs internally only, due to quality control and strict regulation of production. In our opinion, any free trade arguments are subdued by public health considerations in this matter.
I'd prefer to stay out of that debate.

---

The definition of drugs will be tinkered with, but this is looking more likely to happen. Still waiting on the okay from the mods though.

I don't see that as such. The article is about what nations are allowed to do while taking action.

I meant that "in taking actions in their attempts" would be sufficiently clear, and have the same meaning, by just writing "in taking actions" or "in their attempts." But it's up to you.

The same article ends with "which may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal" - if the drugs are illegal in both nations, then there is no problem. It is only if the action is likely to affect another country in which the drug is legal that this comes into effect. And if the action is carried out with consent, then it is respectful of national sovereignty, as per article 2.

OK, I am not explaining myself very well. Rewrite:
Nations A and B dont like drugs, but drugs are legal in country C.
If nation A/B destroys crops in their own country, while adversely affecting country C, this is banned by your clause.
If nation A just destroys crops in B with consent, this is respectful of sovereignity. However, since your clause only bans activities "within their own borders," nation A would still be allowed to destroy crops in B, even if this adversely affects C.
I am just stating a way two drug adverse nations could avoid your clause alltogether, not disagreeing with it. Removing the "within their own borders" would solve it, as it would ban country A from having any activities, within their borders or otherwise, which adversely affect country C.
Hope that's clearer.


Mistake on my part when I put it up here. It is meanmt to state "as judged relevant by both nations".

Agreed, but it was not my point. My favoured version would be of the style:

"Requests that law enforcement, customs and border officials of any nations sharing borders cooperate and share information, as judged relevant by both nations, in order to better prevent illegal traffic"


I'd prefer to stay out of that debate.

Fair enough. Just didn't seem that problematic to give nations the general right to deny transit of drug carrying vessels, irrespectively of their own drug policy.

The definition of drugs will be tinkered with, but this is looking more likely to happen. Still waiting on the okay from the mods though.

Yes, as I mentioned before, I still dislike the ambiguity in the drug listing.

Hopefully reaching a final draft, here.

---

The General Assembly,

Recognising the right of individual nations to legalise, illegalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit, within the bounds of any passed or future UN resolutions concerning such substances,

Aware that in some cases, nations with widely differing policies on recreational drugs share land and/or maritime borders,

Conscious of the high priority many nations place on maintaining strong border control,

Asserting that nations on both sides of any international border are equally responsible for the prevention of the illegal trafficking of any goods, in either direction, across said border,

Recognising the right of nations to punish, according to their own legal system, persons convicted of the production, transport, purchase or supply of illegal substances within their borders,

Worried that lack of accord over such issues may lead to conflict and division between UN member states, persecution of innocent states or individuals ostensibly to prevent traffic of recreational drugs, and/or aggressive support of illegal traffickers in order to strain, subvert and destabilise national law enforcement agencies,

1) Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, drugs as chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and potential addiction, and defining all drugs as being recreational, unless they belong to some list of legitimate medical substances as determined by individual nations, and they are used under expert medical supervision;

2) Demands that all nations, in their attempts to suppress illegal drug trafficking, recognise the sovereignty of other nations; neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their recreational drugs policy, nor violating international borders in military or policing actions, covert or otherwise, without consent; nor using domestic recreational drugs policy as justification for any breach of human rights or international law;

3) Requires that no nation take action against recreational drug production by biological, chemical or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, or may be judged likely to create health risks;

4) Requests that the law enforcement, customs and border officials of any nations sharing borders cooperate and share information, as judged relevant by both nations, in order to better prevent illegal traffic;

5) Urges that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish records dealing with the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances other than for personal consumption; and as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal;

6) Recognises the right of vessels, engaged in the transport of recreational drugs legal in both exporting and importing countries, to use international territory without threat of impediment or harassment from other nations; recognising also the right of other nations to monitor such vessels in order to prevent illicit activity; and further recognising the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival;

7) Recognises the right of nations to deny transit of sovereign territory by vessels transporting recreational drugs.

Co-authored by Rehochipe

---
The definition is still the main sticking point. I've added a 'for the purposes of this resolution' to it, but it still doesn't feel quite right.
I bumped the category query thread in Moderation, hopefully will get a response soon.

Looks good, full support from Yelda whatever category it ends up in. I'm thinking "International Security".

LAE has no more concern with this new version and will support it

On the definition, maybe you can change
"unless they belong to some list of legitimate medical substances as determined by individual nations"
to
"unless they are widely recognised by individual nations as legitimate medical substances"?

It is still vague, and not totally satisfying, but the only alternative I can think of is Yet Another UN Comitee... I added "widely" to prevent a nation who enjoys exporting drug A from just adding it to the list to circumvent the whole resolution.

On the definition, maybe you can change
"unless they belong to some list of legitimate medical substances as determined by individual nations"
to
"unless they are widely recognised by individual nations as legitimate medical substances"?

It is still vague, and not totally satisfying, but the only alternative I can think of is Yet Another UN Comitee... I added "widely" to prevent a nation who enjoys exporting drug A from just adding it to the list to circumvent the whole resolution.
That's better. I've also using an idea of _Myopia_'s on the UNOG forum for a better definition.

Hack has suggested (here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457688)) that the best category would be International Security: Mild, but he's going to think about it. The next draft will appear soon.

Very soon, in fact.

Drugs Trafficking Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Enn

The General Assembly,

Recognising the right of individual nations to legalise, illegalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit, within the bounds of any passed or future UN resolutions concerning such substances,

Aware that in some cases, nations with widely differing policies on recreational drugs share land and/or maritime borders,

Conscious of the high priority many nations place on maintaining strong border control,

Asserting that nations on both sides of any international border are equally responsible for the prevention of the illegal trafficking of any goods, in either direction, across said border,

Recognising the right of nations to punish, according to their own legal system, persons convicted of the production, transport, purchase or supply of illegal substances within their borders,

Worried that lack of accord over such issues may lead to conflict and division between UN member states, persecution of innocent states or individuals ostensibly to prevent traffic of recreational drugs, and/or aggressive support of illegal traffickers in order to strain, subvert and destabilise national law enforcement agencies,

1) Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, drugs as chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and/or potential addiction, and defining all drugs as being recreational, unless they are widely recognised by individual nations as legitimate medical substances, and they are used in a manner deemed appropriate by medical experts;

2) Demands that all nations, in their attempts to suppress illegal drug trafficking, recognise the sovereignty of other nations; neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their recreational drugs policy, nor violating international borders in military or policing actions, covert or otherwise, without consent; nor using domestic recreational drugs policy as justification for any breach of human rights or international law;

3) Requires that no nation take action against recreational drug production by biological, chemical or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, or may be judged likely to create health risks;

4) Requests that the law enforcement, customs and border officials of any nations sharing borders cooperate and share information, as judged relevant by both nations, in order to better prevent illegal traffic;

5) Urges that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish records dealing with the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances other than for personal consumption; and as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal;

6) Recognises the right of vessels, engaged in the transport of recreational drugs legal in both exporting and importing countries, to use international territory without threat of impediment or harassment from other nations; recognising also the right of other nations to monitor such vessels in order to prevent illicit activity; and further recognising the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival;

7) Recognises the right of nations to deny transit of sovereign territory by vessels transporting recreational drugs.

Co-authored by Rehochipe

Bump.

Does anyone have anything to add to this latest draft? I'm going to try submitting soon, provided I get another endorsement from my fellow region members.

Bazalonian Ambassador,

After reviewing the most recent draft of this proposal, Bazalonia would like to express it's firm support for this proposal. We believe that it is necessary to help prevent the illegal trafficking of non-medicinal drugs used for recreational purposes, while not imposing domestic drug policy on the UN's member nations. However as it currently seems that Enn currently does not meet the requirements for submitting said proposal to the UN, Bazalonia would like to submit an offer to sponser this proposal and submit it to the UN on the behalf of Enn.

No need, Bazalonia, it's just a matter of poking my fellow region members in the right places. Shouldn't take long.

I would assume since both countries sharing a border are equally responsible that they would tell each other whats a banned recreational drug.

This would also lead to increased co-operation between customs and police forces.

however if you don't share a border with a nation and one of your citizens is caught trafficking drugs there are you still considered responsible for checking at your end?

I can't see anything wrong with it. Good luck!

however if you don't share a border with a nation and one of your citizens is caught trafficking drugs there are you still considered responsible for checking at your end?
Hang on. Is this the situation you are describing?

In Nation A, cannabis is illegal. A person, from Nation C, decides to traffic cannabis from Nation B to Nation A, not going anywhere near his own nation. Is Nation C responsible?

In that case, which is what I think you meant, I can't see Nation C as having any direct responsibility over the person's actions.

RECOGNISING the right of individual nations to legalise, illegalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit, within the bounds of any passed or future UN resolutions concerning such substances,

AWARE that in some cases, nations with widely differing policies on recreational drugs share land and/or maritime borders,

CONSCIOUS of the high priority many nations place on maintaining strong border control,

ASSERTING that nations on both sides of any international border are equally responsible for the prevention of the illegal trafficking of any goods, in either direction, across said border,

RECOGNISING the right of nations to punish, according to their own laws, persons convicted of the production, transport, purchase or supply of illegal substances within their borders,

WORRIED that lack of accord over such issues may lead to conflict and division between UN member states, persecution of innocent states or individuals ostensibly to prevent traffic of recreational drugs, and/or aggressive support of illegal traffickers in order to strain, subvert and destabilise national law enforcement agencies,

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, drugs as chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and/or potential addiction, and defining all drugs as being recreational, unless they are widely recognised by individual nations as legitimate medical substances, and they are used in a manner deemed appropriate by medical experts;

DEMANDS that all nations, in taking action to suppress illegal drug trafficking, recognise the sovereignty of other nations; neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their recreational drugs policy, nor violating international borders in military or policing actions, covert or otherwise, without consent; nor using domestic recreational drugs policy as justification for any breach of human rights or international law;

REQUIRES that no nation take action against recreational drug production by biological, chemical or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, or may be judged likely to create health risks;

REQUESTS that the law enforcement, customs and border officials of any nations sharing borders cooperate and share information, as judged relevant by both nations, in order to better prevent illegal traffic;

URGES that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish records dealing with the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances other than for personal consumption; and as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal;

RECOGNISES the right of vessels, engaged in the transport of recreational drugs legal in both exporting and importing countries, to use international territory without threat of impediment or harassment from other nations; recognising also the right of other nations to monitor such vessels in order to prevent illicit activity; and further recognising the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival;

RECOGNISES the right of nations to deny transit of sovereign territory by vessels transporting recreational drugs.

Co-authored by Rehochipe

---
Re-written so that it gets under the character limit - the previous version was 55 characters too long. Doesn't look as pretty, but it fits now.

have you an idea of a category or strength yet?

International Security: Mild seems to fit best. That's what Hack suggested.

Not that I'd ever vote against a resolution based on very minor formatting, but I noticed that this draft dropped the numbers for the activating clauses. I've always believed that they help streamline debate.

I see that the resolution is long, but would you mind if we tried to remove enough characters to get those numbers and spaces back on your activating clauses?


edit:
For example ... the first clause could read

RECOGNISING the right of nations to legalise, illegalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit, within the bounds of any past or future UN resolutions concerning such substances,

Your version had "passed' which means adopted, while I think the phrase should be "past or future", as it is implied that failed resolutions aren't legally binding.

I also dumped "individual".

Not that I'd ever vote against a resolution based on very minor formatting, but I noticed that this draft dropped the numbers for the activating clauses. I've always believed that they help streamline debate.

I see that the resolution is long, but would you mind if we tried to remove enough characters to get those numbers and spaces back on your activating clauses?
Sounds fine. I didn't want to get rid of the numbers either, but it was the only way I could cut the characters quickly for the first non-campaigning submission.
Any suggestions which reduce the character count would most definitely be appreciated.

Approved. Good luck Enn.

Cool, here is a slight rewrite (with numbers again):

RECOGNISING the right of nations to legalise, illegalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit, within the bounds of any past or future UN resolutions concerning such substances,

AWARE that in some cases, nations with widely differing policies on recreational drugs share borders,

CONSCIOUS of the high priority many nations place on maintaining strong border control,

ASSERTING that nations on both sides of any international border are equally responsible for the prevention of the illegal trafficking of any goods, in either direction, across said border,

RECOGNISING the right of nations to punish, according to their own laws, persons convicted of the production, transport, purchase or supply of illegal substances within their borders,

WORRIED that lack of accord over such issues may lead to conflict and division between UN member states, persecution of innocent states or individuals ostensibly to prevent traffic of recreational drugs, and/or support of illegal traffickers in order to strain, subvert and destabilise national law enforcement agencies,

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, drugs as chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and/or potential addiction; and defines all drugs as being recreational, unless they are widely recognised by individual nations as legitimate medical substances and used in a manner deemed appropriate by medical experts;

2. DEMANDS that all nations, in taking action to suppress illegal drug trafficking, recognise the sovereignty of other nations; neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their recreational drugs policy, nor violating international borders in military or policing actions, covert or otherwise, without consent; nor using domestic recreational drugs policy as justification for any breach of human rights or international law;

3. REQUIRES that no nation take action against recreational drug production by biological, chemical or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, or may be judged likely to create health risks;

4. REQUESTS that the law enforcement, customs and border officials of nations sharing borders cooperate and share information, as judged relevant by both nations, in order to better prevent illegal traffic;

5. URGES that nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish records dealing with the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances other than for personal consumption; and as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal;

6. RECOGNISES the right of vessels, engaged in the transport of recreational drugs legal in both exporting and importing countries, to use international territory without threat of impediment or harassment from other nations; while reaffirming the right of nations to monitor vessels in order to prevent illicit activity; and further recognises the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival;

7. RECOGNISES the right of nations to deny entry to vessels transporting recreational drugs.

Co-author: Rehochipe


Now there is one part of the resolution I don't understand:

5. URGES that nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish records dealing with the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances other than for personal consumption; and as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal;

Now that is my rewrite, which does include some edits ... however, I understand exactly why everything else was structured the way it was (BTW, it is nicely written), but the section in blue was a bit confusing to me -- and it was before my edits too -- I'll apologize in advance for not reading the entire draft thread, but I'm missing a connection here.

I still have this desire to break clause 6 up into sub-clauses.

My MS Word counts:
characters: 2875
characters w/ spaces: 3391

It might be possible to trim it further if necessary, but the length here is shows an attempt to deal with a complex subject with some detail and I personally appreciate the length in this resolution.

Thanks for the tidy-up, Mik. Makes it easier to read once the numbers are back in place. Now,
and as far as the domestic point of retail or legitimate export to another nation in which such substances are legal;
This basically means that the reports should cover up until the drugs are purchased for personal consumption, or until the drugs are sent to a nation in which they are legal.

[edit]Although, now I think about it, I'm not sure that this bit is needed at all.

[edit2] With Mik's editting, plus a few other changes, it's down to 3,243 characters with spaces. The previous version, before these edits, was at 3,448 characters, and didn't have the numbers that make for easy reading.

The General Assembly,

Recognising the right of nations to legalise, illegalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit, within the bounds of any past or future UN resolutions concerning such substances,

Aware that nations with widely differing policies on recreational drugs may share borders,

Conscious of the high priority many nations place on maintaining strong border control,

Asserting that nations on both sides of any international border are equally responsible for the prevention of the illegal trafficking of any goods, in either direction, across said border,

Recognising the right of nations to punish, according to their own laws, persons convicted of the production, transport, purchase or supply of illegal substances within their borders,

Worried that lack of accord over such issues may lead to conflict and division between UN member states, persecution of innocent states or individuals ostensibly to prevent traffic of recreational drugs, and/or aggressive support of illegal traffickers in order to strain, subvert and destabilise national law enforcement agencies,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, drugs as chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and/or potential addiction, and defining all drugs as being recreational, unless they are widely recognised by individual nations as legitimate medical substances and used in a manner deemed appropriate by medical experts;

2. Demands that all nations, in taking action to suppress illegal drug trafficking, recognise the sovereignty of other nations; neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their recreational drugs policy, nor violating international borders in military or policing actions, covert or otherwise, without consent; nor using domestic recreational drugs policy as justification for any breach of human rights or international law;

3. Requires that no nation take action against recreational drug production by biological, chemical or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, or likely to create health risks;

4. Requests that the law enforcement, customs and border officials of any nations sharing borders cooperate and share information, as judged relevant by both nations, in order to better prevent illegal traffic;

5. Urges that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish records dealing with the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances other than for personal consumption;

6. Recognises the right of vessels, engaged in the transport of recreational drugs legal in both exporting and importing countries, to use international territory without threat of impediment or harassment from other nations;

7. Reaffirms the right of nations to monitor vessels using international territory in order to prevent illicit activity;

8. Recognises the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival;

9. Recognises the right of nations to deny entry to vessels transporting recreational drugs.

Co-author: Rehochipe

---
Article 6 has been split into three separate articles (another good suggestion, Mik), plus I've put "The General Assembly" back in at the top - makes it look classier. Current character count: 3,280 with spaces.
[edit]Matter of fact, I'm thinking I might just have a final draft of this here. It has what I wanted it to say, plus it fits under the character limit. Any further changes will be only cosmetic.

When I submit this for real (not counting the current submission, which is just to find out what basic level of support I can count on) I will start a new thread, with a link to this one.

Thanks for clearing up that other clause ... I see what you were doing now.

Have you run this revised copy by Rehochipe? When I looked a few days ago, Eco had passed along one of the copies at the ACA forums.

I'm hoping this one reaches quorum, and I certainly will be speaking IC and OCC for this on the IDU boards when the time comes! :)

Just TGed a copy to Rehochipe. Eco's been acting as a go-between on the ACA forums, since I'm not a member there.

Just TGed a copy to Rehochipe. Eco's been acting as a go-between on the ACA forums, since I'm not a member there.
OOC: Go on, register. It's only your soul, after all...

Supported.

Maybe I am being daft, but I fail to see your point. The production and use of sacramental drugs are in no way restricted, except when exporting to countries which do not consider them sacramental drugs.

I also don't understand how a crisp definition of drug types could accomodate all possible religious/ritual/cultural uses of such drugs in NS. If you object just to the word "recreational," then maybe Enn would not mind changing the term to "non-medical," or something of that style.

1/. Defining all sacramental drugs alongside all other non-medicinal ones as "recreational" seems to imply that the practice of religion is merely a hobby, which is a view that many people who take their religion seriously may consider deeply insulting: Isn't there already a Resolution about religious tolerance?

2/. This resolution would apparently allow governments to ban certain religions' use of specific drugs for sacramental purposes (despite the aforementioned existing Resolution) which could be seen as an act of attempted suppression against those religions.

3/. Some governments that are quite willing to cooperate with their neighbours in restricting the international flow of purely 'recreational' drugs might find such an insistence on helping to restrict the flow of sacramental substances almost as repugnant as a hypothetical insistence on their helping to restrict the international flow of religious literature.

The old version has currently got 28 endorsements, about what I was expecting with no TG campaign. Another day or so to go.

On the topic of 'sacramental' drugs: I'm trying to stay out of that deabte. However, just because a drug may be sacred in one church, does not mean it is considered as such by the wider community (case in point: pewote).

There is a rider saying that the definition of drugs used is only in reference to the proposal, and not for general use.

...and now it's expired, before I got around to recording who was in favour for that version. Ah well.

If there are any more queries, please present them ASAP. I'm going to start a full submission campaign on Monday, with a new thread.