NationStates Jolt Archive

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-authored by Rehochipe

---
Proposal located: here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=trafficking).
The extensive drafting thread is located: here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=456848).

Yes, it's time for a full submission campaign. I'd like to get this up to quorum ASAP, before I go on holiday in January.

[edit]for some reason, a previous version showed up here. Has been fixed. The current version is that submitted.

good luck

So...basically...you want those who have legalized drugs to keep them out of those who have made them illegal? Yet, those countries that consider drugs to be illegal aren't allowed to enforce their laws by removing said drugs? It's almost as if this bill is making it a punishment to make drugs illegal...

So...basically...you want those who have legalized drugs to keep them out of those who have made them illegal? Yet, those countries that consider drugs to be illegal aren't allowed to enforce their laws by removing said drugs? It's almost as if this bill is making it a punishment to make drugs illegal...
I'm not quite sure where you get that impression. Particularly when it says, "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,".

This is the only drug proposal i've ever thought i could support which says a lot!

Drug trafficking is about smuggling a drug into a nation where its illegal. All this proposal does is state how nations already handle this issue.

A nation can still carry out its laws and punishments on people caught and convicted of smuggling illegal drugs and it also covers moving drugs between countries where they are both legal substances (cannabis for example).

If your nation has legalised recreation drugs then you have nothing to worry about unless you want to stop imports that could hurt the market value of the drugs.

If you've banned them then you will find that you'll get help in stopping traffickers.

Kaigan Miromuta, Ambassador

I support it, good luck.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

So...basically...you want those who have legalized drugs to keep them out of those who have made them illegal? Yet, those countries that consider drugs to be illegal aren't allowed to enforce their laws by removing said drugs? It's almost as if this bill is making it a punishment to make drugs illegal...

Uh?

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;

Clause 2 says that we can't pre-emptively eliminate, or try to persuade another nation to make the drug illegal, a known drug smuggling operation in another country while Clause 3 says that we can't put pesticides down that might effect a strain of said drug that is legal in another country, therefore limiting our ability to stem the tide of already illegal drugs into our country.

Clause 2 says that we can't pre-emptively eliminate, or try to persuade another nation to make the drug illegal, a known drug smuggling operation in another country while Clause 3 says that we can't put pesticides down that might effect a strain of said drug that is legal in another country, therefore limiting our ability to stem the tide of already illegal drugs into our country.

Clause 2 says that you can't put pressure onto a government because they disagree with your drug policies to change theirs - but you can encourage them to keep an eye on known smugglers to make sure they don't approach your own border.

Clause 3 says you cannot use pesticides etc on other nation's crops. In fact, most would consider contradicting that to be an act of agression.

Basically, it's saying stop telling others what to believe in drugs, because they get to make their own decisions. Stop trying to damage their drug facilities because they allow them to be grown. In the fewest words possible - don't involve yourself with another nation's drug policy, but you can do whatever the heck you want with the drugs in your nation. The only thing you can do in another nation is say "we have reason to believe this group is smuggling stuff across our border, could you please look into it". You have no right to say "Look, you stupid pothead, heroin is BAD for you so get off your lazy ass and ban its use throughout your nation"

and clause 4 states that a drug producing nation has to provide information to bordering nations that deem drugs illegal in order to help prevent trafficing across boarders.

Honestly, at first I simply pass this proposal by, thinking it was yet another "DRUGS ARE BAD AND SHOULD BE BANNED" piece of crap, but this is an excellent proposal. If you need help with a TG campaign, please let me know.

Honestly, at first I simply pass this proposal by, thinking it was yet another "DRUGS ARE BAD AND SHOULD BE BANNED" piece of crap,
What, you think that little of me? :)

but this is an excellent proposal. If you need help with a TG campaign, please let me know.
Ah. All is forgiven. I've already done one TG campaign, if needed will do another tomorrow or Wednesday.

No, it's just that I don't usually look to see who's proposing the latest "Legalize Mah Funkay Weed Act." Sadly, that's the idea behind 99.9% of the drug-related proposals, so I tend to give them only a cursory glance at best.

No, it's just that I don't usually look to see who's proposing the latest "Legalize Mah Funkay Weed Act." Sadly, that's the idea behind 99.9% of the drug-related proposals, so I tend to give them only a cursory glance at best.

Hell no. There are also proposals saying "drinking beer shall be punished by stoning." [/threadjack]

As representative of The Republic of Compadria, I shall now give a full statement to this chamber as to the exact details of our policy position.

I shall begin by iterating the strong support of The Republic of Compadria for this proposal, as put forwards by the honourable delegate from Enn and co-authored by the learned representative from Rehochipe. The support of our nation is based upon three great matters of consideration which enter into our legislative calculations, regarding proposals relating to the trade of commodities and their legality.

The first of these is that Compadria recognises the right of individuals, whilst in environments where the effects of their usage will not harm the health or well-being of others, or where there exists consent from all other persons, to use drugs or other such substances. This stems from the recognition of the inherent right of the individual to have full control over his behaviour, when it concerns only himself and also to consider the right to be free of undue interference whilst practicing such activities (e.g. consumption of drugs). In some cases, exceptions should, in our view, be made to this philosophy where the effects of a substance are so damaging that they may be excessively harmful to the health and welfare of the individual. These though, should be rare and remain so at all times.

Equally, we recognise the palliative and medical potential for drugs and the differing effects of differing substances upon various individuals. Furthermore, the dangers of consumption of drugs are frequently exaggerated or constructed so that all effects appear non-condusive to a good level of physical well-being. Of course there remain dangers in the consumption of drugs and we must focus our efforts on combatting them, yet not to the point of violating the civil liberties outlined in the previous paragraph.

And now I shall deliver the critique of the actual resolution at hand. The spectre has been raised by many nations, of U.N. interference in domestic policy regarding drug trafficking and legality of usage, etc. It has been postulated by some that this would end the right of nations to prohibit drugs within their borders or for that matter the transport and trade of drugs, within and from the nation.

Yet this is eminently false, as the first preamble states:

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,

As is reinforced by the fifth preamble:

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

And further strengthened by clauses eight and nine.

At the same time, this protects drug exporting nations and producers within those nations from the efforts of other nations, not sharing the same views, to inhibit or destroy this industry, in line with their laws.

There remain two issues at hand, which the Republic feels ought to be considered at the very least. How shall the transport and trade of drugs be monitored and regulated with regards to quality, i.e. should such trade be subject to compliance with U.N. produce laws, i.e. the Labelling Act. Secondly, with regards to clause four:

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

What actions would be considered should diplomatic complications mean that co-operation of the sort envisaged would be impossible, i.e. mutual hostility.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

What actions would be considered should diplomatic complications mean that co-operation of the sort envisaged would be impossible, i.e. mutual hostility.

I believe this is not a problem, since the resolution only "requests" that nations cooperate, and even this is qualified by "as judged relevant by both nations." So nations are free to cut relationships without contradicting the current proposal.

In addition, note that the final clause "Recognises the right of nations to deny entry to vessels transporting recreational drugs." As this is independent of local laws on the matter, you are free to reject shipments from your enemies, if you wish, even of drugs legal within your nation.

The government of St Edmund applauds the general principles involved in this proposed resolution, and agrees with most of its terms: However we note with unhappiness that, despite our suggestions (and those of Gruenberg) during the drafting process, it still effectively defines drugs intended for sacramental roles as "recreational", which is not only insulting to those people [of whatever species] who take the religions whose sacraments are involved seriously but effectively 'legitimises' attempts at suppressing those religions by banning their sacramental substances.

(St Edmund is basically a Christian nation: If a Muslim-ruled nation with which we had trading relations were to ban the import of all alcohol entirely, even if & when that alcohol would definitely be intended purely for sacramental purposes by Christian groups within that nation, we would definitely object to the UN telling us that our customs agents had to help that nation block the export from our own country into that country of communion wine...)

If it means extreme tightening of recreational drug laws then I'm all for it. If it's not extreme enough, then I'll just say I support you.

Fourhearts commends the author of this resolution in his efforts and wishes him the best of luck.

- Titus Chain
UN Ambassodor

If it means extreme tightening of recreational drug laws then I'm all for it. If it's not extreme enough, then I'll just say I support you.

This proposal adresses the issue of trade of drugs and its status between nations, not the actual drug laws themselves. Does this answer your question?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The government of St Edmund applauds the general principles involved in this proposed resolution, and agrees with most of its terms: However we note with unhappiness that, despite our suggestions (and those of Gruenberg) during the drafting process, it still effectively defines drugs intended for sacramental roles as "recreational", which is not only insulting to those people [of whatever species] who take the religions whose sacraments are involved seriously but effectively 'legitimises' attempts at suppressing those religions by banning their sacramental substances.
You never responded to my reply to that in the drafting thread, so I considered it a past issue. Obviously I was mistaken. Here it is again, with more elaboration.
1. This is only a drugs trafficking act. It says absolutely nothing about what drugs are legal and illegal within a nation, and goes so far as to say that the definition only holds for this document. It cannot, and should not, be used as a be-all-and-end-all of the definition of recreational drugs, in every case.
2. Just because a drug is considered sacramental by a religion means, in the opinion of the Triumvirate of Enn, very little.
OOC: In RL, pewote is a very dangerous, addictive and hallucinogenic drug. It is also considered as being the sacramental drug of Pewote Way, a religion in some parts of America. I personally do not think this is anywhere near reason for it being legalised for international traffic.

(St Edmund is basically a Christian nation: If a Muslim-ruled nation with which we had trading relations were to ban the import of all alcohol entirely, even if & when that alcohol would definitely be intended purely for sacramental purposes by Christian groups within that nation, we would definitely object to the UN telling us that our customs agents had to help that nation block the export from our own country into that country of communion wine...)
They don't have to. They are requested to by the UN, but only requested. You, as leader of St Edmund, could just as easily make a different request (or even an order), counter to the UN's request.

---

Compadria, Fonzoland's interpretation is correct for your second query.

In regards to your first query, first of all I don't want to get a House of Cards violation. Also, it's nudging the character limit. However, if this goes for another submission, then I'll try and add something that should take care of this problem.

If it means extreme tightening of recreational drug laws then I'm all for it. If it's not extreme enough, then I'll just say I support you.
National drug laws remain that - national. This is a clarification of international law when it comes to the trafficking of recreational drugs.

You never responded to my reply to that in the drafting thread, so I considered it a past issue.

Unfortunately I can't get online as often as I'd like to do so, and the filter in the computer-system at work tends to block access to threads that mention drugs...

1. This is only a drugs trafficking act. It says absolutely nothing about what drugs are legal and illegal within a nation, and goes so far as to say that the definition only holds for this document. It cannot, and should not, be used as a be-all-and-end-all of the definition of recreational drugs, in every case.

The government of St Edmund does realise that it wouldn't affect the actual use of those substances within our own borders, but we still have people demonstrating about this insult to religion in the street outside the Compliance Ministry...

2. Just because a drug is considered sacramental by a religion means, in the opinion of the Triumvirate of Enn, very little.

Opinions differ, of course. When the religion concerned is one that's important in St Edmund, as various Christian sects that use wine in their communion services are, it means rather more to us than it does to you.

OOC: I don't know much about pewote ['peyote'?], but I don't think that the 'Pewote Way' has any followers in St Edmund.

They don't have to. They are requested to by the UN, but only requested. You, as leader of St Edmund, could just as easily make a different request (or even an order), counter to the UN's request.

The government of St Edmund tends to take UN requests fairly seriously, at least in the cases of well-drafted resolutions. We would certainly be providing the requested & urged collaboration in the case of those drugs that we agreed were purely 'recreational'.
OOC: I've forgotten, was it only "requests" in the earlier drafts too or is this a point about which you've loosened the wording?

OOC:
OOC: I've forgotten, was it only "requests" in the earlier drafts too or is this a point about which you've loosened the wording?
It was always 'requests'. One of the other activating clauses used to begin with requests, but was changed to 'urges' after many, many people thought it said 'requires'.

And yes, I think I did mean peyote, not pewote. My mistake. But that was an OOC point to support my IC belief.
Just because something is used by a religion does not mean it should be allowed.

OOC:

It was always 'requests'. One of the other activating clauses used to begin with requests, but was changed to 'urges' after many, many people thought it said 'requires'.

Ah, that might be what I was thinking of. Thank you.

And yes, I think I did mean peyote, not pewote. My mistake. But that was an OOC point to support my IC belief.
Just because something is used by a religion does not mean it should be allowed.

I have never denied the right of national governments to ban the use of any particular drugs within their own borders, even when those drugs are used as sacraments by any religions: I'm just averse to being expected [or even officially requested] to help those nations prevent the shipping of any drugs that are [1] legal in my own nation, and [2] intended for sacramental use by members of religions that are considered respectable within St Edmund, from my nation into theirs...
As I may [or may not] have said earlier, how would you feel about a reolution that requested nations to help prevent the international movement of religious literature, or of missionaries, belonging to religions that were fully accepted within those nations?

I have never denied the right of national governments to ban the use of any particular drugs within their own borders, even when those drugs are used as sacraments by any religions: I'm just averse to being expected [or even officially requested] to help those nations prevent the shipping of any drugs that are [1] legal in my own nation, and [2] intended for sacramental use by members of religions that are considered respectable within St Edmund, from my nation into theirs...
As I may [or may not] have said earlier, how would you feel about a reolution that requested nations to help prevent the international movement of religious literature, or of missionaries, belonging to religions that were fully accepted within those nations?

I understand your problem, but this resolution does not make it easier or harder for said religions to use their sacramental drugs. If the drugs are still illegal in the receiving nation, the religious people would probably be arrested for using the drug, and state-supported contraband could be interpreted as an act of war. The only way to solve the issue you are raising is creating legislation forcing sacramental drugs to be legal; but even you are not willing to do this (and there you would have the NatSov people climbing the walls and biting the ceiling).

I understand your problem, but this resolution does not make it easier or harder for said religions to use their sacramental drugs. If the drugs are still illegal in the receiving nation, the religious people would probably be arrested for using the drug, and state-supported contraband could be interpreted as an act of war. The only way to solve the issue you are raising is creating legislation forcing sacramental drugs to be legal; but even you are not willing to do this (and there you would have the NatSov people climbing the walls and biting the ceiling).

The government of St Edmund wasn't thinking so much of supplying "state-supported contraband", just of turning a blind eye to any private attempts at smuggling those substances instead of providing the same level of cooperation with other nation's customs services that we would when dealing with drugs that we recognised as truly intended for 'recreational' rather than [at least in this case] 'sacramental' use. The fact that this proposed measure only "requests" & "urges" such cooperation means that we could turn that blind eye without being in non-compliance, but we'd prefer it if there was a clause actively acknowledging our right to do so...

We realise that the religious people using those drugs would risk arrest, and possibly even martyrdom, and regretfully accept that that's a risk they'd have to take... but feel that it's their right to decide whether to take that risk, and that we shouldn't be faced by UN legislation that would pressure us into helping deny them that right.

We are "NatSov people", but as the UN already has resolutions in place protecting the right to belong to religions we wouldn't object to adding a measure that guaranteed people the related right to follow all of those religions' practices [including the voluntary use of sacramental drugs, where appropriate] as long as they don't harm anybody else by doing so.

The government of St Edmund wasn't thinking so much of supplying "state-supported contraband", just of turning a blind eye to any private attempts at smuggling those substances instead of providing the same level of cooperation with other nation's customs services that we would when dealing with drugs that we recognised as truly intended for 'recreational' rather than [at least in this case] 'sacramental' use. The fact that this proposed measure only "requests" & "urges" such cooperation means that we could turn that blind eye without being in non-compliance, but we'd prefer it if there was a clause actively acknowledging our right to do so...

Please, I suggest we go beyond semantics. If you do not consider "turning a blind eye to an illegal activity" as state-support, then replace the wording. My point still stands, insofar as it can be interpreted as an act of war. And conflicts between nations is one of the problems this resolution is trying to prevent.

We realise that the religious people using those drugs would risk arrest, and possibly even martyrdom, and regretfully accept that that's a risk they'd have to take... but feel that it's their right to decide whether to take that risk, and that we shouldn't be faced by UN legislation that would pressure us into helping deny them that right.

Are you aware of the implications of your statement? Do you really wish that "breaking the law" be protected as a right by the UN? With all due respect, I find your opinion outrageous.

We are "NatSov people", but as the UN already has resolutions in place protecting the right to belong to religions we wouldn't object to adding a measure that guaranteed people the related right to follow all of those religions' practices [including the voluntary use of sacramental drugs, where appropriate] as long as they don't harm anybody else by doing so.

First of all, what you are defending is totally against NatSov - the right of individuals to challenge the rule of law. Second, for "religious freedom" legislation to be effective, it cannot be qualified by number of followers, or any other discriminating characteristic, to decide what is a bogus or legit religious cult. All religions must be equally protected.

As a result, your statement effectively protects the right of any individual to utilise any drug, as long as it is claimed that the drug is taken "for religious reasons." Even if the individual is the sole follower of the newly invented "Heroin's'groovey" sect. While Fonzoland's drug laws are extremely liberal, we do not wish to impose our views on others. NatSov again.