NationStates Jolt Archive

My first attempt at passing a resolution for one of the unlegislated cetegories. Please leave any comments/concerns.
---------------------------
Newest Draft:
---------------------------
The General Assembly of the N.S.U.N.,

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire of many citizens of member nations to consume recreational, and sometimes illegal, drugs, for medicinal, spiritual or recreational purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use poses harm only to the individual user(s),

BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs as a deterrent is ineffective and unjust,

DESIRING THEREFORE to allow all citizens to legally consume these drugs if it does not directly and physically harm individuals other then the user(s),

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution the following as 'recreational drugs':

Amanita muscaria,
Cannabis,
Coffee,
Ergot,
Kava,
Mescaline-containing cacti,
Psilocin- or psilocybin-containing fungi,
Salvia divinorum,
Tea,
Tobacco,

2. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the possession, cultivation and preparation of recreational drugs, given this possession, cultivation and/or preparation does not directly and physically harm any individual other then the user(s),

3. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the consumption of recreational drugs in or on:
I) Private or rented property, with the consent of the owner
II) Outdoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority
III) Indoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority

4. STRONGLY URGES member nations to illegalise the practices of deceiving or physically coercing other individuals into knowingly or unknowingly using any recreational drug (except in cases where the drug is being administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual),

5. PERMITS governments of N.S.U.N. members to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the age of majority of the nation,
II) Restrict individuals under the influence of recreational drugs from operating vehicles or heavy or dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm any individual other then the user,

6. ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission (UNDC), with the authority to:
I) Monitor the medical safety of recreational drugs,
II) Advise on further issues dealing with recreational drug laws,
III) Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7. REAFFIRMS that those who do physical harm to others while under the influence of recreational drugs are afforded no protection by this legislation from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,

8. NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of such substances for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9. STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalise their drugs laws, including creating some legal framework within which recreational drugs may be supplied to the adult populace by certain organisations or individuals and expanding the definition of recreational drugs to legalise other substances,

10. REQUESTS that member nations support organizations and initiatives for rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, for education regarding responsible drug use and drugs laws, and for the prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11. URGES member nations to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the physical and mental effects of recreational drug use, and to ensure that suppliers of recreational drugs are not allowed to make false claims about their products.

At first glance it appears to be a very well written, well thought out proposal. Having said that, Yelda is unlikely to support a resolution that either legalizes OR outlaws recreational drugs. We feel that this is best left to the discretion of national authorities.
Amanita muscaria,
Cannabis,
Ergot,
Kava,
Mescaline-containing cacti,
Psilocin- or psilocybin-containing fungi,
Salvia divinorum,
Tobacco;
Alcohol,
All of these would be considered legal in Yelda by the way. But thats just us.

My first attempt at passing a resolution for one of the unlegislated cetegories. Please leave any comments/concerns.Just because a category is "unlegislated," it doesn't mean we need to legislate it. :rolleyes:

Just because a category is "unlegislated," it doesn't mean we need to legislate it. :rolleyes:


Give that man a kewpie doll!

http://www.rjohnwright.com/images/newreleases/kewpie/kk.jpg

I'm leaning towards a NatSov view on this subject. I'm not to privy on being required to accept a general group of laws on this kind of a situation where it is better left up to the government to make the decision on what laws, if any, should be enacted.

I'm leaning towards a NatSov view on this subject. I'm not to privy on being required to accept a general group of laws on this kind of a situation where it is better left up to the government to make the decision on what laws, if any, should be enacted.

As stated in the proposal, we believe everyone has the right to their own body. That means people (in this case) can use any drugs that they have legally acquired that doesnt directly physically harm any other then the user. Further from that fact, this proposal gives nations all the abilities that they need to control the drug industry: age requirements, taxation, punishment for those who endanger others, etc. I don't really see why a NatSov argument works here: the use of these drugs are only legal if they can only physically harm the user. And since people have the right to their own body, whats the point of preventing this legislation?

As stated in the proposal, we believe everyone has the right to their own body. That means people (in this case) can use any drugs that they have legally acquired that doesnt directly physically harm any other then the user. Further from that fact, this proposal gives nations all the abilities that they need to control the drug industry: age requirements, taxation, punishment for those who endanger others, etc. I don't really see why a NatSov argument works here: the use of these drugs are only legal if they can only physically harm the user. And since people have the right to their own body, whats the point of preventing this legislation?

It's their body, yes, but we're the ones that will have to pay for their mess ups, more so if every jo schmoe going home can buy a bag of weed. Enough people are killed or injured to due to alchohol, why then should we add to the list even more readily available items that can add to that danger. I know you've added in that they're not allowed to use machinery, but that doesn't exactly stop drunk drivers now does it? Our nation has no problems with medical uses of drugs (with the proper restrictions of course) but to tell everyone that they are now free to buy some drugs just because it's their body and they can do whatever the hell they want to it doesn't sit too well with us. And with the "it's their body" argument, should we just legalize anything that is dangerous to a person?

It's their body, yes, but we're the ones that will have to pay for their mess ups, more so if every jo schmoe going home can buy a bag of weed. Enough people are killed or injured to due to alchohol, why then should we add to the list even more readily available items that can add to that danger. I know you've added in that they're not allowed to use machinery, but that doesn't exactly stop drunk drivers now does it? Our nation has no problems with medical uses of drugs (with the proper restrictions of course) but to tell everyone that they are now free to buy some drugs just because it's their body and they can do whatever the hell they want to it doesn't sit too well with us. And with the "it's their body" argument, should we just legalize anything that is dangerous to a person?

But removing the right to possess them is not the answer. People who really want the drugs will still do what they need to do to get them. Its better to have drug standardization as stated in this proposal. With this proposal, governments be given all the abilities they need to control this industry and prevent these jo schmoes from messing up. If you dont control it, you will have salesmen selling crude forms of the drugs that are even more harmful then normal. With this and the UNDC you can minimalize the effectiveness of the drugs with regard to decision-making ability and maximize the fun :cool:

But removing the right to possess them is not the answer. People who really want the drugs will still do what they need to do to get them. Its better to have drug standardization as stated in this proposal. With this proposal, governments be given all the abilities they need to control this industry and prevent these jo schmoes from messing up. If you dont control it, you will have salesmen selling crude forms of the drugs that are even more harmful then normal. With this and the UNDC you can minimalize the effectiveness of the drugs with regard to decision-making ability and maximize the fun :cool:

But therein lies the difference, those who really want them and those who buy them just because they can. I also fail to see how standardized laws that might work perfect for one nation but horribly for another are the answer. If each nation is allowed to decide what their position is on the subject, they can then decide what their course of action will be. That, in my opinion, is better than forcing all nations to adopt a set of laws that are not in their self-interest.

I do not think, that is a good idea to force the independent states to such a controversial legislation. I suggest to pass a recommendation for enforcing such law in the countries. Personally, I could opt for this resolution, if one clause, stating that the punishments for the crimes committed under the influence of narcotics shall be doubled, would be added.
I also suggest addition of D-lysergic acid diethylamide(LSD) to the legal drugs list.

I do not think, that is a good idea to force the independent states to such a controversial legislation. I suggest to pass a recommendation for enforcing such law in the countries. Personally, I could opt for this resolution, if one clause, stating that the punishments for the crimes committed under the influence of narcotics shall be doubled, would be added.
I also suggest addition of D-lysergic acid diethylamide(LSD) to the legal drugs list.

Can't pass a recommendation resolution. But doubling the punishments won't stem the tide of users who would be consuming the drugs. Add to that the fact that now with an upsurge of users, prisons would begin to overflow with people caught doing illegal acts under the influence. Add to that them staying twice as long or twice as much money being spent to rehabilitate them and it begins to get quite expensive so some people can go and fry their brain cells...

I also fail to see how standardized laws that might work perfect for one nation but horribly for another are the answer.

Then why not repeal every resolution? They are all standardized laws of some sort.

I also suggest addition of D-lysergic acid diethylamide(LSD) to the legal drugs list.

"These...include, but are not limited to:"

It is not a list of all legal drugs, just a list of included legal drugs.

Then why not repeal every resolution? They are all standardized laws of some sort.

Yeah, but they aren't throwing drugs out onto the streets for anyone who has the money.

Personally, I could opt for this resolution, if one clause, stating that the punishments for the crimes committed under the influence of narcotics shall be doubled, would be added.

You're free to do that in your own nation, but we find the specifics of sentencing are best left to judges to decide on a case-by-case basis.

I also suggest addition of D-lysergic acid diethylamide(LSD) to the legal drugs list.

I think putting LSD on the list would scare a lot of people. Ergot is on the list, and that's a precursor to lysergic acid, but I think it would still be possible to ban LSD itself, as you could ban the other ingredients that must be combined with lysergic acid. Jey, is ergot of any use without other substances?

I support this resolution, though it could still do with a couple of tweaks. Jey, see my comments in my earlier post on the GTT, about clause 1.

Yeah, but they aren't throwing drugs out onto the streets for anyone who has the money.

No, but they are throwing [Insert anything that the NSUN has legalized here] out onto the streets for anyone who has the money.

No, but they are throwing [Insert anything that the NSUN has legalized here] out onto the streets for anyone who has the money.

Who in the general public would have enough money to buy a nuclear warhead, let alone the interest? Everything has it's risks, I think everyone knows and accepts that, but this will be a drain on the the state with the sudden increase in people who are going to be in jail or need to go into rehab especially considering the fact that our economy will suffer a significant hit with all of the people who can't work becuse they're high.

Who in the general public would have enough money to buy a nuclear warhead, let alone the interest? Everything has it's risks, I think everyone knows and accepts that, but this will be a drain on the the state with the sudden increase in people who are going to be in jail or need to go into rehab especially considering the fact that our economy will suffer a significant hit with all of the people who can't work becuse they're high.

Thats the point of the UNDC and the encouragement to support drug help organizations. You cant take away human rights just because it will hurt the number of jobs in your country. Frankly, if their high on the job, you shouldnt have hired them.

Thats the point of the UNDC and the encouragement to support drug help organizations. You cant take away human rights just because it will hurt the number of jobs in your country. Frankly, if their high on the job, you shouldnt have hired them.


How would we have known that a normally drug-free person, upon the passing of a legislation that puts drugs out onto the street, would suddenly start doing them? But why even create a huge drug rehab program in the first place? So that some people can get high because it's their body? Again, the amount of money it will cost to take care of the millions of people that will be sent there seems to be nearing, if not surpassing, the point of diminishing returns.

How would we have known that a normally drug-free person, upon the passing of a legislation that puts drugs out onto the street, would suddenly start doing them?Because most people still wouldn't do them, regardless of legality?

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use poses harm only to the individual user(s),
False. People on drugs are more likely to not have a job. People without jobs need money, especially for more drugs. People who are on drugs and can't get a legal drug have a good chance of turning to drug dealing. The more drug dealing, the more people on drugs.

We also have a problem with the forced legalization of letting anyone sell or grow drugs. If we have to have drugs, we'd rather the government keep a tight leash on them, preferably through extremely-high-tax government-controlled stores.

Overall, Ceorana does not support this proposal. We want to have the right to control drugs as we see fit.

We also have a problem with the forced legalization of letting anyone sell or grow drugs. If we have to have drugs, we'd rather the government keep a tight leash on them, preferably through extremely-high-tax government-controlled stores.

Overall, Ceorana does not support this proposal. We want to have the right to control drugs as we see fit.

Firstly, you are allowed by all means to tax drugs however you so please, as is stated in the proposal. Secondly, what else do you want to do with regard to controlling drugs. We feel this proposal gives governments all the ways they need to govern this industry and ensure the highest state of public safety.

Secondly, what else do you want to do with regard to controlling drugs. We feel this proposal gives governments all the ways they need to govern this industry and ensure the highest state of public safety.
This proposal allows anyone, on the street, in a store, in a stolen meth lab, to sell drugs. If drugs have to be legalized, we want to make them hard enough to get to make people think twice about them. So I suggest an amendment saying that governments may regulate where and how drugs are grown and sold.

If drugs have to be legalized, we want to make them hard enough to get to make people think twice about them.

I think the health hazards are enough to do that.

So I suggest an amendment saying that governments may regulate where and how drugs are grown and sold.

I considered that, though am unsure how to approach it.

Ok, after reviewing the comments, I've added:

a) Sub-clause IV of clause 5.
b) Clause 7.

Who in the general public would have enough money to buy a nuclear warhead, let alone the interest?

Does NS have a Bill Gates? ;)

False. People on drugs are more likely to not have a job. People without jobs need money, especially for more drugs. People who are on drugs and can't get a legal drug have a good chance of turning to drug dealing. The more drug dealing, the more people on drugs.

We also have a problem with the forced legalization of letting anyone sell or grow drugs. If we have to have drugs, we'd rather the government keep a tight leash on them, preferably through extremely-high-tax government-controlled stores.

Overall, Ceorana does not support this proposal. We want to have the right to control drugs as we see fit.

It's a fair point that it should be possible for governments to insist that suppliers are licensed. I do believe that it should be possible for governments to maintain a state monopoly on the industry, so the addition below isn't enough:

IV) Control locations in which drugs may be cultivated and/or sold

If it is possible to get the right words, I think governments need to be able to control what organisations have the right to produce and supply, not just where it's done. Unfortunately I have no ideas as to how to word this so as to avoid the possibility that a government might allow nobody to sell drugs.

7. REAFFIRMS that the only legal consumption of these drugs will be with the user's personal choice to disregard any and all health risks, and will not legally be of any physical danger to others,

Clause 7 seems to me a little unclear, and seems to make it a little too easy for governments to come down hard on users. How about just reiterating that the proposal offers no protection to those who cause harm to others while under the influence of recreational drugs, and perhaps add the following sub-clause to clause 5:

5. PERMITS governments of N.S.U.N. members to:
VII) Prohibit disorderly behaviour under the influence of recreational drugs in or on public property

This way if someone was high and causing trouble on the streets, the police could put them safe in a cell for the night, much as they do in reality with drunks.

If it is possible to get the right words, I think governments need to be able to control what organisations have the right to produce and supply, not just where it's done. Unfortunately I have no ideas as to how to word this so as to avoid the possibility that a government might allow nobody to sell drugs.

Perhaps we give that to the UNDC. Make them govern standardized testing to supply licenses. A person passes the test, they get a license.

So, the new clauses would be:

ALLOWS governments of the N.S.U.N. to:

VIII) Insist that any who wish to cultivate and/or sell drugs must obtain a UNDC License (see below) before engaging in any such operations,

ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission (UNDC), with the authority to:

IV) Issue UNDC Licenses, which would allow citizens of UN member nations who require said licenses, to cultivate and/or sell drugs. These licenses will be issued upon the passing of a standardized test to be issued to all applicants who meet the requirements as stated herein.

Hmmm. I don't think so. It needs to be possible for governments to maintain a monopoly on the industry - it isn't unreasonable to say that while people ought to be allowed to use drugs, we don't trust any private organisations to be responsible enough to be trusted to supply or manufacture them. A lot of nations will say that as soon as you allow private enterprise and free markets to get involved, they'll cut every corner it's profitable to cut regarding safety, and it won't be possible to trust them to be honest with consumers about the impacts of their products.

On the other hand, I wouldn't support a requirement that nations establish a state monopoly.

IOf you're affirming that all people have a right to their own body, then surely
non-smokers can sit next to smokers who are smoking without inhaling the smokers smoke? But that's not possible. And besides, that means kids could be allowed to sue parents for forcing them to eat broccoli. Imagine it,
"He forced me to eat broccoli. I don't like broccoli!"
"hey made me have a bedtime! I only wanted to watch cartoons!"
Headline: Kid wins half of parents bank plus quarter of all future earnings!

Not only that but everyone will be drugged up.

NO WAY ARE DRUGS GOOD

I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR THEM, NOR SHOULD YOU!

IOf you're affirming that all people have a right to their own body, then surely
non-smokers can sit next to smokers who are smoking without inhaling the smokers smoke?

If this is your concern, please read the proposal again.

I've read it. It's not your intent but it's still possible under your

ABSURD CRAZY MINDED IDIOTIC PROPOSAL

Glad I got that off my chest.

IOf you're affirming that all people have a right to their own body, then surely
non-smokers can sit next to smokers who are smoking without inhaling the smokers smoke? But that's not possible.

The proposal allows you to restrict drug use to private property, if you like.

And besides, that means kids could be allowed to sue parents for forcing them to eat broccoli. Imagine it,
"He forced me to eat broccoli. I don't like broccoli!"
"hey made me have a bedtime! I only wanted to watch cartoons!"
Headline: Kid wins half of parents bank plus quarter of all future earnings!q

The principle only applies to adults - kids aren't developed enough to make certain decisions. I'm sure you'd agree it would be ridiculous if the government were to force adults to eat their greens, wouldn't it?

Not only that but everyone will be drugged up.

Yeah, sure, because everyone's so stupid that without the police forcing them not to, they'd all be taking drugs. _Myopia_ has always had legalised drugs, and although a large number do try drugs at one point or another, and we do have a lot of regular users, the vast majority are responsible users and do not allow it to dominate their lives - in the same way that in most countries, most people drink but most aren't drunk 24/7.

NO WAY ARE DRUGS GOOD

I'm not saying they are, and nor is Jey. Anti-prohibitionists are mostly just saying that prohibition isn't working, isn't improving society, and governments don't have the right to tell us we can't take drugs.

Anti-prohibitionists are mostly just saying that prohibition isn't working, isn't improving society, and governments don't have the right to tell us we can't take drugs.

But there is no reason to go to the other extreme and legalize the damn things. At least when they were illegal we could punish those who used them, now we can only sit back and watch and wait for them to beat their spouses, get in a car accident, or whatever else they'll do when they're under the influence. I am still sticking by the fact that individual nations should have the right to make their own decisions on drugs, there is no reason why we should make them open for all to use.

But there is no reason to go to the other extreme and legalize the damn things.

We're not going to an extreme. The extreme your talking about is complete anarchy towards drug use. We're providing governments all the necessary abilities to control it.

At least when they were illegal we could punish those who used them, now we can only sit back and watch and wait for them to beat their spouses, get in a car accident, or whatever else they'll do when they're under the influence.

You can make the same case with any freedom we give. "At least when we didn't allow , we could punish those who did it. But [I]now, we only have to punish those who cause harm when using [Insert freedom here]." How terrible.

ALLOWS governments of the N.S.U.N. to:

VIII) Insist that any who wish to cultivate and/or sell drugs must obtain a UNDC License (see below) before engaging in any such operations,

ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission (UNDC), with the authority to:

IV) Issue UNDC Licenses, which would allow citizens of UN member nations who require said licenses, to cultivate and/or sell drugs. These licenses will be issued upon the passing of a standardized test to be issued to all applicants who meet the requirements as stated herein.This is getting out of control. First, the UN wants to force us to change our drug laws, and now it wishes to bureaucratize the industry?! This is precisely the brand of overreaching excess that has corrupted this body since its inception, excess that we thought would be arrested by the recent spate of repeals and the agreement on constructive anti-terror legislation.

Ladies and gentlemen of the UN, the drug industry is a menace to many peaceful societies, and is responsible for widespread chaos and violence in urbanized areas. Why, our own capital city is constantly under the threat of Mafia and terrorist reprisals, with attacks occurring nearly every day. Do you honestly think that legalizing this shit will decrease the violence or end organized crime?! Keep dreaming. Guns are legal; alcohol is legal; tobacco is legal (at least in our nation), yet the mob still finds ways market, sell and traffic them illegally, wreaking havoc on all those who stand in their way, and leaving a terrible trail of destruction in their wake. And layers of government (or even UN) bureaucracy to regulate the drug market will only encourage these thugs to bypass them.

In the name of all those innocent people who have died, been injured or had their lives or families destroyed by the drug industry, the Federal Republic stands in strident opposition to this bill. For God's sake, people! How many times must it be said?! Drug money supports terroris--

[His tirade is interrupted by the smell of cannabis wafting through the chamber. Riley sniffs the air, trying to locate the source, and suddenly turns around:]

"Mr. President, what are you doing here?!"

"Dude, I was gonna mack on the Thessadorian ambassador some more, but I ran into the THC (www.nationstates.net/tetra_hydra_cannabinol) ambassador, and he sold me some killer bud! Don't worry, man; I'll smoke you out!"

"Mr. President, I'm right in the middle of a rant condemning the drug industry and this ridiculous legislation that would legalize it!"

"Man, fuck that; party with us!"

[He offers Riley a smoking crystal pipe shaped like a naked woman.]

"But I haven't even gotten to the part of my speech where we threaten to invade Jey!"

"War's always fun, but so's pissing off the UN peeps!"

[He blows smoke in the _Myopian_ ambassador's direction.]

"Seriously, Mr. President, I can't afford another scandal! The Liberals in the Federal Senate are just waiting for me to screw up royally so they can defeat my nomination when it comes up again next year!"

"Com'on, man, everyone's doin' it!"

[He points out Deputy Amb. George Brown, the Kennyite gnomes on Riley's staff, and the Thessadorian ambassador seated with him, all of them choking on smoke and stoned out of their minds.]

"But drugs are evil! Drug money supports terrorism, and --"

[Fernanda scoffs through the plume of smoke escaping his mouth:]

"You honestly don't believe that bullshit government propaganda, do you? Now chill the fuck out and smoke a fucking bowl!"

[Tired of arguing, Riley sighs and flops down next to him.]

"What the hell? This debate is a waste of time, anyway."

"You're finally speaking my language, Riley! The whole fucking UN is a waste of time!"

[OOC: Sure this post is dumb, but so is this proposal. :p]

There is no way i can recommend this proposal to my government.

Recreational drugs apart from tobacco and alcohol are banned in the Empire but users can get help for their problem. Dealers usually find themselves in a jail cell for a long time getting help to reconsider their path in life.

I also don't want to see another useless UN committee around either. A nation should be allowed to deal the drug issues their way since they know better than an unelected committee does.

This has drifted away significantly from what I was interested in when we began this project, and I'm afraid I can no longer support this proposal in its present state.

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution 'recreational drugs' as drugs not taken for primarily medicinal purposes, these include but are not limited to:
There is no point providing the list, given this definition. The problem is recreational drugs are hard to define. We either define them, or we limit ourselves to a list. The point about this list was that they were all plant-based (I would consider them further comparatively mild - we omitted DMT - and non-addictive, but that's besides the point). We have given no definition of 'drugs', and the definition thus implies only what 'recreational' means - which, incidentally, denegrates the sacramental use which was one of my major concerns with this proposal.

2. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the possession, cultivation, preparation, and selling of recreational drugs, given this possession, cultivation, preparation, and/or selling does not directly and physically harm any individual other then the user(s),
Why has 'selling' been introduced? There are UN member nations where there is no private sector, and where commerce is illegal. I'm not interested in subverting communist economies with this proposal. Further, selling is an entirely separate issue. We are protecting a right to one's own body. I appreciate the ability to procure drugs is arguably part of that...but given we were concerning ourselves with some fairly basic plant species (some of which do require specialist equipment, or reasonable amount of land, etc., but none of which approach the complexity of manufacturing esctasy or amphetamines), cultivation for one's self would not be impossible for many.

3. DECLARES as illegal throughout all member nations the practice of one or more individual(s) physically forcing other individual(s) to use any recreational drug,
Given the inadequate definition at present, this is something I could not agree to. For example, there are trace amounts of 'drugs' in food. Many chemicals in food have mild psychoactive properties, even if, as with seritonin, those are largely feelings of incredibly mild elation. We're going to bar people forcing others to eat Mars bars? I raise this, because this has an impact on force-feeding prisoners on hunger strikes. That is not an issue for this proposal to discuss. Further, this clause would not, to my mind, make illegal the practice of spiking drinks.

I raised this issue, but I wanted simply to caution against others being forced to take what we had then defined as drugs. Given the new definition, I couldn't possibly support this measure.

5. PERMITS governments of N.S.U.N. members to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the age of majority of the nation,
Copy and paste, copy and paste. This should be articles 2 and 4.

II) Control taxation on recreational drugs,
We need to resolve this issue.

IV) Control locations in which drugs may be cultivated and/or sold
To the point of elimination? We need limits. It's quite sensible to say governments can't allow people to set up a meth still in their basement, but, had we stuck to plant-based drugs, I can't see how location of cultivation would have been a problem. At least, we need a blanket allowance for people to cultivate such products on their own property. Selling I have already voiced concern over.

VI) Prohibit disorderly behaviour under the influence of recreational drugs in or on public property,
I would need this to be stronger. Simply 'disorderly', given the legalistic climate in which this proposal is being drafted, is to my mind insufficient. The only concern should be causing harm to others.

VII) Expand upon definition of “recreational drugs”, given that the expanded definition meets the requirements as stated herein,
Until the definition is sorted out, this clause means little.

7. REAFFIRMS that this proposal offers no protection to those who do physical harm to others while under the influence of recreational drugs,
An excellent addition. However, I would phrase it in a way which declares what would be the case anyway, in as much that in such cases, offenders would be subject to the normal provisions of national and international law.

8. NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of such substances for medicinal purposes by health services,
Perhaps instead of 'services', we should go for 'workers', as not all states may have any, public or private, institutionalised health services.

9. STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalize their drugs laws,
Given the definition, not sure what this does. How much more liberal can we get?

10. ENCOURAGES member nations to support organizations and initiatives for rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, for education regarding responsible drug use and drugs laws, and for the prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,
Ok. I'm thinking we should changes this to 'REQUESTS', as this really is important.

11. URGES member nations to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-judgment-free information concerning the physical and mental effects of recreational drug use, and to ensure that suppliers of recreational drugs are not allowed to make false claims about their products.
No no no. 'Value-judgment-free'? We should not be stifling debate on this matter. Let's here those making a value judgment about drugs, on both sides, so that people really can make an informed choice. Further, if we're legalising supply, then the second clause is utterly unenforceable (yes, I know, Compliance Ministry...but that deals with national, not individual, compliance). Personally, I consider drugs goods like any other. That's rather the point of this proposal. I would suggest they would be covered by Labeling Standards (or hopefully a better resolution). That is a trade standards issue. I'm ok with its inclusion, but I don't feel it serves much point.

There is no point providing the list, given this definition. The problem is recreational drugs are hard to define. We either define them, or we limit ourselves to a list. The point about this list was that they were all plant-based (I would consider them further comparatively mild - we omitted DMT - and non-addictive, but that's besides the point). We have given no definition of 'drugs', and the definition thus implies only what 'recreational' means - which, incidentally, denegrates the sacramental use which was one of my major concerns with this proposal.

Given the difficulty of crafting a good, watertight definition (especially given that, as Sheknu points out, it's surprisingly difficult to draw a line between drugs and things like foods which bring pleasure) and the low probability that it would be possible right now to persuade the UN to legalise things like heroin and cocaine, I would advocate a return to the list alone, and ignoring other drugs for the time being.

Why has 'selling' been introduced? There are UN member nations where there is no private sector, and where commerce is illegal. I'm not interested in subverting communist economies with this proposal. Further, selling is an entirely separate issue. We are protecting a right to one's own body. I appreciate the ability to procure drugs is arguably part of that...but given we were concerning ourselves with some fairly basic plant species (some of which do require specialist equipment, or reasonable amount of land, etc., but none of which approach the complexity of manufacturing esctasy or amphetamines), cultivation for one's self would not be impossible for many.

Good point. What I'd like to see is this. The right to private cultivation for personal consumption must remain legal. Past that, governments should have the right but not the obligation to insist on state monopoly or licensing for suppliers, but it has to be possible to somehow legally obtain drugs without growing them youself. Perhaps "selling" could be replaced with "supply by authorised persons in a manner appropriate to the nature of local economies" - thus if you have an economy where things are bought and sold, it must be legal, at least for certain people, to buy and sell drugs.

To the point of elimination? We need limits. It's quite sensible to say governments can't allow people to set up a meth still in their basement, but, had we stuck to plant-based drugs, I can't see how location of cultivation would have been a problem. At least, we need a blanket allowance for people to cultivate such products on their own property.

It's an issue because even if it's limited to plant drugs, it ought to be possible to stop people setting up their own drugs businesses. Private cultivation should be legal for personal consumption, yes, but there's no reason why a government which maintains a state monopoly on the industry to ensure that standards are adhered to and it doesn't become an exploitative corporate venture should have to change that policy. I think what needs to be dealt with is not so much location of cultivation but who is authorised to do it. Any ideas on how to do this whilst stopping governments ensuring that nobody qualifies for authorisation?

VI) Prohibit disorderly behaviour under the influence of recreational drugs in or on public property,

I would need this to be stronger. Simply 'disorderly', given the legalistic climate in which this proposal is being drafted, is to my mind insufficient. The only concern should be causing harm to others.

I tried to model my suggestion on the RL powers police have in the UK to lock people up for being "drunk and disorderly". As far as I know, the UK law itself just refers to "Disorderly behaviour while drunk in a public place" - but I guess this relies on a reasonable interpretation by the police who obviously can choose to ignore people they think don't need to be arrested. Perhaps we could say something like:

VI) Prohibit disorderly behaviour by any individual under the influence of recreational drugs in or on public property when the individual in question poses a serious and credible threat to the safety of unconsenting others, as long as the punishments for such offences remain minor,

The key is being able to get people under control before they hurt others, whilst ensuring this doesn't go past a small fine, or a night in prison while they sober up (unless they break other laws).

An excellent addition. However, I would phrase it in a way which declares what would be the case anyway, in as much that in such cases, offenders would be subject to the normal provisions of national and international law.

Perhaps something like:

7. REAFFIRMS that those who do physical harm to others while under the influence of recreational drugs are afforded no protection by this legislation from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,

11. URGES member nations to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-judgment-free information concerning the physical and mental effects of recreational drug use, and to ensure that suppliers of recreational drugs are not allowed to make false claims about their products.

No no no. 'Value-judgment-free'? We should not be stifling debate on this matter. Let's here those making a value judgment about drugs, on both sides, so that people really can make an informed choice.

This clause doesn't stifle value-judgement opinions. It just urges governments to ensure that, alongside all that, people can get hold of straight information which simply states the known science. Debate is great, but I also want to be able to hear simple, impartial information to make up my own mind.

Further, if we're legalising supply, then the second clause is utterly unenforceable (yes, I know, Compliance Ministry...but that deals with national, not individual, compliance). Personally, I consider drugs goods like any other. That's rather the point of this proposal. I would suggest they would be covered by Labeling Standards (or hopefully a better resolution). That is a trade standards issue. I'm ok with its inclusion, but I don't feel it serves much point.

How so? I suggested this clause to urge governments to do the enforcing themselves, to ensure, for instance, that companies selling cannabis can't make blatantly false claims like "our product has no link to mental illness" unless they can produce peer-reviewed scientific research which refutes the existing research results, which do suggest some link. It's an "urges", so, if governments do choose to listen, they can enforce it however they like, through normal trading standards legislation if they like. Labeling Standards contains nothing about falsehoods except those relating to the use of the terms "fresh" and "organic".

Here's an idea. If we can't establish a way of legalising supply without treading on local economic systems etc., why not do this? Legalise consumption and possession of that short list of drugs, and legalise cultivation and preparation but forget about supply. Maybe also legalise import, at least of a minimum amount for personal consumption. This will mean that at a minimum, governments won't be able to arrest people for having the drugs, or for producing them for personal consumption. They will still be able to ban the trade, but we would urge them in the proposal to establish a legal means of supplying drugs. I suspect that if they actually had to catch drugs changing hands to prosecute at all, it would become impractical to maintain prohibition on supply anyway. Governments would be pretty much forced to legalise the trade of privately cultivated drugs that would be rampant anyway, or create a more official, regulated, licensed system for supply (be it for private enterprise or state monopoly). This would allow local solutions to be formed.

Other clauses we've been arguing about concerning what government can and can't control regarding the supply of these drugs could go, simplifying the debate.

The proposal would thus go something like this:

The General Assembly of the N.S.U.N.,

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire of many citizens of member nations to consume recreational, and sometimes illegal, drugs, for medicinal, spiritual or recreational purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use poses harm only to the individual user(s),

NOT BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs is an effective or just deterrent,

DESIRING THEREFORE to allow all citizens to legally consume these drugs if it does not directly and physically harm individuals other then the user(s),

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution the following as 'recreational drugs':

Amanita muscaria,
Cannabis,
Ergot,
Kava,
Mescaline-containing cacti,
Psilocin- or psilocybin-containing fungi,
Salvia divinorum,
Tobacco,
Alcohol,

2. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the possession, cultivation and preparation of recreational drugs, given this possession, cultivation and/or preparation does not directly and physically harm any individual other then the user(s),

3. STRONGLY URGES member nations to illegalise the practices of deceiving or physically coercing other individuals into knowingly or unknowingly using any recreational drug (except in cases where the drug is being administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual),

4. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the consumption of recreational drugs in or on:
I) Private or rented property, with the consent of the owner
II) Outdoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority
III) Indoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority

5. PERMITS governments of N.S.U.N. members to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 4, to a maximum of the age of majority of the nation,
II) Forbid individuals under the influence of recreational drugs to operate vehicles or heavy or dangerous machinery, pursue occupational labor, or perform any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm any individual other then the user,
III) Prohibit disorderly behaviour by any individual under the influence of recreational drugs in or on public property when the individual in question poses a serious and credible threat to the safety of unconsenting others, as long as the punishments for such offences remain minor,
IV) Punish any who disobey such laws,
V) Expand upon definition of “recreational drugs”, given that the expanded definition meets the requirements as stated herein,

6. ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission (UNDC), with the authority to:
I) Monitor the medical safety of recreational drugs,
II) Advise on further issues dealing with recreational drug laws,
III) Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7. REAFFIRMS that those who do physical harm to others while under the influence of recreational drugs are afforded no protection by this legislation from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,

8. NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of such substances for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9. STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalise their drugs laws, including creating some legal framework within recreational drugs may be supplied to the adult populace by certain organisations or individuals,

10. REQUESTS that member nations support organizations and initiatives for rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, for education regarding responsible drug use and drugs laws, and for the prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11. URGES member nations to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-judgment-free information concerning the physical and mental effects of recreational drug use, and to ensure that suppliers of recreational drugs are not allowed to make false claims about their products.

What do people think?

It's looking better. I did find a minor typo.
DESIRING THEREFORE to allow all citizens to legally consume these drugs if it does not directly and physically harm individuals other then the user(s),

What do people think?

As far as I can tell, it seems like a good proposal; but then, I studied biology in school, not law. I also support this proposal because it would allow my nation's researchers more data about the effects of such chemicals on the human body.

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution the following as 'recreational drugs':

...
Alcohol,
First, we should add tea and coffee.

Second, I'm still uneasy about alcohol. Distilling alcohol is a complex and fairly dangerous process, and controlling it seems to make more sense. I suppose it should be allowed. If so, could the list be put back into alphabetical order.

3. STRONGLY URGES member nations to illegalise the practices of deceiving or physically coercing other individuals into knowingly or unknowingly using any recreational drug (except in cases where the drug is being administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual),[QUOTE]
Ok, I think this works very nicely. I would swap this to become clause 4, though.

[QUOTE]5. PERMITS governments of N.S.U.N. members to:
III) Prohibit disorderly behaviour by any individual under the influence of recreational drugs in or on public property when the individual in question poses a serious and credible threat to the safety of unconsenting others, as long as the punishments for such offences remain minor,
To be fair, if the police have to wrest the bloody knife from his fingers, the punishment may need to be more than 'minor'.

Perhaps we're approaching this the wrong way. All we need to do is make it clear that this resolution does not affect the rights of nations to deal with disorderly, aggressive conduct in public areas; it doesn't override any laws they have in that regard.

V) Expand upon definition of “recreational drugs”, given that the expanded definition meets the requirements as stated herein,
What does this actually mean? Which requirements?

7. REAFFIRMS that those who do physical harm to others while under the influence of recreational drugs are afforded no protection by this legislation from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,
As I note above...perhaps this covers the disorderly scenario?

9. STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalise their drugs laws, including creating some legal framework within recreational drugs may be supplied to the adult populace by certain organisations or individuals,
'within which', I assume you mean? Otherwise it doesn't seem to flow. But I do like this approach.

11. URGES member nations to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-judgment-free information concerning the physical and mental effects of recreational drug use, and to ensure that suppliers of recreational drugs are not allowed to make false claims about their products.
No, I still don't like the idea of removing value judgments...although maybe I'm just misinterpreting the word. How about 'value-neutral'?

Second, I'm still uneasy about alcohol. Distilling alcohol is a complex and fairly dangerous process, and controlling it seems to make more sense.
<slaps forehead>
I hadn't even noticed that. As written, this legalizes moonshine stills. Homebrewing beer and winemaking are one thing, but this would allow anybody to operate a distillery in their garage.

<slaps forehead>
I hadn't even noticed that. As written, this legalizes moonshine stills. Homebrewing beer and winemaking are one thing, but this would allow anybody to operate a distillery in their garage.
Exactly. It's distillation I'm concerned about. If we can make it clear we're dealing with brewing, then that's fine. However, that's already getting into technicalities for one drug, as opposed to the plants we're talking about for the others.

Second, I'm still uneasy about alcohol. Distilling alcohol is a complex and fairly dangerous process, and controlling it seems to make more sense.

My government is developing quick and safe ways of creating denatured ethanol for experimental uses, and I'm certain that they could be easily modified for use in "drinking" ethanol. We would, of course, be prepared to forward the information to anyone who asks for only a nominal fee.

Personally, I would remove alcohol from the list. The others are all naturally occuring plants and fungi. Alcohol is a product of a fairly laborious process. Even with wine and beer making, human effort is required to produce the "drug" (OOC: I'm a homebrewer in RL. Beer doesn't just make itself).

Yes, I think I'd agree alcohol should be removed.

As written, this legalizes moonshine stills.What's wrong with liquid gold?

Ok, thanks for your comments Sheknu. Not sure if clause 5 - III is too broad though.

Newest Draft:

------------------------
The General Assembly of the N.S.U.N.,

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire of many citizens of member nations to consume recreational, and sometimes illegal, drugs, for medicinal, spiritual or recreational purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use poses harm only to the individual user(s),

NOT BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs is an effective or just deterrent,

DESIRING THEREFORE to allow all citizens to legally consume these drugs if it does not directly and physically harm individuals other then the user(s),

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution the following as 'recreational drugs':

Amanita muscaria,
Cannabis,
Coffee,
Ergot,
Kava,
Mescaline-containing cacti,
Psilocin- or psilocybin-containing fungi,
Salvia divinorum,
Tea,
Tobacco,

2. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the possession, cultivation and preparation of recreational drugs, given this possession, cultivation and/or preparation does not directly and physically harm any individual other then the user(s),

3. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the consumption of recreational drugs in or on:
I) Private or rented property, with the consent of the owner
II) Outdoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority
III) Indoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority

4. STRONGLY URGES member nations to illegalise the practices of deceiving or physically coercing other individuals into knowingly or unknowingly using any recreational drug (except in cases where the drug is being administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual),

5. PERMITS governments of N.S.U.N. members to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the age of majority of the nation,
II) Forbid individuals under the influence of recreational drugs to operate vehicles or heavy or dangerous machinery, pursue occupational labor, or perform any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm any individual other then the user,
III) Prohibit disorderly or aggressive behavior in public areas,
IV) Punish any who disobey such laws,
V) Expand upon the list of “recreational drugs”

6. ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission (UNDC), with the authority to:
I) Monitor the medical safety of recreational drugs,
II) Advise on further issues dealing with recreational drug laws,
III) Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7. REAFFIRMS that those who do physical harm to others while under the influence of recreational drugs are afforded no protection by this legislation from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,

8. NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of such substances for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9. STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalise their drugs laws, including creating some legal framework within which recreational drugs may be supplied to the adult populace by certain organisations or individuals,

10. REQUESTS that member nations support organizations and initiatives for rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, for education regarding responsible drug use and drugs laws, and for the prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11. URGES member nations to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the physical and mental effects of recreational drug use, and to ensure that suppliers of recreational drugs are not allowed to make false claims about their products.
------------------

"But I haven't even gotten to the part of my speech where we threaten to invade Jey!"

If it's war you want, war you shall receive. After all, you die every episode.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/KennyCard-A.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/KennyCard-A.jpg


LOL.

5. PERMITS governments of N.S.U.N. members to:
...
II) Forbid individuals under the influence of recreational drugs to operate vehicles or heavy or dangerous machinery, pursue occupational labor, or perform any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm any individual other then the user,
I'd prefer this became: "Restrict individuals...from operating...pursuing...or performing..."

III) Prohibit disorderly or aggressive behavior in public areas,
Yes, I think this is too broad. I feel we should take this out.

IV) Punish any who disobey such laws,
This was something I suggested, I think, but I think we can remove: it should be obvious this right isn't restricted by this resolution.

V) Expand upon the list of “recreational drugs”
Given clause 9, I feel this is redundant. Nations already have this right.

7. REAFFIRMS that those who do physical harm to others while under the influence of recreational drugs are afforded no protection by this legislation from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,
If needed, we could expand this to include 5 III (so "those who do physical harm to others or who breach the peace" or something), although I increasingly think the provisions of 5 III are implicit anyway.

This is looking pretty ship-shape now. Character count?

Character count?

After applying your comments, 3020.

It's almost complete, though I am concerned with one more thing. I agree with _Mytopia_'s comments that governments should be able to retain some sort of state monopoly on drugs. I realize that this proposal doesn't come out and say that they cant, but perhaps another clause is required with regard to this. After all, the two remaining sub-clauses of clause 5 certainly can't be the only things governments are allowed to do with the drug industry.


Near-Final Draft:
----------------------------------
The General Assembly of the N.S.U.N.,

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire of many citizens of member nations to consume recreational, and sometimes illegal, drugs, for medicinal, spiritual or recreational purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use poses harm only to the individual user(s),

NOT BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs is an effective or just deterrent,

DESIRING THEREFORE to allow all citizens to legally consume these drugs if it does not directly and physically harm individuals other then the user(s),

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution the following as 'recreational drugs':

Amanita muscaria,
Cannabis,
Coffee,
Ergot,
Kava,
Mescaline-containing cacti,
Psilocin- or psilocybin-containing fungi,
Salvia divinorum,
Tea,
Tobacco,

2. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the possession, cultivation and preparation of recreational drugs, given this possession, cultivation and/or preparation does not directly and physically harm any individual other then the user(s),

3. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the consumption of recreational drugs in or on:
I) Private or rented property, with the consent of the owner
II) Outdoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority
III) Indoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority

4. STRONGLY URGES member nations to illegalise the practices of deceiving or physically coercing other individuals into knowingly or unknowingly using any recreational drug (except in cases where the drug is being administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual),

5. PERMITS governments of N.S.U.N. members to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the age of majority of the nation,
II) Forbid individuals under the influence of recreational drugs from operating vehicles or heavy or dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm any individual other then the user,

6. ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission (UNDC), with the authority to:
I) Monitor the medical safety of recreational drugs,
II) Advise on further issues dealing with recreational drug laws,
III) Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7. REAFFIRMS that those who do physical harm to others while under the influence of recreational drugs are afforded no protection by this legislation from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,

8. NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of such substances for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9. STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalise their drugs laws, including creating some legal framework within which recreational drugs may be supplied to the adult populace by certain organisations or individuals,

10. REQUESTS that member nations support organizations and initiatives for rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, for education regarding responsible drug use and drugs laws, and for the prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11. URGES member nations to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the physical and mental effects of recreational drug use, and to ensure that suppliers of recreational drugs are not allowed to make false claims about their products.
-------------

After applying your comments, 3020.

It's almost complete, though I am concerned with one more thing. I agree with _Mytopia_'s comments that governments should be able to retain some sort of state monopoly on drugs. I realize that this proposal doesn't come out and say that they cant, but perhaps another clause is required with regard to this. After all, the two remaining sub-clauses of clause 5 certainly can't be the only things governments are allowed to do with the drug industry.
No. But we don't have to hold their hand. They have a right to do whatever is not explicitly prohibited by this proposal. We're only mentioning those 'permitting' clauses because they really are important, and should be preserved as inviolable rights. They're implicitly permitted to do them anyway.

I do agree we may need to sharpen up the selling aspect, and we still need to resolve taxation.

This should be left to a national level. There are no international laws pertaining to drugs anyway... that is, unless the UN passes a resolution on it. Whether any passed resolution legalizes or criminalizes drugs, it infringes on every nation's sovereignty. There are many cultures in this world. Some have drug use within their cultures for recreational or spiritual reasons. Others have drug use strictly forbidden. To pass a resolution either way would alienate member nations of the UN. The UN wasn't created to interfere with international cultures in this way. Why don't we propose certain religions get promoted or banned? The infringements wouldn't be any more serious.

This should be left to a national level. There are no international laws pertaining to drugs anyway... that is, unless the UN passes a resolution on it. Whether any passed resolution legalizes or criminalizes drugs, it infringes on every nation's sovereignty. There are many cultures in this world. Some have drug use within their cultures for recreational or spiritual reasons. Others have drug use strictly forbidden. To pass a resolution either way would alienate member nations of the UN. The UN wasn't created to interfere with international cultures in this way. Why don't we propose certain religions get promoted or banned? The infringements wouldn't be any more serious.

All this is doing is legalizing drugs so long as they do not harm others then the user. Further from that, use of drugs is only allowed on private property with consent of owners, and public property with consent of relevant authority. I hardly see this as infringing on NatSov, as no harm will come to anyone other then users of these drugs as a result of this proposal passing.

_Mytopia_

Just a minor complaint - there's no "t". Apologies for being anal if this was just a typo, but I think I've seen this before.

On to the real points:

NOT BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs is an effective or just deterrent,

I'd like this to become a more positive statement - how about BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs as a deterrent is ineffective and unjust,

Amanita muscaria,
Cannabis,
Coffee,
Ergot,
Kava,
Mescaline-containing cacti,
Psilocin- or psilocybin-containing fungi,
Salvia divinorum,
Tea,
Tobacco,

Good list. The removal of alcohol is a sensible decision.

II) Forbid individuals under the influence of recreational drugs from operating vehicles or heavy or dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm any individual other then the user,

Sheknu is right, "restrict" is better than "forbid".

9. STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalise their drugs laws, including creating some legal framework within which recreational drugs may be supplied to the adult populace by certain organisations or individuals,

Given that expanding the definition of recreational drugs was removed from 5, how about this:

9. STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalise their drugs laws, including creating some legal framework within which recreational drugs may be supplied to the adult populace by certain organisations or individuals and expanding the definition of recreational drugs to legalise other substances,

11. URGES member nations to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the physical and mental effects of recreational drug use, and to ensure that suppliers of recreational drugs are not allowed to make false claims about their products.

I think "value-neutral" is actually the term I was looking for when I suggested "value-judgement-free" - it's definitely better.

If needed, we could expand this to include 5 III (so "those who do physical harm to others or who breach the peace" or something), although I increasingly think the provisions of 5 III are implicit anyway.

I'm not sure, I think it would be valuable to explicitly say something about this. I'm just not sure how best to phrase this, since I'm not sure about the uses of the term "breach of the peace" outside the UK (and here, I think it only means what we're looking for in layman's terms, legally I think it's a bit different) and I think "disorderly" behaviour might be too broad.

I'm not sure, I think it would be valuable to explicitly say something about this. I'm just not sure how best to phrase this, since I'm not sure about the uses of the term "breach of the peace" outside the UK (and here, I think it only means what we're looking for in layman's terms, legally I think it's a bit different) and I think "disorderly" behaviour might be too broad.

I agree with all your comments, sorry about the typo. Also not sure about this and the taxation issue. Perhaps its better to leave out taxation as we left out the ability for state monopolies. Though, I would agree with the inclusion of a disorderly-type clause.

Closer-to-Final Draft
---------------------------
The General Assembly of the N.S.U.N.,

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire of many citizens of member nations to consume recreational, and sometimes illegal, drugs, for medicinal, spiritual or recreational purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use poses harm only to the individual user(s),

BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs as a deterrent is ineffective and unjust,

DESIRING THEREFORE to allow all citizens to legally consume these drugs if it does not directly and physically harm individuals other then the user(s),

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution the following as 'recreational drugs':

Amanita muscaria,
Cannabis,
Coffee,
Ergot,
Kava,
Mescaline-containing cacti,
Psilocin- or psilocybin-containing fungi,
Salvia divinorum,
Tea,
Tobacco,

2. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the possession, cultivation and preparation of recreational drugs, given this possession, cultivation and/or preparation does not directly and physically harm any individual other then the user(s),

3. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the consumption of recreational drugs in or on:
I) Private or rented property, with the consent of the owner
II) Outdoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority
III) Indoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority

4. STRONGLY URGES member nations to illegalise the practices of deceiving or physically coercing other individuals into knowingly or unknowingly using any recreational drug (except in cases where the drug is being administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual),

5. PERMITS governments of N.S.U.N. members to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the age of majority of the nation,
II) Restrict individuals under the influence of recreational drugs from operating vehicles or heavy or dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm any individual other then the user,

6. ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission (UNDC), with the authority to:
I) Monitor the medical safety of recreational drugs,
II) Advise on further issues dealing with recreational drug laws,
III) Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7. REAFFIRMS that those who do physical harm to others while under the influence of recreational drugs are afforded no protection by this legislation from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,

8. NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of such substances for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9. STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalise their drugs laws, including creating some legal framework within which recreational drugs may be supplied to the adult populace by certain organisations or individuals and expanding the definition of recreational drugs to legalise other substances,

10. REQUESTS that member nations support organizations and initiatives for rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, for education regarding responsible drug use and drugs laws, and for the prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11. URGES member nations to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the physical and mental effects of recreational drug use, and to ensure that suppliers of recreational drugs are not allowed to make false claims about their products.

soon-to-be-submitted-bump.

Please leave any comments before the drafting stage is complete.

This seems fairly reasonable. We in Karlania will support it.

On the remaining questions - I think the taxation issue is moot, since we're not forcing the legalisation of supply anyway. But I, at least, am still keen to see something on disorderly and aggressive behaviour/breaching the peace while under the influence. Does anyone have any suggestions?

My only question is this: who's going to clean up the mess when someone overdoses?

Maybe "overdoses" isn't the right word, but let's say that some bum off the street is rushed into one of my hospitals because he's got lung cancer from smoking for fifty years. Who's going to pay for his treatment?

My only question is this: who's going to clean up the mess when someone overdoses?

We could always have the gnomes do it. ;)

Maybe "overdoses" isn't the right word, but let's say that some bum off the street is rushed into one of my hospitals because he's got lung cancer from smoking for fifty years. Who's going to pay for his treatment?

That, I suppose, would depend on the healthcare system in each nation.

Prior to passing comment on the text of this resolution, which Compadria regrettably has not been able to do, we would like to commend the assembly on its mature and reasonable discussion of this sensitive issue and further commend the conduct of those contributors to the debate who have engaged in constructive contributions to the text of this resolution.

The General Assembly of the N.S.U.N.,

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire of many citizens of member nations to consume recreational, and sometimes illegal, drugs, for medicinal, spiritual or recreational purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use poses harm only to the individual user(s),

BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs as a deterrent is ineffective and unjust,

DESIRING THEREFORE to allow all citizens to legally consume these drugs if it does not directly and physically harm individuals other then the user(s),

Compadria is in full agreement with these measures, basing such views on the work of many great philosophers, who through the ages have shown that the perogative of the individual over their conduct is only to be violated under the most exceptional of circumstances. To grant full civil-liberties to any populace, it should be recognised that we grant the right to make mistakes to the people as part and parcel of such rights. Therefore, one should restrict them only when it impinges excessively the rights of those other than the relevant individual. To quote RL philosopher John Stuart Mill:

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution the following as 'recreational drugs':

Amanita muscaria,
Cannabis,
Coffee,
Ergot,
Kava,
Mescaline-containing cacti,
Psilocin- or psilocybin-containing fungi,
Salvia divinorum,
Tea,
Tobacco,

As consumers of tea, we are pleased by its inclusion, yet concerned as to the relatively short nature of the list. Surely there are other substances that merit inclusion, purely on the basis of widespread consumption, i.e. Qat.

2. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the possession, cultivation and preparation of recreational drugs, given this possession, cultivation and/or preparation does not directly and physically harm any individual other then the user(s),

3. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the consumption of recreational drugs in or on:
I) Private or rented property, with the consent of the owner
II) Outdoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority
III) Indoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority

4. STRONGLY URGES member nations to illegalise the practices of deceiving or physically coercing other individuals into knowingly or unknowingly using any recreational drug (except in cases where the drug is being administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual),

5. PERMITS governments of N.S.U.N. members to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the age of majority of the nation,
II) Restrict individuals under the influence of recreational drugs from operating vehicles or heavy or dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm any individual other then the user,

6. ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission (UNDC), with the authority to:
I) Monitor the medical safety of recreational drugs,
II) Advise on further issues dealing with recreational drug laws,
III) Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7. REAFFIRMS that those who do physical harm to others while under the influence of recreational drugs are afforded no protection by this legislation from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,

8. NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of such substances for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9. STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalise their drugs laws, including creating some legal framework within which recreational drugs may be supplied to the adult populace by certain organisations or individuals and expanding the definition of recreational drugs to legalise other substances,

10. REQUESTS that member nations support organizations and initiatives for rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, for education regarding responsible drug use and drugs laws, and for the prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11. URGES member nations to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the physical and mental effects of recreational drug use, and to ensure that suppliers of recreational drugs are not allowed to make false claims about their products.

Compadria would like to add that the fears of those that drug consumption will lead to a decline in the general health of a population, be directed not into criticism of the liberalisation of such laws, but methods of non-coercive prevention, so as to protect those who are most vulnerable from harm. The duty to build a good standard of public health is of the utmost importance to all authorities. Persuant, we wish to state that no government should view legalisation as an acknowledgement of the purely beneficial or harmless nature of any of the above drugs or any drugs further de-criminalised under the liberalisation measures of this act. As such, we should continue to avoid over-zealous or over-hedonistic cultures of abuse from developing and enshrine the rights of responsible users.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

My only question is this: who's going to clean up the mess when someone overdoses?

Maybe "overdoses" isn't the right word, but let's say that some bum off the street is rushed into one of my hospitals because he's got lung cancer from smoking for fifty years. Who's going to pay for his treatment?

1. Estimate the costs for society of lighting up a cigarette, taking an ecstasy pill, or sniffing a line of coke.
2. Tax the bloody things.

And the answer becomes:
The bum payed for his treatment through taxation in the past 50 years.

As consumers of tea, we are pleased by its inclusion, yet concerned as to the relatively short nature of the list. Surely there are other substances that merit inclusion, purely on the basis of widespread consumption, i.e. Qat.

The idea was, for this resolution, to stick to easily cultivated plant drugs that do not require complex or dangerous preparation processes (I don't know if you've read the whole discussion, but this is why alcohol was excluded). I wasn't aware of Qat, but a brief bit of research seems to show that it does fit this kind of category - as far as I can see, you just get the leaves, chew them and let them sit in your cheek. So I would agree that its addition would not be inappropriate unless Jey wants to restrict it to its current length.

Thanks for your very articulate arguments in favour of respect for individual sovereignty! By the way, you wouldn't happen to have any ideas on drafting an addition to clause 5 allowing nations to grant police powers to deal with intoxicated people being the equivalent of "drunk and disorderly", without making it so broad as to empower nations to lock up anyone who seems the slightest bit high?

I'd include Qat.

I think we need to justify the list. The best way to do this would be a preambulatory, which makes it clear why we're limiting ourselves to these. As well as being 'mild' (we can't really use 'non-addictive' if we're including nicotine and caffeine agents), they're plant-based, and thus don't require technical expertise in their manufacture. I was thinking we should have an 'or similar' clause at the end of the list, but I think maybe that would include opium poppies, and I'm not sure that's especially politik.

Still thinking about the 'breach of the peace' aspect. As for taxation...we can at least deal with non-solely national taxes.

I believe the taxation issue can be avoided altogether, as long as nothing in the resolution forbids it.

A "drunk and disorderly" clause could be formulated in terms of controlling individuals who pose a significant threat. Something like "...who are deemed to be in an altered state that makes them significantly more likely to physically harm others, or perform other illegal acts."

I am leaning towards NatSov on this issue, but I am open to persuasion.

Mmm... that's what the UN Building needs... a Qat House.

Mmm... that's what the UN Building needs... a Qat House.

*RIMSHOT!!!*

I'd include Qat.

Agreed.

I think we need to justify the list. The best way to do this would be a preambulatory, which makes it clear why we're limiting ourselves to these. As well as being 'mild' (we can't really use 'non-addictive' if we're including nicotine and caffeine agents), they're plant-based, and thus don't require technical expertise in their manufacture. I was thinking we should have an 'or similar' clause at the end of the list, but I think maybe that would include opium poppies, and I'm not sure that's especially politik.

Adding "or similar" would permit many more drugs that are not widely known but fit the type of description of drug's we're trying to legalize. Though, it will be left up to the interpretation of UN members and could potentially be overreaching.

The idea was, for this resolution, to stick to easily cultivated plant drugs that do not require complex or dangerous preparation processes (I don't know if you've read the whole discussion, but this is why alcohol was excluded). I wasn't aware of Qat, but a brief bit of research seems to show that it does fit this kind of category - as far as I can see, you just get the leaves, chew them and let them sit in your cheek. So I would agree that its addition would not be inappropriate unless Jey wants to restrict it to its current length.

Thanks for the mention, I included Qat purely on the basis of providing an example (and to please the Somilia-esque nations of the U.N.);)

Thanks for your very articulate arguments in favour of respect for individual sovereignty! By the way, you wouldn't happen to have any ideas on drafting an addition to clause 5 allowing nations to grant police powers to deal with intoxicated people being the equivalent of "drunk and disorderly", without making it so broad as to empower nations to lock up anyone who seems the slightest bit high?

Thank you once again, this time for your kind comments of praise.

Perhaps the following additions to clause 5 could be made:

III) The relevant law authorities, defined here as being the official units and organisations of law enforcement within a nation, shall have as their perogative the right to detain anyone for a period of custody, not to exceed the time constraints for such measures set out in law, under the grounds of:
a) Causing a significant public disturbance, with the intent and/or effect of causing significant public distress and/or harm to individuals, other than the offending individual or group, under the influence of the substances enshrined as being protected under this resolution.
b) Significantly endangering the security of others, through behaviour under the influence of said substances.
IV) The relevant law authorities shall respect to the greatest degree possible the individuals freedoms of expression, speech and conscience in such cases where misconduct is believed to have or is taking place. They shall otherwise use their own discretion and/or internal guidlines as to how to treat such disturbances or actions taken under the influence of the drugs mentioned in this resolution.

Just a set of suggestions. We'd be more than happy for further input from our fellow board members.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Character count...

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad48sv.png

III) The relevant law authorities, defined here as being the official units and organisations of law enforcement within a nation, shall have as their perogative the right to detain anyone for a period of custody, not to exceed the time constraints for such measures set out in law, under the grounds of:

a) Causing a significant public disturbance, with the intent and/or effect of causing significant public distress and/or harm to individuals, other than the offending individual or group, under the influence of the substances enshrined as being protected under this resolution.

b) Significantly endangering the security of others, through behaviour under the influence of said substances.

IV) The relevant law authorities shall respect to the greatest degree possible the individuals freedoms of expression, speech and conscience in such cases where misconduct is believed to have or is taking place. They shall otherwise use their own discretion and/or internal guidlines as to how to treat such disturbances or actions taken under the influence of the drugs mentioned in this resolution.

From the experience of previous debates, beware of the looseness of the emphasised terms. A suggested tightening (and shortening):

III) Law enforcement authorities shall have the right to detain, for periods not to exceeding the limits set in national law, any individual or group of individuals under the influence of the listed substances who:

a) Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent and/or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, and/or severe distress to individuals other than the offending individual or group.

b) Put others in significant risk of physical injury.

IV) Law enforcement authorities shall respect to the greatest degree possible the individual freedom of expression, speech, and conscience when such misconduct is believed to be taking place. They shall otherwise use their own discretion and/or internal guidlines as to treatment of actions taken under the influence of the listed substances.

1. Estimate the costs for society of lighting up a cigarette, taking an ecstasy pill, or sniffing a line of coke.
2. Tax the bloody things.

And the answer becomes:
The bum payed for his treatment through taxation in the past 50 years.

Yes, because bums often pay taxes...

Yes, because bums often pay taxes...

Explain to me, slowly, how a bum would get cigarettes without paying sales taxes.

Explain to me, slowly, how a bum would get cigarettes without paying sales taxes.

You're assuming all nations have sales taxes...

You're assuming all nations have sales taxes...
Fine, but the point of the clause is that you can tax them. If you choose not to, then that is of course your right. If you have no income and no sales tax, though, it seems likely you have no public healthcare at all...in which this isn't a problem for you anyway.

Ok, thanks for everyone's comments. As of now, after including the revised edition of the expansion of clause 5 by Fonzo, the proposal looks as such:
-----------------


The General Assembly of the N.S.U.N.,

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire of many citizens of member nations to consume recreational, and sometimes illegal, drugs, for medicinal, spiritual or recreational purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use poses harm only to the individual user(s),

BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs as a deterrent is ineffective and unjust,

DESIRING THEREFORE to allow all citizens to legally consume these drugs if it does not directly and physically harm individuals other then the user(s),

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution the following as 'recreational drugs':

Amanita muscaria,
Cannabis,
Coffee,
Ergot,
Kava,
Mescaline-containing cacti,
Psilocin- or psilocybin-containing fungi,
Salvia divinorum,
Tea,
Tobacco,

2. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the possession, cultivation and preparation of recreational drugs, given this possession, cultivation and/or preparation does not directly and physically harm any individual other then the user(s),

3. DECLARES as legal throughout all member nations the consumption of recreational drugs in or on:
I) Private or rented property, with the consent of the owner
II) Outdoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority
III) Indoor public property, with the consent of relevant authority

4. STRONGLY URGES member nations to illegalise the practices of deceiving or physically coercing other individuals into knowingly or unknowingly using any recreational drug (except in cases where the drug is being administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual),

5. PERMITS governments of N.S.U.N. members to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the age of majority of the nation,
II) Restrict individuals under the influence of recreational drugs from operating vehicles or heavy or dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm any individual other then the user,
III) Ensure that law enforcement authorities shall have the right to detain, for periods not to exceeding the limits set in national law, any individual or group of individuals under the influence of the listed substances who:

a) Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent and/or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, and/or severe distress to individuals other than the offending individual or group.

b) Put others in significant risk of physical injury.

IV) Ensure that law enforcement authorities shall respect to the greatest degree possible the individual freedom of expression, speech, and conscience when such misconduct is believed to be taking place. They shall otherwise use their own discretion and/or internal guidlines as to treatment of actions taken under the influence of the listed substances.

6. ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission (UNDC), with the authority to:
I) Monitor the medical safety of recreational drugs,
II) Advise on further issues dealing with recreational drug laws,
III) Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7. REAFFIRMS that those who do physical harm to others while under the influence of recreational drugs are afforded no protection by this legislation from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,

8. NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of such substances for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9. STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalise their drugs laws, including creating some legal framework within which recreational drugs may be supplied to the adult populace by certain organisations or individuals and expanding the definition of recreational drugs to legalise other substances,

10. REQUESTS that member nations support organizations and initiatives for rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, for education regarding responsible drug use and drugs laws, and for the prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11. URGES member nations to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the physical and mental effects of recreational drug use, and to ensure that suppliers of recreational drugs are not allowed to make false claims about their products.

1041 characters over the limit.

You're assuming all nations have sales taxes...

No. I was describing a sound, effortless, and legal way for governments to transfer health costs to individual users. I am not saying all nations will want to that.

Small changes. Also, you should make the spacing more uniform.

III) Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain, for periods not exceeding the limits set in national law, any individual or group of individuals under the influence of the listed substances who:

You only mention the UNDC once, so there's no need to add (UNDC) after the name appears. Still, this is going to take more than snips to get it down.

The General Assembly of the N.S.U.N.,
You're 1000 characters over and you're putting this? No. Go with "The United Nations," or even "The UN,". The Chemical Weaponry Ban began with "The UN,".

The UN,

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire of many citizens of UN states to consume recreational, and sometimes illegal, drugs, for medicinal, spiritual or recreational purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use poses harm only to the individual user(s),

BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs as a deterrent is ineffective and unjust,

DESIRING THEREFORE to allow all citizens to legally consume these drugs if it does not directly and physically harm individuals other then the user(s),

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution the following as 'recreational drugs':

Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, Ergot, Kava, Mescaline-containing cacti, Psilocin- or psilocybin-containing fungi, Salvia divinorum, Tea, Tobacco,

2. DECLARES as legal throughout all UN states the possession, cultivation and preparation of recreational drugs, given this possession, cultivation and/or preparation does not directly and physically harm any individual other then the user(s),

3. DECLARES as legal throughout all UN states the consumption of recreational drugs in or on:
I) Private or rented property, with the consent of the owner
II) Public property, with the consent of relevant authority

4. STRONGLY URGES states to illegalise the practices of deceiving or physically coercing other individuals into knowingly or unknowingly using any recreational drug (except in cases where the drug is being administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual),

5. PERMITS member states to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the age of majority of the nation,
II) Restrict individuals under the influence of recreational drugs from operating vehicles or heavy or dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm any individual other then the user,
III) Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain, for periods not exceeding the limits set in national law, any individual or group of individuals under the influence of the listed substances who:

a) Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent and/or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, and/or severe distress to individuals other than the offending individual or group.

b) Put others in significant risk of physical injury.

IV) Ensure that law enforcement authorities shall respect to the greatest degree possible the individual freedom of expression, speech, and conscience when such misconduct is believed to be taking place. They shall otherwise use their own discretion and/or internal guidlines as to treatment of actions taken under the influence of the listed substances.

6. ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission, with the authority to:
I) Monitor the medical safety of recreational drugs,
II) Advise on further issues dealing with recreational drug laws,
III) Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7. REAFFIRMS that those who do physical harm to others while under the influence of recreational drugs are afforded no protection by this legislation from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,

8. NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of such substances for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9. STRONGLY URGES all states to further relax their drug laws, by expanding the definition of recreational drugs to legalise other substances, and creating some legal framework within which recreational drugs may be legally procured,

10. REQUESTS that states support organizations and initiatives for rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, for education regarding responsible drug use and drugs laws, and for the prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11. URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the physical and mental effects of recreational drug use, and to ensure that suppliers of recreational drugs are not allowed to make false claims about their products.

766 over

9. STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalise their drugs laws, including creating some legal framework within which recreational drugs may be supplied to the adult populace by certain organisations or individuals and expanding the definition of recreational drugs to legalise other substances,
This strikes me as overly wordy. For example, is there any point having 'by certain organisations or individuals'? I mean, who else do they get them from? (Don't answer that question whilst under the effect of this proposal's contents: the answer will be silly, and deserving of a spork to the face.) I'd be tempted to cut that, and the it'd be:

"STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalise their drugs laws, including creating some legal framework within which recreational drugs may be supplied to the adult populace, and expanding the definition of recreational drugs to legalise other substances,"

Then, I'd firstly (and this is minor) suggest you reverse the two subclauses, so you get:

"STRONGLY URGES all member nations to further liberalise their drugs laws, including expanding the definition of recreational drugs to legalise other substances, and creating some legal framework within which recreational drugs may be supplied to the adult populace"

Now, cutting the character count. I suggest dropping 'member' - it's redundant - and further changing all instances of 'nation' to 'state'. It'll cut you maybe fifteen characters - could help.

[conservative_hat]'Liberalise'? 'SUPPLIED'?[/conservativehat]

So maybe 'relax' instead of 'liberalise', and 'legally procured' instead of 'supplied to the adult populace'. The latter change may be too drastic, but as it's not a mandatory clause, it's not opening up any new loophole. Also, drugs --> drug? I also changed 'including' into 'by'.

"STRONGLY URGES all states to further relax their drug laws, by expanding the definition of recreational drugs to legalise other substances, and creating some legal framework within which recreational drugs may be legally procured,"

Ok, so I'll edit my previous post a little, and start work on another clause.

One other thing: four queued proposals. Why the hurry? You've got time to iron this one out.

One other thing: four queued proposals. Why the hurry? You've got time to iron this one out.

I hadn't realized by just how much this proposal was over the limit. Upon further consideration, I agree its best to hold out on submission, at least until we can get it inside the maximum number of characters.

By the way, what is the maximum? Is it listed in the rules?

Well, it's whatever that draft in post 85, plus 864. I have no way of knowing whether spaces or punctuation are counted.

I hadn't realized by just how much this proposal was over the limit. Upon further consideration, I agree its best to hold out on submission, at least until we can get it inside the maximum number of characters.

By the way, what is the maximum? Is it listed in the rules?

I think it is around 3500. When I have pacience, I will try to help in cutting words. I still don't think I can support it at international level, but I am rather fond of the topic, so I would want it to at least reach the voting stage. ;)

I think it is around 3500. When I have pacience, I will try to help in cutting words. I still don't think I can support it at international level, but I am rather fond of the topic, so I would want it to at least reach the voting stage.
Ok, I can definitely say it's 3500. I just copied and pasted 5000 0s into the field, and it came in at 1500 over. I added a space, and it's 1501. So 3500, including spaces.

Ok, I can definitely say it's 3500. I just copied and pasted 5000 0s into the field, and it came in at 1500 over. I added a space, and it's 1501. So 3500, including spaces.
Nice. Can you also test if CR counts as a character?

Nice. Can you also test if CR counts as a character?
CR?

CR?

Sorry. <Enter>, line changes, whatever they are called.

CR?

Carriage return? We don't use typewriters anymore. ;)

Hmm, I didn't think line breaks did count...

...seems they may do.

5000 0s in a line = 5000
5000 0s in a line, single break, 0 = 5003
5000 0s in a line, double break, 00 = 5006

:confused:

So yes, apparently line breaks do count.

I ran that linebreak test a couple of months ago. If only people listened to me once in a while... :p

Carriage return? We don't use typewriters anymore. ;)

Actually, I got it from computers, and I would have posted CR/LF for correctness ;)

Another edit: 'member states' --> 'UN states'.

Also, having separate lines for outdoor and indoor public property, with the same criteria for both, seemed a waste, so I merged them. Edit in this post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10328476&postcount=85

775 characters over now, so some progress has been made.

If the line changes spend 3, a lot can be saved in clause 1, and some in 5.

If the line changes spend 3, a lot can be saved in clause 1, and some in 5.
Genius!

Although they only seem to spend one. I don't understand. Anyway, another nine lopped off by resorting the list in 1.

Incidentally, none of these changes yet been approved by Jey (or _Myopia_) - Jey's post (about 80) is still the final authoritative version. I'm just making suggestions.

Incidentally, none of these changes yet been approved by Jey (or _Myopia_) - Jey's post (about 80) is still the final authoritative version. I'm just making suggestions.

Jey approves of your shortened version, and welcomes any other suggestions about how to make this within the maximum limits.

The UN,

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire of many citizens of UN states to consume recreational, and sometimes illegal, drugs, for medicinal, spiritual or recreational purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that recreational drug use harms only the individual user,

BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs is ineffective and unjust as a deterrent,

DESIRING to allow all citizens to consume these drugs legally, if it does not directly and physically harm others,

1. DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution the following as recreational drugs: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, Ergot, Kava, Mescaline-containing cacti, Psilocin- or psilocybin-containing fungi, Salvia divinorum, Tea, Tobacco,

2. DECLARES legal in all UN states the possession, cultivation, and preparation of said drugs, given these activities do not directly and physically harm others,

3. DECLARES legal in all UN states the consumption of said drugs on private property, with the owner's consent, and public property, with authorities' consent,

4. STRONGLY URGES states to illegalise the practice of deceiving or coercing other individuals into using said drugs, except when administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual,

5. PERMITS member states to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the national age of majority,
II) Restrict individuals under the influence of said drugs from operating vehicles and heavy or dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm others,
III) Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain, for periods not exceeding the limits set in national law, any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:
a) Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, or severe distress to others,
b) Put others in significant risk of physical injury,
Law enforcement authorities shall respect to the greatest extent the individual freedom of expression, speech, and conscience when such misconduct is believed to be taking place. They shall otherwise use their own discretion and internal guidlines as to treatment of such actions.

6. ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission, with the authority to:
I) Monitor the medical safety of said drugs,
II) Advise on further issues dealing with recreational drug laws,
III) Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7. REAFFIRMS that those who physically harm others while under the influence of said drugs are afforded no protection from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,

8. NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of said drugs for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9. STRONGLY URGES all states to further relax their drug laws, by expanding the definition of recreational drugs to other substances, and creating a legal framework under which they may be legally procured,

10. REQUESTS that states support organizations and initiatives for voluntary rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, education regarding responsible drug use, and prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11. URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, neutral information concerning the effects of recreational drug use, and that suppliers of said drugs are not allowed to make false claims about them.

----

[/masochistic effort to reduce the bloody thing]

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire of many citizens of UN states to consume recreational, and sometimes illegal, drugs, for medicinal, spiritual or recreational purposes,

I wouldn't be opposed to this saying simply:

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire of many citizens of UN states to consume recreational drugs for numerous purposes,

Rather than having coffee and tea listed separately, you could instead say caffeine, which not only reduces the characters, but also covers other things such as colas and chocolate. Plus, caffeine is the actual drug name.

[edit] A few other things - THC is the actual drug in cannabis. Nicotine is the drug in tobacco. And is there a reason why alcohol isn't listed?

[edit] A few other things - THC is the actual drug in cannabis. Nicotine is the drug in tobacco. And is there a reason why alcohol isn't listed?
Only plants are listed. You might notice it's "psilocybin-containing fungi" instead of "psilocybin".

Alcohol's not included because it's a different type of drug, and legalising it would mean legalising moonshine distillation.

3. DECLARES legal in all UN states the consumption of said drugs on private property, with the owner's consent, and public property, with authorities' consent,
I think this would need clarification. Just putting "authorities' consent" doesn't really cut the mustard. What's wrong with "the relevant authority's consent"?

Nonetheless, Fonzoland's effort gets it down to just 137 characters over.

Alcohol's not included because it's a different type of drug, and legalising it would mean legalising moonshine distillation.

And what's wrong with moonshine?

I think this would need clarification. Just putting "authorities' consent" doesn't really cut the mustard. What's wrong with "the relevant authority's consent"?

Nonetheless, Fonzoland's effort gets it down to just 137 characters over.

No hidden agenda, just trying to cut characters. The only non-trivial change I made was adding a word in:

"organizations and initiatives for voluntary rehabilitation of those affected by drugs"

And what's wrong with moonshine?
1. Tends to produce methanol (= lose)
2. Tends to blow up (= doubleplus lose)

1. Tends to produce methanol (= lose)
2. Tends to blow up (= doubleplus lose)

Y'all just have to pay attention to the details.

Our nation invokes The UN Stop Privacy Intrusion Act #10 for all of our citizens. We request that foreign police within our borders report to the civilian neighborhood police corps to check their blue entry visas.

Our nation invokes The UN Stop Privacy Intrusion Act #10 for all of our citizens. We request that foreign police within our borders report to the civilian neighborhood police corps to check their blue entry visas.

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/9513/spongebobweed9gb.jpg

Ah its things like these that make me glad I am not part of the UN.
All I can say is NO.

All I can say is NO.
Good! :) And it's well-reasoned feedback like that that makes us glad you're not in the UN either.

Sorry I've been unable to find time to get on NS and to contribute to this for the past few days.

I wouldn't be opposed to this saying simply:

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire of many citizens of UN states to consume recreational drugs for numerous purposes,

Nor would I. We could probably also drop "of UN states" - the other preambulatory clauses also refer to people in general.

Psilocin- or psilocybin-containing fungi

I think that does need to be "and".

DECLARES legal

Could in both places become "legalises".

5. PERMITS member states to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the national age of majority,
II) Restrict individuals under the influence of said drugs from operating vehicles and heavy or dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm others,
III) Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain, for periods not exceeding the limits set in national law, any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:
a) Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, or severe distress to others,
b) Put others in significant risk of physical injury,
Law enforcement authorities shall respect to the greatest extent the individual freedom of expression, speech, and conscience when such misconduct is believed to be taking place. They shall otherwise use their own discretion and internal guidlines as to treatment of such actions.

The bolded section, whilst a good idea, is included in such a way as to seem just stuck on top of the proposal. How about this, which is shorter (I think the "internal guidelines" thing is superfluous, as if nations choose to exercise this right and wish to set further guidelines, they'll enforce them as they see fit):

III) Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain - at their discretion but with the greatest extent of respect for individual freedom of expression, speech, and conscience and for periods not exceeding the limits set in national law - any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:
a) Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, or severe distress to others,
b) Put others in significant risk of physical injury,

I have to go now, but will get back to this when I can.

The UN,

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire of many individuals to consume recreational, and sometimes illegal, drugs, for medicinal, spiritual or recreational purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that recreational drug use harms only the individual user,

BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs is ineffective and unjust as a deterrent,

DESIRING to allow all citizens to consume these drugs legally, if it does not directly and physically harm others,

1. DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution the following as recreational drugs: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, Ergot, Kava, Mescaline-containing cacti, Psilocin- and psilocybin-containing fungi, Salvia divinorum, Tea, Tobacco,

2. DECLARES legal in all UN states the possession, cultivation, and preparation of said drugs, given these activities do not directly and physically harm others,

3. DECLARES legal in all UN states the consumption of said drugs on private property, with the owner's consent, and public property, with authorities' consent,

4. STRONGLY URGES states to illegalise the practice of deceiving or coercing other individuals into using said drugs, except when administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual,

5. PERMITS member states to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the national age of majority,
II) Restrict individuals under the influence of said drugs from operating vehicles and heavy or dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm others,
III) Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain - at their discretion but with the greatest extent of respect for individual freedom of expression, speech, and conscience and for periods not exceeding the limits set in national law - any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:
a) Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, or severe distress to others,
b) Put others in significant risk of physical injury,

6. ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission, with the authority to:
I) Monitor the medical safety of said drugs,
II) Advise on further issues dealing with recreational drug laws,
III) Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7. REAFFIRMS that those who physically harm others while under the influence of said drugs are afforded no protection from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,

8. NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of said drugs for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9. STRONGLY URGES all states to further relax their drug laws, by expanding the definition of recreational drugs to other substances, and creating a legal framework under which they may be legally procured,

10. REQUESTS that states support organizations and initiatives for voluntary rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, education regarding responsible drug use, and prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11. URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, neutral information concerning the effects of recreational drug use, and that suppliers of said drugs are not allowed to make false claims about them.

-----

The above would be Myo's suggested rewrite. I can't test it right now, but I suspect it'd be very close to fitting.

The above would be Myo's suggested rewrite. I can't test it right now, but I suspect it'd be very close to fitting.

Ok, I switched the "ACKNOWLEDGING" clause to the one i suggested earlier, and added 3500 "0"s to the proposal, and it came up as over by 3421. So, it is probably just under the limit.

Thanks to everyone for their help in getting this down. Final comments would be great, and I plan to submit this on monday night, Eastern US time.

Ok, I think this needs one more preamble though: I think you need to explain 'the list'. Because people are going to say "why not alcohol? why not cocaine? why not..." etc. So you need something acknowledging that the preparation of plant-based drugs (although I'd avoid that term) is not essentially harmful, in the way that legalising meth stills is.

Also remember Qat.

Ok, I think this needs one more preamble though: I think you need to explain 'the list'. Because people are going to say "why not alcohol? why not cocaine? why not..."

*snip*

What about those of us who just ask, "Why?"

What about those of us who just ask, "Why?"
I guess the 'all people have a right to their own body' preamble covers that. In fact, though, I would think you'll vote against whatever.

Also remember Qat.Never forget the Qat.

http://theqathouse.blogs.com/khat3.jpg

One final thought.

This proposal forces legalisation of a bunch of things, without any reference to fundamental rights other than the debatable "ownership of body" argument. While I agree wholeheartedly with the text, I would be tempted to take the NatSov stance on this. However, individual nations still retain the right to make any activity related to recreational drugs inaccessible through taxation. There is no way to prevent this escape route without repealing Representation in Taxation.

In other words, although I would love to throw a few NatSov arguments at Gruen just for for kicks, I don't think it is a major objection. This proposal is well written, its intentions have always been implemented in Fonzoland, and we will cautiously support it should it come to vote.

I'm helping Jey and _Myopia_ get together a submittable draft. That does not mean Gruenberg will be supporting the proposal. And I would right now say: no, this is not sovereignty friendly; yes, NatSov is a legitimate argument against this proposal; yes, I expect The Magnificent Sovereigntists to oppose.

I'm helping Jey and _Myopia_ get together a submittable draft. That does not mean Gruenberg will be supporting the proposal. And I would right now say: no, this is not sovereignty friendly; yes, NatSov is a legitimate argument against this proposal; yes, I expect The Magnificent Sovereigntists to oppose.

OK. Still, it looks as good as it can get for a drug related proposal, taxation does provide a way out, and the intent is ultimately commendable. I would urge the NSO to regard this as damage control, rather than express vociferous dissent.

Magnificent? Right... :p

OK. Still, it looks as good as it can get for a drug related proposal, taxation does provide a way out, and the intent is ultimately commendable. I would urge the NSO to regard this as damage control, rather than express vociferous dissent.

Magnificent? Right...
I'd just like to reiterate: 'the NSO' has no voice. We're not an alliance, we don't have a consolidated voting bloc, and we're free to disagree. NSO is for discussion of, drafting of pro- and opposition to anti-sovereignty legislation. It's not a political unit. For example: Commustan opposed the Global Food Distribution Act; Flibbleites opposed Repeal "The Rights of Labor Unions".

And given PC/Roathin had a much more controlling proposal, I doubt this will be seen as damage control anyway.

EDIT: And check your TGs.

1. DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution the following as recreational drugs: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, Ergot, Kava, Mescaline-containing cacti, Psilocin- and psilocybin-containing fungi, Qat, Salvia divinorum, Tea, Tobacco,

It does seem sensible to include some justification of this list. How about this:

RECOGNISING that legal cultivation and preparation of certain plant-based drugs for personal consumption does not create public health hazards,

It might be necessary to drop the "DESIRING" clause, but I reckon this is more valuable to the proposal, as it is pretty clear we want to legalise the things but less clear why we chose these.

III) Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain - at their discretion but with the greatest extent of respect for individual freedom of expression, speech, and conscience and for periods not exceeding the limits set in national law - any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:

I think "national law" ought to be "relevant law" so that applicable international law is taken into account.

6. ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission, with the authority to:

Could, without real loss, become ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission to:

7. REAFFIRMS that those who physically harm others while under the influence of said drugs are afforded no protection from prosecution and sentencing under the appropriate laws,

Before the cut-downs, this said that [b]this resolution[/i] affords no protection - now it simply says that no protection is afforded. Does "under the appropriate laws" still allow nations to choose for themselves to treat certain crimes differently if drugs are involved? I'm not sure it does. How about this, which is also 22 fewer characters:

AFFIRMS that this resolution affords intoxicated persons who physically harm others no protection from prosecution and sentencing under applicable laws,

So, if my suggestions are accepted, and we include Jey's changed first clause (with a slight edit for brevity), we get this (the greyed bit may not fit, I don't know, but I don't think it would be a significant loss):

-------------------------------

The UN,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many citizens of UN states wish to consume recreational drugs for numerous purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that recreational drug use harms only the individual user,

BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs is ineffective and unjust as a deterrent,

RECOGNISING that legal cultivation and preparation of certain plant-based drugs for personal consumption does not create public health hazards,

DESIRING to allow all citizens to consume these drugs legally, if it does not directly and physically harm others,

1. DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution the following as recreational drugs: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, Ergot, Kava, Mescaline-containing cacti, Psilocin- and psilocybin-containing fungi, Qat, Salvia divinorum, Tea, Tobacco,

2. LEGALISES in all UN states the possession, cultivation, and preparation of said drugs, given these activities do not directly and physically harm others,

3. LEGALISES in all UN states the consumption of said drugs on private property, with the owner's consent, and public property, with authorities' consent,

4. STRONGLY URGES states to illegalise the practice of deceiving or coercing other individuals into using said drugs, except when administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual,

5. PERMITS member states to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the national age of majority,
II) Restrict individuals under the influence of said drugs from operating vehicles and heavy or dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, and physically harm others,
III) Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain - at their discretion but with the greatest extent of respect for individual freedom of expression, speech, and conscience and for periods not exceeding the limits set in relevant law - any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:
a) Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, or severe distress to others,
b) Put others in significant risk of physical injury,

6. ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission to:
I) Monitor the medical safety of said drugs,
II) Advise on further issues dealing with recreational drug laws,
III) Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

6. AFFIRMS that this resolution affords intoxicated persons who physically harm others no protection from prosecution and sentencing under applicable laws,

8. NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of said drugs for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9. STRONGLY URGES all states to further relax their drug laws, by expanding the definition of recreational drugs to other substances, and creating a legal framework under which they may be legally procured,

10. REQUESTS that states support organizations and initiatives for voluntary rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, education regarding responsible drug use, and prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11. URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, neutral information concerning the effects of recreational drug use, and that suppliers of said drugs are not allowed to make false claims about them.

-------------------

I'd just like to ask anyone who knows about qat - does simply saying "qat" in the list work? Does it fit with the approaches taken to specifying the other drugs? Or does it need to say "_____-containing qat" as we did with the mushrooms and cacti?

If more cut-downs are needed, the spaces after the number for the clauses may be removed, and perhaps "STRONGLY" in "9. STRONGLY URGES".

CONSIDERING that recreational drug use harms only the individual user,

RECOGNISING that legal cultivation and preparation of certain plant-based drugs for personal consumption does not create public health hazards,

I would like to bring back the word "responsible" to the CONSIDERING clause and add it to the other one. Reckless use/cultivation/preparation of these drugs does pose potential harm to other individuals.

DESIRING to allow all citizens to consume these drugs legally, if it does not directly and physically harm others,

perhaps just adding "plant-based" before "drugs" would make it flow with the proposal, as I would prefer to keep it. I expect this to be very very close to the maximum--nothing that a slight edit can fix.

I would like to bring back the word "responsible" to the CONSIDERING clause and add it to the other one. Reckless use/cultivation/preparation of these drugs does pose potential harm to other individuals.

Good thinking. "Responsible" can replace "legal" in the clause about production being safe.

DESIRING to allow all citizens to consume these drugs legally, if it does not directly and physically harm others,

This sentence always seemed slightly awkward to me. I think it's the "desiring to" and the "if" which it seems to me ought to be "as long as" - but that's too long. How about this:

SEEKING to legalise consumption of these plant-based drugs where it does not involve direct physical harm to others,

That's also shorter than what we have now, if "plant-based" is included in both versions.

Also, I realised there are 2 clause 6s and no 7.

If these changes are included, it puts it 46 characters over (and that's without a coauthor credit - I don't know what you decided to do over that, Jey. It probably won't fit.). Cutting the spaces after clause numbers and dropping the "strongly" from clause 9 makes it 26 over. Personally, I still feel we can afford to drop the preambulatory about wanting to legalise. Otherwise, a bunch of minor edits brought it to 14 characters under:

-------------------------------

The UN,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many citizens of UN states wish to consume recreational drugs for numerous purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use harms only the individual user,

BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs is an ineffective and unjust deterrent,

RECOGNISING that responsible cultivation and preparation of certain plant-based drugs for personal consumption does not create public health hazards,

SEEKING to legalise consumption of these plant-based drugs where it does not involve direct physical harm to others,

1.DEFINES as recreational drugs for the purpose of this resolution: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, Ergot, Kava, Mescaline-containing cacti, Psilocin- and psilocybin-containing fungi, Qat, Salvia divinorum, Tea, Tobacco,

2.LEGALISES in UN states the possession, cultivation, and preparation of said drugs, given these activities do not directly and physically harm others,

3.LEGALISES in UN states the consumption of said drugs on private property, with the owner's consent, and public property, with authorities' consent,

4.STRONGLY URGES states to illegalise the practice of deceiving or coercing other individuals into using said drugs, except when administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual,

5.PERMITS member states to:
I) Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the national age of majority,
II) Restrict individuals under the influence of said drugs from operating vehicles and heavy/dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, physically harm others,
III) Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain - at their discretion but with the greatest extent of respect for individual freedom of expression, speech, and conscience and for periods not exceeding the limits set in relevant law - any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:
a) Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, or severe distress to others,
b) Put others at significant risk of physical injury,

6.ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission to:
I) Monitor the medical safety of said drugs,
II) Advise on further issues concerning recreational drug laws,
III) Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7.AFFIRMS that this resolution affords intoxicated persons who physically harm others no protection from prosecution and sentencing under applicable laws,

8.NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of said drugs for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9.URGES all states to further relax their drug laws, by expanding the definition of recreational drugs to other substances, and creating a legal framework under which they may be legally procured,

10.REQUESTS that states support organizations and initiatives for voluntary rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, education on responsible drug use, and prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11.URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, neutral information concerning the effects of recreational drug use, and that suppliers of said drugs are not allowed to make false claims about them.

-----------------

Also, the spellchecker reminded me we have a big mix of "ise" and "ize" spellings. Do we want to regularise these? If so, which way?

Oh, and further reductions could be achieved by cutting some of this:

III) Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain - at their discretion but with the greatest extent of respect for individual freedom of expression, speech, and conscience and for periods not exceeding the limits set in relevant law - any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:

How about a 45 character reduction:

III) Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain - at their discretion but subject to other applicable laws and with the utmost respect for individual freedom of expression and conscience - any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:

I also forgot we can cut the spaces after the sub-clause numbers.

That brings it to 67 characters under! Anything that ought to be added back in?

That brings it to 67 characters under! Anything that ought to be added back in?

Co-Authored by: _Myopia_ ;)

:D Thanks! I suspect there's still a good bit of room left after that, so a word or 4 could be put back in if it would improve it.

How about co-authored by the NSO? I am willing to pay... ;)

I'd just like to ask anyone who knows about qat - does simply saying "qat" in the list work? Does it fit with the approaches taken to specifying the other drugs? Or does it need to say "_____-containing qat" as we did with the mushrooms and cacti?
No, it should just be 'qat' (actually 'khat' is I think preferred).

No, it should just be 'qat' (actually 'khat' is I think preferred).It would appear that either (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qat) is acceptable.

Ok. Well it's a transcription, anyway. And "Qat" saves one character space!

EDIT: Enn's submitting his Drug Trafficking Act on Monday, too. Is this something we should be concerned about?

3.LEGALISES in UN states the consumption of said drugs on private property, with the owner's consent, and public property, with authorities' consent,

With regards to this clause, could it not be said that a definition of "authorities" is desirable, given that some nations may or may not have a standing law-enforcement branch.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I'm a bit behind, so I'll bring a quick question.

Does this also mean that any nation could continue to outlaw its consumption, as they would need the permission of some sort of authority?

EDIT: Enn's submitting his Drug Trafficking Act on Monday, too. Is this something we should be concerned about?

Yes, I've been wondering about that as well. Though the last time i checked, it doesn't seem to be infringing on ours. I'm not sure whether our proposal is better suited to be submitted before or after Enn's.

Does this also mean that any nation could continue to outlaw its consumption, as they would need the permission of some sort of authority?

Not at all on private property. On public property? Yes, they can continue to outlaw it to a certain extent. Its been seen in RL numerous times where cities outlaw smoking in public arenas in the concern of public safety/health, and since this proposal is mainly focused in allowing smoking only when it can harm no individuals other then the user, this ability for authorities to restrict smoking should be protected.

With regards to this clause, could it not be said that a definition of "authorities" is desirable, given that some nations may or may not have a standing law-enforcement branch.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

How about this:

3.LEGALISES in UN states the consumption of said drugs on private property, with the owner's consent, and public property, with the appropriate authorities' consent,

I checked, that does fit.

Since we now have the space, I'd like to change "neutral" back to "value-neutral" in the final clause, for clarity.

Are those edits ok, or can anyone see anything more pressing that needs to be done with the spare characters?

If they are ok, that would make the current version as follows:

-----------------

The UN,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many citizens of UN states wish to consume recreational drugs for numerous purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use harms only the individual user,

BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs is an ineffective and unjust deterrent,

RECOGNISING that responsible cultivation and preparation of certain plant-based drugs for personal consumption does not create public health hazards,

SEEKING to legalise consumption of these plant-based drugs where it does not involve direct physical harm to others,

1.DEFINES as recreational drugs for the purpose of this resolution: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, Ergot, Kava, Mescaline-containing cacti, Psilocin- and psilocybin-containing fungi, Qat, Salvia divinorum, Tea, Tobacco,

2.LEGALISES in UN states the possession, cultivation, and preparation of said drugs, given these activities do not directly and physically harm others,

3.LEGALISES in UN states the consumption of said drugs on private property, with the owner's consent, and public property, with the appropriate authorities' consent,

4.STRONGLY URGES states to illegalise the practice of deceiving or coercing other individuals into using said drugs, except when administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual,

5.PERMITS member states to:
I)Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the national age of majority,
II)Restrict individuals under the influence of said drugs from operating vehicles and heavy/dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, physically harm others,
III)Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain - at their discretion but subject to other applicable laws and with the utmost respect for individual freedom of expression and conscience - any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:
a)Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, or severe distress to others,
b)Put others at significant risk of physical injury,

6.ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission to:
I)Monitor the medical safety of said drugs,
II)Advise on further issues concerning recreational drug laws,
III)Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7.AFFIRMS that this resolution affords intoxicated persons who physically harm others no protection from prosecution and sentencing under applicable laws,

8.NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of said drugs for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9.URGES all states to further relax their drug laws, by expanding the definition of recreational drugs to other substances, and creating a legal framework under which they may be legally procured,

10.REQUESTS that states support organizations and initiatives for voluntary rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, education on responsible drug use, and prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11.URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the effects of recreational drug use, and that suppliers of said drugs are not allowed to make false claims about them.

Co-Authored by: _Myopia_

--------------



I don't know about whether we ought to be concerned about a clash with Enn's proposal. I'm not really an expert on the proposal campaigning process, having never been substantially involved in bringing anything to quorum.

I should probably let you guys know I'm out of the country and completely removed from NS from the 12th to the 17th, so unfortunately can't help out with anything on this in that time.

I don't think it's a clash; I just thought I'd raise it as something to be aware of.

The UN,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many citizens of UN states wish to consume recreational drugs for numerous purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use harms only the individual user,

BELIEVING that criminalisation of recreational drugs is an ineffective and unjust deterrent,

RECOGNISING that responsible cultivation and preparation of certain plant-based drugs for personal consumption does not create public health hazards,

SEEKING to legalise consumption of these plant-based drugs where it does not involve direct physical harm to others,

1.DEFINES as recreational drugs for the purpose of this resolution: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, Ergot, Kava, Mescaline-containing cacti, Psilocin- and psilocybin-containing fungi, Qat, Salvia divinorum, Tea, Tobacco,

2.LEGALISES in UN states the possession, cultivation, and preparation of said drugs, given these activities do not directly and physically harm others,

3.LEGALISES in UN states the consumption of said drugs on private property, with the owner's consent, and public property, with the appropriate authorities' consent,

4.STRONGLY URGES states to illegalise the practice of deceiving or coercing other individuals into using said drugs, except when administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual,

5.PERMITS member states to:

I)Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the national age of majority,

II)Restrict individuals under the influence of said drugs from operating vehicles and heavy/dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, physically harm others,

III)Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain - at their discretion but subject to other applicable laws and with the utmost respect for individual freedom of expression and conscience - any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:

a)Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, or severe distress to others,

b)Put others at significant risk of physical injury,

6.ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission to:

I)Monitor the medical safety of said drugs,

II)Advise on further issues concerning recreational drug laws,

III)Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7.AFFIRMS that this resolution affords intoxicated persons who physically harm others no protection from prosecution and sentencing under applicable laws,

8.NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of said drugs for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9.URGES all states to further relax their drug laws, by expanding the definition of recreational drugs to other substances, and creating a legal framework under which they may be legally procured,

10.REQUESTS that states support organisations and initiatives for voluntary rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, education on responsible drug use, and prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11.URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the effects of recreational drug use, and that suppliers of said drugs are not allowed to make false claims about them.

Co-Authored by: _Myopia_


-went to "s"-spelling on words such as legalise
-added spaces in between subclauses

Recreational drugs are legal in the Most Serene Republic of Balsack. We have no problems, and find that they result in a soothing effect for our population. We have almost no violent crime, although twinkies are often stolen from local food stores.

However, we do not wish the UN to get involved in how we handle this situation. We do not want the UN to force their licensing on our growers, when we are making a tidy sum on the issuance of our own drug licenses.

We do not allow the unregulated use of the most seriously harmful drugs, but cannabis is regularly used everywhere in Balsack. Other drugs are issued with the advice of a counselor. Peyote is quite popular on weekends, as is mescaline. LSD has fallen out of favor lately. Seems like you just can't get good acid anymore. Not since our summer of love, anyway.:fluffle:

So no offense to the originator of this resolution. We agree with you in spirit, but not in application. Perhaps you can remove any regulatory aspects of the proposal and just let the individual nations handle it.

However, we do not wish the UN to get involved in how we handle this situation. We do not want the UN to force their licensing on our growers, when we are making a tidy sum on the issuance of our own drug licenses.

Licensing? What licensing? All this is doing is legalising use of drugs on properties with some restrictions.

Ok everyone, if the debates are over, this will be submitted tomorrow night at roughly 8 PM, EST.

Getting really picky now, but I think clause 5. III) needs to be held together - I think the spaces between the sub-sub-clauses (lol) are somewhat unhelpful. Can we go to this?:

5.PERMITS member states to:

I)Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the national age of majority,

II)Restrict individuals under the influence of said drugs from operating vehicles and heavy/dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, physically harm others,

III)Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain - at their discretion but subject to other applicable laws and with the utmost respect for individual freedom of expression and conscience - any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:
a)Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, or severe distress to others,
b)Put others at significant risk of physical injury,