NationStates Jolt Archive

As some of you may recall, in the last few weeks of last year I had a proposal kicking around here, about drugs. Reached 60 approvals in the last submission, but then I went on holiday for a month, so a lot of people won't remember it. Anyway, here it is again, as it was the last time it got an airing.

Drug Trafficking Act
International Security: Mild

The General Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Co-authored by Rehochipe

---

I'll have it up here for a few days at least (that is, until I get my endorsements back since I re-joined the UN). If anyone has any comments to make about this, please do so. I'm pretty sure it was submitted as International Security: Mild, but not entirely certain. I think I'll run it by the mods again before submitting.

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

:D Thanks for the last part of that clause. My proposal "Recreational Drug Legalization" deals with that issue.

I like it, although it doesn't seem to fit in "International Security".

I like it, although it doesn't seem to fit in "International Security".
Yeah. The main problem it that it doesn't really fit any of the categories. Hack thought that fitted best, because of the bits about border officials sharing information. But I will definitely run it by the mods again to see if there's anything better than that category.

Yeah. The main problem it that it doesn't really fit any of the categories. Hack thought that fitted best, because of the bits about border officials sharing information. But I will definitely run it by the mods again to see if there's anything better than that category.
You could spin it so putting the border protection on would make nations more likely to allow the drug trafficking, and then squeeze it into Free Trade.

You could spin it so putting the border protection on would make nations more likely to allow the drug trafficking, and then squeeze it into Free Trade.
I'm edgy about doing that (and not just because I'm always edgy about free trade). This isn't meant to be promoting or outlawing anything, just clarifying an area of international law.

The government of St Edmund notes with regret that you are still failing to recognise that the sacramental use of certain drugs by certain religions is NOT just "recreational", and points out that treating it as such in this proposal is likely to be seen as an insult by the members of those faiths...

The government of St Edmund notes with regret that you are still failing to recognise that the sacramental use of certain drugs by certain religions is NOT just "recreational", and points out that treating it as such in this proposal is likely to be seen as an insult by the members of those faiths...
And the Ennish UN Consuls reply, as they have before, that some of those drugs are used entirely for recreational purposes by people who are not of those faiths. Just because it is religious does not prevent it being used for non-religious purposes.

OOC:
Cannabis is used religiously by some Rastafarians, and recreationally by non-Rastafarians - this drug is illegal in some countries, decriminalised in others, and in some is perfectly legal.
Peyote is used in some native religions of North America, but is otherwise regarded as a dangerous psychoactive hallucinogenic substance, and is treated accordingly.
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church uses (used to use?) red wine, which is otherwise considered acceptable in Western nations, but not in Muslim. These three examples cover three different drugs that are each considered very differently throughout the world.

I really don't see how I can make any blanket statement on this matter. Any such statement would be of neccessity even more offensive to some people than simply leaving the matter out of this proposal.

Seriously, how do you expect me to factor in your problem?

At the very least give me something to work with, because I've tried again and again to work in your issue, but I can't see any way to do it.

Okay, here’s a suggested re-write of the proposal, to deal with the points about which the government of St Edmund was uncomfortable: I’ve replaced the word “recreational” with the term “non-medicinal” in several places, added an extra clause but merged two of the existing ones (& re-numbered the others accordingly), and tinkered with it a bit in other places too...
This version is slightly over the maximum number of characters allowed, but less so than the one that I posted earlier this afternoon & have just pasted it over... I'll probably tinker with it a bit more tomorrow.



Drugs Trafficking Act

The General Assembly,

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

Aware that nations with widely differing policies on non-medicinal drugs may share borders,

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

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

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

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

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, drugs as chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, causing changes in behaviour and/or potential addiction, and defining all drugs as being non-medicinal, unless they are recognised by the individual nations within which they are being sold or otherwise distributed as legitimate medical substances and used in a manner deemed appropriate by medical experts;

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

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

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

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

6. Recognises that certain non-medicinal drugs may be required elements in certain religious rituals, and accepts that governments may choose to refrain from the urged cooperation in cases where their own laws allow the drugs concerned to be used thus & they believe that exports are also intended for religious use.

7. Reaffirms the right of nations to monitor vessels using international territory in order to prevent illicit activity, but does not recognise the fact that vessels may be engaged in the transport of non-medicinal drugs that are legal in both exporting and importing countries as legal grounds for other nations to threaten them with impediment or harassment there;

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

9. Recognises the right of nations to deny entry to vessels transporting non-medicinal drugs.

Co-authored by Rehochipe

I'd say International Security, although I think there's a case for Moral Decency if International Security is rejected.

On an individual level this act in many cases is unenforcable. Please look at UN Resolution #10 , this will severely limit this act. Section 4 of this act is unenforcable.

Also certain sections of this act violate patents, trade secrets, and the privacy of business information. We are not releasing figures on our local drug production to a foreign power, as it will severely limit business. Especially if such business is interdicted.

We are certainly willing to release figures on certain classes of drugs which have become a problem -- crack cocaine, methamphetamines, and other dangerous chemicals.

Also certain sections of this act violate patents, trade secrets, and the privacy of business information. We are not releasing figures on our local drug production to a foreign power, as it will severely limit business. Especially if such business is interdicted.
So don't release them. It's not a mandatory clause.

Commonalitarianism: I don't quite understand what you mean with your first point. For starters, Article 4 is a request, not mandatory. Also, this is a request from the UN, which is not a government (which is what resolution #10 refers to).

Your other point is also a non-mandatory article.

In other news: Hack has again stated that International Security: Mild is the best category for this, so I'll keep it there.

St Edmund: I've thought about it, but your suggestions just open even more cans of worms, which I've been trying to avoid.

Shouldn't the title of this be "Drug Trafficking Act" instead of "Drugs Trafficking Act"?

Shouldn't the title of this be "Drug Trafficking Act" instead of "Drugs Trafficking Act"?
The latter just... sounds better to me.

Let's see, can I rephrase that into something more meaningful...
It's not just about a single drug, but a more general Act concerning movement of all types of drugs.

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

This would seem to say that any vessel which is transporting recreational drugs (that are "legal in... [etc]") can't be impeded or harassed in international waters regardless of anything else that it might be doing...

The latter just... sounds better to me.

Let's see, can I rephrase that into something more meaningful...
It's not just about a single drug, but a more general Act concerning movement of all types of drugs.I think the singular form of 'drug' is appropriate here. 'Drug' is actually acting as an adverb in this situation as it's telling us what is being trafficked (gak!). Pretend we're talking about the shooting of dogs:

"The Dog Shooting Law"
"The Dogs Shooting Law"

The former still implies that we're talking about all breeds of dogs, and that we aren't just talking about just one specific dog. Making 'drug' plural is unnecessary. I think it resides in a nebulous area of grammar, but I'm pretty sure 'drugs' is incorrect.

This would seem to say that any vessel which is transporting recreational drugs (that are "legal in... [etc]") can't be impeded or harassed in international waters regardless of anything else that it might be doing...
That bit's mainly just a re-stating of the status quo. Perhaps changing it to 'actively engaged' would make it clearer.

I think the singular form of 'drug' is appropriate here. 'Drug' is actually acting as an adverb in this situation as it's telling us what is being trafficked (gak!). Pretend we're talking about the shooting of dogs:

"The Dog Shooting Law"
"The Dogs Shooting Law"

The former still implies that we're talking about all breeds of dogs, and that we aren't just talking about just one specific dog. Making 'drug' plural is unnecessary. I think it resides in a nebulous area of grammar, but I'm pretty sure 'drugs' is incorrect.
Okay, that makes sense. Will change it to 'Drug Trafficking Act' then.

I think the singular form of 'drug' is appropriate here. 'Drug' is actually acting as an adverb in this situation as it's telling us what is being trafficked (gak!). Pretend we're talking about the shooting of dogs:

"The Dog Shooting Law"
"The Dogs Shooting Law"

The former still implies that we're talking about all breeds of dogs, and that we aren't just talking about just one specific dog. Making 'drug' plural is unnecessary. I think it resides in a nebulous area of grammar, but I'm pretty sure 'drugs' is incorrect.

Actually, "drug," in this instance, is the object of "trafficking," which is acting as a participial noun. But yes, "drug" (singular) is the more appropriate here.

/grammar nazi

Actually, "drug," in this instance, is the object of "trafficking," which is acting as a participial noun. But yes, "drug" (singular) is the more appropriate here.Bah. It's more fun to call it an adverb. Punk. :p

Bah. It's more fun to call it an adverb. Punk. :p

Surely you mean punkt. Punk means a particular type of flammable material, or refers to a counterculture group. Punkt, on the other hand, is German for period.

(hey, this is fun!) :p

Bah. It's more fun to call it an adverb. Punk. :p

Sorry. I'm a magazine editor irl. ;)

Surely you mean punkt. Punk means a particular type of flammable material, or refers to a counterculture group. Punkt, on the other hand, is German for period.No, I mean punk (http://punk.urbanup.com/1407403) :p

No, I mean punk (http://punk.urbanup.com/1407403) :p

The first definition?!? :eek:

No, I mean punk (http://punk.urbanup.com/1407403) :p

In honour of Cluich then:

When they kick at your front door
how you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
or on the trigger of your gun

When the law break in
how you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
or waiting on death row

Ohhhh oh, the guns of Brixton! :cool:

Final draft up for comment, planning to submit on Monday.

Drug Trafficking Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Enn

The General Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Co-author: Rehochipe