NationStates Jolt Archive

----------------------
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,

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

SEEKING to legalize 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.LEGALIZES in UN states the possession, cultivation, and preparation of said drugs, given these activities do not directly and physically harm others,

3.LEGALIZES 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 illegalize 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_
--------------------------
(Went with the "z" spelling on words when I saw that the "decision" part of the proposal listed "legalize" with a "z"; decided to keep spaces between sub-sub-clauses :) )

(Went with the "z" spelling on words when I saw that the "decision" part of the proposal listed "legalize" with a "z"; decided to keep spaces between sub-sub-clauses :) )

Ok - wasn't a big deal for me.

Unsurprisingly, I'm in favour of this. If you're TGing on this run, I may be able to send a few tomorrow (EDIT: scratch that - this evening now that it's nearly 1am!) depending on what reality decides to throw at me - let me know if I can help.

I'll support it if it ever gets to the voting stage:)

ps: I don't do drugs, I don't even smoke

My U.N. nation would definitely support this. Although I'll need to use a few loopholes to get by things not already legal in my nation. (I think the cultivation of drugs is the only one). My nation pretty liberal with drugs, we allow all types and kinds of drugs, but they are regulated and distributed by the government (kinda like everything else ;) )

CR Oscilloscopes is opposed to this proposal, as we believe that to force these drugs upon nations of the UN is wrong, and that this should be a matter left up to individual nations.

We also doubt the safety of cannabis, and call into question the wisdom of legalising tobacco, when the primary form of consuming it (smoking) is so proven to be a health hazard, and causes a massive strain on health services.

Tobacco smoke harms others directly and physically (secondhand smoke/air pollution), so we have our loophole.

Tobacco smoke harms others directly and physically (secondhand smoke/air pollution), so we have our loophole.

No. You have reason to ban smoking in public places, not to illegalise it. By the way, this right is given explicitly in clause 3, not by some loophole in clause 2. The possession, cultivation, and preparation of cigarettes does not harm others in any direct way, as it does not generate any smoke.

I'm against this yet again.

I'm with it.

I'm against this yet again.

And why is that? Please do explain further.

remember the last time this came up? I explained that optischer interpreted it as deadly to our population. Look in the graveyard. I can't find it.

Jey, don't feed it. Not worth the bother.

Jey, don't feed it. Not worth the bother.

Good policy. He's going on Ignore on my end right now.

The government of St Edmund is opposed to this proposal, although several of the listed substances are already legal within our territories, because we believe that this is a matter which should be left for national governments to decide individually.

I join St. Edmund, in the fact that National government should be to decide.

While I understand and share the concerns about NatSov, let me repeat what I said in the other thread. Nations retain the sovereign right to place a 100,000% tax on drugs.

While I understand and share the concerns about NatSov, let me repeat what I said in the other thread. Nations retain the sovereign right to place a 100,000% tax on drugs.

But what if we're ideologically opposed to high taxes?

But what if we're ideologically opposed to high taxes?

You would rest assured that the tax revenue would be pretty much zero, as a tax of that magnitude is essentially equivalent to closing down the market.

You would rest assured that the tax revenue would be pretty much zero, as a tax of that magnitude is essentially equivalent to closing down the market.


It's not the revenue (Revenue is good!), it's the preccedent...

It's not the revenue (Revenue is good!), it's the preccedent...

OMG. You can go from ideologically opposed to high taxes to revenue is good! in no time... :D How do you measure the "size" of a tax if not by tax revenue?

While I understand and share the concerns about NatSov, let me repeat what I said in the other thread. Nations retain the sovereign right to place a 100,000% tax on drugs.

That doesn't defeat the principle though.

We shouldn't pass resolutions, just because we can get round them using loopholes after.

That doesn't defeat the principle though.

We shouldn't pass resolutions, just because we can get round them using loopholes after.

True. You should notice that I am merely pointing out the possibilities, not actively campaigning for the proposal.

The government of St Edmund is opposed to this proposal, although several of the listed substances are already legal within our territories, because we believe that this is a matter which should be left for national governments to decide individually.

We understand your position, but we have a concern about your stance. Since the ability to consume drugs in public areas is left up to relevant authority, and that consumption only must be legal if it can not injure anyone physically other then the user (completely eliminating second-hand smoke and other health concerns for others), why does the government have a right to decide that persons cannot consume these products? It is not a health concern for anyone else, and everyone has the right to their own body. Where does the government fit in?

Nations retain the sovereign right to place a 100,000% tax on drugs.

Indeed they do. Not only that, they retain the sovereign right to ban the supply of drugs altogether. Let me clarify this for everyone, it might reassure some:

This proposal only requires you to legalise the safe private production of certain recreational drugs for personal consumption, and consumption by adults on private property when not hurting others - nations are not obliged to allow anyone to supply recreational drugs to anybody else. Clause 9 merely "urges" them to do so.

EDIT: That means that crushing the drugs trade isn't exploiting a loophole - we intended it to be possible when drafting this text.

We understand your position, but we have a concern about your stance. Since the ability to consume drugs in public areas is left up to relevant authority, and that consumption only must be legal if it can not injure anyone physically other then the user (completely eliminating second-hand smoke and other health concerns for others), why does the government have a right to decide that persons cannot consume these products? It is not a health concern for anyone else, and everyone has the right to their own body. Where does the government fit in?

If my government provides 100% health care, then it is very important to me that my people not use substances which can harm them individually.

Personally, I have very little by way of drug laws in my country, I was just answering your question.

If my government provides 100% health care, then it is very important to me that my people not use substances which can harm them individually.

_Myopia_ has universal free-at-point-of-use healthcare, and all recreational drugs are legal. We do not regard these policies as conflicting. Taxation of drugs provides substantial healthcare funding, as do the savings on law enforcement and the judicial and prison systems that we make compared to countries enforcing prohibition. Legalisation also allows us to regulate the industry properly, taking it out of the hands of criminals who fight violent turf wars, and requiring standardisation, proper labelling, and quality control - these ensure that users are not provided with "cut" drugs which could well be more dangerous than the real thing, that all the products are sanitary (for instance, helping to cut the spread of HIV), and that users know exactly what they are taking and how strong it is, so can regulate their intake for responsible usage. Drug education is not wholly directed towards the somewhat unrealistic goal of total elimination of use, but also aims to teach people how they can minimise the health risks associated with drug use.

All this makes it possible for users to be responsible and avoid the worst health risks - we find that, although we may have more drug users than nations practising prohibition, our drug users are more likely to be healthy and responsible.

Smoking of tobacco, which is common across the world, in general costs governments more in healthcare costs, than that government gains through taxing it.
Drugs like cannabis, which may have some long term effects, could therefore, in the long term cost governments more in healthcare than they would gain through taxes.
OOC: I have no IC way to respond to this I'm afraid, but OOC, that's a pile of shit. Care to provide any evidence to back up your wildly misleading assertions?

The Republic of Terrorocracy is firmly opposed to any resolution that would give its citizens any respite from Terror (And the subsequent threat of Terror) that i sthe government's duty to impose. By allowing these so-called "recreational drugs" to be consumed by the populace, the government of Terrocracy will be hard-pressed to maintain the constant state of Terror that we strive for in earnest. Terror, of course, is an end in itself, and allowing recreational drug use diminishes our capability to reach that end.

Against.

The Republic of Terrorocracy is firmly opposed to any resolution that would give its citizens any respite from Terror (And the subsequent threat of Terror) that i sthe government's duty to impose. By allowing these so-called "recreational drugs" to be consumed by the populace, the government of Terrocracy will be hard-pressed to maintain the constant state of Terror that we strive for in earnest. Terror, of course, is an end in itself, and allowing recreational drug use diminishes our capability to reach that end.

Against.

Please go away.

OMG. You can go from ideologically opposed to high taxes to revenue is good! in no time... :D How do you measure the "size" of a tax if not by tax revenue?

Remember that revenue depends on the size of the economy being taxed, not just the levels at which the taxes are set: The government of St Edmund has no problems with the idea of raising money by light taxation of a large economy, and thus no problem with the concept of 'revenue' as such (since without it, after all, we'd be unable to fund our politicians' holidays essential services...), but doesn't see why this should prevent our having ideological objections to the idea of setting any tax at "punitive" levels...

OOC: I have no IC way to respond to this I'm afraid, but OOC, that's a pile of shit. Care to provide any evidence to back up your wildly misleading assertions?

You're right, it is. I checked it out, and it's all lies. Consider that post exterminated.
Perhaps I should check facts in the future, rather than believing what my parents told me.

82 Approvals so far. Thanks for the support, we're 2/3rds the way to quorum!

Jey, is that with telegramming?

Jey, is that with telegramming?

Yes. I've telegrammed nearly all the delegates that voted on "Repeal Gay Rights"

EDIT: done all the Repeal delegates

What reasons would you have to legalize recreational drugs, besides those you stated? I don't think it's appropiate, and will start a brainwash campaign against drugs immediately, until it either fails or shudder passes

The overriding point is that individuals have the right to make their own choices about their own bodies - for a government to defy this principle is for it essentially to declare that its citizens do not fully own their bodies - and, since the it is the state dictating what they may and may not do to their bodies, that the state at least partly owns their bodies.

Prohibition is also a massive waste of resources for the police, justice and prison services, and punishments for drugs often do far more damage than the drugs themselves. It puts the trade into the hands of gangs who compete for customers with violence and have no qualms about selling to kids or cutting their products. Users have no real guarantee about what they are taking, and cannot properly regulate consumption, so overdosing is much easier.

Doesn't the fact that your arguments against drugs are so unconvincing that you must brainwash your citizens tell you something?

That maybe I've ignored my citizens for too long so they've turned to drugs as an escape into their fantasy. If they can't look after their body, they can't own it.

Optischer, if you're going to troll and puppetwank at the same time, at least put some thought and effort into it. This has been an embarassing display.

Personally, I favour the mature attitude to this emotive issue deomnstrated in the proposal. However, my Deputy is yet to be persuaded that there is a convincing case for exporting our own liberal view of recreational drugs to other nations. Here, then, is the crux for my nation: are we so secure in our advocacy of liberty in this area that we would seek to force other nations to follow our lead? For too many Ecopoeians, the answer is no, thus we are likely to abstain should this come to vote.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

That maybe I've ignored my citizens for too long so they've turned to drugs as an escape into their fantasy. If they can't look after their body, they can't own it.

I question how this is legal and you are still in the UN. Many resolutions protect citizen's rights to their own bodies--you cant take away that right just because you think they aren't taking good care of their bodies.

On a side note, this proposal is 14 endorsements away from reaching quorum. Thanks everyone for their support.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Congratulations.

I don't know what happened, but it appears we've celebrated too soon. I cannot find the proposal anywhere, and I've received no TGs from the mods about a deletion. I've put this issue into Technical.

I don't know what happened, but it appears we've celebrated too soon. I cannot find the proposal anywhere, and I've received no TGs from the mods about a deletion. I've put this issue into Technical.

I used the paper on which it was written to roll a joint. Sorry 'bout that.

I do not believe that legalizing drugs would be beneficial to Geneticon... in fatc, I believe it is a very bad thing for my citizens.

I will oppose if this ever reaches a vote.

The Pure Socialist Holy Empire still believes that something like this should fall under NatSov and not under UN Jurisdiction.

OOC: There are RL religions whose rules ban the use of some [or maybe even all?] of those drugs. Any NS nations that are supposed to be run according to those religions' principles would therefore find accepting this proposal extremely difficult, because even if they could prevent the actual use of the drugs concerned by punitive taxation they would have moral objections to even legalising them anyway.

(Did you know that the Mormon Church prohibits Coffee? Want to bet that there's not at least one Mormon theocracy somewhere amongst the NSUN's members?)

OOC: Well, if they oppose it, then I imagine they won't partake of the drugs, so I wouldn't consider the resolution especially relevant to such societies.