NationStates Jolt Archive

--------------------------------
The UN,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many citizens of UN states wish to consume recreational drugs for many 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 others 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 drug use, and that suppliers of said drugs are not allowed to make false claims about them.

Co-Authored by: _Myopia_
---------------------------------

Please keep in mind:

1) People have the right to their own bodies. This proposal only legalizes consumption of certain plant-based drugs on private property with consent of the owner if and only if the consumption cannot physically harm others.

2) Citizens will have access to every piece of information imaginable as to the effects of these drugs.

3) Legalizing these drugs will provide the ability to create studies in order to increase the safety of these drugs for the user. The UN Drug Commission will only further this.

4) Governments are provided sufficient abilities to control the Drug Industry by such means that they see fit.

Why would you want to force U.N. states to legalize certain drugs that have negative health effects?

Why would you want to force U.N. states to legalize certain drugs that have negative health effects?

The ONLY legal negative health effects can be on the individual user. If anyone else is harmed by it, your welcome to outlaw the consumption. Now as for the only person it can affect--its his/her body. If no one is allowed to be harmed by it other then him/her, then what's the health concern? The citizen is making an educated decision to waive the health risks and take it.

The Socialist Republic does not believe it is responsible for a government to allow a person to take action contrary to the interest of their health in such a useless manner. The cost of drug use is ultimately not only inflicted upon the user, but others who are tempted to try the drug by observation or coercion and society itself in lost productivity and treatment for dependency when it occurs. Allowing the use of mind-altering substances may be all well and good in laissez faire states, but we do not believe that it is an issue that should be forced either way among the United Nations at large.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

others who are tempted to try the drug by observation or coercion

The reason for:

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

If this kind of thing was ever passed I'd resign from the UN so fast...

Ultimately, one major reason for looking at why legalizing drugs is good is the drug-based crime.

If the UN supported drug legalization, the governments could then monitor the drug trade, making it legitimate, as opposed to the illegal trade that it currently is.

I approve this resolution.

Ultimately, one major reason for looking at why legalizing drugs is good is the drug-based crime.

If the UN supported drug legalization, the governments could then monitor the drug trade, making it legitimate, as opposed to the illegal trade that it currently is.

I approve this resolution.
What's stopping governments from monitoring the drug trade when drugs are illegal?

Yes, Jey, but address my other points as well if you want to convince me. Well, I'm almost certain you won't convince me anyway, but still... it's cheap to refute one single branch of the argument and still get the last word on the matter.

The Socialist Republic does not believe it is responsible for a government to allow a person to take action contrary to the interest of their
health in such a useless manner.
There are two implied claims here which I intend to refute:
(1) Recreational drugs are harmful to one's health
(2) Recreational drugs are useless

Refuting: (1) Recreational drugs are harmful to one's health

While the health risks of certain recreational drugs like tobacco are well-documented, the health risks of most recreational drugs are mild at best. In most cases, there is little or no evidence to suggest any health risks for certain recreational drugs.

For example, there is some evidence to suggest that smoking marijuana will increase the risk of lung cancer. However, there is no evidence to suggest that marijuana in itself (and its active ingredient, THC) is in any way harmful to one's health. What many anti-marijuanists do not realize is that marijuana does not have to be smoked at all. Marijuana can also be turned into "pot-butter" which can then be harmlessly ingested in the form of tea, brownies, etc. Vaporizers can also be used to heat
marijuana to the point where the active ingredient, THC is released but the plant material is not combusted and therefore there is no resulting smoke.
The THC can be inhaled without the smoke that would normally accompany it.

This is the argument that is made by those who cite marijuana as being harmful to one's health:

premise: Smoking Marijuana is harmful to one's health.
conclusion: Marijuana is harmful to one's health.

Even though the premise is certainly disputable as such a claim has little scientific backing, let us give the benefit of the doubt and assume this premise is true. We can afford to do this, because whether or not the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow from the premise -- in other words, this is not a valid argument.

Refuting: (2) Recreational drugs are useless

Calling recreational drugs useless is flying in the face of common sense and many scientific studies.

There are numerous and well-documented medicinal benefits to marijuana. To argue that such benefits don't exist is in sharp contrast to the medical and scientific community.

Most recreational drugs are cherished for their psychadelic and spiritual effects. Peyote, cannabis (marijuana), and other recreational drugs have been used by indigenous peoples in spiritual ceremonies for thousands of years.

Not to mention that the use of recreational drugs is pleasurable. They are commonly used just for the pleasure and happiness they induce.


It's strange how the people who make the argument that an individual should be protected from things that are harmful to their own health aren't advocating the criminalization of fatty foods or boxing. I guess consistency isn't important when it comes to the zealous efforts of anti-drug crusaders.

To argue that the state should have control over an individual's action which harms only themselves is a fundamental violoation of human rights.

The cost of drug use is ultimately not only inflicted upon the user, but others who are tempted to try the drug by observation or coercion and society itself in lost productivity and treatment for dependency when it occurs.
With the exception of tobacco, recreational drugs are not addictive (no more than caffeine). They do not cause the dependency that hard drugs like cocaine, meth, crack, and heroin cause. Most recreational drug users are productive members of society and there is no evidence to suggest that recreational drug users are less productive than those who do not use them.

By saying that use of recreational substances leads to others using those same substances, it does not follow that this is a negative effect of recreational substances. Such a conclusion would rely on the assumption that the drugs are harmful to begin with, in which case it would be a moot point.

For example:
Atheism is bad because it causes more people to be atheists.

The argument starts with the assumption that atheism is bad to prove that atheism is bad. See if this next argument looks familiar:

Recreational drugs harm more than the user because they creates more users.

If you're implying it looks like mine, you're right. But you'll notice a key phrasing difference. My argument is still valid. Your claims about the absence of significant health risks are not only completely focused on marijuana, which wasn't even specifically mentioned and even you admit can be dangerous in some forms, but fail to address the psychological effects of the drugs that would be legalized by such a resolution. In addressing the "usefulness" of drugs you cite health benefits, the veracity of which are in doubt despite what you may think, and indicate that they are used for pleasure, again without regard to the often dangerous short- and long-term psychological effects.

Your argument might hold up better if this resolution only legalized marijuana, but it also proposes legalizing a number of other substances, including tobacco. In any case, I still go back to my original question over all of this: why force U.N. members to legalize substances that have been in many cases happily banned for a lengthy period for their health-related and societal effects? Unless you are implying some sort of right to become intoxicated, I fail to see the validity of forcing such an issue.

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

It appears as though this time it will remain in quorum.

This is... not a UN matter either! Quite frankly, "illegal drugs" have been illegal in my country since it's inception. i am sure, however, that there a plenty of countries where drugs we consider illegal are not. And since this matter is completely and properly handled by a nation's own laws, where is the justification for legislating a contrary position from above?

--dunerat

This is... not a UN matter either! Quite frankly, "illegal drugs" have been illegal in my country since it's inception. i am sure, however, that there a plenty of countries where drugs we consider illegal are not. And since this matter is completely and properly handled by a nation's own laws, where is the justification for legislating a contrary position from above?

--dunerat
I agree. We have common ground - who saw that coming?

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

This is... not a UN matter either! Quite frankly, "illegal drugs" have been illegal in my country since it's inception. i am sure, however, that there a plenty of countries where drugs we consider illegal are not. And since this matter is completely and properly handled by a nation's own laws, where is the justification for legislating a contrary position from above?

--dunerat

The people of Cluichstan agree, too (however frightening we find that to be).

EDIT & OOC: Congrats on reaching quorum, Jey.

As everyone has the right to their own body, they should be allowed to consume recreational drugs as long as it harms no others. To restrict this would be to deny a human right to citizens, and this proposal protects this right.

Nations have also had effective methods regarding abortion, euthanasia, and other controversial topics. Yet that did not stop the UN from intervening at one point or another.

Nations have also had effective methods regarding abortion, euthanasia, and other controversial topics. Yet that did not stop the UN from intervening at one point or another.

The UN will be stopped on one of those if a certain proposal passes... ;)

This is... not a UN matter either! Quite frankly, "illegal drugs" have been illegal in my country since it's inception. i am sure, however, that there a plenty of countries where drugs we consider illegal are not. And since this matter is completely and properly handled by a nation's own laws, where is the justification for legislating a contrary position from above?


Are you already a member of the National Sovereignty Organisation?

As everyone has the right to their own body, they should be allowed to consume recreational drugs as long as it harms no others. To restrict this would be to deny a human right to citizens, and this proposal protects this right.
Your proposal only gives nations to stop recreational drug use when it causes a direct and physical harm to others. There are many valid reasons why governments should outlaw drugs besides those:

Any smoked drug, including tobacco, causes secondhand smoke (which could be construed to be direct and physical) and air pollution (which couldn't).
Some (many? most? all?) drugs cause loss of foresight and an inability to do things properly. I shudder to think what would happen to children if we let parents consume drugs (I guess if they did something really stupid, the law enforcement could arrest them, but their standard of care for children would go down.
There are probably lots more, but I can't think of them right now.

Your proposal only gives nations to stop recreational drug use when it causes a direct and physical harm to others. There are many valid reasons why governments should outlaw drugs besides those:
*snip*

Read again.

Read again.
Meh, I suppose you're right about most of them. But we can't ban the possession of the harmful drugs, just detain people using them. So even though we can arrest people using cigarettes in all cases, for reasons described above, the cigarettes are still legal to possess, making it harder to crack down on them.

The proposal says:

You can ban smoking in public places, buying, and selling.
You are forced to allow smoking in private places, producing, and carrying.

The ONLY legal negative health effects can be on the individual user. If anyone else is harmed by it, your welcome to outlaw the consumption. Now as for the only person it can affect--its his/her body. If no one is allowed to be harmed by it other then him/her, then what's the health concern? The citizen is making an educated decision to waive the health risks and take it.

you underestimated the damages done to friends and family due to recreational drug use. if that is factored in then it is immpossible not to effect others making it useless

Wow...just..wow.....!

Why.. How..... Where do you get the idea that this is an issue for the UN?! And how the **** did you come to the view that the UN has any right to force this on everybody?!?!

Before anyone starts crying out that it's about the personal choice of an adult, don't! Because if the effects of tobacco and alcohol on people other then the ones originally using them has shown us anything. It's that there can be no doubt to the fallaciousness of the said view/claim. And I'm not even going to go in to the horrors and sufferings of life long addiction. Even if the said thing is/was good for you. (I.E. A proscription medicine.)

I get the feeling that a whole lot of these people have never had to deal with addiction in someone close to them... :|

This would run our nation into the ground! It goes against the very way our system works and how our people think..

I'd vote against this. Not only are they harming people (that=bad, not to mention it's a drain on our healthcare budget) but it's addicting too. Also, why would you want to do it anyway? Why not have fun the natural way? Why pump chemicals into your body when you could have fun normally?

Please keep in mind, as this has been stated numerous times before:

-the only consumption that you are completely forced to allow is consumption on private property with the consent of the private property's owner and when this consumption does not physically harm others.

That being said, how in the world does this "run your nation into the ground"? Drugs such as these are legal in many RL countries and they are doing fine. Not every citizen is going to go off and buy 50 pounds of drugs once this passes. A large portion of your population will still not use drugs for the harmful effects on their body. And if they don't know about the harmful effects? Well, thats the point of Clause #11.

"How do i get the idea that this is an issue of the UN"? Well, just look at the category of which it is under. "Recreational Drug Use" is a whole category of UN proposals! I think protecting the right to everyones body is a serious issue that the UN must protect.

how the **** did you come to the view that the UN has any right to force this on everybody?!?! Because every single UN resolution that isn't a repeal has forced something on every UN nation?

Because every single UN resolution that isn't a repeal has forced something on every UN nation?

Factually false. Not all resolutions mandate actions from member nations. The simplest example is #4.

Factually false. Not all resolutions mandate actions from member nations. The simplest example is #4.
Pretty sure that'd be deleted if submitted today. A better example might be a 'states right' proposal like UNSA or Right to Refuse Extradition, or an 'optional' proposal like The Microcredit Bazaar or Support Hemp Production.

I'd vote against this. Not only are they harming people (that=bad, not to mention it's a drain on our healthcare budget) but it's addicting too.

The damage done by addiction is acknowledged by pretty much everyone, but isn't in itself a case for prohibition. We believe that restricting the liberties of individuals is worse, and that legalisation can reduce the harm done by drugs.

Also, why would you want to do it anyway? Why not have fun the natural way? Why pump chemicals into your body when you could have fun normally?

Who are you to dictate what forms of pleasure are acceptable and unacceptable? If "unnatural" pleasure is not desirable, should we ban television and computer games? And anyway, who says drug use is unnatural? It's been a central part of many cultures for millenia (witness the use of hallucinogens in many tribal religions) and animals have also been observed consuming large amounts of plants with pyschoactive effects. For instance, elephants enjoy the taste of fermented fruits, and if they lose their mate will often binge on it, even drinking pure ethanol if researchers offer it - they are also more likely to seek alcohol if stressed by overcrowding (there was an article about this in New Scientist in November 2004).

If drugs are legal, more people will do them. That means more people in hospitals, addicted, paying all their money to a drug dealer, and sucking up healthcare budgets.

But by "natural" fun, I mean an activity, and stuff like that. Seriously, why not go play BF1942 or go play soccer instead of pumping addicting, deadly chemicals into your sytstem? And yes, those cultures worked, but they used it only in religions, not for recreation (if I'm wrong correct me.) And elephants... well, they aren't umans, are they?

If drugs are legal, more people will do them. That means more people in hospitals, addicted, paying all their money to a drug dealer, and sucking up healthcare budgets.

No. The numbers will not change in any extreme way. People know about the harmful effects of them and will be deterred by that. What will change in an extreme way is the health effects of these drugs. With them legalized, studies can be taken to help ensure the utmost safety of these drugs, not to mention how much the UNDC will help out.

But by "natural" fun, I mean an activity, and stuff like that. Seriously, why not go play BF1942 or go play soccer instead of pumping addicting, deadly chemicals into your sytstem? And yes, those cultures worked, but they used it only in religions, not for recreation (if I'm wrong correct me.)

Yes, you're wrong. Drugs have always had both religious and recreational purposes.

And elephants... well, they aren't umans, are they?

Indeed, which is meant to show that using drugs is indeed "natural".

You can't say it's normal for me to go consume drugs. Also, seriously, why do you support drugs anyway? If somebody needs drugs to have fun, they have problems.

You can't say it's normal for me to go consume drugs.

No, but i can say that it can be a natural desire to temporarily relieve your anxieties through the form of drugs.

Also, seriously, why do you support drugs anyway? If somebody needs drugs to have fun, they have problems.

Because I believe in peoples rights to their own body? And the use of drugs does not mean people have problems. Drugs can be consumed in a healthy manner, without any obsession or addiction. Ever hear of a light drinker?

Ever hear of a light drinker?

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich takes another shot of Cluichstani whiskey.

Huh? What's that?

I never said using drugs means they have problems. I said that needing drugs is a problem. Which drugs do.

And yes, I've heard of that, but every average person won't be able to do that. People will become addicted to it. Human nature. Besides, why not have fun without them?

I never said using drugs means they have problems. I said that needing drugs is a problem. Which drugs do.

Before we go any further, can I ask your government's positions on caffeine, alcohol and tobacco? Do you understand that these are drugs like any other?

And yes, I've heard of that, but every average person won't be able to do that.

Most average people seem to be able to consume alcohol on a fairly regular basis without developing a dependency.

People will become addicted to it. Human nature.

Some people become addicted to alcohol, fast food, sex, computer games, and internet chat. Most nations don't see this as cause to ban everyone from these activities.

Besides, why not have fun without them?

Most of the ways humans have fun have their negative impacts. Why should it be the place of government to start dictating which are acceptable and which are unacceptable, as long as nobody's harming anyone else? This is a perfectly valid question to address to the individual taking drugs, but, to my mind, it isn't relevant from the legislative perspective.

Your proposal only gives nations to stop recreational drug use when it causes a direct and physical harm to others. There are many valid reasons why governments should outlaw drugs besides those:

Any smoked drug, including tobacco, causes secondhand smoke (which could be construed to be direct and physical) and air pollution (which couldn't).

Any imbibed drug, including alcohol, causes secondhand belching, urination, vomiting, significant loss of judgement, loss of civility, motor control, control of violent impulses (which could be contrued to be direct and physical) and noise pollution (which couldn't).

Some (many? most? all?) drugs cause loss of foresight and an inability to do things properly. I shudder to think what would happen to children if we let parents consume drugs (I guess if they did something really stupid, the law enforcement could arrest them, but their standard of care for children would go down.

So we should ban alcohol, too, according to this line of reasoning. (OOC: Oh wait, we tried that IRL here in the States, didn't we?) When domestic disputes or gross child abuse/neglect occurs, alcohol is more often the culprit than any other drug/all other drugs combined. And are you trying to tell me that anyone becomes violent on marijuana? Please -- it's f**king impossible.

There are probably lots more, but I can't think of them right now.

Now you're getting warm.

I think legalizing "consensual crimes" is one way to lower inmate populations, redirect police efforts to crimes that actually affect other people, and make the state money.

If you don't believe this, may I suggest reading this book. (http://lawsmiths.com/law-books/free.php?in=us&asin=0931580587)

I think legalizing "consensual crimes" is one way to lower inmate populations, redirect police efforts to crimes that actually affect other people, and make the state money.

If you don't believe this, may I suggest reading this book. (http://lawsmiths.com/law-books/free.php?in=us&asin=0931580587)

Good argument, even without the book. But your greatest challenge is yet to come. How does forcing it on everyone address a fundamental human right? (And yes, I read the proposal, I just don't buy that line.)

I think legalizing "consensual crimes" is one way to lower inmate populations, redirect police efforts to crimes that actually affect other people, and make the state money.

If you don't believe this, may I suggest reading this book. (http://lawsmiths.com/law-books/free.php?in=us&asin=0931580587)
Oh please, legalizing "consensual crimes" like drug use, would cause even more trouble then we have now... People really need to quit dreaming.

I'm sorry but drugs DO affect other people. To argue they don't is just stupid.

People really need to quit dreaming.

Your right. Let's stop dreaming of increasing freedoms and human rights, its getting way too nice in the world.

I'm sorry but drugs DO affect other people. To argue they don't is just stupid.

If the affect others physically, go and prohibit the consumption.

Your right. Let's stop dreaming of increasing freedoms and human rights, its getting way too nice in the world.
What the hell does legalizing drugs have to do with human rights?!


If the affect others physically, go and prohibit the consumption.
We already do and will continue to regardless of this resolution passing or not!

What the hell does legalizing drugs have to do with human rights?!

The term "right to one's body" comes to mind


We already do and will continue to regardless of this resolution passing or not!

heh. http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/newnew5kc.png

(that is if your talking about complete prohibition)

Good argument, even without the book. But your greatest challenge is yet to come. How does forcing it on everyone address a fundamental human right? (And yes, I read the proposal, I just don't buy that line.)

If, in a capitalist economy, you buy an object, you are fully within your rights to go home and smash it to pieces, because it belongs to you and nobody else, and you aren't abrogating anyone else's rights in the process. If a government treats people's bodies differently, and says you aren't allowed to hurt yourself by taking drugs, this is a de facto announcement that you don't fully own your body - and that the state claims at least partial ownership over you. That, to me at least, is most definitely a fundamental human rights issue.

(Before anyone cries "oh, but what about the 40 hour work week and workplace safety legislation? They restrict the rights of the individual to hurt themselves, and yet you support them!" I would point out that the real problem with a few people being willing to work themselves to death is that markets mean that to compete and earn a living wage, other workers are forced to follow suit and have little real choice in the matter. So if a few people choose to work under these conditions, it can do significant tangible harm to many other workers.)

I'm sorry but drugs DO affect other people. To argue they don't is just stupid.

There are a few different types of harm to others associated with drug use, as far as I can see:

- Second-hand smoke and similar. Under this resolution, governments will be allowed to prohibit drug consumption where this is an issue.
- Harmful acts committed by users while under the influence. Governments will remain free to forbid the intoxicated from any activities where their condition poses an immediate threat to others, and you can give police the right to detain individuals under the influence who are deemed to pose a physical risk to others. I would also argue that in a proper environment of regulation, it will be easier to use drugs responsibly to avoid this kind of situation. Most people are able to legally drink alcohol without getting absolutely hammered and going on a rampage.
- Violence associated with the criminals who run the drugs trade under prohibition. This is due to prohibition, and would necessarily decrease if the market was taken out of their hands and they didn't have it to fight over.
- Acquisitive crimes committed by addicts to fuel their addictions. This is, in part, driven by prohibition. Criminality ensures that prices are artificially inflated, so it's much harder for addicts to afford drugs, and the attitude which treats addicts as criminals not patients does not help with rehabilitation. Police might also have a bit more time to protect people from this kind of thing if they weren't spending so much time on drug crimes and crimes committed by drug-dealing gangs.
- Emotional harm to those close to drug abusers. I can't see how this warrants criminalisation. Should it also be a crime to deeply offend your racist parents by marrying someone of another race? Should it be a crime to cheat on your girl/boyfriend? Should it be a crime to sever your links with a sibling and refuse to ever speak to them again? Should it be a crime to risk having a traumatic experience, which might lead to psychological problems, which might cause emotional turmoil for your family? Should it be a crime to eat fugu, in case you are poisoned and die, harming your family and friends?

Does "the right to one's body" constitute such a fundamental principle as to prohibit medical treatment of failed suicide victims?

I am playing the devil's advocate here. We are strong supporters of liberal drug laws. We just do not believe it is an issue of "fundamental human rights" as it is being presented here. There is a delicate balance between public health and free choice considerations, and as such, the decision is better dealt with at national level. We would not dream of accusing nations who outlaw consumption of certain drugs of breaching human rights.

(Before anyone cries "oh, but what about the 40 hour work week and workplace safety legislation? They restrict the rights of the individual to hurt themselves, and yet you support them!" I would point out that the real problem with a few people being willing to work themselves to death is that markets mean that to compete and earn a living wage, other workers are forced to follow suit and have little real choice in the matter. So if a few people choose to work under these conditions, it can do significant tangible harm to many other workers.)I would disagree with that interpretation of how markets react to workers overworking themselves (you seem to forget the productivity of workers, how it's in the company's interest to keep it high and how overworked workers lose productivity). But this is not a place for us to debate the merits of 40 hour workweek.


On the resolution: I think it's a little too...preachy, but I'm not going to actively oppose it. There are transparent ways to outlaw drugs that a nation doesn't want (not to mention all the free-market solutions to stopping drug use). I don't think it'll make for a significant change in my nation’s drug policies, if it causes any change.

Oh please, legalizing "consensual crimes" like drug use, would cause even more trouble then we have now... People really need to quit dreaming.

I'm sorry but drugs DO affect other people. To argue they don't is just stupid.
Can you show me an argument that proves your position? How does or would marijuana affect others moreso or any worse than alcohol does?

Tell me, my moralistic acquaintance, when you're out in public and someone's being unruly, loud, obnoxious and violent, are they more likely to be drunk or stoned? The one and only correct answer is DRUNK, ladies and gentlemen. Seems to me that legalizing a drug that makes macho assholes become even more violent and offensive, and demonizing a drug like marijuana that makes the vast majority of users do little more than contemplate their navels and really, REALLY want to eat is a nation that has it's perspective out of whack.

Good argument, even without the book. But your greatest challenge is yet to come. How does forcing it on everyone address a fundamental human right? (And yes, I read the proposal, I just don't buy that line.)
Thank you.

I'm sure the proposal could be construed as "forcing" recognition of the concept of consensual crimes, but then that means that the already-passed UN resolutions giving this body's sanction to prostitution (Sex Workers Act) has already wedged that door open. Doesn't it?

I would disagree with that interpretation of how markets react to workers overworking themselves (you seem to forget the productivity of workers, how it's in the company's interest to keep it high and how overworked workers lose productivity). But this is not a place for us to debate the merits of 40 hour workweek.


On the resolution: I think it's a little too...preachy, but I'm not going to actively oppose it. There are transparent ways to outlaw drugs that a nation doesn't want (not to mention all the free-market solutions to stopping drug use). I don't think it'll make for a significant change in my nation’s drug policies, if it causes any change.
Please mention them!

Unless this is some older idea with a new title, I've not heard of any free market solutions that purport to stop drug use. Then again, I've not heard about a lot of things, so I could be unintentionally ignorant here.

Thank you.

I'm sure the proposal could be construed as "forcing" recognition of the concept of consensual crimes, but then that means that the already-passed UN resolutions giving this body's sanction to prostitution (Sex Workers Act) has already wedged that door open. Doesn't it?

Not everyone agrees with that particular resolution, even if it does not legalise prostitution at all. (Every person gained the right to become a prosititute.) Your argument for passing this one can be twisted into an argument for repealing the other one.

Don't get me wrong, I can completely endorse the intentions of this resolution. But I still do not see it as being a matter for the UN. I repeat my question:

Medical assistence in failed suicides; good, bad, or human rights violation?

Medical assistence in failed suicides; good, bad, or human rights violation?
Personally: I have done it, once. I would do so again. If that makes me a hypocrite...bravo, you win. I still support legalisation.

Suggestion: maybe a quick FAQ in the first post? Obvious points:
- why not alcohol
- why not $other_drug
- why not sale
- what are the loopholes you've chosen to leave?

Yet another fine example of an issue that should be left up to individual nations. If the UN wants to legislate on international trade aspect of drugs, so be it. That would be a perfectly legitimate UN action. But this? No way.

Personally: I have done it, once. I would do so again. If that makes me a hypocrite...bravo, you win. I still support legalisation.

Suggestion: maybe a quick FAQ in the first post? Obvious points:
- why not alcohol
- why not $other_drug
- why not sale
- what are the loopholes you've chosen to leave?

Please don't put words in my mouth. My point is that presenting the right to do whatever you want with your body as a "fundamental human right," which should be declared and defended internationally under any circumstances, is more of a convenient point to defend this proposal than a deeply held belief. And if that argument is removed, the whole justification for the international scope of this law also fails.

Yet another fine example of an issue that should be left up to individual nations. If the UN wants to legislate on international trade aspect of drugs, so be it. That would be a perfectly legitimate UN action. But this? No way.
I agree, Sheikh. I understand that the Ennish nation are retreating into a period of isolation; perhaps we should consult with them concerning their proposal to deal with this very issue before they are lost to us?

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

I agree, Sheikh. I understand that the Ennish nation are retreating into a period of isolation; perhaps we should consult with them concerning their proposal to deal with this very issue before they are lost to us?

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

That's precisely why I mentioned it, my friend. ;) Yes, I would like to see the Ennish proposal given further consideration.

Please don't put words in my mouth. My point is that presenting the right to do whatever you want with your body as a "fundamental human right," which should be declared and defended internationally under any circumstances, is more of a convenient point to defend this proposal than a deeply held belief. And if that argument is removed, the whole justification for the international scope of this law also fails.
Sorry; I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.

I do believe, though, we have a right to do as we wish with our bodies, and that includes suicide. I do not believe it is always possible to tell whether someone attempting suicide is making such a decision out of free will, or out of a moment of severe mental instability (or whether the act was an accident). If a suicide victim makes it clear they do not wish to have any life-saving attempts made, and are of sound mind when making that request and commiting the suicide, then yes, I would accept their right not to be treated (although I would equally understand medical personnel who treated them anyway, even if they were 'wrong' to do so).

I will just say this once and only once


The Legalizaiton and/or Illegalization of Controlled Substances (ie Marijuana, Crack, Cocane, Meth, etc) should be left up to UN Member Nations and not should not be an issue for the United Nations as an organization.

That is all

Mr. Henry L. Winklin
Shazbotdom United Nations Representitive

I will just say this once and only once


The Legalizaiton and/or Illegalization of Controlled Substances (ie Marijuana, Crack, Cocane, Meth, etc) should be left up to UN Member Nations and not should not be an issue for the United Nations as an organization.

That is all

Mr. Henry L. Winklin
Shazbotdom United Nations Representitive

I will say this now and probably many more times. The right for a citizen not to have his body be in any way controlled by the government is an issue of international concern and should undoubtedly be protected by the UN.

Sorry; I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.

I do believe, though, we have a right to do as we wish with our bodies, and that includes suicide. I do not believe it is always possible to tell whether someone attempting suicide is making such a decision out of free will, or out of a moment of severe mental instability (or whether the act was an accident). If a suicide victim makes it clear they do not wish to have any life-saving attempts made, and are of sound mind when making that request and commiting the suicide, then yes, I would accept their right not to be treated (although I would equally understand medical personnel who treated them anyway, even if they were 'wrong' to do so).

Reasonable. You understand if people would rather keep their allegiance to the Hippocratic Oath. Now bring this back the the UN level. If a nation had a law making it mandatory for doctors to treat suicide victims, even after they expressed their will to die, would you consider such a nation to be "breaching a fundamental human right"? Would you impose a UN resolution on that nation, to protect their citizens from unacceptable oppression? Because that is my impression of what a "fundamental human right" should imply...

Reasonable. You understand if people would rather keep their allegiance to the Hippocratic Oath. Now bring this back the the UN level. If a nation had a law making it mandatory for doctors to treat suicide victims, even after they expressed their will to die, would you consider such a nation to be "breaching a fundamental human right"? Would you impose a UN resolution on that nation, to protect their citizens from unacceptable oppression? Because that is my impression of what a "fundamental human right" should imply...

No. As you imply, the ability for doctors to make a moral decision in this delimma should be allowed. However these two things are different. No one is being forced to sell drugs. The only thing being forced is to allow consumption where people receive relevant consent and don't harm others.

Reasonable. You understand if people would rather keep their allegiance to the Hippocratic Oath. Now bring this back the the UN level. If a nation had a law making it mandatory for doctors to treat suicide victims, even after they expressed their will to die, would you consider such a nation to be "breaching a fundamental human right"? Would you impose a UN resolution on that nation, to protect their citizens from unacceptable oppression? Because that is my impression of what a "fundamental human right" should imply...
That's a very good question. I should preface any further comments I make in answer by saying I am not a philosopher of any sort, and anyone with the most basic grounding in it will doubtless be able to slap me down.

I think it depends on the case. Ultimately, medicine is dependent on trusting doctors to make decisions about patient welfare. We need ethical guidelines - laws, in fact - to prevent 'angels of mercy' and such like, but essentially, we need to accept the best clinical judgment is that of the doctor, nurse, midwife, paramedic. If a person expressed a wish to die, and was mentally competent to make that decision, and the state had a law that in that case the doctor still had to treat, then yes I would, probably, consider that an unfair law. I wouldn't for a second judge a doctor who treated them, though, because they would be a) duty-bound (regardless of laws and oaths, bound by their medical views) and b) unlikely to be able to assess those two provisos at the precise time.

Does that make sense?

I will say this now and probably many more times. The right for a citizen not to have his body be in any way controlled by the government is an issue of international concern and should undoubtedly be protected by the UN.

Um...no. It's not the UN's job to impose your libertarian views on the world.

(OOC: And FYI, I'm a libertarian myself. ;) )

No. As you imply, the ability for doctors to make a moral decision in this delimma should be allowed. However these two things are different. No one is being forced to sell drugs. The only thing being forced is to allow consumption where people receive relevant consent and don't harm others.

No, no, and no. You motivated the whole idea with the belief that the right to one's body is fundamental. It cannot be qualified by oaths, opinions, or other moral considerations. If you now argue that the right to one's body is fundamental, but that the right of doctors to make moral decisions is even more fundamental, I can easily get my police force to make a Hippocratic Oath themselves, and to make moral decisions on the dillemma of whether to "protect drug users from themselves" or not.

Where do you see a philosophical difference between preventing suicide and preventing drug abuse?

That's a very good question. I should preface any further comments I make in answer by saying I am not a philosopher of any sort, and anyone with the most basic grounding in it will doubtless be able to slap me down.

I think it depends on the case. Ultimately, medicine is dependent on trusting doctors to make decisions about patient welfare. We need ethical guidelines - laws, in fact - to prevent 'angels of mercy' and such like, but essentially, we need to accept the best clinical judgment is that of the doctor, nurse, midwife, paramedic. If a person expressed a wish to die, and was mentally competent to make that decision, and the state had a law that in that case the doctor still had to treat, then yes I would, probably, consider that an unfair law. I wouldn't for a second judge a doctor who treated them, though, because they would be a) duty-bound (regardless of laws and oaths, bound by their medical views) and b) unlikely to be able to assess those two provisos at the precise time.

Does that make sense?

Yes, very reasonable, but you dodged the question. The question was simple: Would you, as a national delegate to the UN, try to pass a global resolution prohibiting the treatment of suicide victims? Or would you accept that nation's blatant disregard for fundamental human rights?

Yes, very reasonable, but you dodged the question. The question was simple: Would you, as a national delegate to the UN, try to pass a global resolution prohibiting the treatment of suicide victims? Or would you accept that nation's blatant disregard for fundamental human rights?
In cases where the suicide was committed by someone of sound mind, and they had demonstrated, once the suicide had been initiated, no attempt at reneging on that decision, and, possibly, such that it was ensured medical personnel who acted anyway were at least partially immune from prosecution...yes. (Although I wouldn't actually propose one, but I would vote for one.)

In cases where the suicide was committed by someone of sound mind, and they had demonstrated, once the suicide had been initiated, no attempt at reneging on that decision, and, possibly, such that it was ensured medical personnel who acted anyway were at least partially immune from prosecution...yes. (Although I wouldn't actually propose one, but I would vote for one.)

Strange... I thought I had heard you say you would save them yourself. But now you say it is a human rights violation. Maybe matters are not as clear-cut as this proposal suggests.

Strange... I thought I had heard you say you would save them yourself. But now you say it is a human rights violation. Maybe matters are not as clear-cut as this proposal suggests.
There is a difference between state action and non-state action. Look at it this way:

Under this proposal, we can smoke cannabis in our home. I light a joint. The police arrest me, and confiscate it. Illegal.
A friend takes it off me, because he thinks I've had enough. Not illegal.

So, I would argue there is a difference between an individual medic acting on his tod, and his doing so based on a legal requirement.

I agree, again, it's a tenuous distinction. And you are right: obviously, the 'right' is not nearly so universal as we would like to imagine. But, yes, I would stand by legalisation, as I would stand by the criminalisation of STATE laws requiring medical intervention in suicides as described.

OOC: But I won't stand by some bastard suing a paramedic for practising medicine without a license.

I was going to try to construct an answer to your suicide question, Fonzoland, and it was going to include something about how the decision to take drugs is almost never going to be something that's involuntary, whereas with a suicide attempt, unless there are credible witnesses or recordings of the event and the rationale, there's never a way to determine if the death or injury was intentional or not. I was going to try to do that, but my head is throbbing. Sinus migraines as a result of weather changes.

Regardless, I've been convinced that legalization is a national issue and not a UN issue unless the UN is seeking to regulate or administer the trade in recreational pharmaceuticals (which would be a very interesting proposal-drafting process indeed).

Approval withdrawn.

The representative of Fonzoland's sentiments reflect my own on this matter. This is not a matter of universal human rights and is best handled on a national level. I will be voting against.

No, no, and no. You motivated the whole idea with the belief that the right to one's body is fundamental. It cannot be qualified by oaths, opinions, or other moral considerations. If you now argue that the right to one's body is fundamental, but that the right of doctors to make moral decisions is even more fundamental, I can easily get my police force to make a Hippocratic Oath themselves, and to make moral decisions on the dillemma of whether to "protect drug users from themselves" or not.

Your right--you can make any group of people take oaths to abide by a moral standard--whether the issue they are deciding on is controversial or not. But when it comes to, you know, killing someone, whether you agree with assisted suicide or not, I can easily see someone being morally opposed to it. The difference when it comes to drugs is that while they may be harmful, its not as if your helping them consume whatever it is their using, as in an assisted suicide your making it happen. A doctor may be walking down the street and wittness a suicide, but the hypocratic oath means nothing at that point. He isn't doing anything. Likewise, your police may be walking down the street and wittness someone smoking (while not endangering others, of course :) ), but whatever oath you make them take means nothing. If you want them to assist in the consumption, however, theres a big difference.

--snip--
Jey: he's not talking about assisted suicide. He's talking about preventing suicide, or more to the point, treating attempted suicide victims.

No, no, and no. You motivated the whole idea with the belief that the right to one's body is fundamental. It cannot be qualified by oaths, opinions, or other moral considerations. If you now argue that the right to one's body is fundamental, but that the right of doctors to make moral decisions is even more fundamental,

That's not what i said at all. The right to your body doesn't mean that you have the right to order anyone to do anything to your body if you desire it so. The doctor has a right to his body too. He shouldn't be forced to assist in the killing of an individual.

That's not what i said at all. The right to your body doesn't mean that you have the right to order anyone to do anything to your body if you desire it so. The doctor has a right to his body too. He shouldn't be forced to assist in the killing of an individual.

If a doctor stands by and does not bandage a suicidal individual, he is not killing him. What he is doing is respecting the "fundamental human right" to do whatever you want with your body. According to your original argument, if a person chose to die, giving medical assistance to that person is infringing on their fundamental rights, and should be criminalised as any other infringement on fundamental rights.

If a doctor stands by and does not bandage a suicidal individual, he is not killing him. What he is doing is respecting the "fundamental human right" to do whatever you want with your body. According to your original argument, if a person chose to die, giving medical assistance to that person is infringing on their fundamental rights, and should be criminalised as any other infringement on fundamental rights.
Does this proposal made it illegal for an individual to prevent another individual from taking drugs, though? It surely only prevents state action.

EDIT: Yes, I know what I said...I'm just passing by. And this argument of Fonzo's is winning me over.

If a doctor stands by and does not bandage a suicidal individual, he is not killing him. What he is doing is respecting the "fundamental human right" to do whatever you want with your body. According to your original argument, if a person chose to die, giving medical assistance to that person is infringing on their fundamental rights, and should be criminalised as any other infringement on fundamental rights.

Sorry, but what exactly are you trying to proove? If the patient is conscious and tells the doctor not to treat him, the he won't treat him. If he isnt conscious and there is not a document saying "if the patent is in this condition, kill him", then the doctor is going to use his "oath" and save the individual. After all, if the person recovers and decides to try it again, he's welcome too. The doctor just gave him the opportunity to decide for a second time. I'm not sure what treating an individual that couldn't kill himself has to do with using drugs. Its quite simple--if theres not anything endorsed by the person himself telling you to kill him, you keep him alive.

Sorry, but what exactly are you trying to proove? If the patient is conscious and tells the doctor not to treat him, the he won't treat him. If he isnt conscious and there is not a document saying "if the patent is in this condition, kill him", then the doctor is going to use his "oath" and save the individual. After all, if the person recovers and decides to try it again, he's welcome too. The doctor just gave him the opportunity to decide for a second time. I'm not sure what treating an individual that couldn't kill himself has to do with using drugs. Its quite simple--if theres not anything endorsed by the person himself telling you to kill him, you keep him alive.

I am talking about a reasonable situation where either:
a) Suicide is illegal,
b) A doctor not treating a dying patient for any reason is liable for malpractice.

If this happens, do you seriously believe the UN should condemn the country for breach of human rights? Do you think laws in this direction do not exist in "decent" RL countries?

I am not arguing against the particular drug policy Jey is trying to implement. I am arguing against the "fundamental" nature of the right to one's body, which forms the basis of his preamble.

I am talking about a reasonable situation where either:
a) Suicide is illegal,
b) A doctor not treating a dying patient for any reason is liable for malpractice.

If this happens, do you seriously believe the UN should condemn the country for breach of human rights?

Yes. The issue is more complicated than that of drugs, since it is much harder to tell if a decision has been made while in sound mind or not, but I would regard it as a fundamental breach of human rights if it were made completely impossible for a sane adult to choose to end his/her life. It should at least be possible for such an individual to create a legal "do not resuscitate" document which ought to be respected.

Do you think laws in this direction do not exist in "decent" RL countries?

What's your point? Of course many RL countries have laws like this - that doesn't make the laws any more justifiable.

Yes. The issue is more complicated than that of drugs, since it is much harder to tell if a decision has been made while in sound mind or not, but I would regard it as a fundamental breach of human rights if it were made completely impossible for a sane adult to choose to end his/her life. It should at least be possible for such an individual to create a legal "do not resuscitate" document which ought to be respected.

Meh. You have the right to your opinion, but you should notice that many who would support the "fundamental right to take drugs" would think twice before supporting "the fundamental right to suicide." Which shows the frailty of your position.

What's your point? Of course many RL countries have laws like this - that doesn't make the laws any more justifiable.

The point is that I never saw a single human rights association denouncing those practices. Or any public manifestations of disapproval. Or, for that matter, any individual condemning them - until I met this pleasant crowd. ;)

Anyway, I had my "devil's advocate" debating fun. Carry on, and good luck. :p

Can you show me an argument that proves your position? How does or would marijuana affect others moreso or any worse than alcohol does?
I'm not trying to make that argument because alcohol is already banned in my nation because of its affect on others and the user!

its affect on others

Which is irrelevant in terms of my proposal. If it does affect others physically, go ahead and prohibit them.


and the user!

Again, its his/her body. They're making an informed decision to waive the health risks.

Please mention them!

Unless this is some older idea with a new title, I've not heard of any free market solutions that purport to stop drug use. Then again, I've not heard about a lot of things, so I could be unintentionally ignorant here.
Perhaps I've just used the wrong word. "Stopping" any behavior is impossible (consider the history of totalitarian regimes with the strictest enforcement--their laws were still disobeyed at times, even if eventually the perpetrators were punished--thus even then behavior wasn't "stopped"). All anyone can really claim to do is slow/decrease, more or less radically, a certain behavior.

All I'm saying is that recreational drugs use doesn't have to be declared "illegal" in a nation for that national government to slow or decrease their usage--radically so, even.

Why is this issue even being brought up in the UN? The legalization of recreational drugs, or any type of drugs for that matter should be up to each individual nation, not the UN, whose members will be required to follow the law if passed.

Which is irrelevant in terms of my proposal. If it does affect others physically, go ahead and prohibit them.
Again, we do.


Again, its his/her body. They're making an informed decision to waive the health risks.
We're not a libertarian nation, everybody works for the greater good. We allow, nor recognize any such right!

We're not a libertarian nation, everybody works for the greater good. We allow, nor recognize any such right!

Every resolution has nations that do not agree with it or the political affiliation it supposedly endorses, hence every resolution has received some against votes. Though that does not take away from the importance of the issue nor does it make it wrong.

Every resolution has nations that do not agree with it or the political affiliation it supposedly endorses, hence every resolution has received some against votes. Though that does not take away from the importance of the issue nor does it make it wrong.
What "importance" is there in this issue?!

"Recreational Drug Legalization"

snip

Thank you for informing us on how to write large. Now, in case you haven't been here the past 6 pages, the "right to one's body" argument is the answer to your question. Though, according to some, the fundamentalism of this right is left to questioning.

Thank you for informing us on how to write large. Now, in case you haven't been here the past 6 pages, the "right to one's body" argument is the answer to your question. Though, according to some, the fundamentalism of this right is left to questioning.
*cough*


We're not a libertarian nation. We allow, nor recognize any such right!

*cough*

Didn't we just go through this? Just because you don't like the affiliation you stated doesn't mean that this issue isn't important.

And, just to metagame a little, the fact that a Recreational Drug Use category exists means that it is under the UN's jurisdiction.

And, just to metagame a little, the fact that a Recreational Drug Use category exists means that it is under the UN's jurisdiction.

OOC: So, does the existence of a 'Furtherment of Democracy' category exist mean that the UN can require every member-nation to be a "Western"-style democracy?

OOC: So, does the existence of a 'Furtherment of Democracy' category exist mean that the UN can require every member-nation to be a "Western"-style democracy?
OOC: I would say "no" - it means the UN can raise political freedoms in its member nations. Whilst the RDU, Gun Control and Gambling categories are relatively specific, the others are much vaguer.

So, does the existence of a 'Furtherment of Democracy' category exist mean that the UN can require every member-nation to be a "Western"-style democracy?Not exactly, no. It means that dealing with democratic freedoms is within the UN "charter". FoD is, unfortunately, a rather tricky category, and hard to manage.

Not exactly, no. It means that dealing with democratic freedoms is within the UN "charter". FoD is, unfortunately, a rather tricky category, and hard to manage.
OOC: Without wishing to derail this thread... FoD, I think, offers the opportunity to promote political freedoms in a non-standard (in 'Western' terms) manner; political activity isn't just about voting rights, which is why the accusations of 'apathy' levelled at much of the British populace, for example, are frequently fallacious.

I haven't yet worked out a proposal to highlight this but I'd like to (assuming I ever get the time).

I haven't yet worked out a proposal to highlight this but I'd like to (assuming I ever get the time).I saw one recently, but damned if I can remember what it was called. I was happy when the UN moved away from endless (and pointless) Environmental Resolutions, and now I'm hoping we can ease off Human Rights. FoD and Free Trade could use some loving. And International Security >_>

I saw one recently, but damned if I can remember what it was called.
Freedom of Information Act, probably.

And International Security >_>

DEFCON's working on it. ;)

DEFCON's working on it. ;)

Which reminds me, I ought to pop on there. Every time I think of it, I'm at work, and work doesn't let me log onto nationstates.net (yet here is fine....odd)

work doesn't let me log onto nationstates.net (yet here is fine....odd)

Same here... but my workplace is a school, nationstates is probably blocked to keep the kids from playing when they should be studying or typing-up coursework, and I'm assuming that this site simply hasn't been noticed yet by the sysadmin...

Not exactly, no. It means that dealing with democratic freedoms is within the UN "charter". FoD is, unfortunately, a rather tricky category, and hard to manage.

H'mm.
So how about some hypothetical possibilities (of varying plausibility, I admit), from the 'Recreational Drugs' category?
1/ The UN passes a resolution banning the production, possession, sale, purchase or use of Marijuana, for any purpose, within all member-nations: This means that any nations that were based on the Rastafarian ideology would have to choose between dropping what is a key element of their culture or leaving the UN, and so would arguably be an effective [albeit indirect] ban on Rastafarian-ideology nations within the UN. Legal or not?
2/ The UN passes a resolution banning the production, possession, sale, purchase or use of Alcohol, for any purpose, within all member-nations: This means that any nations that were based on the forms of Christianity which regard communion wine as a sacramental requirement would have to choose between dropping a key element of their faith or leaving the UN, and so would arguably be an effective [albeit indirect] ban on nations based on those Christian ideologies as members of the UN. Legal or not?
3/ The UN passes a resolution legalising the production, possession, sale, purchase or use of Alcohol, for any purpose, within all member-nations: This means that any nations that were based on Islam & run under that religion's [i]'sharia' law would have to choose between dropping that code of laws or leaving the UN (Some people have suggested, in various threads about various moral issues, that the solution to such a problem would be for them to keep the ban in their religious rules, which the faithful would presumably obey anyway, but allow the permission in their nation's secular laws for non-believers: What those people apparently either fail to realise or are simply ignoring is that such a distinction between religious rules & national laws is quite likely to be absent in theocracies, where the governing religion's laws are the national laws & are supposed to be obeyed by everybody, that there may also be non-theocratic nations whose governments [whether due to actual devoutness or just because they see religious morality as a useful tool for controlling society] also give a religion's rules a place within their national code of laws (: RL examples = modern Saudi Arabia, or Spain during the time of the Inquisition), and that if those rules are considered to have been directly inspired by their deity then repealing any clause of them in order to comply with a UN resolution like this one would be theologically impossible without abandoning the ideology) and so would arguably be an effective [albeit indirect] ban on Islamic nations running under 'sharia' law being members of the UN. Legal or not?
4/ The Mormon Church has religious rules against not only Alcohol but also Caffeine (and maybe Tobacco, too), which would have to be legalised in all UN nations if the proposal that this thread is actually about becomes law. If this proposal does get passed then any theocracy in which Mormon religious law is part of the national law-code (and with the sheer number of nations that exist within NS I wouldn't dismiss out-of-hand the possibility that we have one or more of these somewhere around) will have to choose between dropping fidelity to their ideology and leaving the UN, and so this proposal arguably contains an effective [albeit indirect] ban on genuine Mormon theocracies within the UN. Legal or not?

Or to put it another way: Does the rule against banning ideologies mean
"You cannot ban any ideology, you cannot ban any system of government, and you cannot make it impossible to run nations within the UN according to any particular combination of ideology & system", which is what I read it as saying [without looking for loopholes...] when I was initially considering UN membership, in which case not only several recent proposals but a number of existing resolutions too -- unless those are "grandfathered" in due to pre-dating that rule -- would seem to be of highly questionable legality? Or does it mean "You cannot ban any ideology, and you cannot ban any system of government, but you can make it effectively impossible to run nations within the UN according to some particular combination of ideology & system", which is what some people in this forum have been saying? If the latter is the case then I think that it should say so more clearly...

Oh please. The same argument can be made for any proposal. For any potential government action, it is always possible to believe that government has an overriding duty to perform or refrain from performing that action. Your interpretation could even lead to saying that "recommends" proposals should be illegal, because it might be against a government's ideology to associate themselves with certain ideas, and so they couldn't be members of an organisation advocating a particular rule.

The rule is a little fuzzy, and maybe some clarification is in order (because as far as I can see, it is permissible to introduce, say, moderate but not total market liberalisation), but your absolutist interpretation quite clearly can't be relevant because a logical and consistent implementation of it would prevent the UN from doing anything.

St Edmund, you are -- unintentially, I'm sure -- demonstrating exactly why we are loath to codify rules. I once quipped that our playerbase could find a loophole in a brick wall, and that seems to still be the case.

Taking an absolute hard line on rules such as the ideological ban can easily result in every Resolution being declared illegal. With a little bit of legerdemain, I'm sure I could find your meteorlogical Proposal illegal based on ideological ban. It would likely be silly and flimsy, but it could be done.

Most of these rules are forced to default to the concept of the Reasonable Person. This mythical person is quite common in real life case law, and is the best we can do in dealings with the UN as most deleted Proposals are a matter of Moderator judgement.

Could a Proposal outlawing hate speach be construed as an ideological ban on neo-Nazi nations? Probably. Is it going to be deleted? Probably not. The ideological ban is generally applied to "broader" bans, such as outlawing capitalism or mandating that all dictatorships suddenly become democracies.

As everyone has the right to their own body, they should be allowed to consume recreational drugs as long as it harms no others. To restrict this would be to deny a human right to citizens, and this proposal protects this right.

Nations have also had effective methods regarding abortion, euthanasia, and other controversial topics. Yet that did not stop the UN from intervening at one point or another.


I flat out deny that the right to kill one's self slowly is an inalienable human right.

I saw one recently, but damned if I can remember what it was called. I was happy when the UN moved away from endless (and pointless) Environmental Resolutions, and now I'm hoping we can ease off Human Rights. FoD and Free Trade could use some loving. And International Security >_>

Agreed. (emphasis mine)

Allow me to begin by apologizing in advance if my syntax, grammar etc get muddled in the following as my mind is awash in the amount that I wish to say and I can't figure out the best way to get it out. All that without the use of any drug at all I might add.

W-wow.

to start, to say that any of the listed recreational drugs are non-addictive is such a fallacy that I can barely begin to comprehend how it began. Any substance which alters your mental or physiological state or outlook can and in all probability WILL have a potentially addictive side effect, even if that effect is only psychological. If a substance makes you feel good or helps you sleep or whatever and this helps alleviate the pressures of day to day life (or whatever reason the individual is taking them) they will get it into their head that they have a quick and easy way to cope and more often than not will opt for the easy path instead aiming at the underlying causes {I swear if anyone mentions terrorists I'll hire a squad of the Stripper Commandos to head over to your house while you sleep and do weird things to your kids} for their stresses and by eliminating the problem at its' source, bettered themselves without the use of drugs. By taking the drug instead of facing reality they've only compounded the issue through their own procrastination, since eventually their system WILL (not an arguable point) build up a tolerance to whateveer substance it is and they won't be able to afford to cope using their easy way out anymore.

Furthermore, to say that people who use such substances as marijuana on a regular basis are just as productive as any one else is so fart-swallowingly absurd that I had to come up with that little gem to describe it. In short, The ganja -- she causes lethargy. That means the desire to not work. Counterproductive to productivity n'est-ce pas? I will accept that there are a great many white collar proffessionals who do use drugs on some kind of a regular basis, but I highly doubt that we'll be seeing Donald Trump busted with a kilo of flipping WEED anytime soon. No. The drugs of choice for that echelon tend to fall into a category not covered by this proposed legislation...Crack, Cocaine, and things in that vein (ah heck, didn't mean to pun there) are much more likely.

I'm going to completely avoid the assisted suicide argument at this point.

If one feels the need for drugs to cope, they have problems. Do not throw alcohol or tobacco at me, either. My nation, as lovely as it is, has a rousing nightlife completely free of body and mind altering substances. Even gambling has been outlawed, and yes we do have the Police force necessary to back up that claim. We are nice enough to our citizens to be open with them and tell them that they are more than welcome to visit nearby nations, enjoy whatever recreational pursuits are available there and they are welcome to return....after sobering up. The Master takes the sanctity of his streets seriously and we will NOT have a crowd of rabble wandering around in a Purple Haze acting like butt-thrusting morons.

I lost my mental place minutes ago....I'll sum up.

I'll not threaten anything except my adamant opposal to any attempt to force us to LEGALIZE anything of this sort. We might be willing to meet you partway and DECRIMINALIZE, rendering it a civil law matter, but I cannot in good conscience advocate the opening of the floodgates in this fashion.

Respectfully

Oskar Feldstein
Representative of The Master In Repose
For The Glory of Kivisto

to start, to say that any of the listed recreational drugs are non-addictive is such a fallacy that I can barely begin to comprehend how it began.

Again, what I said: sure it can be addictive. It doesn't have to be though. Ever hear of a light drinker? (Again)

Any substance which alters your mental or physiological state or outlook can and in all probability WILL have a potentially addictive side effect, even if that effect is only psychological. If a substance makes you feel good or helps you sleep or whatever and this helps alleviate the pressures of day to day life (or whatever reason the individual is taking them) they will get it into their head that they have a quick and easy way to cope and more often than not will opt for the easy path instead aiming at the underlying causes {I swear if anyone mentions terrorists I'll hire a squad of the Stripper Commandos to head over to your house while you sleep and do weird things to your kids} for their stresses and by eliminating the problem at its' source, bettered themselves without the use of drugs.

Irrelevant generalization / threat. Drugs do not mean automatic addiction. Ever hear of a light drinker? (Again, Again)

By taking the drug instead of facing reality they've only compounded the issue through their own procrastination, since eventually their system WILL (not an arguable point) build up a tolerance to whateveer substance it is and they won't be able to afford to cope using their easy way out anymore.

See above.

Furthermore, to say that people who use such substances as marijuana on a regular basis are just as productive as any one else is so fart-swallowingly absurd that I had to come up with that little gem to describe it. In short, The ganja -- she causes lethargy.

No matter how "fart-swallowing" their inability in production is, its no reason to take away the freedom to their bodies.

If one feels the need for drugs to cope, they have problems. Do not throw alcohol or tobacco at me, either. My nation, as lovely as it is, has a rousing nightlife completely free of body and mind altering substances. Even gambling has been outlawed, and yes we do have the Police force necessary to back up that claim. We are nice enough to our citizens to be open with them and tell them that they are more than welcome to visit nearby nations, enjoy whatever recreational pursuits are available there and they are welcome to return....after sobering up. The Master takes the sanctity of his streets seriously and we will NOT have a crowd of rabble wandering around in a Purple Haze acting like butt-thrusting morons.

Ah, I see. You wish to take away freedoms for people who act like "butt-thrusting morons". Surely this extends further than people who are on drugs. Who else are you oppressing?

All of my people are oppressed equally, myself included.

I have heard of light drinkers. I have also heard of alcoholics. Have you?

My guess would be not since you continually throw that option at people that mention addictive substances.

I would once again mention that my people are welcome to engage in whatever activities they wish. Simply not in our streets. As a result, our crime rate is at an all time low. Zero in fact. Their freedom to do what they like ends the moment their actions impact on the existence of another citizen of my fair land. By point of fact, if your perceptions or inhibitions, or better judgement have been impaired by ANY means, the only way to ensure that you cannot impact another's reality is lock yourself up, which we will gladly do for them for plently of time to ensure that such incidences don't occur and won't repeat.

On a side note, medicines or products used for fully legitimate medicinal purposes are fully accepted. We simply do not accept that a creature as wonderfully designed as the human body (free of defect or illness, etc) NEEDS the assistance of drugs to cope with the fact that they are human.

Regards
Oskar Feldstein
Representing The Clean Kivisto Nation
In the Glory Of The Masters Loins

I have heard of light drinkers. I have also heard of alcoholics. Have you?

Indeed I have. I'm not arguing that drugs can't be addictive. Your arguing that they must.

I would once again mention that my people are welcome to engage in whatever activities they wish. Simply not in our streets. As a result, our crime rate is at an all time low. Zero in fact.

Ok. Same here in Jey. In fact we have a -1 crime rate. (And by the way, any crime resulting from drug use is perfectly ok to prohibit. Read the proposal, please)

the only way to ensure that you cannot impact another's reality is lock yourself up,

Or....you can obey the proposal. You are allowed to prohibit drug use if the user harms others.

Or....you can obey the proposal. You are allowed to prohibit drug use if the user harms others.
If I read the proposal correctly, that statement is incorrect. (And I have read the entire thing.) Nations are not allowed to prohibit drug use if the user harms others; they can only outlaw the harm.

This is significant because we in Ceorana believe the following:

1. Under the influence of drugs, one can reach a state of conciousness where laws are pretty much ignored.

2. If a person is killed by a person who is crazy under the influence of drugs, the dead guy isn't going to care if the guy who killed him is punished.

3. Outlawing drugs has no significant impact on society, compared to legalizing them.

4. Therefore, drugs should be outlawed.

Please try to convince us otherwise, especially on point 3, but if you are going to quote the proposal, quoting the specific section would be nice. :)

An old and wise latin proverb, often used in legal discussions:

Abusus non tollit usum.

It essentially means that potential abuse should not be used as a decisive argument against proper use. Otherwise, you would end up banning kitchen knifes, cars, and chewing gum.

Ahem, just a point of order. Carry on. ;)

3. Outlawing drugs has no significant impact on society, compared to legalizing them.

4. Therefore, drugs should be outlawed.

What? Impact on soceity should not be taken into account when initiating law, especially one considering human rights. Just because a new law requires a change in soceity doesn't make it wrong.

Folks,
To me there is no question I own my body. So everybody does. I do not understand why it should be discussed at UN? It's not the question.
The question is - what if UN says some day the we don't own our bodies.
So what? Does this mean that my people, people of Vogul, shell be following this stupid rule?
No way. People of Vogul will never follow any outside rules. At least till I alive. And I'm going to live forever.
By the way, may I ask who the chairman of UN is?
I want to send him invitation to visit my beauteful country.
At least while he or she owns his (her) body yet.

What? Impact on soceity should not be taken into account when initiating law, especially one considering human rights. Just because a new law requires a change in soceity doesn't make it wrong.
By "impact" I meant "negative impact". Sorry.

It essentially means that potential abuse should not be used as a decisive argument against proper use. Otherwise, you would end up banning kitchen knifes, cars, and chewing gum.

Give me a proper use for tobacco.

Give me a proper use for tobacco.

Give me a proper use for chewing gum. Or online political simulation games.

Give me a proper use for chewing gum.
Chewing it, which causes no serious side effects.

Or online political simulation games.
Playing them, which causes no serious side effects.

Tobacco, on the other hand...

Chewing it, which causes no serious side effects.

Playing them, which causes no serious side effects.

Tobacco, on the other hand...

Thence proving that you missed my point completely. It was unrelated to the side effects of drugs. The facts that chewing gum is annoying when stuck under your shoe, or that excessive use of political simulation games at work can get you fired, are both consequences of abuse. Therefore, the quoted proverb points out that they should not be taken as decisive arguments for prohibiting proper use, which does not have these consequences.

Similarly, your logical argument here...
1. Under the influence of drugs, one can reach a state of conciousness where laws are pretty much ignored.

2. If a person is killed by a person who is crazy under the influence of drugs, the dead guy isn't going to care if the guy who killed him is punished.

3. Outlawing drugs has no significant impact on society, compared to legalizing them.

4. Therefore, drugs should be outlawed.
...is a clear-cut case of using the consequences of potential abuse (1 and 2) to defend a ban on proper use (4). As such, although it falls short of being fallacious (I was not quoting a strict logical rule), it is definitely a tricky one to support. Had you defended your position using the health side effects, which are present even during proper use, and your debating position would have been more robust.

[/pedantic lecture] ;)

Thence proving that you missed my point completely. It was unrelated to the side effects of drugs. The facts that chewing gum is annoying when stuck under your shoe, or that excessive use of political simulation games at work can get you fired, are both consequences of abuse. Therefore, the quoted proverb points out that they should not be taken as decisive arguments for prohibiting proper use, which does not have these consequences.

Similarly, your logical argument here...

...is a clear-cut case of using the consequences of potential abuse (1 and 2) to defend a ban on proper use (4). As such, although it falls short of being fallacious (I was not quoting a strict logical rule), it is definitely a tricky one to support. Had you defended your position using the health side effects, which are present even during proper use, and your debating position would have been more robust.

[/pedantic lecture] ;)

It appears that I am choosing my words to sloppily.

What I meant by "proper use of tobacco" is tobacco use which is justified for the person using it, to theirself and society.

Since tobacco invariably causes significant health side effects to the user (not to mention others nearby) for very small benefits, there is no justified use. Since there is no justified use, it makes sense to outlaw it.

Since tobacco invariably causes significant health side effects to the user (not to mention others nearby) for very small benefits, there is no justified use. Since there is no justified use, it makes sense to outlaw it.

That is a valid argument, to which my previous objection no longer applies. (Which does not necessarily mean it is true, incidentally.) I hope you can see the problem with your four point statement. Carry on picking on Jey, I am just an interested onlooker. :p

Having it be illegal now and having people whine long enough untill we change it show weakness in our government and that these criminals can walk all over if they set there mind to it legalizing drugs is a bad idea:mad:

Since tobacco invariably causes significant health side effects to the user (not to mention others nearby) for very small benefits, there is no justified use. Since there is no justified use, it makes sense to outlaw it.

Disregarding the part about others, the drugs have recreational and enjoyable purposes. Using them responsibly doesnt pose significant health risks. We can't outlaw the use of them just becasue of some people using them irresponsibly.

Blah blah blah national sovereignty blah blah cultural imperialism blah blah blah micromanagement blah

We vote against.

Disregarding the part about others, the drugs have recreational and enjoyable purposes. Using them responsibly doesnt pose significant health risks. We can't outlaw the use of them just becasue of some people using them irresponsibly.
Tobacco is highly addictive, with 1/3 to 1/2 of people who try it becoming regular users (and up to 90% of those keep going because of addiction). If you are addicted to something, it is impossible to use it responsibly.

I saw one recently, but damned if I can remember what it was called. I was happy when the UN moved away from endless (and pointless) Environmental Resolutions, and now I'm hoping we can ease off Human Rights. FoD and Free Trade could use some loving. And International Security >_>

I did some thinking about FoD yesterday evening, and put together a rough draft for one concept that I think might fit: I'll see whether I can get it typed-up this afternoon...

Give me a proper use for tobacco.

Insecticide... :)

The Democratic Republic of Dsboy has voted against this resolution because article 9 reveals the true nature of this proposal - to legalize recreational drugs of all kinds. We already have legalized marijuana and highly object to the the UN dictating to individual nation states on the matter of drug laws.

We are also very concerned about the high costs of implementing the laws and services outlined in this proposal.

Article 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".

VOTE NO ON THIS PROPOSAL!

Since tobacco invariably causes significant health side effects to the user (not to mention others nearby) for very small benefits, there is no justified use. Since there is no justified use, it makes sense to outlaw it.

Who are you to judge how valuable the benefits of smoking are on behalf of everyone? There are some people who will choose to take a hedonistic view of life, and actually prefer to take advantage of all the potentially enjoyable experiences available to them in life, even if it does make it likely that they'll have a shorter lifespan. What gives anyone the right to declare that this view of life is wrong?

There is no objective way to evaluate the costs and benefits to the individual of his or her own actions (the subjectivity of life-choices is obvious, because we don't all want to do the same things with our lives). It is totally inappropriate for the government to declare "Regardless of what you thought before, we demand that you value your health this much, and enjoyment that much, and therefore you must reject any and all recreational drug use."

The Democratic Republic of Dsboy has voted against this resolution because article 9 reveals the true nature of this proposal - to legalize recreational drugs of all kinds. We already have legalized marijuana and highly object to the the UN dictating to individual nation states on the matter of drug laws.

We are also very concerned about the high costs of implementing the laws and services outlined in this proposal.

Article 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".

VOTE NO ON THIS PROPOSAL!

The proposal DOES NOT require you to legalise all recreational drugs. It requires you to legalise consumption and production for personal consumption of certain named drugs, and only recommends that you legalise other drugs. It's basically just saying "We think it's a good idea - think about it, won't you?"

Or online political simulation games.
Playing them, which causes no serious side effects.Oh really?

*left eye twitches*

As much as we support the legalization of recreational drugs, the Republic of Nouveau Pennsylvania cannot support this proposal. It is outside the UN's mandate to require such changes in the laws of its member-states.

As in previous debates, the People's Republic of Groot Gouda acts from the principle of the integrity of the body. It is not up to a government to restrict people in what they do to themselves, as long as they don't harm other people.

Criminalizing drugs does harm people. It is causing international smuggling, criminal gangs, and promotes irresponsible drug use. The drug laws of Groot Gouda are more liberal than these, but despite the limited scope of this resolution we will vote for this resolution.

Governments that think it's their business what people smoke, drink or whatever are not only backwards, they also suffer more crime and more negative side effects. The Groot Gouda police doesn't have to worry too much about illegal drugs, so they can invest time in other criminal activities. From an early age, children learn about the risks of drug use and drug addiction, but they are stimulated to make their own choice, as long as they also take responsibility for that choice and the consequences. That's the only way the drug problems can be tackles, and it is having succes.

If other nations follow our path and decriminalize drugs, we will have less troubles at our borders with illegal activities, or foreigners abusing our tolerant approach to drugs. We urge all nations to vote for this resolution.

Maybe this has been said once already, but I do not have the time to read through 5 pages of text (busy, busy, busy, keeping WvisselCoph up :) *shifts back into nation leader mode).

Drugs do hurt only the user, bodily. But emotionally it hurts everyone around them. Friends, family members, teachers, co-workers, they are all affected.

Drugs also cause depression (some of them, atleast), which leads to our youth dropping out of school, and employees resigning--or getting fired because they no longer show up. The suicide rate will increase due to this depression.

So as you can see, it helps no one, not even the user, for him to have a "fun" feeling that will only last a few minutes. Therefor I urge you to vote against the legalization of drugs.

(*shifts out of smart leader role again* maybe I missed the whole jist of this vote. Are we voting to LEGALIZE drugs, or make them ILLEGAL to use? Just want to make sure I am thinking correctly. *shifts back into smart leader role*)

The Peoples Republic of WvisselCoph
Commander in Chief

As much as we support the legalization of recreational drugs, the Republic of Nouveau Pennsylvania cannot support this proposal. It is outside the UN's mandate to require such changes in the laws of its member-states.

Look at the category. "Recreational Drug Use". It is clearly within the UN's jurisdiction.

The way I see it is that is it's legalized then there's no crime to get it from one place to another and drug lords go out of the supply buisiness because everyone has access to drugs. Make em free or affordable and drug violence=gone.

Aristidis Philosopher of Truth of,
The Holy Empire of The Unattainable Truth

Look at the category. "Recreational Drug Use". It is clearly within the UN's jurisdiction.
Well, the it's within the UN's jurisdiction to mandate that we all have to smoke tobacco. That doesn't mean that it should be.

Well, the it's within the UN's jurisdiction to mandate that we all have to smoke tobacco. That doesn't mean that it should be.

And whether we should legalize these drugs is where the debate should lie. Not whether it is of the UN's concern. That is the issue I'm trying to eliminate.

Drugs do hurt only the user, bodily. But emotionally it hurts everyone around them. Friends, family members, teachers, co-workers, they are all affected.

As I said before:

I can't see how this warrants criminalisation. Should it also be a crime to deeply offend your racist parents by marrying someone of another race? Should it be a crime to cheat on your girl/boyfriend? Should it be a crime to sever your links with a sibling and refuse to ever speak to them again? Should it be a crime to risk having a traumatic experience, which might lead to psychological problems, which might cause emotional turmoil for your family? Should it be a crime to eat fugu, in case you are poisoned and die, harming your family and friends?

Drugs also cause depression (some of them, atleast), which leads to our youth dropping out of school, and employees resigning--or getting fired because they no longer show up. The suicide rate will increase due to this depression.

So as you can see, it helps no one, not even the user, for him to have a "fun" feeling that will only last a few minutes. Therefor I urge you to vote against the legalization of drugs.

Certain drugs can also increase the risk of lung cancer and all kinds of health problems. But that's for the individual to choose to risk. Who are you to decide for other people that the high isn't worth the health risk?

(*shifts out of smart leader role again* maybe I missed the whole jist of this vote. Are we voting to LEGALIZE drugs, or make them ILLEGAL to use? Just want to make sure I am thinking correctly. *shifts back into smart leader role*)

It would help if you read the text on the UN page. The proposed resolution includes the legalisation of consumption and production for personal use of a short list of plant-based drugs, including qat, tobacco and cannabis.

i think you would have a better chance of passing such a resolution if you kept it if you took some items off your list, thats what keeps me from voting yes to this proposal.:D

It's illegal drugs. period.

i think you would have a better chance of passing such a resolution if you kept it if you took some items off your list, thats what keeps me from voting yes to this proposal.:D

Which drugs do you object to legalising consumption of?

<is in favour of resolution>

I personally believe that, the Legalization of Recreation Drugs such as Marijuana, Magic Mushrooms, Mescaline containing cacti, and Salvia Divinorum (Which I think is legal anyway, well it is in the UK)is going to cause no more harm to the user, than alcohol or tobacco.

To say that These substances, In my personal opinion are more harmful than Alcohol or tobacco is rather hypocritical. There are no known cases of death from the use of the above, compared to the annual number of deaths related to Alcohol and Tobacco. The Above substances are less addictive than alcohol and tobacco.

Heroin, Cocaine, Meth etc aside, it is incredably hard to control these substances as they grow in the wild anyway and can be consumed ith little or no preperation (Drying, tea making is the form of preperation required). If it were to be legalized, the government could control the cultivation, impose strict regulation on the quality sold to the general public, and if needs be tax it. The Decriminalization of these natural substances could also potentially lead to a reduce in the amount of related crime, that comes from gangs constantly trying to dominate the market. If the market was legal and Government controlled then the Gangs would be unable to operate in this are.

just my 2 pence. i sound like ahippy, but thats not the point..

We are curious how this made it to quorum in the first place. Hasn't the issue of legalizing "recreational drugs" been brought up multiple times in the past, with the same result each time: no to legalization?

We had thought that it was pretty much a consensus of NSUN opinion that resolutions like this one were a waste of this body's time.

We are curious how this made it to quorum in the first place. Hasn't the issue of legalizing "recreational drugs" been brought up multiple times in the past, with the same result each time: no to legalization?

We had thought that it was pretty much a consensus of NSUN opinion that resolutions like this one were a waste of this body's time.

We are curious as to why you took to insulting the proposal and all those involved as a way of expressing your opposition. Again, look at the category. Look at the right to one's body. This is by no means a waste of time. This is a proposal worthy of the UN's consideration by providing a drug proposal that is very reasonable.

Oh fetid photons, not this again.

Perhaps a better resolution legalizing whatever you ingest in your own home? Some sort of privacy proposal? No. Even that is beyond the UN's scope. This is an issue VERY pertinent to individual national cultures, not the UN.

NEXT!

This is an issue VERY pertinent to individual national cultures, not the UN.

NEXT!

Your right....wait....what's that you say? What?! There's a "Recreational Drug Use" category in the UN game itself? Wait...then why are people saying this is outside the UN's jurisdiction? Meh.

I saw one recently, but damned if I can remember what it was called. I was happy when the UN moved away from endless (and pointless) Environmental Resolutions, and now I'm hoping we can ease off Human Rights. FoD and Free Trade could use some loving. And International Security >_>

I did some thinking about FoD yesterday evening, and put together a rough draft for one concept that I think might fit: I'll see whether I can get it typed-up this afternoon...

It's here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10492033&posted=1#post10492033

I'm against this resolution. Concerning the confusion between why people are voting said "FOR" or "AGAINST," I think I'm going to make some distinctions.

(And I realize the first two are not involved in the subject at hand.)
FIRST - Tobacco, on the one hand, harms both the person inhaling it and those around them, but campaigns have been reducing this harm to other individuals. If it were up to me, there would be limitations on tobacco use, but it's already persued into the mainstream.

SECOND - Alcohol, consumed in very small amounts such as in red wine is good for some health reasons, but there are limitations on abuse. This has already made it into the mainstream, and look at its harm.

THIRD - To the now-illegal drugs... What the **** is everybody thinking? Tobacco and alcohol are only legal because they have been in mainstream society for centuries. And being one who has personally had a few experiences with certain drugs, marijuana is one of THE MOST socially-stagnating drugs on the black market. You SAY that if used responsibly, it doesn't hurt other individuals - did it every come to anybody's attention that ANY TYPE of drug used even a little bit in excess can harm individuals not only physically, but mentally and emotionally?

You're a child again. Your mother sits in her room because she believes that she needs some marijuana. You need something to eat. You ask her, but she tells you to leave her alone, that she's too tired. You look in the fridge, but there is not much food to eat because MOTHER has become TOO DEPENDANT on the lazy drug MARIJUANA and it has affected her job performance. At work, they wonder why said-mother hasn't called in or has been missing from work. They fire her. She doesn't have a job now, and her child is starving. She feels weak, discouraged from losing her only steady job. She tries to find more jobs, but the good jobs that offer drug tests WOULDN'T in their RIGHT MIND hire people who are on "RECREATIONAL DRUGS" because these drugs make people LAZY! She gets a second-hand job that pays like it would a 17 year old, but she is a single mother and had lost her husband because of drugs - he wasn't going to support her expensive drug use.

The child is still hungry because his mother uses marijuana - he doesn't have many clothes, and anything he gets comes from child support.

Now tell me... tell me that this doesn't harm anybody else if used responsibly (every once in a while turns into often which turns into all the time - addiction. Ever heard of it? It's very easy to achieve.)

Blah blah blah national sovereignty blah blah cultural imperialism blah blah blah micromanagement blah

We vote against.

What he said.

We are curious how this made it to quorum in the first place. Hasn't the issue of legalizing "recreational drugs" been brought up multiple times in the past, with the same result each time: no to legalization?

We had thought that it was pretty much a consensus of NSUN opinion that resolutions like this one were a waste of this body's time.

We had thought the same.

1.DEFINES as recreational drugs for the purpose of this resolution: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, ....

This resolution, if it fails will eliminate COFFEE from our nations! Workers need their coffee to stay productive and observant. We could suffer from greater economic harms should our workers get sleepy and not be able to maintain focus. Plus, coffee is good stuff!

There are so many safeguards that will allow other nations to effectively police and regulate the remaining on the list. Our nation already has a very liberal policy on recreational drug use. Crime is WELL under control and we have a very productive industry.

People, you are far too focused on the threat of marijuana, cocaine or any other drug to see that if you fail this resolution you will eliminate not just the ones you fear, but the one you love. Will it make us better nations? Who's to say, but the status quo we have enjoyed is threatened at this time by this mass resolutions failure.

And we dare to never go back.

So I heartily endorse this resolution and I implore you other nation states to do the same.

<is in favour of resolution>

I personally believe that, the Legalization of Recreation Drugs such as Marijuana, Magic Mushrooms, Mescaline containing cacti, and Salvia Divinorum (Which I think is legal anyway, well it is in the UK)is going to cause no more harm to the user, than alcohol or tobacco.

To say that These substances, In my personal opinion are more harmful than Alcohol or tobacco is rather hypocritical. There are no known cases of death from the use of the above, compared to the annual number of deaths related to Alcohol and Tobacco. The Above substances are less addictive than alcohol and tobacco.

Heroin, Cocaine, Meth etc aside, it is incredably hard to control these substances as they grow in the wild anyway and can be consumed ith little or no preperation (Drying, tea making is the form of preperation required). If it were to be legalized, the government could control the cultivation, impose strict regulation on the quality sold to the general public, and if needs be tax it. The Decriminalization of these natural substances could also potentially lead to a reduce in the amount of related crime, that comes from gangs constantly trying to dominate the market. If the market was legal and Government controlled then the Gangs would be unable to operate in this are.

just my 2 pence. i sound like ahippy, but thats not the point..
I agree that alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous than marajuana,matter of fact ive spoken to several police officers about the subject one had told me that he had never been on a domestic violence call that had anything to do with marajuana, another had said if that was all that people did society would be far safer,it's when people do the other stuff ( Heroin, Cocaine, Meth,Alcohol)thing like domestic violence, and other violent crimes are directly related.I can attest this to be true from my life and the lives of freinds and family.As far as the magic mushrooms, mesculine, and peyote go,these things might e o.k. in controlled situations such as tribal ceromonies and such but society as a whole has no use for such drugs,I personally witnessed a sailor from my ship brought back by shore patrol in hand cuffs while high on shrooms,he then jumed off the liberty boat into the water with the cuff's still on and endangered the men's lives who tried to to rescue him.just stick to the pot !

1.DEFINES as recreational drugs for the purpose of this resolution: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, ....

This resolution, if it fails will eliminate COFFEE from our nations! Workers need their coffee to stay productive and observant. We could suffer from greater economic harms should our workers get sleepy and not be able to maintain focus. Plus, coffee is good stuff!

So I heartily endorse this resolution and I implore you other nation states to do the same.

If this resolution pases then you, and everybody else, must let Coffee be legal: If it fails then you can still choose to do so for your own nation anyway...

If this resolution pases then you, and everybody else, must let Coffee be legal: If it fails then you can still choose to do so for your own nation anyway...

It legalises the use of coffee. It doesn't say anything about its sale... ;)

1.DEFINES as recreational drugs for the purpose of this resolution: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, ....

This resolution, if it fails will eliminate COFFEE from our nations! Workers need their coffee to stay productive and observant. We could suffer from greater economic harms should our workers get sleepy and not be able to maintain focus. Plus, coffee is good stuff!

There are so many safeguards that will allow other nations to effectively police and regulate the remaining on the list. Our nation already has a very liberal policy on recreational drug use. Crime is WELL under control and we have a very productive industry.

People, you are far too focused on the threat of marijuana, cocaine or any other drug to see that if you fail this resolution you will eliminate not just the ones you fear, but the one you love. Will it make us better nations? Who's to say, but the status quo we have enjoyed is threatened at this time by this mass resolutions failure.

And we dare to never go back.

So I heartily endorse this resolution and I implore you other nation states to do the same.

Uh... We think the representative of Wankervia needs to think about this again. The resolution would force all nations to legalize the listed substances. If it fails, whether the substances are legal or not remains up to them. If coffee is legal in your nation now, it will still be legal whether or not the resolution passes or fails.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

1.DEFINES as recreational drugs for the purpose of this resolution: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, ....

This resolution, if it fails will eliminate COFFEE from our nations! Workers need their coffee to stay productive and observant. We could suffer from greater economic harms should our workers get sleepy and not be able to maintain focus. Plus, coffee is good stuff!

There are so many safeguards that will allow other nations to effectively police and regulate the remaining on the list. Our nation already has a very liberal policy on recreational drug use. Crime is WELL under control and we have a very productive industry.

People, you are far too focused on the threat of marijuana, cocaine or any other drug to see that if you fail this resolution you will eliminate not just the ones you fear, but the one you love. Will it make us better nations? Who's to say, but the status quo we have enjoyed is threatened at this time by this mass resolutions failure.

And we dare to never go back.

So I heartily endorse this resolution and I implore you other nation states to do the same.I understand that if it doesn't pass things stay the same,so if drugs are legal in your nation they still will be,and if drugs are illegal in your nation they still are,the real question is do we have the right to enforce laws such as this on cultures and nations that are clearly against such practices,to me it is sovreignty issue for nations and a moral and culteral issue to the people of said nations!:cool:

There are two implied claims here which I intend to refute:
(1) Recreational drugs are harmful to one's health
(2) Recreational drugs are useless

Refuting: (1) Recreational drugs are harmful to one's health

While the health risks of certain recreational drugs like tobacco are well-documented, the health risks of most recreational drugs are mild at best. In most cases, there is little or no evidence to suggest any health risks for certain recreational drugs.

For example, there is some evidence to suggest that smoking marijuana will increase the risk of lung cancer. However, there is no evidence to suggest that marijuana in itself (and its active ingredient, THC) is in any way harmful to one's health. What many anti-marijuanists do not realize is that marijuana does not have to be smoked at all. Marijuana can also be turned into "pot-butter" which can then be harmlessly ingested in the form of tea, brownies, etc. Vaporizers can also be used to heat
marijuana to the point where the active ingredient, THC is released but the plant material is not combusted and therefore there is no resulting smoke.
The THC can be inhaled without the smoke that would normally accompany it.

This is the argument that is made by those who cite marijuana as being harmful to one's health:

premise: Smoking Marijuana is harmful to one's health.
conclusion: Marijuana is harmful to one's health.

Even though the premise is certainly disputable as such a claim has little scientific backing, let us give the benefit of the doubt and assume this premise is true. We can afford to do this, because whether or not the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow from the premise -- in other words, this is not a valid argument.

Refuting: (2) Recreational drugs are useless

Calling recreational drugs useless is flying in the face of common sense and many scientific studies.

There are numerous and well-documented medicinal benefits to marijuana. To argue that such benefits don't exist is in sharp contrast to the medical and scientific community.

Most recreational drugs are cherished for their psychadelic and spiritual effects. Peyote, cannabis (marijuana), and other recreational drugs have been used by indigenous peoples in spiritual ceremonies for thousands of years.

Not to mention that the use of recreational drugs is pleasurable. They are commonly used just for the pleasure and happiness they induce.


It's strange how the people who make the argument that an individual should be protected from things that are harmful to their own health aren't advocating the criminalization of fatty foods or boxing. I guess consistency isn't important when it comes to the zealous efforts of anti-drug crusaders.

To argue that the state should have control over an individual's action which harms only themselves is a fundamental violoation of human rights.


With the exception of tobacco, recreational drugs are not addictive (no more than caffeine). They do not cause the dependency that hard drugs like cocaine, meth, crack, and heroin cause. Most recreational drug users are productive members of society and there is no evidence to suggest that recreational drug users are less productive than those who do not use them.

By saying that use of recreational substances leads to others using those same substances, it does not follow that this is a negative effect of recreational substances. Such a conclusion would rely on the assumption that the drugs are harmful to begin with, in which case it would be a moot point.

For example:
Atheism is bad because it causes more people to be atheists.

The argument starts with the assumption that atheism is bad to prove that atheism is bad. See if this next argument looks familiar:

Recreational drugs harm more than the user because they creates more users.

All the facts in that are mindblowing.

Opinion is not fact. And do not say something is "harmless" without facts to back it up.

For instance, your opinion based argument that indigenous people have used these substances is irrelevant. Indigenous people also eat other tribesmen, have incestuous sex, and other acts found disgusting by the western, MODERN, world.

Regardless, this issue is not something a united governing body should be passing. If this issue appears to be close to passing, I will withdraw my empire and republic from the UN. But it won't because only the most liberal people will vote yes, and the majority will continue to vote no.

We are an exporter of cannabis, it is legal in our country. We would have to impose tariffs to protect our production. Price would go down and we would lose a lot of money. There must be a provision to protect exporters of such drugs. We do not like economic damage.

Furthermore, while we allow plant based drugs, many of the plant based drugs can be refined into much more dangerous drugs-- coca turns into cocaine, opium turns into morphine and other potent substances. You must more carefully create barriers for turning plant based drugs into potent and dangerous chemicals. Without regulation of this industry it can turn into a plague. We do not want people able to make crack because its original derivative is coca.

There are heavy fines for using industrial equipment while intoxicated. Cannabis and other plant based drugs can lead to much more dangerous accidents. One of our cargo submarines sunk an cargo liner recently because its driver was intoxicated while driving the submarine. Industrial accidents become a problem. It can be worse than drunk driving.

Furthermore we limit when the drugs are sold. During weekdays it can seriously curtail the productive ability of industry if it is available all the time.

There must also be literature made freely available for rehabilitation of people who have addictive personalities as well. Let us face it, some people have no self control and will abuse this law to its limits.

We have a system of weekend cafes where you can relax and enjoy. Cabs are available for pickup.

If this resolution pases then you, and everybody else, must let Coffee be legal: If it fails then you can still choose to do so for your own nation anyway...

That is fine and good, we WANT coffee to stay legal...but what of the other freedoms we enjoy on our own? I trust that we will be able to maintain our individual sovereignty just like our Dutch cousin.

If that would be the case, then we still endorse the resolution, yet if it fails we will still be able to maintain our autonomy.

If this is not the case however, it will not be amenable to our individual desires and would go against our policies of personal rights.

Some clarity would be sufficient from the resolution's author. (while I enjoy my potentially LAST cup of coffee)


UPDATE: after this posting I saw many clarifications of the issue.

In alot of ways, this is a rather poorly written document. Why create a document that would allow loopholes? If you want to create legislation, should it not be a blanket resolution to all pertaining members?

Why create a resolution, present it to the floor for debate and should it fail, still allow an individual sovereignty? I'm not arguing against sovereignty, but I am arguing the purpose of this body of government.

What is the basic core purpose of this resolution? Why was it authored? I would like to hear from the author of the resolution, not conjecture from those who hadn't authored it if you would please.

Originally Posted by Dusen
There are two implied claims here which I intend to refute:
(1) Recreational drugs are harmful to one's health
(2) Recreational drugs are useless

Refuting: (1) Recreational drugs are harmful to one's health

While the health risks of certain recreational drugs like tobacco are well-documented, the health risks of most recreational drugs are mild at best. In most cases, there is little or no evidence to suggest any health risks for certain recreational drugs.

For example, there is some evidence to suggest that smoking marijuana will increase the risk of lung cancer. However, there is no evidence to suggest that marijuana in itself (and its active ingredient, THC) is in any way harmful to one's health. What many anti-marijuanists do not realize is that marijuana does not have to be smoked at all. Marijuana can also be turned into "pot-butter" which can then be harmlessly ingested in the form of tea, brownies, etc. Vaporizers can also be used to heat
marijuana to the point where the active ingredient, THC is released but the plant material is not combusted and therefore there is no resulting smoke.
The THC can be inhaled without the smoke that would normally accompany it.

This is the argument that is made by those who cite marijuana as being harmful to one's health:

premise: Smoking Marijuana is harmful to one's health.
conclusion: Marijuana is harmful to one's health.

Even though the premise is certainly disputable as such a claim has little scientific backing, let us give the benefit of the doubt and assume this premise is true. We can afford to do this, because whether or not the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow from the premise -- in other words, this is not a valid argument.

Refuting: (2) Recreational drugs are useless

Calling recreational drugs useless is flying in the face of common sense and many scientific studies.

There are numerous and well-documented medicinal benefits to marijuana. To argue that such benefits don't exist is in sharp contrast to the medical and scientific community.

Most recreational drugs are cherished for their psychadelic and spiritual effects. Peyote, cannabis (marijuana), and other recreational drugs have been used by indigenous peoples in spiritual ceremonies for thousands of years.

Not to mention that the use of recreational drugs is pleasurable. They are commonly used just for the pleasure and happiness they induce.


It's strange how the people who make the argument that an individual should be protected from things that are harmful to their own health aren't advocating the criminalization of fatty foods or boxing. I guess consistency isn't important when it comes to the zealous efforts of anti-drug crusaders.

To argue that the state should have control over an individual's action which harms only themselves is a fundamental violoation of human rights.


With the exception of tobacco, recreational drugs are not addictive (no more than caffeine). They do not cause the dependency that hard drugs like cocaine, meth, crack, and heroin cause. Most recreational drug users are productive members of society and there is no evidence to suggest that recreational drug users are less productive than those who do not use them.

By saying that use of recreational substances leads to others using those same substances, it does not follow that this is a negative effect of recreational substances. Such a conclusion would rely on the assumption that the drugs are harmful to begin with, in which case it would be a moot point.

For example:
Atheism is bad because it causes more people to be atheists.

The argument starts with the assumption that atheism is bad to prove that atheism is bad. See if this next argument looks familiar:

Recreational drugs harm more than the user because they creates more users.What's wrong with boxing????????????:sniper:

Your right....wait....what's that you say? What?! There's a "Recreational Drug Use" category in the UN game itself? Wait...then why are people saying this is outside the UN's jurisdiction? Meh.
"Meh" yourself.

It's this delegate's opinion that Recreational Drug Use shouldn't even BE a category. Not unless we're talking international trade...which is category of it's own as well.

Can anyone tell me why Recreational Drug Use is a UN proposal category at all? If it's in the FAQ, I'll take that answer as well.

amen brother on to other business:cool:

My issue is that.

1) I will suddenly have more competition for a protected industry.

2) This resolution does not allow internal regulation of how such drugs are used. We want to maintain our economic productivity by limiting when and how the drugs are available. Mareocco is a classic example where productivity is seriously damaged by legal drug use. So is the Nutterlands.

3) We want the provision to stop them from turning plant drugs into hard drugs like coca to cocaine and opium to heroin.

4) We wish to be able to rehabilitate habitual users very easily.

5) We recently had to stop the advertising industry from convincing people to smoke 5 pack of Dokes a day which was very damaging.

6) Industrial accidents will increase. We need some way to deal with this.

Please address these issues before we allow general legalization.

Look people your not getting it, its the same thing in the US, Druglords (:sniper: ) make a profit because of the transportation and providing access. if it becomes legal, then there is no need to carry an :mp5: or an AK around to protect yourself from these people beause the drugs are legal and the prices are so low that kids wont be selling them and be getting shot. Here in Baltimore the average age for a drug-selling kid is 13. The ones that end up in the hospital or dead on arrival are from 10-18 years old. if this were legal then there would be no competition and no gangs to worry about.

please send your regards to mclarenguy89@gmail.com

Can anyone tell me why Recreational Drug Use is a UN proposal category at all?

One would assume that it is a category because the creator of the game thought it was within the UN's concern. It hasn't been removed, so lets assume that decision still stands.

True but read what I wrote earlier.

Look people your not getting it, its the same thing in the US, Druglords (:sniper: ) make a profit because of the transportation and providing access. if it becomes legal, then there is no need to carry an :mp5: or an AK around to protect yourself from these people beause the drugs are legal and the prices are so low that kids wont be selling them and be getting shot. Here in Baltimore the average age for a drug-selling kid is 13. The ones that end up in the hospital or dead on arrival are from 10-18 years old. if this were legal then there would be no competition and no gangs to worry about.
And more drugs, causing more deaths in themselves.

I just had another good reason to vote against this:

There is an argument for this that banning drugs is like the USA's Prohibition and wouldn't work. However, Prohibition only didn't work because people wanted alcohol and would fight to get it. Ceoranan natives didn't have tobacco and such, and we don't let smokers into our country, and therefore tobacco is banned. We have had no ill effects because people don't need to shoot each other to get them, because no one needs them. Therefore, I would think that this issue should be decided on a nation-by-nation basis.

Ok, so I am against drugs. I don't want people using them to harm their bodies, and will forbid that, but of course drugs have to be used in medicine.

I don't get it. :rolleyes:

Drugs for the longest time were legal, and look at what they cause - poverty! The truth is, we need to keep out a mind for what is most important in life, and that is, of course, money. And will the ignorant masses work for the rich and powerful bougiouse work hard if they are stoned? Of course not! They will continue getting stoned, because it makes them satisfied. But if we keep them discontent, and thus productive, the rich will get richer and the poor will continue to be more productive, and then they will get more money (because they are not spending it on drugs) and they will become richer. And besides; drugs are something we use to conquer countries. If their already stoned, they won't be easy to assimilate.

Hmmm, I would argue that even those who, like myself, personally support less harsh limits on recreational drug use should vote "no" here. I know that "national sovereignty" is the oldest excuse in the book, but if the UN intervenes in areas such as this lord knows where its going to stop *pictures a massive, rather menacing-looking UN towering above everyone and passing ludicrous resolutions placing limits on the colours of cheese that are allowed to be sold and suchlike*. Even if (very unlikely) this does pass, it'll surely be repealed within a couple of weeks for the same reason. So just vote no and save the bureaucracy! Please? Now, if you'll excuse me, i'll just go and sing "Red Flag" five times in apology for opposing a left-wing policy

I think that the UN has far too much power, and that its power must be limited to allow for greater soverienty. I mean, of course, we're all here because we want to cash in on this power - but the point of the UN is also to place issues we agree on, and many times the UN overrieds its power.

This legislation appears to give a high amount of control to the induvidual nation to restrict or allow drugs. Though it is mostly pro-drug use, i allows governments to place age and work restrictions. In a way, it will change very few moderate governmental policies, at least. Though, in principle, Klitvilia is opposed, the act is worded very well and allows a high degree of personal freedom. FOR, I guess.

please send your regards to mclarenguy89@gmail.com

Let the email spamming begin! :D

But if the ammendment is so open, as you say, is it neccesary? The answer is no. Both a banning or a forced legalization of drugs is copmletely unprecedented and should not be the job of the United Nations. We are here for international issues, not national ones.

But if the ammendment is so open, as you say, is it neccesary? The answer is no. Both a banning or a forced legalization of drugs is copmletely unprecedented and should not be the job of the United Nations. We are here for international issues, not national ones.

Agreed. But...

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/untitled9by.png

Ah, the famous arithmetically-challenged UN card...

Disregarding the part about others, the drugs have recreational and enjoyable purposes. Using them responsibly doesnt pose significant health risks. We can't outlaw the use of them just becasue of some people using them irresponsibly.


Realize full well that we cannot pass pieces of this. If there are sections we disapprove of, we must resist and oppose the proposal. We cannot disregard a part of someone's argument that we cannot refute anymore than we can disregard that fact that at least one of the substances covered by your proposal can cause immediate detrimental side effects to the user and potentially to those around them. That would be tobacco. It's included in this proposal. We won't disregard it.

This legislation appears to give a high amount of control to the induvidual nation to restrict or allow drugs. Though it is mostly pro-drug use, i allows governments to place age and work restrictions. In a way, it will change very few moderate governmental policies, at least. Though, in principle, Klitvilia is opposed, the act is worded very well and allows a high degree of personal freedom. FOR, I guess.


A very good point. I'm still against it on very principle, however, if this does manage to pass we will allow our citizens to consume these substances once they have reached the mature and responsible age of 150 and are still gainfully employed in the labour industries.

Put that in your pipe...

Oskar

This is not keeping countries from legalizing drugs. This is forcing coutries to legalize drugs. And that is wrong.

I agree with this movement because it means that the underworld drug trade and traffiking will be indermined, thus enabling a monitored and safe supply of the drugs. Drug crime should drop significantly which will be a big bonus to every country of the UN
However, I would like to propose that the recreational drugs only be used out of public areas so as to ensure the safety of others from passive smoke or from an drug induced rage. Another reason is that I don't want crack smoking hippies running amok my country. Additionally, I would like to superimpose fines upon those who do use these drugs in a public area. Or the death penalty:sniper:

I am broadly in favour of the idea but the definition list is rather strange.

It includes Tea and Coffee, which should really be caffine.
It doesn't include alcohol, cocaine or heroin.

It also seems strange to limit this to plant derived drugs. Especially considering the effects of something like Ergot (which LSD is produced from) is far more potent and potentially damaging than synthetic substances like amphetamines (Speed) or MDMA (Ecstasy).

It would help if you read the text on the UN page. The proposed resolution includes the legalisation of consumption and production for personal use of a short list of plant-based drugs, including qat, tobacco and cannabis.


I did read all the text. But, some I did not quite understand.

But, my vote stays the same: Against

You're a child again. Your mother sits in her room because she believes that she needs some marijuana. You need something to eat. You ask her, but she tells you to leave her alone, that she's too tired. You look in the fridge, but there is not much food to eat because MOTHER has become TOO DEPENDANT on the lazy drug MARIJUANA and it has affected her job performance. At work, they wonder why said-mother hasn't called in or has been missing from work. They fire her. She doesn't have a job now, and her child is starving. She feels weak, discouraged from losing her only steady job. She tries to find more jobs, but the good jobs that offer drug tests WOULDN'T in their RIGHT MIND hire people who are on "RECREATIONAL DRUGS" because these drugs make people LAZY! She gets a second-hand job that pays like it would a 17 year old, but she is a single mother and had lost her husband because of drugs - he wasn't going to support her expensive drug use.

The child is still hungry because his mother uses marijuana - he doesn't have many clothes, and anything he gets comes from child support.

Now tell me... tell me that this doesn't harm anybody else if used responsibly (every once in a while turns into often which turns into all the time - addiction. Ever heard of it? It's very easy to achieve.)

Really, the problems here are your economic system which ensures that a child can be allowed to starve because of its parent(s)'s financial failings, and your welfare system which fails both to stop a mother becoming negligent and to catch her and take action when she does.

All kinds of things can make it easier for parents to fail their kids. Should we ban convenient foods of poor nutritional value, because lazy parents might simply microwave a crappy fatty meal for their kids every day, resulting in long-term health issues for the children? Should we ban TV, because lazy parents might be tempted to use it as a babysitter and fail to spend sufficient time interacting with their kids?

By the way, you appear to be under the impression that alcohol, caffeine, tea and tobacco are legal everywhere, and those drugs which are illegal in countries like the UK and USA are illegal here. I would remind you that this is not real life - many NS nations have already legalised all drugs, many have banned all of them, and many have legalised different drugs to those which have been legalised in real nations like the UK and USA.

Furthermore, while we allow plant based drugs, many of the plant based drugs can be refined into much more dangerous drugs-- coca turns into cocaine, opium turns into morphine and other potent substances. You must more carefully create barriers for turning plant based drugs into potent and dangerous chemicals. Without regulation of this industry it can turn into a plague. We do not want people able to make crack because its original derivative is coca.

This proposal does not require anything with regard to coca or opium. See clause 1 for the list of recreational drugs this proposal deals with:

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,

There are heavy fines for using industrial equipment while intoxicated. Cannabis and other plant based drugs can lead to much more dangerous accidents. One of our cargo submarines sunk an cargo liner recently because its driver was intoxicated while driving the submarine. Industrial accidents become a problem. It can be worse than drunk driving.

Furthermore we limit when the drugs are sold. During weekdays it can seriously curtail the productive ability of industry if it is available all the time.

There must also be literature made freely available for rehabilitation of people who have addictive personalities as well. Let us face it, some people have no self control and will abuse this law to its limits.

You can maintain all these controls. If you like, you won't even have to allow sale of drugs at all. In fact, the proposal explicitly permits nations to disallow the operation of heavy machinery or vehicles while under the influence, and endorses education and rehabilitation efforts.

1) I will suddenly have more competition for a protected industry

Other nations are not forced to allow production for anything more than personal consumption. So the impact will not be so great. Anyway, if rival foreign drug industries do spring up, yours will have the advantage of experience, more established manufacturing and research facilities etc and it probably be more the case that they'd have to worry about you. If not, you're free to enact protectionist measures if you feel it necessary.

That is fine and good, we WANT coffee to stay legal...but what of the other freedoms we enjoy on our own? I trust that we will be able to maintain our individual sovereignty just like our Dutch cousin.

If that would be the case, then we still endorse the resolution, yet if it fails we will still be able to maintain our autonomy.

If this is not the case however, it will not be amenable to our individual desires and would go against our policies of personal rights.

Some clarity would be sufficient from the resolution's author. (while I enjoy my potentially LAST cup of coffee)


UPDATE: after this posting I saw many clarifications of the issue.

In alot of ways, this is a rather poorly written document. Why create a document that would allow loopholes? If you want to create legislation, should it not be a blanket resolution to all pertaining members?

Why create a resolution, present it to the floor for debate and should it fail, still allow an individual sovereignty? I'm not arguing against sovereignty, but I am arguing the purpose of this body of government.

What is the basic core purpose of this resolution? Why was it authored? I would like to hear from the author of the resolution, not conjecture from those who hadn't authored it if you would please.

I hope co-author is sufficient for you. Let me first explain that it is standard practice in the NSUN that if a proposal is voted down, the status quo remains. In fact, it is impossible within the mechanics of the game for the defeat of a resolution to cause any change.

So in this case, we wanted to legalise the consumption of certain recreational drugs throughout the UN, in the interests of protecting what we regard as an important facet of personal freedom. We submitted a proposal to do this. If it wins the vote, the proposal will be implemented, and all UN member nations will be forced to legalise consumption (and responsible production for personal use) of the named drugs. If it loses, it will disappear, and things will continue as before - that is, nations will be able to choose their own stances on the issue.

There is an argument for this that banning drugs is like the USA's Prohibition and wouldn't work. However, Prohibition only didn't work because people wanted alcohol and would fight to get it. Ceoranan natives didn't have tobacco and such, and we don't let smokers into our country, and therefore tobacco is banned. We have had no ill effects because people don't need to shoot each other to get them, because no one needs them. Therefore, I would think that this issue should be decided on a nation-by-nation basis.

This proposal doesn't force you to allow any kind of supply chain to let your people get their hands on drugs. You can make it so that if they want drugs, they have to grow them for their own use - and if they're so uninterested in them, I hardly think many are going to go to such lengths.

A very good point. I'm still against it on very principle, however, if this does manage to pass we will allow our citizens to consume these substances once they have reached the mature and responsible age of 150 and are still gainfully employed in the labour industries.

Put that in your pipe...

That's fine, as long as your national age of majority is age 150 or higher:

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,

This is not keeping countries from legalizing drugs. This is forcing coutries to legalize drugs. And that is wrong.

Why? Because you said so? Because that's what society taught you? What you're saying here (apparently, that banning drugs is appropriate but legalising isn't) cannot be backed up by your earlier national sovereignty-related arguments (which should really lead to the conclusion that it doesn't matter whether drugs are being banned or legalised, the UN shouldn't do either).

However, I would like to propose that the recreational drugs only be used out of public areas

The proposal allows your nation's authorities to prohibit drug use on all public property.

I am broadly in favour of the idea but the definition list is rather strange.

It includes Tea and Coffee, which should really be caffine.
It doesn't include alcohol, cocaine or heroin.

It also seems strange to limit this to plant derived drugs. Especially considering the effects of something like Ergot (which LSD is produced from) is far more potent and potentially damaging than synthetic substances like amphetamines (Speed) or MDMA (Ecstasy).

The list separates drugs based on the plants they come from, and excludes those which can only be extracted from plants via a complex, technical, and potentially dangerous process, because we wanted to focus on allowing people to grow and use their own drugs, saying nothing about whether markets had to be legalised. Amateur production of, for instance, alcohol, can yield toxic impurities such as methanol, and poses a physical risk to people nearby (distilleries can explode). On the other hand, it's pretty hard to get tea or marijuana wrong, and home production doesn't pose a serious threat to your neighbours' safety.

I did read all the text. But, some I did not quite understand.

But, my vote stays the same: Against

What don't you understand? Maybe I or others in the General Assembly can help.

Voted NO.

I ask everyone who cares about their people to vote no as well.

Voted NO.

I ask everyone who cares about their people to vote no as well.

Would you care to offer some reasoning in defence of your stance? We feel a government that cares about the individuals it has power over would respect their rights to their own bodies.

The proposal DOES NOT require you to legalise all recreational drugs. It requires you to legalise consumption and production for personal consumption of certain named drugs, and only recommends that you legalise other drugs. It's basically just saying "We think it's a good idea - think about it, won't you?"

If that's all it does and it doesn't mean anything then why include it?
We still vote NO. This is an issue for each nation NOT THE UN.

The Empire will Kirisubo will vote against as well.

We believe that the NSUN has no need to be involved. Drugs policies should be up to the government concerned since they know better than an unelected committee does.

Kirisubo does have drug treatment programmes and drug smugglers and dealers can face long periods of imprisonment or even the death penalty for possessing class A drugs.

Although this act tries to legalise softer drugs they are the first steps a user will take before going onto heroin or similar drugs.

therefore we will oppose this bill so we can protect our citizens.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero

It legalises the use of coffee. It doesn't say anything about its sale... ;)

We personally think coffee was just included in there to make this look harmless. Our nation has a huge natural resource of coffee trees and would gladly discuss coffee trade with any other nation. Coffee consumption is legal and encouraged in our nation.

Still voting NO

Recreational Drugs have been consumed by humans for centuries, and will be consumed for long. It seems to us, that in many ways, the interdiction of the recreational drugs mentioned in the resolution at vote looks like the early XX th century alcohol prohibition period in the United Sates.

We share the views that Recreational Drugs regulation is, here, a good policy, as the side effects of prohibition are so huge: violence, drugs un-safety, underground economy, corruption.

Also we would like to emphasize that the Recreational Drugs market is not a static market, it evolves. We are witnessing and expecting a significant move in the area of medication and the knowledge about how the human brain works.
It means that it’s very probable that our industry may design in the near future Recreational Drugs with fewer and lower side effects. We prefer these scientific researches not to be underground.

The following is 100% “yuck factor”:
On a not so far topic, maybe have you heard about an improbable rumour last year, but is this so improbable?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4076525.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/thisweek/story/0,12977,1368958,00.html

I think that the UN has far too much power, and that its power must be limited to allow for greater soverienty. I mean, of course, we're all here because we want to cash in on this power - but the point of the UN is also to place issues we agree on, and many times the UN overrieds its power.

What is decided by the UN is up to the delegates and if you want greater soverienty quit the UN and go it alone.. The UN overrides as much power as we allow it to!

I don't know what is with you doped hippies! There is no reason that drugs should be consumed for "recreational" purposes! There is no recreational purpose! The "high" is created when the drug poisons your body. Even if people decide to do it to their own bodies, it's not right for people to kill themselves! There is a big difference between the prohibition of alchohal and the extermination of drug abuse. Alchohal doesn't kill you, drugs kill you and you stupid doped liberals are too stoned to realize this. This is outrageaous!
People have no right to dope themselves to the point of death. There is no "recreational" purpose, so I don't even know what you people are talking about "consuming" drugs. They're abusing drugs. The UN has no power over the right to sovernty!

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

You DO realise don't you that by taking drugs one's own perception can be altered. Think of all the deaths caused by people taking drugs and then harming others without even knowing they are doing it. This includes alchohol causing bar-fights. Alchohol again causing drink-driving. Think of speed, someone takes it, gets edgy and fights with, even kills someone else. How you could possibly say drugs only harm the individual user is ignorant and plain stupid. You have obviously NOT thought about the effects they cause and what that leads and what that leads to etc.

Also, how could possibly want harmful drugs to be legal. In a sense you are encouraging young people to take up something that can never be cured, possibly when they are too young to realise. If a teenager or young adult saw everywhere "DRUGS MADE LEGAL", so you think that might POSSIBLY have an impact on whether or not they take any? OF COURSE it will. If little children go around seeing older people they look up to taking drugs they are definitely going to want to do it, no matter who else tells them it's "bad for them", especially if they've just been told their favourite food, lollies are "bad for them". They wouldn't believe you.

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

Again, "does not involve direct physical harm to others" the indirect harm is far more immediate and could even outway the direct harm in some cases.

As others said, you may want drugs legalised in your own country, that doesn't mean you have to inflict this "resolution" on others. Some countries don't want their people dieing, even the evil ones (they may want large populations). There are i'm sure many highly religious countries out there saying (recreational) drug-use will send you to hell or the equivalent. Countries should be allowed to make their own decisions. Some may not even want to make medical drug-use legal, but that is irrelevant.

If you insist on keeping and believing in this issue, MAKE it an issue, so each individual country can make their choice in their own time. Many nations do do not even read UN policies before their passed, let alone do they contribute to the voting. How do you think they would feel if they were suddenly told drugs are allowed and no negotiations, "that bit's already happened". Turning this into an issue would be the absolutely best thing for you to do, you strange person.

The only good thing that has come out of this is that nations may want to join the UN just to vote against it.

Bring this down everyone, bring it down hard.

If that's all it does and it doesn't mean anything then why include it?

Because we feel it appropriate to put a little diplomatic pressure on governments to take action, without forcing this particular thing on them at this time. (OOC: it might be relevant to point out that the real UN doesn't think this kind of recommendation is pointless - it issues many non-binding declarations, as far as I know).

Although this act tries to legalise softer drugs they are the first steps a user will take before going onto heroin or similar drugs.

I'm not going to debate the vailidity of the "gateway drug" argument here. It may well be the case in certain nations that users of softer drugs become more confident and move on to harder drugs. Perhaps if you separated the supply of hard drugs from these other drugs, it wouldn't be so easy for users to step from one type to the other. We also find that many education programmes under prohibition end up effectively mushing all drugs into one category: "bad". If we can be more open about drugs, and focus on preventing abuse rather than use altogether, it is easier for educators to separate drugs out and make clear the different risks and levels of danger associated with different types of drugs.

We personally think coffee was just included in there to make this look harmless.

Actually, it was included because it fits well with the other drugs included - it is easy to grow and prepare on a small scale without expertise. Also, some people might view it as absurd that some governments might have coffee illegal and psilocybin legal.

Alchohal causes bar fights. Barfights don't cause serious injuries, usually. However drug abuse directly kills the user and those around him/her. It eats away at the central nervous system! It's a ticking time bomb I tell you!

well i voted yes, what the people want to do with their bodies as long as they are of age. also as long as they do it out of the public eye is fine with me as well. all you people who vote against it are doing is denying your civilians the right to be free. we will never be free until the government stays out of our personal private affairs.what we do in our own comfort of home shouldnt be judged. or controlled

Alchohol is different different because people do not always "drink" to "get drunk." People drink sometimes because they like the taste (nobody ever did drugs because they "liked the taste" or for cultural purposes.

well i voted yes, what the people want to do with their bodies as long as they are of age. also as long as they do it out of the public eye is fine with me as well. all you people who vote against it are doing is denying your civilians the right to be free. we will never be free until the government stays out of our personal private affairs.what we do in our own comfort of home shouldnt be judged. or controlled

The right to kill yourself by addiction is no right! It's pure profanity, it's defying the sanctity of life. You are a treehugging dope sucking hippie if all I care!

-Warlord Shawhabas

i know this was mentioned briefly, but ergot is not a drug. its a fungus that can make LSD from tryptophan, but by itself its a poison, not a recreational drug. it has to be processed and the lysergic acid has to be separated from the ergot since ergot can cause neurological and circulatory diseases. Ergot is also used to make medicinal drugs.

the point, ergot is not a drug, its a pathogen, and i refuse to support this resolution for that reason.

I don't know what is with you doped hippies! There is no reason that drugs should be consumed for "recreational" purposes! There is no recreational purpose!

"Recreation" is simply what people do in their spare time for enjoyment. Clearly, some people enjoy drinking tea or coffee, or smoking tobacco or cannabis, or eating magic mushrooms. Therefore, this use is "recreational".

The "high" is created when the drug poisons your body.

You could easily say the same thing about eating fatty, unhealthy fast food. Pleasure is gained from the taste, and at the same time there are negative effects on health. It's all about weighing up the pros and cons and deciding for yourself what pleasures are worth the risk. Individuals enjoy activities with varying associated risks all the time, including driving, spending time in the sun, bungee jumping, eating fatty foods, and, yes, consuming recreational drugs.

Even if people decide to do it to their own bodies, it's not right for people to kill themselves!

It's their life, who are you to decide that they must do everything possible to prolong it?

Alchohal doesn't kill you, drugs kill you

This is plain false. Alcohol results in many deaths and injuries. It can directly cause long-term and short-term health problems and increase the risk of injuries. Some interesting information from New Scientist (13 Nov 2004) about the varying lethality of a few drugs:

Alcohol
"Very high doses cause vomiting, coma and death through respiratory failure. The fatal dose varies but is somewhere around 500 milligrams of ethanol per 100 millilitres of blood."

Caffiene
"The fatal dose is about 10 grams."

Tobacco
"The lethal dose is about 60 milligrams; a typical cigarette delivers about 2 milligrams of nicotine into the bloodstream."

Cannabis
"No fatal dose has ever been recorded in humans"

(nobody ever did drugs because they "liked the taste" or for cultural purposes.

Excuse me? The drug-containing products this proposal concerns include tea and coffee, which are most definitely consumed by many for the taste. And many drugs, especially certain hallucinogens, have long been used in traditional religious practices.

Aside from what has already been mentioned, I object to the premise of this resolution that recreational drugs "only affect the user." They can also, however, impede one's memory, productivity, and present a hazard to others; ergo, for example, one cannot drive while intoxicated.

Recognizing that drug use does no harm except to the individual user? Give me a break! What about children in families where one or both parents are using hallucinogens or other dangerously mind-altering drugs?! Anyone who tells me that a situation like that is acceptable is, though I hate to say it, either a callous, coldhearted, terrible person or a blithering idiot.
I am not a religious person or a moralist, but it doesn't take one to see that we don't need a UN Drug Commission to monitor safety of the drugs mentioned in the resolution. Anyone with a bit of global awareness knows that Qat (khat), for example, has been used in Africa to devastating effect in inducing child soldiers to commit atrocities so terrible that we can't begin to fathom them. And magic mushrooms? I know from my own life that there is absolutely no good reason to take those things.
Why not just pass a resolution forcing people to take drugs? This one paves the way for that.

People who argue that the resolution legalizes not makes illegal coffee are missing the real point of the argument. Not all drugs are equal, and placing caffene in the same category as the other drugs means that while "legal" it still has to follow all the other clauses of the resolution just like all the other drugs. That includes ...

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,

This means no coffee at work. No tea at work either! No iced tea at work! (Tzorsland Cola apparently is fine to the moronic confusion between the drug and the delivery method of the drug.) The Tzorland accounting department is already saying that the national economy will collapse unless they have their morning coffee.

This means no coffee at work. No tea at work either! No iced tea at work! (Tzorsland Cola apparently is fine to the moronic confusion between the drug and the delivery method of the drug.) The Tzorland accounting department is already saying that the national economy will collapse unless they have their morning coffee.

You do realize that's only if your building owner or boss makes that rule, in which case I don't know if you want to be working there to begin with.

*snip outrageous misrepresentation of the text*

The clause PERMITS member states to restrict these activities. It is up to you to legislate on which of them (if any) are restricted or not. As such, your whole argument is moot. I am still deciding on whether you have serious reading problems, or are just debating in a dishonest manner.

I am still deciding on whether you have serious reading problems, or are just debating in a dishonest manner.

No need for debate, Fonzo. Just look at his signature. He isn't the deligate of his region.

The Theocracy of Agnostic Turks must be free to use DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) for our religious practices. You can learn more about DMT from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine .

If you would like to meet God yourselves, you should try it too !

If you won't allow people to use drugs for recrational purposes; then religion will be abolished since it has a recrational purpose which drugs your mind about afterlife and eliminates fear of death.

For the last time: the lack of this Ammendment will not ban recreational drugs! If you vote "no," then you can still authorize the use of such drugs in your nation. This is undoubtably the better choice, because even though the effects of the drug do not change globally, the cultural impact of these drugs does. Therefore, such rulings must be made by the individual nations themselves, and not the overall government.

I cannot support any measure that openly allows for people to do harm to their body without any clear, positive result.

This resolution is a waste of time.

Cofee is ok because it doesn't kill you. However heroin does kill you and it's drugs like this that need to be banned. In case your wondering, when I said Alchohal doesn't kill people, I meant that it doesn't directly kill you. It kills you indirectly by having a car crash or something, drugs kill you as a direct result of using them. As I said there is no "recreational" purpose for drugs.

I can't be bothered to find the quote, but somewhere it was said in the resolution that the drugs are made from plants and were therfore natural or something like that. There ARE such things as poisonous plants you know peoples! Even some don't have to go passed the skin, like poison ivy, or pelican itch. Just because something is there, doesn't mean it was made to be eaten by us. Certain animals can eat things others can't, humans can eat mint, but it's poisonous for bugs. Sand Goannas can eat poisonous scorpians and etc. I think i've made my point

Are you already a member of the National Sovereignty Organisation?

Please TG me and let my nation know how to join.

Dastardly Stench has voted AGAINST this measure, and this is entirely on the grounds that it is yet another misguided UN attempt at micromanaging its member nations' laws.

It is the position of the Dominion of Dastardly Stench that nations should be allowed to decide for themselves what substances are to be legal and illegal within their boundries, and that any UN attempt to deny said nations this decision constitutes an abuse of power. Arguments regarding the merits of the substances themselves are no more than a distraction from this overriding point.

Gurgle the Dragon
Ambassador Aromatus
Dominion of Dastardly Stench

And whether we should legalize these drugs is where the debate should lie. Not whether it is of the UN's concern. That is the issue I'm trying to eliminate.

Couldn't possibly disagree more. UN tyranny is an important issue, and, though you may try to eliminate it, it will remain. In fact, it is the position of the Dominion of Dastardly Stench that this is a UN attempt to impose something upon its member states that it has no business attempting to impose, and that this is the overriding issue of this proposed legislation.

Gurgle the Dragon
Ambassador Aromatus
Dominion of Dastardly Stench

Governments that think it's their business what people smoke, drink or whatever are not only backwards, they also suffer more crime and more negative side effects. The Groot Gouda police doesn't have to worry too much about illegal drugs, so they can invest time in other criminal activities. From an early age, children learn about the risks of drug use and drug addiction, but they are stimulated to make their own choice, as long as they also take responsibility for that choice and the consequences. That's the only way the drug problems can be tackles, and it is having succes.

If other nations follow our path and decriminalize drugs, we will have less troubles at our borders with illegal activities, or foreigners abusing our tolerant approach to drugs. We urge all nations to vote for this resolution.

Wolfhawk doesn't allowing smoking and we have a very low to nonexistant crime rate

Midori Kasigi-Nero stands up again and speaks "with respect to the honourable delegates from Jey and Grout Grouda what they do in their nations is their own concern.

I have been in Love and Esterel and seen how they handle Soma responsibly. they treat it like alcohol and their way works for them. My honourable husband comes from that part of the world so I seen first hand how they do things.

It is my belief that this is not an issue that the NSUN should be even looking at. Each nation knows best.

Regarding the 'stepping stone' debate that has been refered to I'd like to point out that preventon is better than cure. if a person never starts smoking tobacco or gives up before they damage their lungs they're not likely to get lung cancer.

drug use does not just affect the individual taking them. it affects their family and the people around them especially if they are an addict"

Midori Kasigi-Nero stands up again and speaks "with respect to the honourable delegates from Jey and Grout Grouda what they do in their nations is their own concern.

It isn't, because drugs travel all over the world. My liberal approach is endangered by citizens from nations where drugs are illegal, to the point where we might have to place serious restrictions on who enters our nation. Smuggling is an international concern.

The only way this can be solved is by decriminalizing drugs all over the world.

And then there's the personal liberty issue. You as a government have no right to tell people what they should and shouldn't smoke in the privacy of their own home. If you are unwilling to do that, then the UN should step in and force you to respect your citizens.

drug use does not just affect the individual taking them. it affects their family and the people around them especially if they are an addict"

Then educate instead of oppress!

For the last time: the lack of this Ammendment will not ban recreational drugs! If you vote "no," then you can still authorize the use of such drugs in your nation. This is undoubtably the better choice, because even though the effects of the drug do not change globally, the cultural impact of these drugs does. Therefore, such rulings must be made by the individual nations themselves, and not the overall government.

The decision ultimately must be made by the citizen. A government cannot and should not decide about people's bodies.

Education is much more expensive, and rather ineffective. "Opression," or more acurately termed crime prevention, is cheaper and has a much better track record.

There are two implied claims here which I intend to refute:
(1) Recreational drugs are harmful to one's health
(2) Recreational drugs are useless

Refuting: (1) Recreational drugs are harmful to one's health

While the health risks of certain recreational drugs like tobacco are well-documented, the health risks of most recreational drugs are mild at best. In most cases, there is little or no evidence to suggest any health risks for certain recreational drugs.

For example, there is some evidence to suggest that smoking marijuana will increase the risk of lung cancer. However, there is no evidence to suggest that marijuana in itself (and its active ingredient, THC) is in any way harmful to one's health. What many anti-marijuanists do not realize is that marijuana does not have to be smoked at all. Marijuana can also be turned into "pot-butter" which can then be harmlessly ingested in the form of tea, brownies, etc. Vaporizers can also be used to heat
marijuana to the point where the active ingredient, THC is released but the plant material is not combusted and therefore there is no resulting smoke.
The THC can be inhaled without the smoke that would normally accompany it.

This is the argument that is made by those who cite marijuana as being harmful to one's health:

premise: Smoking Marijuana is harmful to one's health.
conclusion: Marijuana is harmful to one's health.

Even though the premise is certainly disputable as such a claim has little scientific backing, let us give the benefit of the doubt and assume this premise is true. We can afford to do this, because whether or not the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow from the premise -- in other words, this is not a valid argument.

Refuting: (2) Recreational drugs are useless

Calling recreational drugs useless is flying in the face of common sense and many scientific studies.

There are numerous and well-documented medicinal benefits to marijuana. To argue that such benefits don't exist is in sharp contrast to the medical and scientific community.

Most recreational drugs are cherished for their psychadelic and spiritual effects. Peyote, cannabis (marijuana), and other recreational drugs have been used by indigenous peoples in spiritual ceremonies for thousands of years.

Not to mention that the use of recreational drugs is pleasurable. They are commonly used just for the pleasure and happiness they induce.


It's strange how the people who make the argument that an individual should be protected from things that are harmful to their own health aren't advocating the criminalization of fatty foods or boxing. I guess consistency isn't important when it comes to the zealous efforts of anti-drug crusaders.

To argue that the state should have control over an individual's action which harms only themselves is a fundamental violoation of human rights.


With the exception of tobacco, recreational drugs are not addictive (no more than caffeine). They do not cause the dependency that hard drugs like cocaine, meth, crack, and heroin cause. Most recreational drug users are productive members of society and there is no evidence to suggest that recreational drug users are less productive than those who do not use them.

By saying that use of recreational substances leads to others using those same substances, it does not follow that this is a negative effect of recreational substances. Such a conclusion would rely on the assumption that the drugs are harmful to begin with, in which case it would be a moot point.

For example:
Atheism is bad because it causes more people to be atheists.

The argument starts with the assumption that atheism is bad to prove that atheism is bad. See if this next argument looks familiar:

Recreational drugs harm more than the user because they creates more users.

The Resolution does not address second-hand smoke, or the smell of being next to a smoker (!!!). Noorvania votes "no" because it believes that drugs should only be used without affecting other people negatively unless with individual consent.

The Resolution does not address second-hand smoke, or the smell of being next to a smoker (!!!). Noorvania votes "no" because it believes that drugs should only be used without affecting other people negatively unless with individual consent.

This is exactly what this proposal does. Second hand smoke causes physical harm. Under this, the consumption of drugs can only harm the user.

Education is much more expensive, and rather ineffective. "Opression," or more acurately termed crime prevention, is cheaper and has a much better track record.

Education is much more effective. And the track record for opression is a lot worse. At most you don't see what's happening, but that's not really safe. I also haven't noticed any decrease in drug trading in nations where it's illegal.

OOC: and the Netherlands has a relatively low number of drug users, despite the selling being tolerated. It's one of the best examples that opression doesn't work. I think the figures presented at
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/thenethe.htm
http://www.csdp.org/research/dutch.pdf
http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/Misc/abc0406.htm
look reliable and fit with what I see around me, and I couldn't find any results saying the Netherlands are doing worse than the USA. Where is your evidence?

In response to the alcohol debate, I would like to point out, that with the extremely rare exception, alcohol, when consumed resopnsibly, is not a cause of death.

In response to the alcohol debate, I would like to point out, that with the extremely rare exception, alcohol, when consumed resopnsibly, is not a cause of death.

I can assure you that it kills more than cannabis. Even ignoring drunk driving.

I have no problem with some recreational drugs, but what about the ones that actually do make you more likely to go out and injure someone else? A little pot or acid now and again tend to soothe the nerves and could be a valuable source of government income, but PCP et al tend to turn average people into raging super people. We should try to legalize specific substances rather than just a spectrum of substances. Many things that could have a signifigant detriment on society couldbe legalized by this resolution.

I have no problem with some recreational drugs, but what about the ones that actually do make you more likely to go out and injure someone else? A little pot or acid now and again tend to soothe the nerves and could be a valuable source of government income, but PCP et al tend to turn average people into raging super people. We should try to legalize specific substances rather than just a spectrum of substances. Many things that could have a signifigant detriment on society couldbe legalized by this resolution.

Perhaps you missed the list of substances, hmmmm? Read again.

Acid "a little now and then" can be extremely destructive. Flashbacks, brain damage - all of this is included under the symptoms for Lysergic Acid Dyathalamide (LSD or "Acid").

Unless a person has has an alcohol allergy, the consumption of alcohol in reasonable amounts is safe

And can be benificial; studies have shown that a glass of red wine a day for men and 2-3 times a week for women can seriously reduce ones risk for Cardio-Vascular disease.

The U.N have the vote of Russey

Recognizing that drug use does no harm except to the individual user? Give me a break! What about children in families where one or both parents are using hallucinogens or other dangerously mind-altering drugs?! Anyone who tells me that a situation like that is acceptable is, though I hate to say it, either a callous, coldhearted, terrible person or a blithering idiot.

I've already addressed this concern. If the parents are this irresponsible, your government shouldn't be trusting them with the kids. Bring your social services up to scratch.

Anyone with a bit of global awareness knows that Qat (khat), for example, has been used in Africa to devastating effect in inducing child soldiers to commit atrocities so terrible that we can't begin to fathom them.

The concept of patriotism has also been used to manipulate millions into committing atrocious acts in war. Should we ban that too?

And magic mushrooms? I know from my own life that there is absolutely no good reason to take those things.

Oh, so just because you claim to have experience relating to them, the rest of us should just take your word on it - because after all, if you or someone you know found it negative, then that experience must be universal. :rolleyes:

Why not just pass a resolution forcing people to take drugs? This one paves the way for that.

Prohibition and forced drug use both show disrespect for the rights of individuals to make their own health and recreation choices. As such, prohibitionists and anyone who might force drugs on others have, ideologically, far more in common than liberalisers have with either.

I cannot support any measure that openly allows for people to do harm to their body without any clear, positive result.

So pleasure is now not a positive result? Guess we should get to work banning all kinds of human activities then.

Cofee is ok because it doesn't kill you. However heroin does kill you and it's drugs like this that need to be banned.

Please read the proposal. It does not concern heroin.

In case your wondering, when I said Alchohal doesn't kill people, I meant that it doesn't directly kill you. It kills you indirectly by having a car crash or something, drugs kill you as a direct result of using them.

WRONG. High doses of alcohol are toxic - I told you this in an earlier post. It is possible, in one night, to drink enough ethanol to induce "vomiting, coma and death through respiratory failure. The fatal dose varies but is somewhere around 500 milligrams of ethanol per 100 millilitres of blood." (New Scientist Nov 2004).

By comparison, there is no scientific evidence that cannabis has lethal short-term toxicity. There is no recorded fatal dose in humans.

Please get it into your head that ethanol is a drug like any other, and a fairly potent one at that.

I can't be bothered to find the quote, but somewhere it was said in the resolution that the drugs are made from plants and were therfore natural or something like that. There ARE such things as poisonous plants you know peoples! Even some don't have to go passed the skin, like poison ivy, or pelican itch. Just because something is there, doesn't mean it was made to be eaten by us. Certain animals can eat things others can't, humans can eat mint, but it's poisonous for bugs. Sand Goannas can eat poisonous scorpians and etc. I think i've made my point

Try reading the resolution again. We didn't argue that plant drugs being natural makes them safe. What was said was this: RECOGNIZING that responsible cultivation and preparation of certain plant-based drugs for personal consumption does not create public health hazards. This is referring to the safety of production. Whilst home-brewing alcohol carries serious dangers such as explosions, growing and preparing the plant drugs legalised in the resolution is a fairly safe process, regardless of the harm that may be done by consumption.

We should try to legalize specific substances rather than just a spectrum of substances. Many things that could have a signifigant detriment on society couldbe legalized by this resolution.

Please read the resolution again. It does exactly what you want - it only legalises the following: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, Ergot, Kava, Mescaline-containing cacti, Psilocin- and psilocybin-containing fungi, Qat, Salvia divinorum, Tea, Tobacco.

Good point, but you made a mistake: the correct term is Ethyl Alcohol not Ethanol.

Good point, but you made a mistake: the correct term is Ethyl Alcohol not Ethanol.
So?

”Sutropia will never agree to this. This is not up to the UN to decide. If you want a lazy stupid hippie-population that’s you headache!”
:sniper:

Good point, but you made a mistake: the correct term is Ethyl Alcohol not Ethanol.

A) What does this have to do with anything?
B) You're wrong. Ethanol is the accepted nomenclature taught in UK A-level chemistry courses, and this form is taught to us because it is that recommended by the IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry). Ethyl alcohol is, I believe, also acceptable, though I am not sure if it is IUPAC-approved.

EDIT: I tried to find proof of this in the IUPAC rulebook, but I was unable to find detail on this topic on their website. However, this site (http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/alcohol1.htm) seems to imply that both are acceptable, but "ethanol, propanol etc." is the main system. It is also far more useful, as it allows combinations and locations of functional groups to be clearly indicated (as in, for instance, 1-chlorobutan-2,2-diol).

EDIT 2: If anyone is still interested in the oddities and inconsistencies of chemical nomenclature (or is it just me?) this site: http://members.aol.com/profchm/iupac.html says that "ethyl alcohol" is an older term using the "derived system", while "ethanol" is part of the systematic nomeclature devised by the IUPAC to facilitate the naming of the more complex chemicals that were being synthesised as science advanced.

Simple misunderstanding. In the US, at least, when people say "ethanol", most people think of the corn-based alcohol additive to gasoline. Both terms are technically correct, though.

However, just to nitpick, coffee and tea should not have been on that list. It should have been caffeine.

Simple misunderstanding. In the US, at least, when people say "ethanol", most people think of the corn-based alcohol additive to gasoline. Both terms are technically correct, though.

Oh, ok. Sorry if I seemed aggressive, I was irritated that such a minor point should be argued, especially since it appeared to be false.

However, just to nitpick, coffee and tea should not have been on that list. It should have been caffeine.

We considered that, and decided to separate them based on plant, to make it clear that cultivation and consumption of both tea and coffee must be legal, without mandating that purified caffeine need be legal.

For 100s Possibly 1000s Of Years These So Called "recreational Drugs" Have Been Custom To Our Nature, Our Way Of Life, Our Celebratory Methods Etc. . I Dont Think Now Is The Time To Change It. I Think The Resolution Needs To Be Withdrawn And Over Looked. Tea For Christ Sake. What Will The English Do. Hot Water And Scones. . . Are You MAD!!!!. An Over Look Of Alcohol Needs To Be Viewed Due To Its Large Cause Of Death. It Some How Needs Not To Be Restricted But Encouraged For Younger People At Meals Etc. Not At An En-toxicating Level But A Social Level. If It Wasn't Such A Mystery For Young People The It Wouldn't Be Such A Big Deal. Its Human Nature. We Want What We Cant Have. And For Hash I Ask This One Question, Name One Person Or Case Where Someone Died Due To It? Then Give Me A Near Estimate To How many People Died Because Of War, Greed, And Misunderstanding? Pm Me With Your Comments Because I'm Not Bothered To Listen To Some Of Your Comments, And Idiotic Ideas And Make Sure There Sencible. :sniper:

*snip*

I'd like to emphasise that the current resolution proposes the LEGALISATION of certain recreational drugs, NOT their prohibition.

A drug is a drug is a drug..... No benefit unless reality and life are things you wish to hide from. PERIOD If there is not a pharmacological pupose for a drugs' use, then it should not be ingested. Ever heard the term "gateway"
Speaking from experience....... That's exactly what it is.

I hope co-author is sufficient for you. Let me first explain that it is standard practice in the NSUN that if a proposal is voted down, the status quo remains. In fact, it is impossible within the mechanics of the game for the defeat of a resolution to cause any change.

So in this case, we wanted to legalise the consumption of certain recreational drugs throughout the UN, in the interests of protecting what we regard as an important facet of personal freedom. We submitted a proposal to do this. If it wins the vote, the proposal will be implemented, and all UN member nations will be forced to legalise consumption (and responsible production for personal use) of the named drugs. If it loses, it will disappear, and things will continue as before - that is, nations will be able to choose their own stances on the issue.

This is now crystal clear to me. I don't want to see our governing body forcing a doctrine on countries that have overruled them in their countries. We choose our life as it is and it is sufficient for us, but yes.

One man/woman's meat is another's poison

I am going to have to respectfully withdraw my support for this amendment. If it doesn't effect our livelihood, we don't want to enforce ours onto anyone else. I hope you find the votes you need and it works for you, but at the same time, it makes me leary of the possibility that the NSUN will create another amendment that will BAN consumption in all countries. Two sides to every sword....

Unless if it's a katana or samurai sword!

We should seek more beneficial legislation that will allow for more nation cooperation and doesn't seek to divide or tear assunder moral foundations that traditionally are held dear in one nation. This will be the vote removed from the amendment, and we shall abstain from the vote.


Respectfully,
Thee First Lord Wanker, ass-spanker; Perverter to the Stars and master of the indigo third-ray

The Theocracy of Agnostic Turks must be free to use DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) for our religious practices. You can learn more about DMT from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine .

If you would like to meet God yourselves, you should try it too !

If you won't allow people to use drugs for recrational purposes; then religion will be abolished since it has a recrational purpose which drugs your mind about afterlife and eliminates fear of death.


Point One: This won't restrict any drugs you currently take, no matter how the vote ends. Try Reading the proposal.

Point Two: The scenario you are describing involves the use of drugs for Religious, not recreational use.

We considered that, and decided to separate them based on plant, to make it clear that cultivation and consumption of both tea and coffee must be legal, without mandating that purified caffeine need be legal.Except that coffee and tea are not drugs; caffeine is. Technically, a nation could still ban caffeine (making chocolate illegal, for instance), and let people drink decaffeinated coffee and tea.

It isn't, because drugs travel all over the world. My liberal approach is endangered by citizens from nations where drugs are illegal, to the point where we might have to place serious restrictions on who enters our nation. Smuggling is an international concern.

The only way this can be solved is by decriminalizing drugs all over the world.

And then there's the personal liberty issue. You as a government have no right to tell people what they should and shouldn't smoke in the privacy of their own home. If you are unwilling to do that, then the UN should step in and force you to respect your citizens.



Then educate instead of oppress!

It sounds to me that the problem you are facing could be more easily solved by increasing your police force instead of your stash.

I would like to point out the MASSIVE difference between legalizing and decriminalizing. One makes something legal. The other makes it non criminal, meaning that it could still be held under sway by civil courts.

And entirely contrary to what you suppose. The basic premise of a government is to GOVERN. At it's simplest level, tell the people what to do and make sure thay do it. It is not only our right, but in fact our job to tell them if they are doing something we consider to be unacceptable. What I personally believe is surpassing of our power is telling other governments that they MUST allow their people to kill themselves for recreational purposes.

Oskar Feldstein
Protector of The Master's Buttocks
Representative for the Nation of Kivisto

The UN does not have this kind of authority, the Imperial Supremacy of Hansentium refuses to allow the UN to legislate internal laws. International affairs are one thing, but this is outrageous.

The UN does not have this kind of authorityYes, it does.

It sounds to me that the problem you are facing could be more easily solved by increasing your police force instead of your stash.

I would like to point out the MASSIVE difference between legalizing and decriminalizing. One makes something legal. The other makes it non criminal, meaning that it could still be held under sway by civil courts.

And entirely contrary to what you suppose. The basic premise of a government is to GOVERN. At it's simplest level, tell the people what to do and make sure thay do it. It is not only our right, but in fact our job to tell them if they are doing something we consider to be unacceptable. What I personally believe is surpassing of our power is telling other governments that they MUST allow their people to kill themselves for recreational purposes.

Oskar Feldstein
Protector of The Master's Buttocks
Representative for the Nation of Kivisto

I agree with what Kivisto has said. It is the duty of governments to make sure that its citizens live healthy, responsible, and productive lives. Also, this has nothing to do with international laws, so it is not within UN's power to tell governments how to legislate.

It is the duty of governments to make sure that its citizens live healthy, responsible, and productive lives.

It is the duty of the government to provide a safe and healthy enviornment in which their citizens can live. Not to force them to bend to their every whim through use of international laws and regulations.

If this kind of thing was ever passed I'd resign from the UN so fast...

The Great and Mighty Republic of Rodential United Korea, Cavia, Muso, Turquoisia, etc., etc., agrees with this noble comment and comdemns such mind-altering drugs entirely.:mad: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: However, caffeine is fine.

The Great and Mighty Republic of Rodential United Korea, Cavia, Muso, Turquoisia, etc., etc., agrees with this noble comment and comdemns such mind-altering drugs entirely.:mad: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: However, caffeine is fine.
I like your creative use of emoticons!:rolleyes: :p ;)

The Great and Mighty Republic of Rodential United Korea, Cavia, Muso, Turquoisia, etc., etc., agrees with this noble comment and comdemns such mind-altering drugs entirely.:mad: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: However, caffeine is fine.

Ohhh we get it. You will let your citizens use mind altering substance, just so long as it doesnt alter the mind that much. This stupidity is making me sick.

Ohhh we get it. You will let your citizens use mind altering substance, just so long as it doesnt alter the mind that much.
Caffeine is a physical stimulant, not a psychadelic like the substances this resolution is intended to address. I, for one, have never seen a chorus line of purple wombats singing showtunes in my bathtub because I drank too much coffee that morning. Except in the case of overdose, the only "mind-altering" effect here is heightened awareness and ability to think and react more rapidly. Caffeine intoxication is possible, resulting in restlessness, aggression, and headache, but I've seen the same thing happen in young children who eat too much sugar before going shopping with their parents. Wake up, people. Are we really going to put Hershey bars and Froot Loops in the same category as marijuana and peyote? :rolleyes: