NationStates Jolt Archive

Wake up, people. Are we really going to put Hershey bars and Froot Loops in the same category as marijuana and peyote? :rolleyes:

Um...they already are.

Caffeine is a physical stimulant, *snip*

Physical? Like a magic, you know, like, potion, yeah? Groovy. Shame Obelix can't drink it though.

Oh no, the dreaded wikiquote... with some added bold.

Caffeine is a central nervous system (CNS) stimulant, having the effect of warding off drowsiness and restoring alertness. Caffeine-containing beverages, such as coffee and tea, enjoy great popularity, making caffeine the world's most popular psychoactive substance.

And a pretty wikigraph, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_drug#Psychoactive_drug_chart) placing caffeine in the same category (stimulants, duh) as coke. Pun intended.

With the exception of tobacco, recreational drugs are not addictive (no more than caffeine).


When you look at the fact that caffiene is quite addictive, then by this premise says alone that the resolution should be voted against.

It does not only effect the user. If you are high and hit someone with your car do you only effect yourself? no. Also have you ever heard of secound hand smoke. All you gotta do is be near it for it to hurt you. I hope you will think of all the effects to the user and the bystander before you vote!

From
Commrad Aaron
of The People's Republic of Airona

When you look at the fact that caffiene is quite addictive, then by this premise says alone that the resolution should be voted against.

Oh! So by that premise we must outlaw all that is addictive! You know, this oxygen is rather addictive--so much so that I cannot live without it. Porn is also addictive. Where does it end?! :rolleyes:

It does not only effect the user. If you are high and hit someone with your car do you only effect yourself? no. Also have you ever heard of secound hand smoke. All you gotta do is be near it for it to hurt you. I hope you will think of all the effects to the user and the bystander before you vote!

Yeah! I know! Its as if this proposal doesn't even address this issue! Oh wait....READ AGAIN.

I'll take the opportunity at being at the top of the newest page to say this:



1) Recreational Drug Legalization IS INSIDE THE UN'S JURISDICTION. Just look at the category that is has all in its own! ("Recreational Drug Use" is a category of UN proposals)

2) This proposal thoroughly addresses the issues of harm on others and how it can never be legally done, and YES THAT INCLUDES SECOND-HAND SMOKE.

3) Just because things may be addictive doesn't mean it warrents their outlawing. Just think air--that stuff sure is addiciting!

4) Though this may be deemed libertarian, I'll say it anyway. GOVERNMENTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RULE ONE WHAT THEIR CITIZENS CONSUME! As long as your not harming anyone else and have consent of the owners (which are the only legal instances in this proposal) where does the government get the right to tell you what you can and cant consume?

As long as your not harming anyone else

but you do harm others one way or another.

(where is the emoticon list?)

If this were re-written to only legalize marijuana I would be more inclined to vote in favor of the resolution, but as it stands now it covers a wide range if substances that have extreamly diverse effects on one's disposition and health.

I agree with WolfHawk, if you could absolutely guarantee that those under the influence of recreational drugs would not cause harm to the citizens around them, there would be no reason to prevent these drugs from being legalized. Unfortunately there is absolutely no way to make that guarantee and therefore there is no way to honestly tell your citizens you're doing what you can to protect them.

Alright… basically this is far too broad of a resolution, to argue that illegal substances ‘is an infringement on one’s right to one’s own body’ is stretching that term to it’s limits. In that governments have to try and balance when an individual’s rights come first and when the overall good of the nation takes precedence. Ultimately there will be certain individuals that will disrupt the quality of life of those around them. Pulling a random number say 1-1,000, that is still 10,000 instances of disruption if 1/5 of the population uses the substance in a nation of 50 million. You have to understand that this is the sort of information decision makers will have access to when looking at topics like this; it is almost all going to be hypothetical.
Conversely, however, one must also look at the fact that legalizing certain substances could and likely would lower crime rates, and consequently prison populations. In that by regulating the production, distribution, and possibly even levels of consumption (something not covered in the resolution) there would likely be a drop in drug related crimes at the very least. This would free up large amounts of federal funding which could then be spent improving things such as health care, education, crime prevention, and civil services. Also by legalizing the substances the government would have the ability to make the use of the substance far safer through production laws, and educational programs (similar to programs like alcohol awareness, sexual education, driver’s education, etc.).

Forgive me if somebody pointed this out already, but...

Let me get this straight. Is the resolution saying that people who drink coffee or tea or smoke a cigarette should be barred from operating heavy machinery?

4) Though this may be deemed libertarian, I'll say it anyway. GOVERNMENTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RULE ONE WHAT THEIR CITIZENS CONSUME! As long as your not harming anyone else and have consent of the owners (which are the only legal instances in this proposal) where does the government get the right to tell you what you can and cant consume?

This is not libertarian, it's anarchistic. Though the Dominion of Dastardly Stench happens to have very liberal drug laws (all the substances noted in the measure are legal in our fine nation), we believe, in direct opposition to the message above, that it falls SPECIFICALLY AND DIRECTLY TO GOVERNMENTS to regulate what their citizens consume, or not, as the government in question sees fit. The government of the Dominion of Dastardly Stench happens to be a representative democracy, and, thus, we happen to choose, as our populace has indicated in numorous opinion polls, to keep many of the substances in question legal. Part of our point of view is that, in the Dominion of Dastardly Stench, we simply do not have the separation between the government and her people that many other nations seem to be cursed with.

That is why we voted AGAINST the measure, and why our vote continues to stand as AGAINST.

Gurgle the Dragon
Ambassador Aromatus
Dominion of Dastardly Stench

I’m voting against this – and that’s coming from a nation that tries to promote individual sovereignty wherever possible. Hirota is generally libertarian, but we are unconvinced that this resolution is presenting a convincing case.

Firstly the list is faulty. Tea and coffee are not drugs (as has been explained I see, but I the resolution was better written, it could have legalised products containing caffeine, rather than listing them), moreover cannabis is in that list – which we still don’t know enough about to say it is safe. Then tobacco is on the list, and I’m pretty convinced that it fails under “Put others at significant risk of physical injury,” given the dangers of second-hand smoke. I appreciate there have been efforts to address these concerns, but I feel they do not adequately do so.

Secondly it creates a commission – I hate commissions. They cost us money.

If this proposal had been written better we would have supported it, however we have to vote no in it’s current format, and hope that efforts to rewrite the proposal are made and that future efforts are made.
GOVERNMENTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RULE ONE WHAT THEIR CITIZENS CONSUME! As long as your not harming anyone else and have consent of the owners (which are the only legal instances in this proposal) where does the government get the right to tell you what you can and cant consume?I'd totally agree - in this case Individual soverignty is the overriding consideration.

Forgive me if somebody pointed this out already, but...

Let me get this straight. Is the resolution saying that people who drink coffee or tea or smoke a cigarette should be barred from operating heavy machinery?

No. It is giving your government the right to bar or not bar, as you see fit.

Alright… basically this is far too broad of a resolution, to argue that illegal substances ‘is an infringement on one’s right to one’s own body’ is stretching that term to it’s limits. In that governments have to try and balance when an individual’s rights come first and when the overall good of the nation takes precedence. Ultimately there will be certain individuals that will disrupt the quality of life of those around them. Pulling a random number say 1-1,000, that is still 10,000 instances of disruption if 1/5 of the population uses the substance in a nation of 50 million. You have to understand that this is the sort of information decision makers will have access to when looking at topics like this; it is almost all going to be hypothetical.
Conversely, however, one must also look at the fact that legalizing certain substances could and likely would lower crime rates, and consequently prison populations. In that by regulating the production, distribution, and possibly even levels of consumption (something not covered in the resolution) there would likely be a drop in drug related crimes at the very least. This would free up large amounts of federal funding which could then be spent improving things such as health care, education, crime prevention, and civil services. Also by legalizing the substances the government would have the ability to make the use of the substance far safer through production laws, and educational programs (similar to programs like alcohol awareness, sexual education, driver’s education, etc.).

I like you.

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.

So who died and made you god, deciding over other people's bodies?

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

What are you smoking and can I have some of it?

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.

Sure, but most nations are still too far away from legalization. Decriminalizing is a start.

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.

At its simplest level, a government must arrange things for the common good that are difficult or impossible to achieve on one's own. Governing is not telling everybody what to do, that's the means, not the goal.

It is not only our right, but in fact our job to tell them if they are doing something we consider to be unacceptable.

Just because some narrow-minded government official thinks it's unacceptable doesn't mean it should be forbidden. Let everybody decide for themselves what they find acceptable, and as long as that doesn't bother other people, why should the government be concerned?

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.

You MUST allow people to have fun. Taking drugs doesn't mean you will die horribly. As with everything, most people just have fun and aren't addicted. Except tobacco, that's nasty stuff, but for the rest? The amount of cannabis addictions is incredibly small (and usually a psychological addiction rather than physical) for example.

Besides, I have already posted figures which show that a nation with more liberal drug laws will have less drug users. If you're so concerned about drug use, you should legalize it.

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 consider there to be a significant difference in practicality between trying to ban a substance whose use has been not only previously legal but traditional & commonly used (OOC:as was the case for alcohol in the United States), on the one hand, and trying to maintain an existing ban on substances whose use has never been legal, or either traditional or widespread within the local population (OOC: as is the case for some of the substances listed here, as far as St Edmund is concerned), on the other...

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

I OBJECT! I HAVE A VOTE. (As regional deligate I had three votes ... BIG DEAL!) I HAVE A VOTE. I HAVE A VOICE. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG.

(That's what I guess happens when you spend too much time in the UN Starbucks because you no longer have a regional deligate office.)

Of course I still have my original objection, the resolution confuses drugs with things that contain drugs. Regulating coffee is stupid when other caffeene beverages like Super Cola is not included.

I'm just going to start mainlining caffeine. :p

Vote yes what you do with your body is your own buisness. :mp5:

Prove it.

This Resolution is absolutely ridiculous and contradictory.


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


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,


The UN wants to force its member nations to legalize drugs, and then pay for drug rehab. Ridiculous. This attempt to enforce a certain morality on member nations should be defeated.

Technically, a nation could still ban caffeine (making chocolate illegal, for instance), and let people drink decaffeinated coffee and tea.

Good point. If this fails, I think a couple of things could do with re-writing for clarification (especially the whole thing about only allowing drug use where it doesn't harm others - that "given" in clause 2 isn't quite clear enough and I think a different wording might clear up some concerns about it), and this would be one change. However, it won't be as simple as replacing "tea" and "coffee" with "caffeine" - since referring primarily to the plant rather than the chemical is consistent with the rest of the list (which includes "cannabis" not "THC" and "tobacco" not "nicotine"). Actually, it might work well to reference more of the drugs in the same way that we talked about "Mescaline-containing cacti" and "Psilocin- and psilocybin-containing fungi".

Hirota, if the resolution fails, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say about improving the text, as would Jey, I'm sure.

The UN wants to force its member nations to legalize drugs, and then pay for drug rehab. Ridiculous. This attempt to enforce a certain morality on member nations should be defeated.

Actually, it doesn't force you to pay for rehab, it just requests that you do so - it's optional.

Add that "requests" to a list of things to change so that they more effectively convey our intentions.

I am all for this resolution.

snip

Ehh...I was talking about your misspelling of "delegate", hence the bolded "i".

1) Recreational Drug Legalization IS INSIDE THE UN'S JURISDICTION. Just look at the category that is has all in its own! ("Recreational Drug Use" is a category of UN proposals)Bullshit, just because the UN has a recreational drug use category diesn't mean that it needs to be used. I ask you, what business of the UN is it as to whether or not The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites allows it's citizens to use drugs?

3) Just because things may be addictive doesn't mean it warrents their outlawing. Just think air--that stuff sure is addiciting!So is Dihydrogen Monoxide and that stuff's fatal if you inhale it, what's your point.

4) Though this may be deemed libertarian, I'll say it anyway. GOVERNMENTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RULE ONE WHAT THEIR CITIZENS CONSUME! As long as your not harming anyone else and have consent of the owners (which are the only legal instances in this proposal) where does the government get the right to tell you what you can and cant consume?
What's the point of being a governemnt if you can't govern?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

:p
um, dude, like, this proposal should TOTALLY go through dude, because if I wanna get baked, it is totally my right to do so...I shouldn't have to work either dude, do you know how much of a buzzkill it is to flip burgers when you're getting some gnarly tracers from those microdots? MAJOR, brah.
And if we all just sat around and smoked a bowl, wouldn't the world be so much more of an un-harsh amd mellow place? It would be all peaceful and mellow, cos everybody would be so high...just don't drive or anything, remember when Trickster and Bode went for that munchie run and ran over that old lady? Dude, if she would have on a board, she coulda totally rolled out of the way, but oh well dude, that's the way it goes, brah. So yeah, everybody, mellow, no work, stay high, and um...uh, what was the question again dude?

Aeterni would like to say that it appreciates the air of didasticism that this debate has provoked. It is refreshing ike a cracked ceptic tank in summer time.

The principles from which this legislation was invoked are interesting and warrant approval. I think it can safely asserted that the initial premiss of Jey's argumentation is that the mind and the body is the soveriegn right of the individual. Note that what I am saying here does not imply that what the citizen DOES with that mind or body is the soveriegn right of the individual. And so we would generally say that a citizen can get drunk but does not have the right to then get into a row. The role of the state is to provide for a certain regimentation of social interaction, not to dictate what a citizen does to him/herself. This is why a state that consisted of one person would be absurd in the way that a language that was only spoken by one person is absurd. This is why the average person thinks of the state's intervention into the mind and body under certain circumstances so horrifying (George Orwell's Thought Police)

And so if a citizen wants to take a chemical, be they toxic or not, it is not the interest of the state. If that citizen DOES become a drug addict, and DOES in fact begin to act silly, robbing and pillaging the country side, friends and family, then our regular criminal statutes should be sufficient. Poor decision making is a fact of human life - and often times legislation (particularly legislation that appears to be on shaky ground) does nothing to prevent it. If we find the actions of the full-blown drug addict toward others immoral than we should illegalize those actions toward other people. Can we not imagine that there is at least one person in each nation who has been able to use drugs without harming others? If we can, we can now see that we have invaded this person's mind and body without justification.

Because nations tend to have serious drug problems even when drugs are illegalized (consider the meth amphetamine epidemic of China in the late nineties, the crack cocaine epidemic in the United States in the late eighties), it requires further justification why we should think that this legislation would do much of anything at all, in terms of macro-scale social ills. People ALREADY get high, they are ALREADY addicted.

The talk of drugs like Marijuana being 'fatal' (as posted earlier) is simply asinine. It shouldn't matter whether or not the drug is fatal or dangerous or not - the presupposition is that an individual has a right to his/her own mind and body.

I do not like that the legislation only provides exemptions for 'light' hallucinogenic drugs, because this seems unneccssarily out of tempo with the type of philosophy that drug legalization neccessarily follows from. Drug illegalization fails to prevent the use of any drug in the way that the death penalty fails to stop people from killing one another.

Somehow I feel that this falling on deaf ears; but the world does not change it ceases.

-aeternati

4) Though this may be deemed libertarian, I'll say it anyway. GOVERNMENTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RULE ONE WHAT THEIR CITIZENS CONSUME! As long as your not harming anyone else and have consent of the owners (which are the only legal instances in this proposal) where does the government get the right to tell you what you can and cant consume?

Has anyone else noticed the hypocrissy of preventing governments from ruling their citizens by having an Ubergovernment rule the governments?

Gurgle the Dragon
Ambassador Aromatus
Dominion of Dastardly Stench

Ausserland has voted no. Our opposition to this resolution is based principally on our view that there is no necessity or reasonable justification for the NSUN to legislate on the matter. We also have some more specific concerns with the resolution's provisions.

We find the inclusion of mecaline, psylocybin, etc., in the same class as caffeine and nicotine to be unrealistic. The nature, effects, and potential risks associated with these substances are dramatically different.

We cannot accept the premise that "responsible recreational drug use harms only the individual user". Even "responsible" users of some of these substances are subject to unwanted effects which can cause harm to others.

The focus of the proposal on physical harm ignores the very real and considerable potential for psychological harm which might be caused by persons under the influence of these substances. (We're aware of the "severe distress" provision of subclause 5.III.a. We do not think it is adequate.)

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Dastardly Stench']Has anyone else noticed the hypocrissy of preventing governments from ruling their citizens by having an Ubergovernment rule the governments?

Not really. The same way the UN can make NatSov-friendly legislation (protecting the decision power of governments), and that governments can make libertarian legislation (protecting the decision power of individuals), the UN can legislate in a libertarian way itself, protecting the freedom of individuals from their governments. The fact that the UN is writing law does not mean it is restricting individual freedoms, and there is no contradiction.

Note that I have the same position as you; I believe this issue should be left for national governments to legislate upon. I just don't find hypocrisy accusations appropriate.

Obviously, our current efforts to prohibit use of these substances have failed completely. Draconian police enforcement breeds violence, and simply redirects the flow of illicit commerce. Alcohol, which is legal, has the potential to contribute to lawlessness, but it is simply more socially acceptable than the other drugs, and is generally consumed responsibly. Government efforts to regulate mind-altering substances only cause citizens to go on binges when they have the opportunity to consume these substances, instead of enjoying them in smaller quantities.

b)Put others at significant risk of physical injury,

The simple act of using the mentioned drugs places others at a significant risk of physical injury, as one is no longer operating at their full mental abilities. The government of Schartlefritzen will not take responsibility for covering the costs, financial or otherwise, of incidents, injuries, etc. caused by the legalization of drugs we have banned since our country's founding. If the United Nations and their Drug Commission wishes for intoxicants of any form to be legalized, they may feel free to cover the costs themselves.

Q-E Katrelena
Republic of Schartlefritzen

*snip*

I just don't find hypocrisy accusations appropriate.

Hypocrite. :p

Hypocrite. :p

I am rubber, you are glue.

[QUOTE=_Myopia_]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.

The above de facto "announcement" is correct. Chadwellgrad, the state and its sovereign rulers (me), lay claim to our fair share of each individuals body within the limits of my border. The reason for doing so is simple: I offer free healthcare to my citizens. The money for this comes from the government, which ultimately comes in the form of taxes charged to the people (those who use drugs AND those who don't). Nations, Chadwellgrad included, spend a large portion of these funds taking care of people who would harm their bodies in various ways by using drugs in many forms (yes, this includes smokers, alcoholics, and stoners). For perspective, America spends about 80million a year in medical bills on smokers alone. If these drugs weren't already firmly rooted into our social structure, I would work my best to eliminate their use completely because end the end I HAVE TO FOOT THE BILL FOR THEIR HEALTHCARE. I am therefore "paying" for them, and get to govern what they consume in what I see as a very fair manner.

That being said, I think it is important that government's DISALLOW yet another harmful set of substances into our society which would in the end only cost nations more money.

I have more important things to spend my national budget on than shock treatment for a drug user who doesn't have full control of his limbs anymore. And I won't allow it to happen.

The Empire of Chadwellgrad

The above de facto "announcement" is correct. Chadwellgrad, the state and its sovereign rulers (me), lay claim to our fair share of each individuals body within the limits of my border. The reason for doing so is simple: I offer free healthcare to my citizens. The money for this comes from the government, which ultimately comes in the form of taxes charged to the people (those who use drugs AND those who don't). Nations, Chadwellgrad included, spend a large portion of these funds taking care of people who would harm their bodies in various ways by using drugs in many forms (yes, this includes smokers, alcoholics, and stoners). For perspective, America spends about 80million a year in medical bills on smokers alone. If these drugs weren't already firmly rooted into our social structure, I would work my best to eliminate their use completely because end the end I HAVE TO FOOT THE BILL FOR THEIR HEALTHCARE. I am therefore "paying" for them, and get to govern what they consume in what I see as a very fair manner.

That being said, I think it is important that government's DISALLOW yet another harmful set of substances into our society which would in the end only cost nations more money.

I have more important things to spend my national budget on than shock treatment for a drug user who doesn't have full control of his limbs anymore. And I won't allow it to happen.

Your argument is not realistic. Any nation is free to tax drugs as well. As an example, taxation on tobbaco should be (and in many RL countries, is) enough to cover the extra healthcare smokers require. As such, non-smokers are not liable for that bill.

No its not

Your argument is not realistic. Any nation is free to tax drugs as well. As an example, taxation on tobbaco should be (and in many RL countries, is) enough to cover the extra healthcare smokers require. As such, non-smokers are not liable for that bill.

Beyond whether the early portion of Chadwellgrad's arguement is realistic, there remains the fact that the government itself is liable for extra costs. Schartlefritzen's economy is only now improving; we cannot afford - in more ways than one - to clean up after drug users.

Q-E Katrelena
Republic of Schartlefritzen

Beyond whether the early portion of Chadwellgrad's arguement is realistic, there remains the fact that the government itself is liable for extra costs. Schartlefritzen's economy is only now improving; we cannot afford - in more ways than one - to clean up after drug users.

That makes no sense. I told you where to get the money. You can raise taxes as much as you want, either to collect funds or stop consumption. Pray tell what are those "cleanup costs" you refer to.

That makes no sense. I told you where to get the money. You can raise taxes as much as you want, either to collect funds or stop consumption. Pray tell what are those "cleanup costs" you refer to.


Littering, healthcare, the gobs and gobs of unsafe methods used to crop the stuff. There are government burdened costs all over the place that comes with using this stuff. Its the same for everything. Spillover disavantages that make life difficult for budgeting.

TAXING WILL NOT WORK. It will help, but it won't cover everything. You are just assuming that taxes are the answer, but there is no way. If we over tax it, people will continue to sell lower standard versions underground-the government gets nothing. If we undertax it, more widespread use will cause more health effects and farm land will be useless for farming the fruits and vegetable everyone wants equaling more cost for the state. The people who will least be able to afford it will be the people most often buying it, and then the nations wellfare programs will have to take care of their standard of living as well.

You have to think about the spillover costs.

Its too costly.

Littering, healthcare, the gobs and gobs of unsafe methods used to crop the stuff. There are government burdened costs all over the place that comes with using this stuff. Its the same for everything. Spillover disavantages that make life difficult for budgeting.

TAXING WILL NOT WORK. It will help, but it won't cover everything. You are just assuming that taxes are the answer, but there is no way. If we over tax it, people will continue to sell lower standard versions underground-the government gets nothing. If we undertax it, more widespread use will cause more health effects and farm land will be useless for farming the fruits and vegetable everyone wants equaling more cost for the state. The people who will least be able to afford it will be the people most often buying it, and then the nations wellfare programs will have to take care of their standard of living as well.

You have to think about the spillover costs.

Its too costly.

OK, I will be polite.

What on heaven's name do you know about tobacco taxation? Why do you think some countries resist banning it for health reasons? You made some strong and informative statements, where are your sources?

If we over tax it, people will continue to sell lower standard versions underground-the government gets nothing.

On the other hand, if you ban it...

So is Dihydrogen Monoxide and that stuff's fatal if you inhale it, what's your point.

How can something be addictive if its fatal? You don't get addicted if you use it once and then die.


What's the point of being a governemnt if you can't govern?

Governing people doesn't mean contolling the intakes of their bodies.

ooc: I'm probably on the wrongful assumption that at the moment recreation drugs is not illegal either. However, if it is illegal skip the first sentence.

ic: My country feels that this is micro-management and should be a decision for each state.

However, if the UN must at least bend to one side, it should be the one of illegality. It is easier to co-ordinate a united front against all form of drug trafficking than trying to distinguish between legal and illegal ones.
Unless you are proposing that once an individual state has made it an illegal drug unless it is restricted to being grown and prepared by Government or Health Service run corporations, there is no way to prevent medicinal only drugs leaking on to the streets.

If you propose legalising recreational drugs to all, with age restrictions, which is what this mostly implies, how do you propose to differenciate between different grades? One form of drug, I believe to have earned the nickname in some parts of the known world as 'Skunk', is known to have much harsher side-effects than its potentially legal sister.
Moreover, in the exact wording of this proposal 2.LEGALIZES in UN states the possession, cultivation, and preparation of said drugs, given these activities do not directly and physically harm others, you are allowing an almost unconditional production of a potentially harmful product, without any certification to its quality, as if it was a vegetable. There will be some trouble differenciating between someone who produced drugs themselves, or someone claiming to do so, but got some off a friend/bought said drugs.

In this day an age, it is fundamental that any consumable product that is altered in any way from its original state needs to go through the usual process of testing, packaging, health and safety etc.
Would you be happy buying meat butchered by your neighbour? I believe not.

Article 2 also says any processing of one of the drugs named in Article 1 as permissable. Therefore the production of cigarettes from tobacco would be legal. I do not think many people realise the lethal nature of some of the chemicals involved. One of my toxicology sources has confirmed that a few millitres of liquid nicotine can kill in a few seconds on contact with skin.

This proposal is not properly thought out beyond thinking 'some drugs are good in some situations, and not bad in some others, let the people grow!' A proposal that allows some states if they so wished to legalise what are possibly currently illegal drugs, such as certain strains of the aforementioned cannabis on similar terms as the production of cigarettes might have my country's approval, but not this.

How can something be addictive if its fatal? You don't get addicted if you use it once and then die..

He was referring to dihydrogen monoxide. Otherwise known as H2O. Water. It's fatal if you inhale it. You'll drown. Try to keep up.

Governing people doesn't mean contolling the intakes of their bodies.

Governing does, somewhat explicitly, Mean controlling people. The basic concept is that you rule them because you know what's best. Or, at the very least, that you will work towards their best interests. Preventing them from harming themselves would fall under that purview.

Oskar Feldstein
Representing the gill-less masses
For the Glory of the Master

He was referring to dihydrogen monoxide. Otherwise known as H2O. Water. It's fatal if you inhale it. You'll drown. Try to keep up.

Nevertheless, the implication is that you can get addicted to something even if it kills you with one dose...which is false.

Nevertheless, the implication is that you can get addicted to something even if it kills you with one dose...which is false.

is that the implication or is what you think is the implication? by the way do you know you can die from drinking too much water?

Not really. The same way the UN can make NatSov-friendly legislation (protecting the decision power of governments), and that governments can make libertarian legislation (protecting the decision power of individuals), the UN can legislate in a libertarian way itself, protecting the freedom of individuals from their governments. The fact that the UN is writing law does not mean it is restricting individual freedoms, and there is no contradiction.

Note that I have the same position as you; I believe this issue should be left for national governments to legislate upon. I just don't find hypocrisy accusations appropriate.

Thank you for your polite, thoughtful reply to my nation's statement.

And we will grant you that "hypocritical" was a poor choice of wording.

Nonetheless, there is something innately humorous about a statement such as

Big Government is tyranizing people, so we're going to stop it with BIGGER GOVERNMENT!

It is quite ironic.

The worst irony of it all is that in the case of, for example, a torture ban, this is precisely the path that leads to the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

Denying a potential addict his or her fix, however, is not torture. We of Dastardly Stench still feel that the legalization of chemical substances does not rise to the level at which the United Nations should be involved in it, and that it is something best left to individual governments and their alliances.

Gurgle the Dragon
Ambassador Aromatus
Dominion of Dastardly Stench

And at the end of the day...

Every nation that want drugs legal within their borders can have them legalised, should they not be so already.

I was actually considering voting for this resolution until I saw where you had thrown coffee, tea, and tobacco in with the other drugs. I know the author is trying to say that because they are from plants and are brewed and smoked, these substances are drugs, but this idea really doesn't hold up under sound logic. The purpose of drugs such as cannabis and the others you named is to actually get a "high" from using them. I personally do not know anyone who has gotten high after knocking down a few coffees at Starbucks, and trust me, if it was possible most of my friends would be chugging coffee like you wouldn't believe.

Maybe you have a point with tobacco, but I would bet you are referring to the nicotine which is contained in many tobacco propucts. It is the nicotine, not tobacco that creates addcition.

If you want to bring legitamacy to the question of drug legalisation, it would probably be better to stick to the points such as "people only hurt their own bodies." Sticking in random common drinks to try to shock people into legalising other drugs is pretty silly if you ask me.

P.S. Under this legislation, people would be banned from drinking coffee at work, since coffee is listed as a drug and people are prohibited from working under the influence. Whole economies would be destroyed!! :p

I personally do not know anyone who has gotten high after knocking down a few coffees at Starbucks, and trust me, if it was possible most of my friends would be chugging coffee like you wouldn't believe. That's because Starbucks isn't the "good stuff." Go to Key West. Go to any of the coffee shops. Order a "Grande Con Leche."

A Grande Con Leche and buttered toasted Cuban bread slices is the brekfast of champions. :p You would think all that heated milk would have a calming effect. It ain't so. When I lived there I used to sleep late on Saturdays. Missing my Grande Con Leche fix gave me withdrawal symptoms on Sunday morning! I think a Grande Con Leche has four shots of Cuban expresso in it, but I could be wrong because they run the expresso machine non stop and pour it all into a large metal container.

I drink tea and coffee all the time and it never did me any harm, so we should legalise everything.

I approve this resolution, especially the bit about the funny mushrooms I've never heard of.

May we *break on through to the other side*

:headbang: <---something this little chappie will never do.

I, the Great Koaltar, am of the opinion that it should be passeed in a way that would enabled the people that have a positive thought on the matter to better achieve their purpose.

On the other hand we have the chickens, which would inevitably suffer as a result of a yes vote on the current subject of choice.


Were I in the power to align the ancient forces, I would of course have to agree that precendence takes supreme command of the situation and therefore must be overwritten.

----------
The Great Koaltar

I, the Great Koaltar, am of the opinion that it should be passeed in a way that would enabled the people that have a positive thought on the matter to better achieve their purpose.

On the other hand we have the chickens, which would inevitably suffer as a result of a yes vote on the current subject of choice.


Were I in the power to align the ancient forces, I would of course have to agree that precendence takes supreme command of the situation and therefore must be overwritten.

----------
The Great Koaltar

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a perfect argument for why drugs should not be legal. :p

I was actually considering voting for this resolution until I saw where you had thrown coffee, tea, and tobacco in with the other drugs. I know the author is trying to say that because they are from plants and are brewed and smoked, these substances are drugs, but this idea really doesn't hold up under sound logic. The purpose of drugs such as cannabis and the others you named is to actually get a "high" from using them. I personally do not know anyone who has gotten high after knocking down a few coffees at Starbucks, and trust me, if it was possible most of my friends would be chugging coffee like you wouldn't believe.

Maybe you have a point with tobacco, but I would bet you are referring to the nicotine which is contained in many tobacco propucts. It is the nicotine, not tobacco that creates addcition.

If you want to bring legitamacy to the question of drug legalisation, it would probably be better to stick to the points such as "people only hurt their own bodies." Sticking in random common drinks to try to shock people into legalising other drugs is pretty silly if you ask me.

P.S. Under this legislation, people would be banned from drinking coffee at work, since coffee is listed as a drug and people are prohibited from working under the influence. Whole economies would be destroyed!! :p

And it's the THC (tetrahydrocannibinol), not the hemp in marijuana that creates the high. Narrow-minded so-called pro-business folks can't figure that out, or rather, refuse to because hemp is so mind-bogglingly useful as an industrial product. Despite the fact that hemp can be grown with an infinitesimal amount of THC and be put to its many uses. But that's another thread.

If caffeine isn't addictive, explain the proliferation of espresso all over the damn place. Please don't tell me you have never heard someone say "I just don't feel normal without my cup of coffee in the morning" -- exactly how is that not a symptom of addiction? Were coffee made illegal tomorrow, you can bet your ass there'd be nationwide withdrawals that would make a lifelong pot-head's cessation of smoking weed look like a mild case of gas.

Please -- argue this resolution on it's chief issue (the proposal that the right to one's own body and and what it ingests is a "fundamental human right"), and leave the bad science, post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments and pandering demagoguery to your namesake.

I do not like that the legislation only provides exemptions for 'light' hallucinogenic drugs, because this seems unneccssarily out of tempo with the type of philosophy that drug legalization neccessarily follows from. Drug illegalization fails to prevent the use of any drug in the way that the death penalty fails to stop people from killing one another.

Whilst _Myopia_ has legalised all drugs, we feel it would be unrealistic to hope that the NSUN would, at this time, vote to legalise drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Such drugs would also not fit within the mechanisms of this resolution, which is intended for plant drugs which can be easily and safely grown and prepared by amateurs for their own consumption. Things like alcohol and heroin involve more complex preparation processes, and we would have to establish professional industries to supply them - which isn't what we wanted to do in this milder, more moderate proposal, because then we'd get bogged down in different economic systems and licensing suppliers.

The above de facto "announcement" is correct. Chadwellgrad, the state and its sovereign rulers (me), lay claim to our fair share of each individuals body within the limits of my border. The reason for doing so is simple: I offer free healthcare to my citizens. The money for this comes from the government, which ultimately comes in the form of taxes charged to the people (those who use drugs AND those who don't). Nations, Chadwellgrad included, spend a large portion of these funds taking care of people who would harm their bodies in various ways by using drugs in many forms (yes, this includes smokers, alcoholics, and stoners). For perspective, America spends about 80million a year in medical bills on smokers alone. If these drugs weren't already firmly rooted into our social structure, I would work my best to eliminate their use completely because end the end I HAVE TO FOOT THE BILL FOR THEIR HEALTHCARE. I am therefore "paying" for them, and get to govern what they consume in what I see as a very fair manner.

That being said, I think it is important that government's DISALLOW yet another harmful set of substances into our society which would in the end only cost nations more money.

I have more important things to spend my national budget on than shock treatment for a drug user who doesn't have full control of his limbs anymore. And I won't allow it to happen.

The Empire of Chadwellgrad

It is perfectly practical to tax drugs at such a level as to pay for their medical costs. Many RL countries achieve it with cigarettes, and, I would guess, alcohol.

If you propose legalising recreational drugs to all, with age restrictions, which is what this mostly implies, how do you propose to differenciate between different grades? One form of drug, I believe to have earned the nickname in some parts of the known world as 'Skunk', is known to have much harsher side-effects than its potentially legal sister

This is no different than dealing with drinks of differing alcohol contents, or cigarettes with varying levels of things like tar. Generally, it is deemed sufficient to label the product with the amount of whatever chemical it contains - why is cannabis any different? If you choose to allow industries to supply drugs, simply require that they label their products with the THC content, and any other chemicals you feel are relevant, and inform your citizens of the effects of different amounts of THC etc.

you are allowing an almost unconditional production of a potentially harmful product, without any certification to its quality, as if it was a vegetable. There will be some trouble differenciating between someone who produced drugs themselves, or someone claiming to do so, but got some off a friend/bought said drugs.

In this day an age, it is fundamental that any consumable product that is altered in any way from its original state needs to go through the usual process of testing, packaging, health and safety etc.
Would you be happy buying meat butchered by your neighbour? I believe not.

Which is why clause 9 urges nations to create legal supply chains, which can be regulated. I agree that if drugs are to be consumed by people other than those who have produced them, certain requirements should be met - which is an excellent reason to legalise the trade, so it can be regulated. But there's no good reason why I shouldn't be able to keep my own cannabis plants to satisfy my personal use - just as if I happen to own a livestock animal, there's no good reason why I shouldn't be allowed to eat it myself, even though I'm not a trained farmer or butcher, but I shouldn't be allowed to sell it to other people without it undergoing checks and regulation.

If you choose to do the sensible thing and allow a legal industry of some sort, you can regulate it, deal with these problems, and almost all people are likely to choose to buy properly treated drugs from the shops rather than illegally buy them from a friend who hasn't had health inspectors and doesn't know the exact strength of his produce. Think about it - in reality, how many people buy their tobacco from an unlicensed neighbour who grows it in their back garden?

If caffeine isn't addictive, explain the proliferation of espresso all over the damn place. Caffeine is not really addicitive; if you gold cold turkey you will probably experience a headache for a day or so. But then that goes away. But in general there are no "cravings" for caffeine, as there are with other drugs. Habbit and availability are the only reasons why people drink coffee. The reason why there are so many Starbucks on every street corner is that their busines model is s poor that they can't get you to go a few blocks to get their coffee so they have to be on every street corner to get you where you are at any given moment.

Caffeine is not really addicitive; if you gold cold turkey you will probably experience a headache for a day or so.

False.

But then that goes away. But in general there are no "cravings" for caffeine, as there are with other drugs.

False.

Habbit and availability are the only reasons why people drink coffee.

False.

The reason why there are so many Starbucks on every street corner is that their busines model is s poor that they can't get you to go a few blocks to get their coffee so they have to be on every street corner to get you where you are at any given moment.

False.

(I hope you are not expecting arguments. It is more fun to argue against debatable statements than plainly wrong ones.)

Caffeine is not really addicitive; if you gold cold turkey you will probably experience a headache for a day or so. But then that goes away. But in general there are no "cravings" for caffeine, as there are with other drugs. Habbit and availability are the only reasons why people drink coffee. The reason why there are so many Starbucks on every street corner is that their busines model is s poor that they can't get you to go a few blocks to get their coffee so they have to be on every street corner to get you where you are at any given moment.

That headache that would be experienced is a symptom of withdrawal, which implies a physical dependance or addiction. The fact that it goes away means nothing. Eventually the withdrawal symptoms or recovering crack addicts will pass, it doesn't mean they weren't addicted in the first place. As for the cravings, if one is addicted, one will feel cravings. If one is not addicted, one will not feel such cravings. Since caffeine is so widespread in the world and readily accessible (sidenote: The Starbucks business model isn't that they have to bring it to you, it's the idea that it is so convenient that you might as well have a java) to the public, you are much more likely to find people that have dependancies or addictions to caffeine in its' many forms than you are to find people with other drug issues (alcohol, mary-jane, etc). It is simply the fact that coffe and tea and the like are so socially acceptable that renders that issue null and void. If you wish to truly keep your people clean from intoxicating and addictive substances, I'd start with caffeine instead of making exceptions for it.

Oskar Feldstein
Representative for the people of Kivisto
Appointed by The Master In Repose

OOC: If I try to go a day without my caffeine intake, I will become physically ill. Quite literally, to the point of running a fever, becoming nauseous, migraines so bad that I can't see straight. I tried going cold turkey off caffeine once. I suffered for a week until it got so bad I was risking losing my job. I gave in to my cravings and felt better in a matter of a minute or so. If that's not an addictive substance then I don't know what is.

is that the implication or is what you think is the implication? by the way do you know you can die from drinking too much water?

oh god please stop!!!!@! Lets not make this talk about how too much WATER can kill you. Bottom line: if you use something once and DIE from it, your not ADDICTED.

oh god please stop!!!!@! Lets not make this talk about how too much WATER can kill you. Bottom line: if you use something once and DIE from it, your not ADDICTED.

You may have been -- briefly. :p

i think this is just the UN interfreing with things they should leave to each nation to decide by themselves :headbang:

Nothing wrong with weed, its the other drugs tha I have isses with.

Alcohol kills thousands every year but its ok.

I think the ONLY reason that weed isnt legal is becuase the Gov doesnt have a clue on how to regulate it.

And technically speaking, alcohol is made from plants. But I suppose the UN assumes it's already legal.

Q-E Katrelena
Republic of Schartlefritzen

<snip>
However, your own proposal does not conform to your argument for the simple reason this is not licensed production.
It cannot be taxed, graded, regulated or any of your suggestions under section 2. So you have shot yourself in the metaphorical foot.
You cannot both say they can produce it as they like for personal use, but not to sell it as a UN right and then urge National law to ban the former, and allow the latter. It is my belief that in this world UN law is supreme.

ooc: and wtf is up with NS.net when I need it? *kicks* guess I'll have to open the first page of this thread in another window...grrr...aha got it...

ic: you refer to 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, in your defence. This would therefore cover chemically produced recreational drugs, such as LSD I presume?
So a State can either expand your definition of a 'recreational drug' in Section 1, so anyone can "posses, cultivate or prepare" the expanded definition as you recommend, or license the production so they can be "legally procured" through places such as 'cafes'.
It is an either...or situation.

So the proposal you have put forward is in fact not the proposal you intended to write, but one that satisfies no one.
Compose another proposal that says what you intended to write. I would only ask for one article saying "It is a State decision whether to legalise drugs or not, but those that choose to do so must follow the conditions in section B in exchange for the rights in section A." or words to that effect as this is still in my opinion micromanagement.

Hodgelett Tirith,
Randomean Representative

Votes For: 4,476

Votes Against: 6,250

About the only thing that can save this proposal now is all of the feeders, none of which have voted, supporting it. Even if that happens, though, it still probably won't pass.

no i don't want crazy crack heads in my cabinet or my country.

no i don't want crazy crack heads in my cabinet or my country.

You can always quit and hold general elections...

whats next why dont we legalize theft, murder and rape cause that will be were we end up!! i dont know about you but i got enough crack smoking hippies bumming around my streets using up all the welfare payments just to get a hit. :headbang: if you want to legalize drugs go create your own little nation and invite all your drugged up loser friends to join you and make a happy free loving unemployed dip shit bong smoking utopia. then ill drop a few nukes on it a free the world of this burden

oh god please stop!!!!@! Lets not make this talk about how too much WATER can kill you. Bottom line: if you use something once and DIE from it, your not ADDICTED.


High dose alcohol, nicotine, or large doses of cocaine, crack, heroin, opium, Meth-amphetamines, mescaline, LSD, or any number of other highly addictive substances (including caffeine) can kill you on first usage.

Just because they didn't have the chance to suffer the effects of withdrawal doesn't make the substance they took any less of a problem to everyone else.

The water argument was brought about by someone mentioning dihydrogen monoxide as a substance that can be fatal to humans. And it can be. It is also known as H2O, or water. It will kill you if you aren't careful with it. It is a substance that can kill you the first time you consume it, and has surpassed any notion of being addictive as we need it to live.

Well... most of us do. I'm uncertain about the AI's that are currently proposing we give them equal "human" rights, so I won't speak for them. The rest of us biologicals do need it, the withrawals themselves are fatal.

no i don't want crazy crack heads in my cabinet or my country.

Yeah, your country obviously already has one in charge, and one is plenty.

Votes For: 4,476

Votes Against: 6,250

About the only thing that can save this proposal now is all of the feeders, none of which have voted, supporting it. Even if that happens, though, it still probably won't pass.


It appears my region, feeder, the south pacific is against it.

We always vote on the last day :)

And technically speaking, alcohol is made from plants. But I suppose the UN assumes it's already legal.

Q-E Katrelena
Republic of Schartlefritzen

Actually, no. We didn't include alcohol because it isn't the same kind of thing as the other drugs. It requires technical and potentially dangerous preparation processes.

However, your own proposal does not conform to your argument for the simple reason this is not licensed production.
It cannot be taxed, graded, regulated or any of your suggestions under section 2. So you have shot yourself in the metaphorical foot.
You cannot both say they can produce it as they like for personal use, but not to sell it as a UN right and then urge National law to ban the former, and allow the latter. It is my belief that in this world UN law is supreme.

I believe:
- People should have the right to possess and take drugs
- There's no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to make their own if it doesn't endanger anyone else. I specifically would not advocate banning this.
- People should have the right to obtain properly regulated drugs if they don't want to/can't safely make their own. We decided not to force this, but urged nations to allow it. But a regulated professional supply chain does not preclude you consuming your own home-grown produce, just as in reality there's nothing wrong with somebody growing their own tobacco at home and smoking it, while a massive industry professionally mass-produces cigarettes that meet certain legal regulations.

in your defence. This would therefore cover chemically produced recreational drugs, such as LSD I presume?
So a State can either expand your definition of a 'recreational drug' in Section 1, so anyone can "posses, cultivate or prepare" the expanded definition as you recommend, or license the production so they can be "legally procured" through places such as 'cafes'.
It is an either...or situation.

Ok, maybe this bit could be expressed better. We didn't intend to urge blanket legalisation of home production of any and all drugs. We meant to recommend that nations come up with legislation that legalises other drugs in an appropriate way - this might not necessarily mean home production, if that's dangerous.

Well, hopefully we'll be able to improve this and bring it back in a different form.

We feel that such a law would create unnessessary burdens on the judicial system of our country, and as such is not in the best intrests of our nation.

The legislation required to make acceptable, responcible usage of these substances realistic is so vast that it would eventually result in the law enforcement officials being forced to pick between either being ineffectual in their attempts to keep use of these substances under control, or to be so omni-present in the everyday life of our citizens that it would be both an eyesore, and a waste of our resources.

Basically, this seems like something that is totally unnessesary, and as many have said, nearly every illegal drug impacts our health in more negative ways than positive.

From an economic sense, its not worth it.

Um...pay attention. It's already been defeated.