NationStates Jolt Archive

So what does everyone think of the current proposal to legalize Cannabis?

This one?

Legalization of Marijuana
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.

Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: Larry is still God

Description: WHEREAS a number a health professionals have employed the use of Marijuana (Cannabis)

WHEREAS studies have shown there are many positive health effects of the use of this drug

WHEREAS Cannabis poses no serious addiction threats to its users

WHEREAS the use of this drug is very popular among many victims of cancer

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this United Nations allow for the legalization of Marijuana (Cannabis) as an alternative treatment to various malignant diseases.I don't like it at all. Inaccurate claims, appeals to popularity and just plain, bad law. And, of course, a strict view could be that it doesn't actually do anything, as it only "allows" for marijuana to be made legal, as opposed to actually making it legal.

This one?

I don't like it at all. Inaccurate claims, appeals to popularity and just plain, bad law. And, of course, a strict view could be that it doesn't actually do anything, as it only "allows" for marijuana to be made legal, as opposed to actually making it legal.

I here think that it the word 'legal' that makes this a problem. As we have a lot of things that are 'legal'.. owning a weapons in many nations is 'legal' but one can't murder with it. Thus to make something 'legal' don't mean one can't out restrictions on it's use. Here setting up policy to determine who needs it and how much they would need and where they would get it is all we need. We do this on other so called controled drugs so why not just add marijuana to the list with those as a controled drug for use in say easing pain from certian cancers or other medical deseases that is has been shown to help ease pain or say cure it or slow it's growth. Those who have no legal needs for it can be dealt with under the laws, those who abuse this also can be dealt with under the laws. If a doctor is found to be just writing orders for folks to use it and there is no medical need then he pays a fine and can't write orders to do this. If he after this gets caught he is put away for a long time, as will be his so called patients who abuse this.

This protects both sides of an issue as it lets those who want to ban it do so on cause while those who want it to do it as long as they do it for what it is intended and not something else.

Although smoking is not actualy made legal if it were we could still kick the SOB who comes into our home out of it for entering it and blowing smoke in our face. As laws protect a person in their home thus if they are assualt by a smoker with his right to smoke in place they can exercise their right to protect self and property. The court system has to respect both. The smoker goes to jail not for smoking but for trespass and assault. Thus if you ban use of this in say all public schools except in accordance with school policies on use of medicines in school then you can. As the nation has a duty to protect all yet respect all.

Bloody hell. Not another one of these... :rolleyes:

Of course, most nations don't mind it in it's extremely open ended stance. The only way of interpreting it to do anything is that if nations have a two chamber system the second chamber has to allow the first chamber to pass the legislation.
In its current form it's a blocker. Pure and simple. However, is it not better as such instead of the millions of 'omg Cannabis R0X0RZ!' or 'POTHEADS SUCK' proposals that will arrive with its repeal?
The UN has better things to legislate upon without worrying about cannabis, but I'm afraid many nations seem to have it high on their priority list for some obscure reason.

If I had a Sophistanian menk for every time a proposal such as this had come across the table, I might be able to build my very own United Nations, and staff it with a complete set of bears trained to dance on unicycles. There's a reason debate on issues like this one never gets very far, and it has everything to do with inhibiting the choice of a nation to govern its people.

Recalling the guides to resolution writing, a few of which I have authored under a previous nation name, one of the first things a resolution needs to do before being "true" legislation is cover an issue of international scope. Unfortunately, the use of marijuana by the citizens of the world does not produce a direct effect that crosses borders. I understand there are economic issues at work, and that the smuggling of the crop from nations where it is legal to nations where it is not represents some kind of quasi-internationalist issue, but this proposal does nothing to address them. It simply asserts one nation's opinion, and attempts to bind the rest of the United Nations to that whim.

Past resolutions have dealt with important issues of epic scope, and have involved nations fighting tooth and nail for something that they feel will truly grip the soul of our world and make it better. This resolution lacks that spark, hem-hawing over an ages-old issue in a mediocre way.

The nation of Sophistana will stand firmly in opposition to this resolution.

No support for any legislation in this field.

And - goodness me - Sophist[an]a!

Is it really him?

Er, sorry, I'm speaking of him as though he's not in the room. How rude.

Is it really you, Soph?

If you like, your old nation can easily be restored...

I started writing a reply without seeing Hack's response. The last time I sent some messages around nothing came to fruition. I just kind of shrugged it off, saying "eh, it was just population." But, gracious me, if I could have Sophista back . . . . I think I'd owe you my first born.

Must have fallen through the cracks. Occationally it happens, but usually just with restorations (which are comparatively minor, I guess, compared to, say, griefing). Anyway:

Mon May 22 16:19:08 2006: the_most_glorious_hack restored deleted nation sophistaYou can keep your kid though. ;)

Good lord, look at that post count. I wasn't exactly busy back then, was I? I really can't tell you how warm and fuzzy it feels to be back in these shoes.

Anyway, I'll cease with the hijack now.

If this is only trying to legalise the stuff for medicinal use, rather than for recreational purposes, is it actually in the right category?

If this is only trying to legalise the stuff for medicinal use, rather than for recreational purposes, is it actually in the right category?
Yes.
Category violations are pretty simple things, and often happens with 'Social Justice'. If your Social Justice proposal doesn't deal with "reduc[ing] income inequality and increas[ing] basic welfare", you've got the wrong category. This also includes proposals to ban guns forever being labeled as "Gun Control: Relax". This also includes Medical Marijuana Proposals under Human Rights, by the way.

This is a matter of domestic, rather than international policy. Sithya has no argument with any nation that wishes to legalise marijuana. This is not a choice that we will make.

We do not believe this matter is something the UN should be interfering with - as such, we will vote against.

If I had a Sophistanian menk for every time a proposal such as this had come across the table, I might be able to build my very own United Nations, and staff it with a complete set of bears trained to dance on unicycles. There's a reason debate on issues like this one never gets very far, and it has everything to do with inhibiting the choice of a nation to govern its people.

Recalling the guides to resolution writing, a few of which I have authored under a previous nation name, one of the first things a resolution needs to do before being "true" legislation is cover an issue of international scope. Unfortunately, the use of marijuana by the citizens of the world does not produce a direct effect that crosses borders. I understand there are economic issues at work, and that the smuggling of the crop from nations where it is legal to nations where it is not represents some kind of quasi-internationalist issue, but this proposal does nothing to address them. It simply asserts one nation's opinion, and attempts to bind the rest of the United Nations to that whim.

Past resolutions have dealt with important issues of epic scope, and have involved nations fighting tooth and nail for something that they feel will truly grip the soul of our world and make it better. This resolution lacks that spark, hem-hawing over an ages-old issue in a mediocre way.

The nation of Sophistana will stand firmly in opposition to this resolution.

[The members of the Ausserland delegation rise and applaud the remarks of the representative of Sophistana/Sophista/whatever.]

Ausserland wishes to associate itself completely with the remarks of this distinguished senior member of this Assembly.

By order of his Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Oleme
Minister for Foreign Affairs

It seems the general census is against this proposal. And, not wanting to be left out, I will cast my lot.

Legalization of marijuana for medical usage has been a sore subject to many states and countries spanning the globe. But IIRC no country has legalized marijuana where it was previously illegal. Yet this is beside the point.

For many years, pharmicists and scientists have been able to extract the pain-relieving properties from the cannibus plant and use it in many other products that do not have the effects of smoking it. Therefore, why does one need to use marijuana?

The points, if you care to look them up, continue even further beyond the scope of this. It just seems senseless to rely upon a drug that can, in the end, cause as much or more damage as the disease or problems you have.

To the letter, USLW stands against any such proposals.

If this is merely for the legalizaiton for medical purposes why worry about it at all. Since it is not prohibited under UN law, it will become legal once the patients bill of rights is approved this week, because nations will no longer have the authority to deny medical treatments to patients not already covered under UN law.

OOC: I had a drug expert in one of my Sociology classes confirm that nicotine and alcohol are more additive than "hard" drugs. The only reason people OD or become severely addicted to them is because "hard" drugs are available in cruder forms and in larger quantities.

While The Dominion of Teufelanbetung has legalized marijuana for any purpose, we recognize and respect other states that wish to do the opposite for whichever reasons.

Marijuana and other drugs are treated much of the same as alcohol and cigarrettes. Because drug use is largely culturally discouraged because of it's more self-centered and harmful affects, we tend to have little or no drug related deaths in general.

However, we believe this to be somewhat of a moral issue which the UN shouldn't take an official position on. We believe this is best left up to the states, especially since it may involve the very welfare of citizens.

We respectfully decline supporting this intiative.

Azazel Diener
Leader of Teufelanbetung
Join the Region of Logic and Cooperation today! (http://www.nationstates.net/56576/page=display_region)

Yes. Originally Posted by Proposal rules
Category violations are pretty simple things, and often happens with 'Social Justice'. If your Social Justice proposal doesn't deal with "reduc[ing] income inequality and increas[ing] basic welfare", you've got the wrong category. This also includes proposals to ban guns forever being labeled as "Gun Control: Relax". This also includes Medical Marijuana Proposals under Human Rights, by the way.

That says that Human Rights would be a wrong category, I agree, but it doesn't actually say that this would be a correct one...
;)

Drugs aren't neccessarily put in the Drugs category. My Drug Trafficking Act eventually got shoved into International Security.

For cases such as this, I would suggest asking the mods what the best category would be. It may not always be clear.

--snip--
OOC: "Lost Wankers"? Does this mean I get to found a nation called, I dunno, "Found Shit"?

OOC: "Lost Wankers"? Does this mean I get to found a nation called, I dunno, "Found Shit"?


OOC: No, but Misguided Masturbators would be fine. ;)

I've been away for the weekend so I feel like throwing in my two cents as well.

Legalization of Marijuana
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.

Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize

Believe it or not, you lost me right here. While we might go so far as to consider a decriminalization, a full legalization (even for medicinal purposes) would be out of the question for Kivisto as it would introduce mind altering substances into a society that is currently free of such.

Proposed by: Larry is still God

Description: WHEREAS a number a health professionals have employed the use of Marijuana (Cannabis)

Health professionals do a lot of things. Some have been murderers and rapists....

WHEREAS studies have shown there are many positive health effects of the use of this drug

And other studies have shown the opposite. A carefully done study can show you just about anything that you want to see.

WHEREAS Cannabis poses no serious addiction threats to its users

While I agree that there are no serious physical addiction threats from THC, there is a large risk of psychological addiction to the feeling of being high. Personal opinion, that psychological dependancy can be just as debilitating as the possible physical dependancy on another drug.

WHEREAS the use of this drug is very popular among many victims of cancer

So is suicide.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this United Nations allow for the legalization of Marijuana (Cannabis) as an alternative treatment to various malignant diseases.

As this is the only actually operative clause in the proposal and it only barely does anything at all, I think this one's going to be NO.

OOC: No, but Misguided Masturbators would be fine. ;)
OOC: Well, my point is that if 'wank' is acceptable in nation title, then 'shit' should be as well.

OOC: Well, my point is that if 'wank' is acceptable in nation title, then 'shit' should be as well.


OOC: maybe if you euphemize it a little. Like "Forgotten Feces". Sounds a little less vulgar.

OOC: maybe if you euphemize it a little. Like "Forgotten Feces". Sounds a little less vulgar.
Um, I don't want to found my own defecation-inspired nation! I'm just curious about the inconsistency with regards to swear words. Maybe I'm wrong - 'shit' might be acceptable for a nation name.

Um, I don't want to found my own defecation-inspired nation!

I've already got one. :p

The Commonwealth of Ontarian does not recognize this matter as one that the international community need adressing. We feel this is a domestic matter, and as such will not vote on such a proposal either way.

Respectfully,

Prime Minister Gibson
The Commonwealth of Ontarian

I think it should be legal like tobbacco. I have an aunt that died from emphazima and know 3 people that died from alicohlism. Never in my life have I ever heard of anybody dieing from smoking marijuana. And I know a lot of people. Its only illegal because they needed to control the mexicans comeing from mexico and said they brought it with them when it was already here. No one sells it to kids are you crazy even though its good for adhd and depresstion among a lot of others. It was never ofered to me until I was older and that was a friend. When I was little it was around me and I never even knew it because it wasn't smoked around me. The USA use to have it legal it was mandatory to grow do to shrotege. It grew on the first presidents plantation, and at one time it was consetered a gift from God. So in the future when you get altimers diesies, you might want to consiter smoking canaibis (whitch is an english word). I for one has gloccoma and will never quilt smoking. And the USA polls that dont get advirtised will say that 65% to 75% of Americans would agree with me.

Um, I don't want to found my own defecation-inspired nation! I'm just curious about the inconsistency with regards to swear words. Maybe I'm wrong - 'shit' might be acceptable for a nation name.


LOL - I know. I think it might be that 'shit' is viewed as simple vulgarity, whereas 'wank' is a bit more euphamistic. Most know what is meant by it, but it doesn't actually say it.

how about we leave this issue as it really is. Legalizing cannabis or any "drug" for that matter should be left to be decided by the Nation body/leader. This is just one of those things that should be decided by ech individiaul nation instead of the whole body of nations.

I think it should be legal like tobbacco. I have an aunt that died from emphazima and know 3 people that died from alicohlism. Never in my life have I ever heard of anybody dieing from smoking marijuana. And I know a lot of people. Its only illegal because they needed to control the mexicans comeing from mexico and said they brought it with them when it was already here. No one sells it to kids are you crazy even though its good for adhd and depresstion among a lot of others. It was never ofered to me until I was older and that was a friend. When I was little it was around me and I never even knew it because it wasn't smoked around me. The USA use to have it legal it was mandatory to grow do to shrotege. It grew on the first presidents plantation, and at one time it was consetered a gift from God. So in the future when you get altimers diesies, you might want to consiter smoking canaibis (whitch is an english word). I for one has gloccoma and will never quilt smoking. And the USA polls that dont get advirtised will say that 65% to 75% of Americans would agree with me.
ooc: Not to be drawn into a debate here, but to say something doesn't have side effects is stupid, everything has some sort of side-effect and while Marijuana normally won't cause anything worse than frequent spacing out for most of your life, 'Skunk' can cause paranoia and other such extreme psychological problems. NL, famed for it's pot cafes, is thinking of banning skunk. And it's the most common form, it's the cheapest and easiest to grow.

At one time people thought smoking was good for you. Cocaine was a nice healthy stimulant, found in your favourite drink. Laudanum was good at dispelling fits - think of it, Queen Victoria was an addict of opium!
And mercury is the secret to the elixir of eternal life.
My point being: the first heavy users of pot aren't old enough yet to know what effect it's done yet. The tobacco smokers are.

Lazulia believe that this is a matter that should not be subject to international legislation but rather a matter for the internal authorities to decide upon. The question at hand is one that is subject to varying cultural considerations.

Queen Incitata requests that it is noted that despite our open stance, Lazulia remains against the legalisation of any Controlled Substance subject to the Act of Ploo, (1842). Marijuana falls into this category and any attempt by an international body to legalise or decriminalise it would intrude upon National Sovereignty.

Princess Sparklypoo
Emissary of Queen Incitata of Lazulia
Ambassador to the UN

Ploo?

LOL - I know. I think it might be that 'shit' is viewed as simple vulgarity, whereas 'wank' is a bit more euphamistic. Most know what is meant by it, but it doesn't actually say it.
Could be it's just a British thing. 'Wank' is at least as strong a swear word as 'shit' over here, but not - I suspect - in the US, etc.

Lazulia, I guess this means that Queen Incitata votes "neigh", hmm?

Oh, dear. I'll get me coat.

If it wasn't for things such as Weebl & Bob and of course NS I doubt Americans would know what wanking is. I've been asked before now.

This is a matter of domestic, rather than international policy. Sithya has no argument with any nation that wishes to legalise marijuana. This is not a choice that we will make.

We do not believe this matter is something the UN should be interfering with - as such, we will vote against.

Atsehi respectfully concurs. This issue is clearly covered in Article 2 of the UN Charter:

"7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll."

[source: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/]

Atsehi respectfully concurs. This issue is clearly covered in Article 2 of the UN Charter
OOC: Which is totally irrelevant, because the real UN charter has no bearing on the NationStates UN.

If it wasn't for things such as Weebl & Bob and of course NS I doubt Americans would know what wanking is. I've been asked before now.

Hey now, not ALL of us are uncultured cretins, thank you very much (only the vast majority of us are)! To the English-speaking ear (even butchered and deviant New World English of the sort I speak) 'wanking' just sounds like...well, wanking!

'Nuff said.

OOC: Which is totally irrelevant, because the real UN charter has no bearing on the NationStates UN.

Which is a bit of a shame, since a charter would be a generally good thing.

Hey now, not ALL of us are uncultured cretins, thank you very much (only the vast majority of us are)! To the English-speaking ear (even butchered and deviant New World English of the sort I speak) 'wanking' just sounds like...well, wanking!

'Nuff said.
ooc: I have no desire to know what wanking sounds like. Especially while eating a plate of good ol chish 'n' fips.

This one?

I don't like it at all. Inaccurate claims, appeals to popularity and just plain, bad law. And, of course, a strict view could be that it doesn't actually do anything, as it only "allows" for marijuana to be made legal, as opposed to actually making it legal.

I agree completely. Marijuana is highly addictive. Also, marijuana was never made illegal for medicinal purposes by the NationStates UN anyway, therefore, this proposal has literally no purpose.

Could be it's just a British thing. 'Wank' is at least as strong a swear word as 'shit' over here, but not - I suspect - in the US, etc.

OOC:I had no idea that it was viewed so strongly. Where I'm at (Canada), some view it as a somewhat distasteful word, though it's true many have no idea what it means even though they use it. Odd that it would be allowed if it is taken as vulgar as that.

Where I'm at (Canada)Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. ;)

Personally, this seems to be akin to "shag", which is little more than a 'silly bit of British slang' on this side of the pond, and rather more obscene elsewhere.

Let's suppose that there is a well-reasoned code of rules for, eh, electrical wiring in residential and commercial buildings, or a model code for maintaining fire prevention equipment, or engaging in commercial transactions ... or a model code for regulating drugs, recreational or other.

So, given, for a moment, that there is a code X$ on subjectX$ acceptable to a majority of the UN members, a UN resolution could be of the form:

Every UN member nation shall

1. Adopt, and keep current copies of model code X$ available to the public at libraries and other appropriate places, and

2. Accept and do what is necessary to ensure that the model code X$ as approved and amended by the UN, from time to time, shall be the law of the land in respect to matters directly related to subjectX$ in the absence of specific national legislation indicating a variance to the model code, adapting the model code for that nation.

3. Every nation adopting specific national legislation to make a variance to the code shall report the variances to the UN with rationale, and shall ensure that the entire set of national variances is published as a cohesive, organized, indexed and easily referenced source, published at cost and made available in the same places as the base model code X$, as in [ 1 ] above. (This to ensure that those from other nations can readily determine if this is, or is not, a "right turn on red" nation, for example, and for the UN to monitor, and compile trends.)

Adopting a model code does not impinge upon sovereignty, but does impose a duty of care. And for those nations which need ready-made law because they aren't good at law-making, or are busy at the beaches, or who are, perhaps, at an impasse between choosing among variations and need SOMETHING in the interim ... or something to bounce ideas off of ... a model code produces benefit for ~all~ members who ever travel to or deal with other member nations ...

***

I'm available and interested in collaborating on a model code for regulating drugs ...