NationStates Jolt Archive

The General Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Co-authored by Rehochipe

~~~

In true Ennish style, I've decided to take this off the backburner and go for another run with it. Hirota had a similar idea, and that prompted my bringing this up again for consideration.

The first lot of discussion on Jolt occurred in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=456848) thread.

After discussion with the mods, the best-fit category was International Security: Mild.

I'd like to get a few comments, perhaps a re-draft, before submitting again. I'd like to get this to quorum within the next four weeks, before I go back to uni.

I dig it.

You are still effectively classifying the sacramental use of certain drugs as "recreational", and thus -- by obvious implication -- claiming that religion itself is merely a "recreational" activity, which is an insult to anybody who takes their faith seriously. The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic therefore, as the government of St Edmund did during the earlier discussion, opposes this proposal.

The government of Telidia is in broad support of this proposal though we have a minor concern with article one. It seems to us the article is somewhat open to abuse by governments who have more liberal policies to recreational drug use and where such substances are used in medical care. For example, we would argue some amphetamine substances such as methylenedioxymethamphetamine could be used in psycotherepy in the treatment of such disorders as post-traumatic stress disorder.

We do recognise however the article does try to address this in that there is a requirement for ‘wide ‘ acceptance, however this is somewhat left open to interpretation. We are concerned in this instance there might be legitimacy for an organisation or company to import such substances into member states where it may be illegal as it fulfils the exemption requirement as specified.

Our recommendation would be to add an additional clause stating something as follows:

“unless such medical substances contains elements of or comprised wholly of chemicals, compounds or other substances expressly forbidden by a member state.”

The wording mentioned above is only an example to provide some food for thought, please feel free to add or delete as appropriate.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

We support the premise of this resolution, but have some quibbles with certain parts. We'll go into them now.

2. ... neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their recreational drugs policy, ...
We'd like to keep our right to peacefully pressure other nations about any subject we please.
nor violating international borders in military or policing actions, covert or otherwise, without consent;
This needs to be clarified so that it refers only to drug-related actions, otherwise it bans war.
3. Requires that no nation take action against recreational drug production by biological, chemical or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, or likely to create health risks;
This has the problem that nations are (I think) allowed to take action against regular crop production but not drug production.
6. Recognises the right of vessels, engaged in the transport of recreational drugs legal in both exporting and importing countries, to use international territory without threat of impediment or harassment from other nations;
Again, I don't think there is a UN resolution saying that this right applies to the rest of the ships. We could just put drugs on all of our warships and no one would be able to attack us.

I don't see any other problems at the moment, but we might see some later. We commend the Ennish delegation for taking up this endeavor and will most likely vote for it if the above problems are remedied.

Robert Bobson
UN Officer

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, drugs as chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and/or potential addiction, and defining all drugs as being recreational, unless they are widely recognised by individual nations as legitimate medical substances and used in a manner deemed appropriate by medical experts;We find this definition has for us some problems.. then again it may not be a problem.. Hemp would for some be recreational and under our laws anyone using it for such purposes would be allowed to enjoy a short Hemp rope over a tall tree. As it for us is only used to make ropes, paper and scarfs; not for any medical or other purpose.. So how does this fit here..?
Definition: Hemp Noun
1. A plant fiber.
2. Any plant of the genus Cannabis; a coarse bushy annual with palmate leaves and clusters of small green flowers; yields tough fibers and narcotic drugs.
3. A rope that is used by a hangman to execute persons who have been condemned to death by hanging.
HEMP, n. A plant from whose fibrous bark is made an article of neckwear which is frequently put on after public speaking in the open air and prevents the wearer from taking cold.As simply having this is not legal in many nations however we trade items made from this.. What they do with the items once they recieve them is not our problem... We also import it for use to make these items not for recreational or medical reasons.

Zeldon, provided you're using industrial hemp, there's no problem.
[edit] Indeed, you chose a particularly bad example to use to find a loophole - the UN has already passed a resolution concerning hemp (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8012679&postcount=86), which states outright that 'industrial hemp cannot be used as a drug'.

Ceo: I'll have a think on the points you raised, and try to sort out the problems in the next draft.

Zeldon, provided you're using industrial hemp, there's no problem. which states outright that 'industrial hemp cannot be used as a drug'..Thank you for bringing this to our attention as we were missinformed on this... and see now our error..

The Hemp Plant
The hemp plant is harvested for its fibers, seed, seed meal and seed oil.
Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa L. Due to the similar leaf shape, hemp is frequently confused with marijuana. Although both plants are from the species cannabis, hemp contains virtually no THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana.
Hemp cannot be used as a drug because it produces virtually no THC
(less than 1%), where marijuana produces between 5 - 20 % THC.

Also thanks for waking us up to that resolution as we fully support it as our ancestors have used to make paper for hundreds of years.

OOC:Real life ancestors used it to make early American money... also are said to have supplied Ben Franklin as well as Geo Washington with it.

"Asserting that nations on both sides of any international border are equally responsible for the prevention of the illegal trafficking of any goods"

My problem with this is essentially the same as that 'gun chip thing; proposal, which aimed to reduce illegal arms trading, which simply doesn't exist in the international context. Similarly, there is no such thing as illegal international drug trafficking, as I don't think there are any UN resolutions on the matter (please correct me if I'm wrong). While you define drugs, you do not define what constitues "illegal" drug trafficking, a term which appears often throughout the text of your proposal.

I think such a definition would help my understanding of the proposal. For example, if the proposal were to be passed, what would it's effects be on the following situations:

1) Country A has a state recreational drugs industry. It's neighbour country B has strictly banned all substances. So while it may be illegal for B's citizens or companies to buy drugs from A, is state A acting illegally if it sells them to B citizens/companies? While arguably state A is breaking State B's laws, State A is under no compulsion to obey them. And there is no international law forbidding it. Is this what your proposal aims to stop?

2) Country A has no state drug industry, but does not criminalise drug taking or production. Again, country B has prohibited both. Will state A have any duty to take action if A citizens or companies are selling to B citizens or companies?

3) What about if B citizens go to A and buy the drugs there? That should be fine? Surely the illegality is in the taking the drugs accross the border. Which I suppose partially answers my first two questions, but not entirely. (Sorry, I'm just thinking while I type).

I actually think I've come to an understanding of your proposal by questioning it in this way, but I'd be interested to read your answers anyway.

You are still effectively classifying the sacramental use of certain drugs as "recreational", and thus -- by obvious implication -- claiming that religion itself is merely a "recreational" activity, which is an insult to anybody who takes their faith seriously. The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic therefore, as the government of St Edmund did during the earlier discussion, opposes this proposal.
We are in accord.

I dig it.

What he said. :D