NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolution to legalize drugs
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.


Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: New deleronix

Description: RECOGNIZING

a legitimate concern in public health effects of legalizing drugs

EMPHASIZING

that the right to not have your government tell you what to do with your body is indeed a CIVIL RIGHT

STRESSING

that gangs, mafias and drug cartels make large portions, if not all of their money, from the illegal drug market. Legalizing drugs would effectively eliminate that market for these criminals and put it into the hands of law-abiding citizens


FISCAL BENEFITS

nations would have the opportunity to tax and regulate a drug market, as well as would eliminate the need for drug control agencies, allowing law enforcement to focus upon violent crimes.

EFFECT UPON DRUG PRODUCING NATIONS

it would have an astounding economic effect upon nations in dire need of economic help which produce drugs.

PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS

intravenous drug users would no longer have the problem of finding clean needles, which would greatly decrease the number of HIV and AIDS infections, as well as the factor that legalizing drugs would allow the government to set purity guidelines and standards on use.
GENERAL GUIDELINES

1.No member nation will prohibit, or prevent drug sale, use, production, or purchase
2. All existing laws prohibiting such chemicals will be rendered NULL AND VOID
3. no laws shall prohibit paraphernalia such as syringes and pipes
4.nations SHALL be given the authority to prohibit use by "minors", HOWEVER shall not have a prison sentence for such use, and minor shall be determined by each nation, however in the case of psychoactive use, age of minors shall not exceed 25 years of age.
5. NO MEMBER NATION shall prohibit or prevent manufacture/ growing of drugs by individuals, HOWEVER if it is distributed to several people, the government MAY, AT ITS OWN DISCRETION test for impurities, and effectively stop manufacture until it can be corrected.

Resolution to legalize drugs
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.


Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: New deleronix

Description: RECOGNIZING

a legitimate concern in public health effects of legalizing drugs

EMPHASIZING

that the right to not have your government tell you what to do with your body is indeed a CIVIL RIGHT

STRESSING

that gangs, mafias and drug cartels make large portions, if not all of their money, from the illegal drug market. Legalizing drugs would effectively eliminate that market for these criminals and put it into the hands of law-abiding citizens


FISCAL BENEFITS

nations would have the opportunity to tax and regulate a drug market, as well as would eliminate the need for drug control agencies, allowing law enforcement to focus upon violent crimes.

EFFECT UPON DRUG PRODUCING NATIONS

it would have an astounding economic effect upon nations in dire need of economic help which produce drugs.

PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS

intravenous drug users would no longer have the problem of finding clean needles, which would greatly decrease the number of HIV and AIDS infections, as well as the factor that legalizing drugs would allow the government to set purity guidelines and standards on use.
GENERAL GUIDELINES

1.No member nation will prohibit, or prevent drug sale, use, production, or purchase
2. All existing laws prohibiting such chemicals will be rendered NULL AND VOID
3. no laws shall prohibit paraphernalia such as syringes and pipes
4.nations SHALL be given the authority to prohibit use by "minors", HOWEVER shall not have a prison sentence for such use, and minor shall be determined by each nation, however in the case of psychoactive use, age of minors shall not exceed 25 years of age.
5. NO MEMBER NATION shall prohibit or prevent manufacture/ growing of drugs by individuals, HOWEVER if it is distributed to several people, the government MAY, AT ITS OWN DISCRETION test for impurities, and effectively stop manufacture until it can be corrected.

The Peoples Republic of Bahk would never support a resolution that would legalize the use of recreational drugs and we hope that this draft isn't seriously considered.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites abhors any attempt by the UN to legislate our drug laws as we do not feel that a nation's drug laws are a legitimate international issue.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This is a terrible proposal. Not letting people ban drugs is not a good plan at all.

STRESSING

that gangs, mafias and drug cartels make large portions, if not all of their money, from the illegal drug market. Legalizing drugs would effectively eliminate that market for these criminals and put it into the hands of law-abiding citizens

At the same time it would increace the amount of recreational drugs used. Many people on such drugs commit violent acts which would increace crime.

Also in many nations in the world(NFC being one) groups like the mafia do not exsit because they get wrapped up by the police before they form.

EMPHASIZING

that the right to not have your government tell you what to do with your body is indeed a CIVIL RIGHT

Just because it is a civil right dosn't mean we should make a UN proposal on it. Neither does it mean it should be allowed. If the government probits muder you know they are actualy taking away your civil rights.


FISCAL BENEFITS

nations would have the opportunity to tax and regulate a drug market, as well as would eliminate the need for drug control agencies, allowing law enforcement to focus upon violent crimes.

Also such drugs lead to large number of health problems. In places like NewfoundCanada healthcare is payed for by the government so the legalization of drugs would be a huge drain on the economy. It is also sometimes hard to tell wether they are having such problems because of such drugs or for other reasons.

EFFECT UPON DRUG PRODUCING NATIONS

it would have an astounding economic effect upon nations in dire need of economic help which produce drugs.

Oh good so now that more of our people are being poisoned another nation is going to get money. That a great deal. I get the dead people and the expense of paying for there healthcare and they get the money.

PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS

intravenous drug users would no longer have the problem of finding clean needles, which would greatly decrease the number of HIV and AIDS infections, as well as the factor that legalizing drugs would allow the government to set purity guidelines and standards on use.

So lets see. Lots of people taking cocaine and dieing before they become 20 is going to increace the health of the people in my nation.

1.No member nation will prohibit, or prevent drug sale, use, production, or purchase

Taxing drugs is preventing the sale of them.
What if you prevent kids from buying/using drugs is that ok?
Is Arsenic a "drug"? I am sure by this resolution it would be concidered one.

3. no laws shall prohibit paraphernalia such as syringes and pipes

It dosn't say any type of paraphernalia it just says paraphernalia. Write "Drug paraphernalia".

4.nations SHALL be given the authority to prohibit use by "minors", HOWEVER shall not have a prison sentence for such use, and minor shall be determined by each nation, however in the case of psychoactive use, age of minors shall not exceed 25 years of age.

Of course this still allows minors to buy it and people to sell it to them. Also prison is too broad. Prison could be drug rehab. Though personaly I think I might just fine them 999,999,999,999,999 UNAD's then say if they can't give me the money I put them in prison.

Nice idea not to define "drugs". Congratulations, you've just legalised thalidomide in every UN nation.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Although, with some embarrassment, we admit that Ambassador Bausch did cast Gruenberg's vote FOR the failed "Recreational Drug Legalization" proposal, you can be sure that the new incumbents of the UN office will be true to the principle of national sovereignty with regard to drug laws.

We consider a better avenue for the UN to pursue to be the international drugs trade - perhaps a revamping of the Ennish effort on that front would be a good idea?

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador

As with all drug legalization proposals, I'd suggest the author toke up and enjoy his freedom to do so rather than writing UN proposals that give the citizens of 30,000+ nations the right to do so. Not everybody wants the right to toke up in their nation. Keep that in mind.

Now, anyone for a sweet?

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Resolution to legalize drugs
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.


Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: New deleronix


Welcome to the forum. I don't believe I've seen you here before. Try not to take some of the criticism here too personally. So far, people seem to have been fairly nice about this, simply saying they would oppose or pointing out an issue or two that they have noticed. Must be an off-day. It's been a little while, so I just want to dust off the old analyser here. It's a DLE mk.4 that I seem to have inherited at someone's garage sale. I'm still working some of the kinks out of the system, I'm not familiar with some of the tech used in it.

Description: RECOGNIZING

a legitimate concern in public health effects of legalizing drugs

Agreed. Probably a great argument for not legalizing them......wait....oh

EMPHASIZING

that the right to not have your government tell you what to do with your body is indeed a CIVIL RIGHT

Yes and no. (OOC: it pains me greatly to say that) Things like suicide are commonly legislated against in many nations, including my own. While I agree that it may be outside the governments purview to ban henna tattoos, or cosmetic surgery, but not all would even agree with that. However, I fully support governments attempting to keep their citizens from unnecessarily harming themselves.

STRESSING

that gangs, mafias and drug cartels make large portions, if not all of their money, from the illegal drug market. Legalizing drugs would effectively eliminate that market for these criminals and put it into the hands of law-abiding citizens

You know what would work even better than that? Properly training your law enforcement agencies to appropriately deal with the threat of illegal drugs. Trust me, it works. Besides, as many nations have noticed, there can and will be a black market for everything.

FISCAL BENEFITS

nations would have the opportunity to tax and regulate a drug market, as well as would eliminate the need for drug control agencies, allowing law enforcement to focus upon violent crimes.

There would still be the need for drug control agencies. They would serve in more of a regulatory and quality assurance function, but they would still be needed. Law enforcement would definitely still be needed as now there would be easier to find, clearly marked factories and farms where they could steal the substances they desire from.

EFFECT UPON DRUG PRODUCING NATIONS

it would have an astounding economic effect upon nations in dire need of economic help which produce drugs.

Agreed. It would have an astounding effect on the nations that produce drugs. The crime lords that currently control the drug trade would no longer have to worry about having their fortunes confiscated by the government. They would be free to amass gigantic piles of wealth to hoard and keep to themselves. The economy, no longer getting the trickle of wealth from bribes, payroll to gunmen to protect the crime-lords investments and the like, as well as the occassional surge of new money when the police raid their facilities, crumbles. These once barely-surviving economies will become entirely dependant on the whim of these now legitimate individuals.

PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS

This ought to be good.

intravenous drug users would no longer have the problem of finding clean needles, which would greatly decrease the number of HIV and AIDS infections, as well as the factor that legalizing drugs would allow the government to set purity guidelines and standards on use.

All of which would increase the end-user cost of each of these items, which would promote black market trade of these things, reraising the risks of such public health risks. That's a whole lot of effort to arrive back where you started.

GENERAL GUIDELINES

Well, as long as they're just guidelines....

1.No member nation will prohibit, or prevent drug sale, use, production, or purchase

Good God, that's a terrible idea. Can you imagine what sort of problems would begin to arise if we didn't restrict the production and/or sale of pharmaceuticals. They should remain restricted and preventable at the very least until we can manage to ensure these new drugs won't cause our citizens to spontaneously combust.

2. All existing laws prohibiting such chemicals will be rendered NULL AND VOID

Children of Thalidomide, UNITE. Stand against your oppressors. Let's just assume that you have all of the necessary appendages necessary to do so, as well as the cranial capacity to even understand what I'm saying. Let us reunite into a solid brotherhood of half formed freaks and force the government to allow us to create more of ourselves....(/sarcasm)

3. no laws shall prohibit paraphernalia such as syringes and pipes

A potential weapon of any nature has to face the potential of restriction or prohibition. Pipes are usable for other things. They themselves are not necessarily at issue, what is done with them is.

4.nations SHALL be given the authority to prohibit use by "minors", HOWEVER shall not have a prison sentence for such use, and minor shall be determined by each nation, however in the case of psychoactive use, age of minors shall not exceed 25 years of age.

How gracious of you to allow us to protect the children.

5. NO MEMBER NATION shall prohibit or prevent manufacture/ growing of drugs by individuals, HOWEVER if it is distributed to several people, the government MAY, AT ITS OWN DISCRETION test for impurities, and effectively stop manufacture until it can be corrected.

Believe it or not, this last clause renders the whole thing completely useless. Anybody who distributes drugs will have their product tested for quality which will be found to contain drugs and the manufacture will be stopped until there is no longer any drugs in their drugs.

Aside from all of that, there is the fact that this proposal deeply infringes into the national legislative jurisdiction of individual nations.

All in all, I would strongly oppose, if for no other reason than because I completely disagree that being able to completely screw with your mental and physical well-being is a civil right that should be guaranteed.

I'm not new... at all...

My previous nation slipped into nonexistance 2 years ago, and I used to post here quite often, thank you very much, and most of these arguments fail to phase myself and the rest of the anti-prohibition movement, especially considering the fact that in RW all of the numbers are on OUR SIDE and all of the propaganda is on the prohibitionist side

I'm not new... at all...

My previous nation slipped into nonexistance 2 years ago, and I used to post here quite often, thank you very much, and most of these arguments fail to phase myself and the rest of the anti-prohibition movement, especially considering the fact that in RW all of the numbers are on OUR SIDE and all of the propaganda is on the prohibitionist side

OOC:

1. You're not new. Dandy. Me either, actually. Bully for us. But you still have a couple years of legislative history to catch up on if what you've said is true. Might want to start on that.

2. Prohibitionist side, you say? I'm actually not a prohibitionist. I'm a sovereigntist, and that means I don't like other nations trying to tell my nation how to run things. And my nation doesn't regulate drugs in any fashion.

5. NO MEMBER NATION shall prohibit or prevent manufacture/ growing of drugs by individuals, HOWEVER if it is distributed to several people, the government MAY, AT ITS OWN DISCRETION test for impurities, and effectively stop manufacture until it can be corrected.We like this part as believe this came up before and by way of this we found we could stop drugs from being used and sold in our nation. As many carry impurities that would cost to much to remove them so would not make it profitable to do so.. Thus find rat or roach turds in your dope and until they clean it up they don't sale it. Also find any number of other such impurities and close them down.. As simple solution to stopping this..

However without this clause we would never support the proposal and will not now.. simply because we agree with many that not all nations want drugs grown, sold, and used in their nation with no controls on it.


Zarta Warden,
Zeldon UN Ambassador

This is an initiative to free the people from the antiquated ideas of morality being shoved down their throats, my friend, not an attack on national sovereignty

This is an initiative to free the people from the antiquated ideas of morality being shoved down their throats, my friend, not an attack on national sovereignty
Yes, it is. But putting that aside...why do you think we should prohibited from preventing pregnant women taking thalidomide?

This is an initiative to free the people from the antiquated ideas of morality being shoved down their throats, my friend, not an attack on national sovereignty
BULLSHIT! Your proposal would take away a nation's sovereign right to set their own drug laws, therefore it is an attack on national sovereignty.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

ERM......
Flibble, you killed your own argument by resorting to profanity...

and it defines drugs as Psychoactives.... Thalidomide is'nt a psychoactive...

ERM......
Flibble, you killed your own argument by resorting to profanity...

You think that just because I described your claim about your proposal what it is, that I killed my arguement. Well, I've got news for you, reguardless of what you think, this idea will violate national sovereignty, and your claims that it doesn't are in fact the biggest pile of steer manure that I have ever heard in my time in the UN.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

ERM......
Flibble, you killed your own argument by resorting to profanity...

and it defines drugs as Psychoactives.... Thalidomide is'nt a psychoactive...

Profanity doesn't kill an argument. Inaccuracy does. Bob used the former, and you used the latter. Guess who wins?

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

This resolution doesn't worry me too much, because if it, or anything like it, ever passes, there is a perfect loophole that, thanks to a previously passed blocker (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875424&postcount=129) (one of the two I agree with), is extremely hard, if not impossible for any proposal writer to plug up.

Our nation would just tax any unwanted recreational drug so high that no-one, not even a multi billionaire, would be able to afford them. They would be legal, and anyone who could pay could have them, but we'd just make sure no-one could afford to. That would put the manufacturers and suppliers out of business in a week, if not sooner.

We do have some recreational drugs legal in Witchcliff, and some illegal. Our laws suit our nation, people and society. We don't need drug open slather here thanks. Do what you want in your nation, and we will take care of ours.

Hirota wishes to express their disappointment that nations contributing to this topic have turned this into a mud slinging contest.

Anyhow, let me go through the proposal at hand.RECOGNIZING a legitimate concern in public health effects of legalizing drugsSplendid. So you understand why people are concerned about this proposal.EMPHASIZING that the right to not have your government tell you what to do with your body is indeed a CIVIL RIGHTTo a extent, that is correct. What this fails to note is the impact upon a nation this could have. I'm talking about crime and healthcare. Lots of drugs have negative side effects. If half your nation is permanently stoned, it does not bode well for your economy.

As for the crime bit, it's debatable, which leads to...STRESSING that gangs, mafias and drug cartels make large portions, if not all of their money, from the illegal drug market. Legalizing drugs would effectively eliminate that market for these criminals and put it into the hands of law-abiding citizens1. How law-abiding would these citizens be if incapable of making judgements whilst on these drugs?
2. Most of these gangs which sell illegal drugs in a country get these from imports. That import part does have international scope. You could work on a proposal from this angle.

nations would have the opportunity to tax and regulate a drug market, as well as would eliminate the need for drug control agencies, allowing law enforcement to focus upon violent crimes.That's pretty much the same as with the prostitution angle. The problem is for me, an ethical one. hirota does not enjoy taxing people for harming or abusing themselves. That's why we have a 0% tax rate on income.

EFFECT UPON DRUG PRODUCING NATIONS it would have an astounding economic effect upon nations in dire need of economic help which produce drugs. I think you'd fine once the value dropped, so would the profits.

PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS intravenous drug users would no longer have the problem of finding clean needles, which would greatly decrease the number of HIV and AIDS infections, as well as the factor that legalizing drugs would allow the government to set purity guidelines and standards on use.There might be scope for a resolution on this, but I doubt it.

1.No member nation will prohibit, or prevent drug sale, use, production, or purchaseLike has been said, you have failed to define drugs. Secondly many drugs are highly dangerous to produce, needing explosive chemicals. Letting anyone do this without restriction is very naive.
2. All existing laws prohibiting such chemicals will be rendered NULL AND VOIDSame point as above.3. no laws shall prohibit paraphernalia such as syringes and pipesNo worthy of debate.
4.nations SHALL be given the authority to prohibit use by "minors", HOWEVER shall not have a prison sentence for such use, and minor shall be determined by each nation, however in the case of psychoactive use, age of minors shall not exceed 25 years of age. See, now I noticed you earlier said the only drugs you refer to are psychoactives, but then you mention psychoactives specifcally, implying that they are a different category to "regular" drugs.5. NO MEMBER NATION shall prohibit or prevent manufacture/ growing of drugs by individuals, HOWEVER if it is distributed to several people, the government MAY, AT ITS OWN DISCRETION test for impurities, and effectively stop manufacture until it can be corrected.Meh, it's an attempted concession to national soverignty, but I doubt you will have convinced them.

To a extent, that is correct. What this fails to note is the impact upon a nation this could have. I'm talking about crime and healthcare. Lots of drugs have negative side effects. If half your nation is permanently stoned, it does not bode well for your economy.
We in Gruenberg believe the principle of individual self-determination should transcend any such concerns.

Having just began my nation, I clearly recall the question being addressed in the creation process of the Frieks State. I assume everyone else has dealt with the issue in on individual level within their own domains also. Therefore... I would prefer to see resolutions brought up to deal with the threats of nuclear power and genetically enginereed organisms. Since accidents with either of these technologies can spill disastrously over borders more easily than drug problems, I think these issues should be addressed instead.

We in Gruenberg believe the principle of individual self-determination should transcend any such concerns.Oh, so do I, but I imagine not everyone would agree, or would agree to varying extents.

I guess that's why Hirota has such abysmal crime :)

and it defines drugs as Psychoactives....
Penicillin and paracetamol aren't drugs now? That's what you pretty much just said.

There's a heck of a lot of drugs that don't have a psychoactive effect, yet can still be dangerous to you. That's why definitions are important, and your one fails horrendously.

Oh, so do I, but I imagine not everyone would agree, or would agree to varying extents.

I guess that's why Hirota has such abysmal crime Annoying smilie removed
My point is, you're happy to foist individual self-determination upon nations in the case of abortion, or euthanasia, or sodomy, yet cry national sovereignty at the mention of drugs? Doesn't seem very consistent.

1.No member nation will prohibit, or prevent drug sale, use, production, or purchase
2. All existing laws prohibiting such chemicals will be rendered NULL AND VOID
3. no laws shall prohibit paraphernalia such as syringes and pipes
4.nations SHALL be given the authority to prohibit use by "minors", HOWEVER shall not have a prison sentence for such use, and minor shall be determined by each nation, however in the case of psychoactive use, age of minors shall not exceed 25 years of age.
5. NO MEMBER NATION shall prohibit or prevent manufacture/ growing of drugs by individuals, HOWEVER if it is distributed to several people, the government MAY, AT ITS OWN DISCRETION test for impurities, and effectively stop manufacture until it can be corrected.Okay we go with this take laws that PROHIBIT all this for drugs off the books. Add a few laws that regulate the growth and use of it but still allow the use of it. Thus we comply with the removal of any laws that would PROHIBIT their use, growth, sale or whatever.


As to PROHIBIT something meansDefinition: Prohibit
Prohibit Verb 1. Command against; "I forbid you to call me late at night".

As one must consider work safety factors and general concerns of others who may not want this around them when they allow folks to do these just as they consider it for any other item folks may use and there is possiblity for abuse. As we simply say pot smoking falls along with regular tobacca smoking and you have to do it only at home. Then consider other drugs in line with drinking and limit their use to certain clubs or your home. Thus we don't PROHIBIT the use of drugs just control them like we do some other things that are considered harmfull to people in general.

Then we use clause five to again add to the cost of production by requiring that these so called drugs meet the same standards as any food or drink product might; even tobacca products.

We consider a better avenue for the UN to pursue to be the international drugs trade - perhaps a revamping of the Ennish effort on that front would be a good idea?

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador

Agreed.
Although hopefully any revamping of that effort might bother to recognise -- as Enn didn't -- that some [non-"medical"] use of drugs is for sacramental purposes rather than recreational ones...

My point is, you're happy to foist individual self-determination upon nations in the case of abortion, or euthanasia, or sodomy, yet cry national sovereignty at the mention of drugs? Doesn't seem very consistent.Who said I was consistent?;)

OOC: I never said they were my beliefs that I raised on this topic. Merely that they would be things that would inevitably be brought up. If something like this proposal came to vote, I would probably vote for, albeit very quietly. Besides nobody said that individual self-determination was always* superior to national soverignty, or vice versa.

* Just most of the time ;)

Having just began my nation, I clearly recall the question being addressed in the creation process of the Frieks State. I assume everyone else has dealt with the issue in on individual level within their own domains also. Therefore... I would prefer to see resolutions brought up to deal with the threats of nuclear power and genetically enginereed organisms. Since accidents with either of these technologies can spill disastrously over borders more easily than drug problems, I think these issues should be addressed instead.
What do you care, you're not in the UN.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yet another "let's all get high" proposal. How about we just ignore this crap and have a little fun -- without drugs? I think we need a little disctraction from this BS, so...I'm gonna dance!

Bala
Deputy Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg

Nice idea not to define "drugs". Congratulations, you've just legalised thalidomide in every UN nation.To be fair, thalidomide isn't a "recreational" drug.

To be fair, thalidomide isn't a "recreational" drug.
But nowhere in the proposal is the phrase "recreational drug" even used. Unless you're saying that by being in the RDU category, it automatically only legalises recreational drugs?

That's kinda where I'd be leaning.

Of course, that makes for a quandry on where a "Ban Thalidomide" Proposal would go.

Having just began my nation, I clearly recall the question being addressed in the creation process of the Frieks State. I assume everyone else has dealt with the issue in on individual level within their own domains also. Therefore... I would prefer to see resolutions brought up to deal with the threats of nuclear power and genetically enginereed organisms. Since accidents with either of these technologies can spill disastrously over borders more easily than drug problems, I think these issues should be addressed instead.

I... do hope you intended no insult towards the genetically engineered...

OOC: LOL

But nowhere in the proposal is the phrase "recreational drug" even used. Unless you're saying that by being in the RDU category, it automatically only legalises recreational drugs?
That's kinda where I'd be leaning.

Of course, that makes for a quandry on where a "Ban Thalidomide" Proposal would go.

So if somebody managed to get a "Ban Alcohol" proposal passed as a 'Recreational Drugs' resolution, and this said that all uses of alcohol were banned, would you say that it only restricted the recreational use[s] rather than the sacramental & industrial uses as well?

We consider a better avenue for the UN to pursue to be the international drugs trade - perhaps a revamping of the Ennish effort on that front would be a good idea?
OOC: While I appreciate the comment, I'd prefer not to bring that back right now. Wait until the holidays at least, when I've got a bit more time. It'll need a bit of tweaking if it's being seriously considered.
Oh, and it wsn't mine originally. Rehochipe came up with the basic concept and a lot of the text, I just tinkered to make it look pretty.

nations would have the opportunity to tax and regulate a drug market,So who or what will enforce the tax laws that apply to this new open drug industry that is going to happen in all nations without any controls on it.

as well as would eliminate the need for drug control agencies, allowing law enforcement to focus upon violent crimes.You more or less say we either take them out or move them to stop other crimes. Well tax evasion is a crime here.

Also once the market grows the price of drugs will go down and many will find it no longer a trill item and be looking for something new not covered under this. Thus crimes in other areas will rise as the trill of drugs is no longer there.. and folks seek their trills some place else and those criminals who no longer make money off drugs find new ways to make money by giving folks their trills. We can only wonder what will replace drugs as the trill crime of choice by those who can afford it.

So if somebody managed to get a "Ban Alcohol" proposal passed as a 'Recreational Drugs' resolution, and this said that all uses of alcohol were banned, would you say that it only restricted the recreational use[s] rather than the sacramental & industrial uses as well?Uf. That's a stumper. I would say that it would be limited to recreational uses, due to the category. Furthermore, a Proposal that specifically banned sacramental and/or industrial uses would be in danger of category violation; much like a Social Justice Proposal that didn't deal with income redistribution or welfare.