NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Drug Act

Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize

The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the differences of opinions within member states regarding the legality of recreational drug use;

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a “recreational drug” as a chemical substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary changes in perception, mood, consciousness and/or behavior;

1) URGES UN member states to legalize the practice of individual consumption, cultivation, preparation, and possession of recreational drugs, given that these actions pose no threat of harm to any individual other than the user, especially for the following uses:

a. Religious, spiritual, philosophical or other related purposes;

b. Medicinal benefits, such as medicinal marijuana;

2) AFFIRMS the right of UN member states to determine their own laws with regard to the legality of the consumption, cultivation, preparation, possession, exchange, and distribution of recreational drugs by any individual or group of individuals, within their own jurisdiction;

3) STRONGLY URGES states to illegalize the practice of deceiving or coercing others into using drugs, except when administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorized individual;

4) REQUESTS that those states which allow responsible recreational drug use to 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;

5) URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the effects of recreational drug use, especially if such use is legal within the state, and that suppliers of said drugs are not allowed to make false claims about them.

I have a problem with the definition of "recreational drug". To me "recreational" refers to using them for fun and pleasure.

I have no problem with the concept of Medicinal or Religous requirments for normally Illegal Substances. Such useage is not "recreational" by definition then as they are required for Medical or Religious purpose.

As for not harming others except the user. Please try to explain how the knife victim of a cocaine addict is not harmed?

You will not receive the support of the Congressional Republic as long as clause 2 remains. And yes, Mr. Faisano, we do have an arbitrary bias against national rights.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations

And yes, Mr. Faisano, we do have an arbitrary bias against national rights.


I commend you for admitting that your objections have no rhyme or reason. It's refreshing.


Having reviewed the proposal with our office's legal aide, I see no reason not so support this proposal. You have our endorsement.

The use of recreational drugs does harm other people. I personally have no problem with people using recreational drugs however they must be goverened so they can be used safely. The impairment of cranial functions can lead to horrible decisions making such as driving a car while hallucinating which will make the driver swerve and possibly injure or kill others. If we are to legalize drugs we must provide guidelines and places where people can do these drugs without side effects that lead to the harm of others. So in essence we must provide places for people to do drugs that are safe for the drug type such as a padded room that is sterile for heroin and meth users and we must tell the people of the potential health effects so that the people that do, do the drugs know what will happen to their body.

I should have read the idea fully before posting. I agree and I will vote for this idea.

The use of recreational drugs does harm other people. I personally have no problem with people using recreational drugs however they must be goverened so they can be used safely. The impairment of cranial functions can lead to horrible decisions making such as driving a car while hallucinating which will make the driver swerve and possibly injure or kill others. If we are to legalize drugs we must provide guidelines and places where people can do these drugs without side effects that lead to the harm of others. So in essence we must provide places for people to do drugs that are safe for the drug type such as a padded room that is sterile for heroin and meth users and we must tell the people of the potential health effects so that the people that do, do the drugs know what will happen to their body.

Ok, let me say this before there are more posts of this matter. This proposal is not assuming that the use of recreational drugs always only harms the user. The clause in question urges nations that in cases where the drug usage actually does only pose a threat to the user to legalize the practice of consumption, etc. No forcing nations; no assumptions of what or who drug use harms.

EDIT Thanks for the second post Ilrea, I didn't see it until my own was posted. I will leave this here in case others have the same concern.

I commend you for admitting that your objections have no rhyme or reason. It's refreshing.
Ignore him: it's just a phase.

We don't think it an especially wise idea for the proposal to cite RDL's heavy failure as justification: it's hardly going to make people leap up in support of another [apparent] legalisation attempt.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I still have problems with the use of the term "Recreational" to describe drugs that will be used for a specific purpose. If you are required to use marijauna for Medical Purposes... that is not a "Recreation". Nor is the use of Religiously Prescribed Medications. "Recreation" is for fun and relaxation... not the purposes stated in this proposal...

We don't think it an especially wise idea for the proposal to cite RDL's heavy failure as justification: it's hardly going to make people leap up in support of another [apparent] legalisation attempt.

Considering that this does come off as an apparent legalization attempt, we agree. Removed.

I have a problem with the definition of "recreational drug". To me "recreational" refers to using them for fun and pleasure.Limit of the UN. This is in the proper category.

Ah, I see...

As long as usage is limited to specific Medical and Religious purposes, I may be persauded to reconsider my position. Though there would need to be some pretty heavy assurances that such would be the case, and that any "extraneous" uses of such Proscribed Substances remain illegal.

I commend you for admitting that your objections have no rhyme or reason. It's refreshing.

I will elaborate then, but if anyone finds this stupid, or objectionable, or based on a logical fallacy or ten, tell them I was provoked.:p

Ceorana believes that blockers do not have a legitimate place in the UN, on basically a slippery-slope argument: the more blockers are legitimatized, the more risk the UN runs of illegalizing more key areas.

To this proposal, however, we do not really object, so we will abstain if it reaches a final vote.

Wolfgang's ears perk up as he hears the phrase "slippery slope". In protest of this horribly overused phrase, he blasts his own head off with the HSD gun. Realizing that didn't really have much impact, he then blasted the Ceoranan representative's head off.

OOC: I really hate that phrase. I admit that it is usually accurate when it's used, but too many people are using the fact that something is a "slippery slope" as a reason to essentially maintain status quo and not accomplish anything. Let me repeat that... the PHRASE is irritating to me, not the situation. Thou shalt avoid it or Wolfgang will blow your character's heads off temporarily.

IC: If our delegate wrote this all must support.

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a “recreational drug” as a chemical substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary changes in perception, mood, consciousness and/or behavior;I like this definition. One problem however - some of the key drugs which I imagine is anticipated to come under this proposal do not neccessarily fit within it's scope.

Cannabis is currently being looked into - and there is evidence to suggest that it's effects are permanent rather than temporary.

Ecstacy is also being looked into for it's long term effects, although ecstacy is in a grey area of it's own on accounts of it tending to be a cocktail of chemicals rather than a set list of ingredients.

Now, I appreciate that "temporary" is in that definition for a very good reason, but I am concerned that there is a grey, unproven area where certain recreational drugs might or might not have permanent side effects. If that's the case would they be within this definition one day, and not the next depending upon consensus within the scientific community?

I'd be grateful for your thoughts on this matter. Aside from this point I am inclined towards voting for this legislation - but must observe further.

I will elaborate then, but if anyone finds this stupid, or objectionable, or based on a logical fallacy or ten, tell them I was provoked.:p

Ceorana believes that blockers do not have a legitimate place in the UN, on basically a slippery-slope argument: the more blockers are legitimatized, the more risk the UN runs of illegalizing more key areas.

OOC: That's okay. I'm sure you can find some bullshit way to tapdance around this one, too. :rolleyes:

OOC: That's okay. I'm sure you can find some bullshit way to tapdance around this one, too. :rolleyes:

To this proposal, however, we do not really object, so we will abstain if it reaches a final vote.

Really?

2) AFFIRMS the right of UN member states to determine their own laws with regard to the legality of the consumption, cultivation, preparation, and possession of recreational drugs by any individual or group of individuals, within their own jurisdiction;Shouldn't this also extend to the exchange or sale of drugs? Between the two would prefer the word “exchange”, as we believe it covers both sale, barter, and free or cashless transfer (especially important to socialist states).

And in general, do people feel that “exchange” covers distribution, or do we need to cover that, too?

Community Property will completely support any resolution that protects our right to maintain the legality of drugs of all kinds, be they medicinal, spiritual, or recreational.

OOC: In all seriousness, I did read this over. It seems to have no actual mandate, just a bunch of urging and requests. To me, it would make more sense if there were some kind of forcing, if only it were a single clause.

Love and esterel will probably vote for this proposal, but before we have one concern about some substances and in particular "alcohol".

It seems to me that alcohol is included in this proposal's definition:

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a “recreational drug” as a chemical substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary changes in perception, mood, consciousness and/or behavior;

In chemistry, an alcohol is any organic compound in which a hydroxyl group (-OH) is bound to a carbon atom of an alkyl or substituted alkyl group. The general formula for a simple acyclic alcohol is CnH2n+1OH.
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol

Alcohol, specifically ethanol, is a potent central nervous system depressant, with a range of side effects.
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body


I'm not absolutly certain, but if alcohol is included in this definition then clause 2 means:
2) AFFIRMS the right of UN member states to determine their own laws with regard to the legality of the consumption, cultivation, preparation, and possession of alcohol by any individual or group of individuals, within their own jurisdiction;

And Love and esterel cannot accept that.

Also I'm not expert but Hirota's remark is pertinent about which recreational drug are resulting in temporary changes in perception, Ecstacy? poppers? cocaine? tabacco? ... I'm not sure myself.

Ignore him: it's just a phase.
Gruenberg, I'm surprise by your asnwer, as you usually defend people, such as Accelerus, whom philosophy is to not vote for significant proposal (and Love and esterel had always respected this philosophy), which is a philosophy very similar, or I should say very parrallel, to the philosophy of not voting for "blockers proposal" (not our philosophy either, but we respect it also).

Also I'm not expert but Hirota's remark is pertinent about which recreational drug are resulting in temporary changes in perception, Ecstacy? poppers? cocaine? tabacco? ... I'm not sure myself.

I had strongly considered including "or permanent" in the definition and I am certainly not opposed to changing it.

OOC: In all seriousness, I did read this over. It seems to have no actual mandate, just a bunch of urging and requests. To me, it would make more sense if there were some kind of forcing, if only it were a single clause.

Read clause 2. That is the binding area of the proposal ("AFFIRMS" is not optional).

Shouldn't this also extend to the exchange or sale of drugs? Between the two would prefer the word “exchange”, as we believe it covers both sale, barter, and free or cashless transfer (especially important to socialist states).

And in general, do people feel that “exchange” covers distribution, or do we need to cover that, too?

I agree with the extension. I will include exchange and distribution in clause 2.

EDIT To avoid any further confusion involving clause 2, perhaps it should read as thus:

2) AFFIRMS the right of UN member states to determine their own laws with regard to the legality of any activity involving recreational drugs, including but not limited to the consumption, cultivation, preparation, possession, exchange, and distribution of recreational drugs by any individual or group of individuals, within their own jurisdiction;

2) AFFIRMS the right of UN member states to determine their own laws with regard to the legality of the consumption, cultivation, preparation, possession, exchange, and distribution of recreational drugs by any individual or group of individuals, within their own jurisdiction;

OOC: That's not so much a binding legalization as it is a binding on the UN to ultimately let everyone make up their own minds. At least, that's how I read it.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but toxic waste permanently alters the body/mind doesn't it? If you add permanent, nations might go thinking this means it's okay for them put it into the drinking water.

OOC: That's not so much a binding legalization as it is a binding on the UN to ultimately let everyone make up their own minds. At least, that's how I read it.

Indeed you are correct in your interpretation. As the first introductory clause states, this proposal understands the differences of opinions ranging in the united nations with regard to recreational drugs, and therefore allows for all these nations to put their own laws into practice. This is the idea behind "blocker" legislation, an idea strongly rooted in National Sovereignty within the united nations, a concept you can read about here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11565395&postcount=3).

2) AFFIRMS the right of UN member states to determine their own laws with regard to the legality of the consumption, cultivation, preparation, and possession of alcohol by any individual or group of individuals, within their own jurisdiction;

And Love and esterel cannot accept that.You cannot accept nations being allowed to set their own alcohol laws?

You cannot accept nations being allowed to set their own alcohol laws?

I mean, I strongly oppose that the UN declares a blancket right to any dictator in the NSUN to ban alcohol.

It seems to me that this proposal, written as such, is doing that, please correct me if I'm wrong.

But i'm looking forward to the drafting of this propoasl, and LAE will probably support its future draft.

I mean, I strongly oppose that the UN declares a blancket right to any dictator in the NSUN to ban alcohol.What's wrong with that? Is alcohol now an inalienable right that no dictator (or democracy; see: US Prohibition) may infringe upon?

What's wrong with that? Is alcohol now an inalienable right that no dictator (or democracy; see: US Prohibition) may infringe upon?

What's wrong with alcohol? Is "alcohol Prohibition" an inalienable right of dictators that the UN may not infringe upon them?

Say NO to islam fundamentalism in the NSUN!

What's wrong with alcohol? Is "alcohol Prohibition" an inalienable right of dictators that the UN may not infringe upon them?

Say NO to islam fundamentalism in the NSUN!And, of course, we all know that no Islamic democracy would ever ban alcohol. And that only Moslems object to drink.

Isn't it a little hypocritical to give nations free reign to legalize other recreational drugs, but not alcohol?

What's wrong with alcohol? Is "alcohol Prohibition" an inalienable right of dictators that the UN may not infringe upon them?Of course not. I'm just wondering why stating a currently existing ability (that of banning alcohol) is so objectionable to you.

Say NO to islam fundamentalism in the NSUN!Where the hell did this nonsense come from? Islam is far from the only religion to ban alcohol.

And, of course, we all know that no Islamic democracy would ever ban alcohol. And that only Moslems object to drink.

Where the hell did this nonsense come from? Islam is far from the only religion to ban alcohol.

I didn't speak of islam, but of "islam fundamentalism", this is really different.
Let's check which nation in RL ban alcohol: Saudi Arabia, I think there are some more, will try to complete the list.

Isn't it a little hypocritical to give nations free reign to legalize other recreational drugs, but not alcohol?

I lobby about alcohol because it's pretty common worldwide and it has also an important social role; feel free to debate whatever other substance you want.

I'm just wondering why stating a currently existing ability (that of banning alcohol) is so objectionable to you.

I suppose that to ban something one has to have a good reason in the first place. I fully respect people who don't drink alcohol, why would these person force others to not drink?

Please don't let me say what I never say, I didn't speak of islam, but of "islam fundamentalism", this is really different, my reference is about Saudi Arabia.Who cares about Saudi Arabia? Lynchberg, Tennessee, the home of the Jack Daniels distillery, is a dry county. Somehow, I don't see Tennessee as a haven of Islamic Fundamentalism. Last I checked, Southern Baptists and Mormons tended to be teetotalers as well. Throwing out "islam fundamentalism" is nothing but a red herring and completely irrelevent to the subject at hand.

I suppose to ban something you have to have a good reason. I fully respect people who don't drink alcohol, why do these person would like others to not drink?In NationStates there's any number of reasons. Perhaps they feel it does more harm than good. Perhaps they feel that any mind-altering substances are bad. Perhaps they feel that their citizens shouldn't have the right to destroy their own brain cells. Perhaps they fully respect people who drink alcohol; why do those people want others to drink?

Who cares about Saudi Arabia? Lynchberg, Tennessee, the home of the Jack Daniels distillery, is a dry county. Somehow, I don't see Tennessee as a haven of Islamic Fundamentalism. Last I checked, Southern Baptists and Mormons tended to be teetotalers as well. Throwing out "islam fundamentalism" is nothing but a red herring and completely irrelevent to the subject at hand.

These are not nations, it's easy to move from these place, and even come back freely (I suppose). We are dealing with nations here.


Furthermore, I would like to say that Love and esterel is lobbying in this forum for a clause about alcohol prevention in the current "Alcohol Tariff Reductions" draft:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11968181&postcount=171

And we are feeling very "alone" on this matter!

These are not nations, it's easy to move from these place, and even come back freely (I suppose).It's still a local government outlawing alcohol. Don't start squirming on me now because I've shrunk the scale.

But if it needs to be national, let's look at Blue Laws, shall we? In the vast majority of America (perhaps all of it), there are regulations about when you can buy alcohol. Where I live, I can't buy booze between 11pm and 7am Mon-Sat, and not until noon on Sunday. That's a state-wide law, and my state is 57,918 sq mi, which is roughly the size of many European countries. Like, say, The Netherlands (16k sq mi), Austria (32k sq mi), or Belgium (12k sq mi).

No, it's not outlawing, but Clause 2 doesn't just deal with outlawing. So-called blue laws would fall under Clause 2.

It's still a local government outlawing alcohol. Don't start squirming on me now because I've shrunk the scale.

Sorry, and correct me if i'm wrong, but you can go out and in easily from these places, without having to go to a consulate to get a visa, nor having to buy a flight ticket.

But if it needs to be national, let's look at Blue Laws, shall we? In the vast majority of America (perhaps all of it), there are regulations about when you can buy alcohol. Where I live, I can't buy booze between 11pm and 7am Mon-Sat, and not until noon on Sunday. That's a state-wide law, and my state is 57,918 sq mi, which is roughly the size of many European countries. Like, say, The Netherlands (16k sq mi), Austria (32k sq mi), or Belgium (12k sq mi).

No, it's not outlawing, but Clause 2 doesn't just deal with outlawing. So-called blue laws would fall under Clause 2.

I have no problem with alcohol regulation, as your exemple seems to be, sorry if my post was not clear, but i was dealing with "ban".
Alcohol has some side important side effects and both regulation and prevention are needed, i agree with you about that.

So about the list of nation baninng alcohol, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_prohibition

At least in Pakistan:
"... only members of non-Muslim minorities ... are allowed to apply for permits for alcohol"

without having to go to a consulate to get a visa, nor having to buy a flight ticket.That's the level we're working with? I'm pretty sure I can drive to Canada without a visa. Does that mean that America banning alcohol wouldn't be a problem?

I have no problem with alcohol regulation, as your exemple seems to be, sorry if my post was not clear, but i was dealing with "ban".But Clause 2 is what allows regulation. Yes, it also allows bans, but bans aren't the primary thrust of it. And, again, I'm just not understanding why banning alcohol (currently allowed by the UN) is such a deal-breaker for you. I realise that, culturally, it's probably quite important to you, and thus your nation, but I just don't understand why it's so important. It's just booze.

We would have no problem supporting this resolution in its current form.

That's the level we're working with? I'm pretty sure I can drive to Canada without a visa. Does that mean that America banning alcohol wouldn't be a problem?

Not sure but I think if you are American or Canadian, or maybe even European, you just need your passport to pass the border between Canada and the US. But there are so many nations where you need a visa to enter, many times you have to get it before your trip at a consulate or an embassy, sometimes with a invitation letter ... Also so many people don't have a passport, in the first place.
It's easy when you have a US passport, as you I suppose, or a European one, as me, but we are pretty lucky, we can go almost everywhere in the world, easily, apart if you want to spend your holydays in North Korea or in Bhutan (visa=200$/day). But crossing borders is something really difficult for many people in the world.

Just an example, there are so many illegal Bangladeshi migrants in Kolkata and its state: West Bengal (India), that's for Indian citizens from West Bengal, it's pretty difficult to get a passport, as they are culturally and ethnically very close to Bangladeshi people, the administration is very careful.

Another example, most of the hundred of thousands of foreign workers in the building industry of the United Arab Emirates (who mainly come from South-Asia) are their passport taken by the UAE immigration immigration, during all their stay in the UAE.

But Clause 2 is what allows regulation. Yes, it also allows bans, but bans aren't the primary thrust of it. And, again, I'm just not understanding why banning alcohol (currently allowed by the UN) is such a deal-breaker for you. I realise that, culturally, it's probably quite important to you, and thus your nation, but I just don't understand why it's so important. It's just booze.

First, why does this proposal declare a blanket right to any government to ban alcohol? This is a serious question, and I think that this question needs an answer, in the first place.

Alcohol is a very common recreative substance in the world, in many civilizations. There are some other important, but I debate for what I can. And it's not only recreative, it's also social, because without praising alcohol, I want to say that it allow people to be more talkative, and that's really important. Are you against Mik's proposal on alcohol?

(I hope you will forgive me this transcript of a famous joke by a famous humorist from the country I live in, hope the translation is understandable)
"God created alcohol in order ugly women have sex")

Also, I think that to ban something one has to have a good reason, so to declare a blanket right to ban it, one has to have the same good reason. Sorry, but I didn't find it yet in this thread.

I really think there is a difference for the UN between "no policy" on the subject and "a blanket right" for government (including many non-democratic or non-benevolent ones) to do some stuff.

Further more, when such a clause has no consistency and no reason for such blanket right, then they are purely administrative bureaucracy, and may be a burden for possible future interesting proposal. I don't say that any of these clauses are bad, I voted for PC's tax resolution for example, but I think that's such clause have to be really needed to be written.

Not sure but I think if you are American or Canadian, or maybe even European, you just need your passport to pass the border between Canada and the US.Passports aren't visas. You claimed that the visa and the plane ticket were the problem.

First, why does this proposal declare a blanket right to any government to ban alcohol? This is a serious question, and I think that this question needs an answer, in the first place.Because governments can ban whatever the hell they feel like and nobody but you thinks that alcohol is a God-given right that cannot be infringed upon?

Alcohol is a very common recreative substance in the world, in many civilizations.So is porn. So what?

Are you against Mik's proposal on alcohol?Irrelevent. Are you against me eating pork?

Also, I think that to ban something one has to have a good reason, so to declare a blanket right to ban it, one has to have the same good reason.Said right already exists.

Further more, when such a clause has no consistency and no reason for such blanket right, then they are purely administrative bureaucracy, and may be a burden for possible future interesting proposal.It's giving nations the right to regulate certain drugs. Part of regulating is banning. Even if the ban clause was removed, it could easily be "regulated" into illegality...

"You can only buy alcohol from sanctioned government distributors. No such distributors exist."

Passports aren't visas. You claimed that the visa and the plane ticket were the problem.

If you don't have a passport, you cannot get a visa or an international plane ticket.

Because governments can ban whatever the hell they feel like and nobody but you thinks that alcohol is a God-given right that cannot be infringed upon?

I din't say that.
You asked me some question, I answered.
But I didn't get any answer about the reason why this proposal declares that alcohol can be banned?

So is porn. So what?

Hack, it was a joke...

Irrelevent. Are you against me eating pork?

For example this proposal would make illegal Mik's proposal, if Mik's proposal was significant.

Said right already exists.

It's giving nations the right to regulate certain drugs. Part of regulating is banning. Even if the ban clause was removed, it could easily be "regulated" into illegality...

"You can only buy alcohol from sanctioned government distributors. No such distributors exist."

In the NSUN every resolution have huge loopholes, because laws cannot be written in 3500 characters for billions of people.
Obviously, the text itself is what is important, more than its gameplay effects, even if you like to play with gnomes.;)

Based on our experience we think that some issues related to prohibition of substances (Illegal traffic) are harmful to society, more than the abuse of them, and some regulations dont stop the consumption of them.
The key to stop the abuse of drugs is the right information, control of media contents, and the psychological treatment to the risk population.

Disagree.

If you don't have a passport, you cannot get a visa or an international plane ticket.And? Do you even remember why this was brought up, or are you just arguing for its own sake?

But I didn't get any answer about the reason why this proposal declares that alcohol can be banned?I already answered that.

Hack, it was a joke...Utterly impossible to tell with you.

For example this proposal would make illegal Mik's proposal, if Mik's proposal was significant.So would a Resolution completely banning alcohol. Irrelevent.

In the NSUN every resolution have huge loopholes, because laws cannot be written in 3500 characters for billions of people.Since alcohol can be banned currently, and since allowing regulation (which you support) can create de facto bans, why do you care if it allows bans?

RL:

But if it needs to be national, let's look at Blue Laws, shall we? In the vast majority of America (perhaps all of it), there are regulations about when you can buy alcohol. Where I live, I can't buy booze between 11pm and 7am Mon-Sat, and not until noon on Sunday. That's a state-wide law, and my state is 57,918 sq mi, which is roughly the size of many European countries. Like, say, The Netherlands (16k sq mi), Austria (32k sq mi), or Belgium (12k sq mi).So how are things in Illinois? I was in Chicago last week (well, Deerfield, actually)...

In my home state (97,990 sq. mi., but with a smaller population), the laws are exactly the same - and we're just a tad larger than the U.K. (94,526 sq. mi.)I'm pretty sure I can drive to Canada without a visa...If you're willing to wait three hours at the border - and only until next year, when DHS tightens border controls. Then you (and every other U.S. citizen) will need DHS permission both to leave and return (unless DHS decides to back down on its plans) ... but I digress.

For the better part of a century (before 9/11), you could cross the U.S. - Canada border freely, as (or so I'm led to believe) is the case with most EC borders of late.Not sure but I think if you are American or Canadian, or maybe even European, you just need your passport to pass the border between Canada and the US.Before 9/11, you didn't need a thing - except maybe a U.S. or Canadian driver's license. I've done it several times.

So much for the nonsense about national borders being special; maybe they are, and maybe they aren't.

NS:

Sorry, but we just don't see why there needs to be a blanket ban on prohibition. And we do know of many democracies where alcohol is banned. Thus far you haven't explained why alcohol is different, other than to say that it's important to many cultures (a fact which we ourselves have cited in other debates). That said, it stands to reason that - in those cultures where it is forbidden - its prohibition is important, too.

And? Do you even remember why this was brought up, or are you just arguing for its own sake?

Sorry, dry counties are small and have no borders to pass. And by the way if these counties would have been big, bigger than a what is called a community, or even such as the US size, yes i would be against that.

I already answered that.

In NationStates there's any number of reasons. Perhaps they feel it does more harm than good. Perhaps they feel that any mind-altering substances are bad. Perhaps they feel that their citizens shouldn't have the right to destroy their own brain cells

You're arguments is perhaps they feel, perhaps they think?

So would a Resolution completely banning alcohol. Irrelevent.

No chance to it to pass, let them try.

Since alcohol can be banned currently, and since allowing regulation (which you support) can create de facto bans, why do you care if it allows bans?

What really matters is the text of the proposal.

For example about the unions resolution, if the administrative procedure is 20 years to create a union, then unions are banned in reality even if they are authorized in the law!
But as it's the text which is important in this game, the fact that unions are authorized is what is the most important.

If clause 2 is not anymore about alcohol, even if those nations will respect UN legislation, they will not fully comply with its mild clause, I really feel that's somethng important

You're arguments is perhaps they feel, perhaps they think?No. Because there is no inalienable right to drink booze.

But as it's the text which is important in this game, the fact that unions are authorized is what is the most important.Except that you like everything in the Proposal except that some nation might ban alcohol. You're throwing away an entire Proposal because one possible interpretation might let somebody else do something you don't much care for!

It doesn't ban alcohol. It doesn't let people ban alcohol in your nation. It lets people execute self determination regarding alcohol consumption in their own nation.

Indeed you are correct in your interpretation. As the first introductory clause states, this proposal understands the differences of opinions ranging in the united nations with regard to recreational drugs, and therefore allows for all these nations to put their own laws into practice. This is the idea behind "blocker" legislation, an idea strongly rooted in National Sovereignty within the united nations, a concept you can read about here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11565395&postcount=3).

OOC: Ah, I was wondering what "blockers" were.

This does not have my vote on the fact that it is overly broad and lacks clear definitions of recreational drug use and religious exception.

This does not have my vote on the fact that it is overly broad and lacks clear definitions of recreational drug use and religious exception.

1) What is broad about this definition? DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a “recreational drug” as a chemical substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary changes in perception, mood, consciousness and/or behavior;

2) The religious "exception" is not an exception. It is part of an "URGES" clause which asks nations to legalize drug use if it is not harmful to anyone but the user, especially if it's for religious/medicinal purposes. I feel that the term "religious" needs no real definition as 1) it is not part of the binding part of the proposal and therefore is extremely open to nations' interpretations and implementations, and 2) any real definition of "religion" will likely come up short anyhow.

Changes in bold.

The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the differences of opinions within member states regarding the legality of recreational drug use;

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a “recreational drug” as a chemical substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary or permanent changes in perception, mood, consciousness and/or behavior;

1) URGES UN member states to legalize the practice of individual consumption, cultivation, preparation, and possession of recreational drugs, given that these actions pose no threat of harm to any individual other than the user, especially for the following uses:

a. Religious, spiritual, philosophical or other related purposes;

b. Medicinal benefits, such as medicinal marijuana;

2) AFFIRMS the right of UN member states to determine their own laws with regard to the legality of any activity involving recreational drugs, including but not limited to the consumption, cultivation, preparation, possession, exchange, and distribution of recreational drugs by any individual or group of individuals, within their own jurisdiction;

3) STRONGLY URGES states to illegalize the practice of deceiving or coercing others into using drugs, except when administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorized individual;

4) REQUESTS that those states which allow responsible recreational drug use to 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;

5) URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the effects of recreational drug use, especially if such use is legal within the state, and that suppliers of said drugs are not allowed to make false claims about them.

1) What is broad about this definition? DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a “recreational drug” as a chemical substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary changes in perception, mood, consciousness and/or behavior;
It's pretty broad in that in addition to all of the usual "recreational" drugs and alcohol (which has already been discussed to death earlier in the thread), it would encompass caffeine, nicotine, morning glory seeds, ether, spray paint, gasoline, banana peels, model airplane glue, nitrous oxide and butyl nitrate. Plus many others. You might want to change it to something like chemical substance whose primarily purpose is to act upon the central nervous system....

That would still cover alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and probably butyl (and amyl) nitrate, but it would exclude other substance which can be abused but weren't designed to be.

Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
Special Advisor to The Foreign Minister on Trendy Chemical Amusement Aids

OOC: It'll be interesting to see how nations comply with the "permanant" aspect of this.

It would be great if you can add an ecouragement to efforts to modify and improve these “recreational drug” in order they be safer and they have fewer or lower side effects.

I mean pharma companies try to produce safer medical drug with fewer and lower side effects, I think the same has to apply to “recreational drug”.

No. Because there is no inalienable right to drink booze.

I never say that there must be laws always allowing alcohol, as I agree with alcohol regulation.

My point is that to declare a ban (or to justify a ban, as this proposal do) there is a need for a argument stronger than alcohol is not an inalienable right, so it can be banned.

You're throwing away an entire Proposal because one possible interpretation might let somebody else do something you don't much care for!

Yes I do.
As this proposal is mild anyway, what is the need for clause 2 about alcohol, apart from justifying the action of nations in NS having the same policy than Saudi-Arabia in RL about alcohol? Sorry, I coul change my mind on this matter but I fail to see an answer.

Maybe this proposal can classify "recreational drugs" in differents categories, in order to avoid to deal with them as if their dangers were the same.

Minyos fully supports the draft resolution in its entirety.

Yours in struggle,

Lars Ruski.

something like chemical substance whose primarily purpose is to act upon the central nervous system....

We agree with this suggested definition and are prepared to submit this for at least a test run as soon as tonight, given there are no longer objections, in this form:

The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the differences of opinions within member states regarding the legality of recreational drug use;

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a “recreational drug” as a chemical substance whose primarily purpose is to act upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary or permanent changes in perception, mood, consciousness and/or behavior;

1) URGES UN member states to legalize the practice of individual consumption, cultivation, preparation, and possession of recreational drugs, given that these actions pose no threat of harm to any individual other than the user, especially for the following uses:

a. Religious, spiritual, philosophical or other related purposes;

b. Medicinal benefits, such as medicinal marijuana;

2) AFFIRMS the right of UN member states to determine their own laws with regard to the legality of any activity involving recreational drugs, including but not limited to the consumption, cultivation, preparation, possession, exchange, and distribution of recreational drugs by any individual or group of individuals, within their own jurisdiction;

3) STRONGLY URGES states to illegalize the practice of deceiving or coercing others into using drugs, except when administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorized individual;

4) REQUESTS that those states which allow responsible recreational drug use to 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;

5) URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the effects of recreational drug use, especially if such use is legal within the state, and that suppliers of said drugs are not allowed to make false claims about them.

Excellent. You have our full support.

Benedictions,

We are slightly concerned about this part:

DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution, a “recreational drug” as a chemical substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary or permanent changes in perception, mood, consciousness and/or behavior;

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I apologize if I am bringing up old questions, but couldn't that portion apply to any drug "that acts primarily upon the central nervous system", not just drugs taken recreationally?

That's a minor quibble, though. We support this resolution and applaud its intent.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I apologize if I am bringing up old questions, but couldn't that portion apply to any drug "that acts primarily upon the central nervous system", not just drugs taken recreationally?Mmm, very good point. That would gather up most anti-psychotics, mood stabilizers, many sleeping agents... hell, a large number of drugs, and not just psychopharmalogicals, would be caught up in that definition.

I am glad to see I'm not the only one that has been having problems with the wording people use in some of the proposals...

OOC: In all seriousness, I did read this over. It seems to have no actual mandate, just a bunch of urging and requests. To me, it would make more sense if there were some kind of forcing, if only it were a single clause.Some of us like the idea of nations acting in good faith, and not being forced to comply.

Sadly however, good faith is an asset in short supply :p

Free drugs for EVERYONE!

Peace,
Diwali - the nation that is most down with the peepz of the Southern Deserts.