NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Drug Act

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

Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: Jey

Description: 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.

Approvals: 125

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

IC: All support our delegate, disobediance is sacralige.

This proposal has the full support of the Kingdom of Altanar, and if it passes, we'll offer up a nice big bunch of recreational drugs to share with people.

I'm entirely in favor of it, mostly because of clause 2, but the rest of it is well-done also.

Congratulations to the Jevian delegation. There are a couple of cases of tequila in my office with y'alls names on it.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Love and esterel would like to ask again a question that had not been answered in the drafting phase:

This proposal provides a definition. We hope that you will forgive me as I'm not sure about which drugs are indeed included in this definition. Thanks for the author or anyone who can help us.


That said love and esterel will sadly vote AGAINST this proposal because clause 2 "affirms" a blanket right to and justify the action of nations who ban alcohol for no reasons.

Even if we oppose we would like to congrats the author for the quorum and for clause 4 and 5.

Furthermore, as "recreational drugs" have many side effects, we fully regret the unwillingness of the author to answer to our suggestion about encouraging research to modify and improve the chemical substance of "recreational drugs" in order to decrease their side effects, as it is for health and medecine drugs.

This proposal provides a definition. We hope that you will forgive me as I'm not sure about which drugs are indeed included in this definition. Thanks for the author or anyone who can help us.

Where exactly does the uncertainty arrive? The definition is quite clear: a recreational drug is "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"

That said love and esterel will sadly vote AGAINST this proposal because clause 2 "affirms" a blanket right to and justify the action of nations who ban alcohol for no reasons.

We fail to see how alcohol, in any way, shape, or form, should be considered in a different light than any other recreational drug. Please explain why alcohol is so different, and apparently, an inalienable right.

Where exactly does the uncertainty arrive? The definition is quite clear: a recreational drug is "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"

The unanswered question which had been asked on the draft thread is which drugs ar included in your definition?
meths? cocaine? heroine?
Maybe the answer is clear for you. Sorry for that, but it's not clear for me, thanks if you can answer to me about this.

We fail to see how alcohol, in any way, shape, or form, should be considered in a different light than any other recreational drug. Please explain why alcohol is so different, and apparently, an inalienable right.
It seems to me that alcohol is the most used "recreational drug" for social purpose worlwide, I think it's a significant difference.

Furthermore, this is this proposal who affirms that alcohol can banned for no reason, why? Does the UN had to affirm that anything not inalienable can be banned with no reason?

Where exactly does the uncertainty arrive? The definition is quite clear: a recreational drug is "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"

The unanswered question which had been asked on the draft thread is which drugs ar included in your definition?
meths? cocaine? heroine?
Maybe the answer is clear for you. Sorry for that, but it's not clear for me, thanks if you can answer to me about this.

We fail to see how alcohol, in any way, shape, or form, should be considered in a different light than any other recreational drug. Please explain why alcohol is so different, and apparently, an inalienable right.
It seems to me that alcohol is the most used "recreational drug" for social purpose worlwide, I think it's a significant difference.

Furthermore, it's this proposal who affirms that alcohol can banned for no reason, why? Does the UN has to affirm that anything not inalienable can be banned with no reason?

The definition is quite clear: a recreational drug is "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"
Hmmm.

Sugar.
Caffeine.
Chocolate.
Tobacco.
Alcohol.
Pie.
Nutmeg.
Vicks Vapo-Rub (well, it's at least OTC)
Poppy-seed bagels (for me, at least)
Bacon.
Thaksgiving dinner.

I'm sure I could go on. You definition is quite broad. Excessively, IMHO.

Just as a spot of category-wank...is it possible that because this is filed under Recreational Drug Use, it automatically only applies to recreational drugs? Because, if it didn't, it would be a category violation. The UN can only consider drug-related affairs within this category: so in reverse, everything in this category must be drug-related.

Otherwise, I'd agree that this does seem to apply to more than would conventionally be thought of as a drug, and anyway to tobacco, alcohol and caffeine (and maybe sugar), though I don't think that doing so is of any great harm.

Just as a spot of category-wank...is it possible that because this is filed under Recreational Drug Use, it automatically only applies to recreational drugs?
Since this might be the first to pass in its category, it's up to this proposal to lay the groundwork on what is or isn't illegal. RL doesn't play a role, as what's illegal in the US might be legal in Sweden or The Netherlands or elsewhere. You might as well leave the definition blank.

In retrospect, I'd have probably specifically exempted those most popular and 'light' recreational drugs, specifically alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and sugar. No single resolution has to cover the entire category, and be exempting some of them, you leave the window open for future legislation that addresses those.

Hmmm.

Sugar.
Caffeine.
Chocolate.
Tobacco.
Alcohol.
Pie.
Nutmeg.
Vicks Vapo-Rub (well, it's at least OTC)
Poppy-seed bagels (for me, at least)
Bacon.
Thaksgiving dinner.

I'm sure I could go on. You definition is quite broad. Excessively, IMHO.

Sheik Nadnerb lifts his face up from a pie, his face covered in cherry filling.

Not my pie!!!

OOC: Like Fris, I, too, think the definition is far too broad. That said, though, it doesn't really do anything at all (save a whole lot of urging and such), with the exception of Clause 2, which I like very much.

I'm leaning towards thinking that this resolution, not just the definition, is far too broad. For example, would this resolution contradict UN Counterterrorism Initiative, in that as long as the terrorists used beer as a liquid to detonate their suicide bomb, this says nations wouldn't have to criminalize it? There are numerous other examples.

I'm leaning towards thinking that this resolution, not just the definition, is far too broad. For example, would this resolution contradict UN Counterterrorism Initiative, in that as long as the terrorists used beer as a liquid to detonate their suicide bomb, this says nations wouldn't have to criminalize it? There are numerous other examples.

OOC: No offense, mate, but what the hell are you smoking? And why aren't you sharing it with the rest of us?

OOC: No offense, mate, but what the hell are you smoking? And why aren't you sharing it with the rest of us?

OOC: I'm beginning to think that Ceo found Shiek Larebil's private stash.;)

I think the definition is way way way too broad. On top of that I oppose it on national sovereignty grounds. What my people sniff, smoke, or shoot up is none of the UN's business...rather thats the business of the Police as almost all of that crap is illegal in my country and if you are caught purchasing, possessing, selling or manufacturing

Cocaine (without medical license), Opiates (without a medical license), Methamphetamines, LSD, MD-MA, pseudo-Opiates (Without a Medical License), and other forms and substances that may in the future be developed and banned or otherwise controlled.

Carry a sentence of 25 years hard labor.

All of the substances which are not given medical license exemptions in our national law to our knowlege of medicine provide no benefit what-so-ever to the patient, and do cause great harm to our society from addiction and the crime resulting from addiction. Add to that the accidents, absenteeism, and other less overtly criminal side-effects of drugs use.


V. Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

On top of that I oppose it on national sovereignty grounds. What my people sniff, smoke, or shoot up is none of the UN's business...rather thats the business of the Police as almost all of that crap is illegal in my country

With all due respect to the honorable Elleltian Ambassador, this proposal is not a national sovereignty attack. The following clause confirms that:

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

On top of that I oppose it on national sovereignty grounds. What my people sniff, smoke, or shoot up is none of the UN's business...rather thats the business of the Police as almost all of that crap is illegal in my country and if you are caught purchasing, possessing, selling or manufacturing

Your misinterpretation of my proposal is precisely why I included the poll option

"No, I think this proposal actually legalizes and/or bans drugs".

The whole point of the UN Drug Act is to establish a compromise which gives each nation the right to control laws regarding recreational drugs, as Altanar pointed out.

"Hola Amigos", says UN Ambassador of Havvy, Dr. Sizofren. Long time no see UN. I just got back from my extended break from some nation that speaks Spanish. Let's see, this proposal will be up for vote soon? Well, from what I can tell, it's way to broad as others have said. I will have to vote against it, and persuade my region that it could create bans on Sugar! Sugar is Havvy's main import, and by eliminating sugar, you kill off our tariffs and destroy the ability for us to get enough taxes.

We vote AGIANST anything like this. A smaller more contained resolution would be fine though.

I'm leaning towards thinking that this resolution, not just the definition, is far too broad. For example, would this resolution contradict UN Counterterrorism Initiative, in that as long as the terrorists used beer as a liquid to detonate their suicide bomb, this says nations wouldn't have to criminalize it? There are numerous other examples.
You're forgetting the "primarily [sic] purpose" qualifier in the definition. The primary purpose of a suicide bomb wouldn't be to act upon the user's CNS - it would be to blow up.

You're forgetting the "primarily [sic] purpose" qualifier in the definition. The primary purpose of a suicide bomb wouldn't be to act upon the user's CNS - it would be to blow up.

No, I'm not saying that the bomb is a drug - I'm saying that the beer is a drug (regardless of individual circumstances, alcohol's primary purpose is to affect the CNS), and that since blowing up the bomb would involve beer, it would be covered by this resolution.

No, I'm not saying that the bomb is a drug - I'm saying that the beer is a drug (regardless of individual circumstances, alcohol's primary purpose is to affect the CNS), and that since blowing up the bomb would involve beer, it would be covered by this resolution.
I don't think it's going to do me much to reply to this. I would really plead with you to reconsider this "what's the single most absurd thing I can say?" trip you're on, and start saying things that make the vaguest degree of sense.

*shrug* I just think that clause is too broad. I mean, there are tons of activities "involving recreational drugs" that shouldn't be covered by this:


FSA: It could act as a second FSA. If FSA was repealed, nations would still have the guaranteed right to kill criminals through forced ingestion of large quantities of alcohol.
UNCTI: It guarantees the right of nations to allow people to plan terrorist plots at a wine-tasting event.
FFRA: Nations could say that companies can use as much fossil fuel as they want, as long as the operator is always smoking.
CPP: Nations can say child porn is allowed, as long as the baby's on meth.


Some of the examples are a bit extreme, but the point is that you can involve recreational drugs in just about any activity.

I find a lot of clauses in this resolution to be problamatic:

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;

First of all I've never heard of any mainstream religion actually encouraging uses of substances. Other than Satanism maybe. Secondly why on that basis? I mean if a religion thinks human sacrafices are good we should allow that too?

given that these actions pose no threat of harm to any individual other than the user


That simply just does not happen. Almost every drug has a radius consequence. Tobbaco second hand smoke can give a non-smoker lung cancer, now let's up that to PCP, Meth, Ecstacy, all capable of causing violent behavior. Okay say they don't smoke it, doesn't mean there's no danger, people move into drug labs converted to homes and still get sick, years later. Not only that, regardless of how the drug is taken, there is still the long term effects on family life. If a mother or father becomes dependent or locked in a hallucination and stops taking care of his/her children, what then, treatment? Suppose he/she refuses treatment, they have a right to do that on the basis of this resolution.

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;


There is no such thing, there is simply no such thing as 'responsible' drug use. Maybe alchol even though many of us would beg to differ, it is assumed that drinking can be responsible, so we'll say it is. But drugs are far more powerful than a simple swig of whiskey, Angel Dust if far stronger than simple Nyquill an OTC which I'm sure is also widley abused. Thoes nations that want to legalize by my guest, the only thing I see fitting is the fact you give us the option to chose if we want or don't want these drugs.

First of all I've never heard of any mainstream religion actually encouraging uses of substances.

Since alcohol is considered a drug by this, Christianity (those factions that support communion) would be a prime example. ;)

*Gets out the popcorn and soda. This will be a good debate.*

UN Ambassador
Dr. Sizofren

"Anyone want to join?"

First of all I've never heard of any mainstream religion actually encouraging uses of substances. Other than Satanism maybe.

See here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Religious_and_spiritual_use) Regardless of whether or not you shrug this information off because it is heavily based on historical use and isn't rooted in "mainstream" religions, please accept the fact that this proposal does not legalize drug use, and rather only "URGES" nations to do what is described in clause 1.


That simply just does not happen. Almost every drug has a radius consequence....Suppose he/she refuses treatment, they have a right to do that on the basis of this resolution.

First off, let me address that last sentence with a great big :confused: . The only mandated thing in this proposal is the right of nations to control recreational drug legalization, nothing to do with individual rights to refuse treatment of anything. Secondly, if you feel that "every drug has a radius consequence" then this proposal will allow you to outlaw those drugs if you feel the need to do so for their "radius consequences".

There is no such thing, there is simply no such thing as 'responsible' drug use. Maybe alchol even though many of us would beg to differ, it is assumed that drinking can be responsible, so we'll say it is. But drugs are far more powerful than a simple swig of whiskey, Angel Dust if far stronger than simple Nyquill an OTC which I'm sure is also widley abused.

1) If you feel there is no such thing as "responsible" drug use, then you can outlaw it.
2) Another person asserting that alcohol, a drug, should be dealt with in a different way than every single other drug. One question: why?

the only thing I see fitting is the fact you give us the option to chose if we want or don't want these drugs.

Well that's good! As, that's the only thing that this proposal completely mandates.

I think the definition is way way way too broad. On top of that I oppose it on national sovereignty grounds. What my people sniff, smoke, or shoot up is none of the UN's business...rather thats the business of the Police as almost all of that crap is illegal in my country and if you are caught purchasing, possessing, selling or manufacturing


The representative should really try reading resolutions with a view towards understanding them. There are NO "national sovereignty grounds" for opposing this resolution. Period.

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;

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The representative should really try reading resolutions with a view towards understanding them. There are NO "national sovereignty grounds" for opposing this resolution. Period.

OOC: Yes there are. You could say:

Mynation believes that it, as a sovereign nation, has the right to submit any UN proposals it wants, within the limits set by the gnomes. Therefore, blockers violate my sovereignty. :p

OOC: Yes there are. You could say:

Mynation believes that it, as a sovereign nation, has the right to submit any UN proposals it wants, within the limits set by the gnomes. Therefore, blockers violate my sovereignty. :p

Ambassador Ahlmann picks up the mince pie she had earlier considered throwing at Sheik bin Cluich and hurls it at the representative of Ceorana. :p

Your misinterpretation of my proposal is precisely why I included the poll option

"No, I think this proposal actually legalizes and/or bans drugs".

The whole point of the UN Drug Act is to establish a compromise which gives each nation the right to control laws regarding recreational drugs, as Altanar pointed out.

Nations already have the right to ban or legalize drugs, we don't need a resolution to tell us we have this right!

In my nation's case we chose to punish users of drugs (unless prescribed said drug by a medical doctor, or naturopathic doctor) other than Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, and "magic" mushrooms (which are quite popular with one of our tribal populations in Ziberia) as these drugs have proved to be detrimental to society, the individual and provide no medical benefit.

Urging to legalize is indeed doing something. There is no compromise on the matter either we are urged or we are not urged. Ellelt will not be dictated to as pertains its "entertainment".

We have never told anyone to not take drugs in their homelands have we? No. Nor have we tried to interferer with their drugs laws. However, should someone from a foreign nation wish to come to Ellelt and smoke their crack they better be prepared to spend the next 25 years in a nice and restful coal mine.

Arguments that all drugs are the same are not true either. Each and every drug has a radius of effect as has been said before in this very thread. In the case of Alcohol the main results are stupid behavior, slurred speech and sometimes arrest if you drive while drunk. With Marijuana it is eating junk food and watching bad television/cinematic programming. With tobacco is it irritability when one is having a nic-fit. With our "magic" mushrooms its the staring into space for hours on end and/or claiming you understand the works of Picasso or Salvador Dali.

The radius of effects of other drugs are not so limited to the individual. The radius of crack cocaine for example reaches into the entire community. The sharing of heroin needles results in increases of HIV infections which naturally effects the entire health care system.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Nations already have the right to ban or legalize drugs, we don't need a resolution to tell us we have this right!
And you don't need one to take it away. This kind of proposal is called a "blocker": it prevents anything less sovereignty friendly from passing. This kind of proposal was considered by four other members of the National Sovereignty Organization, and this proposal started life there too. No, the UN hasn't shown any great inclination to pass a resolution on drugs: but why give it the chance?

UNCTI: It guarantees the right of nations to allow people to plan terrorist plots at a wine-tasting event.
FFRA: Nations could say that companies can use as much fossil fuel as they want, as long as the operator is always smoking.
CPP: Nations can say child porn is allowed, as long as the baby's on meth.
[/LIST]


As absurd as it may sound these three reasons illustrated by Ceorana point out exactly why this bill should not pass.

I would rather be able to arrest terrorists or counter-revolutionaries (in our case) wherever they happen to be.

Since Ellelt doesn't use as much fossil fuels as it used to as we are rapidly converting our transport system to use recycled frying oils, our factories and power stations still rely on coal. Are we then to circumvent the mandated carbon emissions reductions by giving every plant manager a sniff of snuff twice per hour?

And As far as child porn goes...that stuff is so sick that those perverts should be arrested, tried and executed regardless of if they or the victim were smoking crystal meth or not.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

And you don't need one to take it away. This kind of proposal is called a "blocker": it prevents anything less sovereignty friendly from passing. This kind of proposal was considered by four other members of the National Sovereignty Organization, and this proposal started life there too. No, the UN hasn't shown any great inclination to pass a resolution on drugs: but why give it the chance?

Gruen,

The perhaps the NSO should officially endorse this.

I will resubmit the resolution to the Department of Interpretation of International Law, in the Ministry of Justice.

And I would like to hear arguments from other pro-sovereignty governments as to why this is not a trampling on the Sovereignty of the various nations.

Ellelt may yet change its mind on this bill if we can hear convincing argument, but the politburo is against UN meddling of any sort as regards drugs laws.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

The NSO doesn't endorse proposals, so far as I can remember. Sometimes there are proposals that come from the NSO - Nuclear Armaments, for example - and sometimes there are proposals most of its members vocally support - Meteorological Cooperation being one notable case - but I don't think we generally add a "stamp of approval" or the like. Other members correct me if I'm wrong; in any case, in such an obvious case, we shouldn't really need to.

*shrug* I just think that clause is too broad. I mean, there are tons of activities "involving recreational drugs" that shouldn't be covered by this:

*snip*
UNCTI: It guarantees the right of nations to allow people to plan terrorist plots at a wine-tasting event.
*snip*


Alright, look. Just stop. As the author of the UN Counterterrorism Initiative, I implore you to cease and desist in your efforts to pretend that this proposal would allow its circumvention. Beer in a bomb? Terrorist plots over a nice merlot? Methinks the representative from Ceorana has already been dipping into some recreational drugs. There is no way that this proposal contradicts the UNCTI. Your ridiculous scenarios simply don't hold water.

Ambassador Ahlmann picks up the mince pie she had earlier considered throwing at Sheik bin Cluich and hurls it at the representative of Ceorana. :p

Hey! I wanted that pie!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The NSO doesn't endorse proposals, so far as I can remember. Sometimes there are proposals that come from the NSO - Nuclear Armaments, for example - and sometimes there are proposals most of its members vocally support - Meteorological Cooperation being one notable case - but I don't think we generally add a "stamp of approval" or the like. Other members correct me if I'm wrong; in any case, in such an obvious case, we shouldn't really need to.

OOC: I believe you're correct. I don't recall the NSO ever publicly coming out and saying it supports a particular proposal. We have, on several occasions in our discussions on our offsite forum (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg), had a majority of active members support a particular proposal, but I don't think we've ever slapped an "NSO Seal of Approval" on anything -- at least, not since I've been a member there, which has been over a year now.

In my nation's case we chose to punish users of drugs (unless prescribed said drug by a medical doctor, or naturopathic doctor) other than Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, and "magic" mushrooms (which are quite popular with one of our tribal populations in Ziberia) as these drugs have proved to be detrimental to society, the individual and provide no medical benefit.OOC:You think that Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, and "magic" mushrooms are benficial to society? You have obviously not seen a hen night in Newcastle then.

IC: Hirota is inclined to support. It protects personal usage, yet still gives nations the chance to deal with the real issue - the organised trade in illict drugs.

Hey! I wanted that pie!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Seence-a yuoo deedn't get thet peee-a here-a yuoo gu, oone-a peee-a fur zee Clooeechistuni gooy frum zee Fleebbleite-a delegeshun. Bork Bork Bork!

Sven
Bob Flibble's personal chef

Seence-a yuoo deedn't get thet peee-a here-a yuoo gu, oone-a peee-a fur zee Clooeechistuni gooy frum zee Fleebbleite-a delegeshun. Bork Bork Bork!

Sven
Bob Flibble's personal chef

OOC: That is quite possibly the funniest thing you've ever posted, Flib. My belly hurts. :D

OOC: That is quite possibly the funniest thing you've ever posted, Flib. My belly hurts. :D

OOC: You have no idea how long I've been waiting for a chance to use that character. I got the idea when I found the Bork Bork Bork! plugin for Firefox, and I finally got an opportunity to use it.

OOC: You have no idea how long I've been waiting for a chance to use that character. I got the idea when I found the Bork Bork Bork! plugin for Firefox, and I finally got an opportunity to use it.

OOC: You can just use this (http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~jbc/home/chef.html). No need for the plug-in. ;)

The perhaps the NSO should officially endorse this.

To the best of my knowledge, the NSO has never officially endorsed a proposal. The subject has been discussed several times, but the idea has been rejected. The NSO has members with widely varying views on the issue of national sovereignty and on specific pieces of legislation.

And I would like to hear arguments from other pro-sovereignty governments as to why this is not a trampling on the Sovereignty of the various nations.

Ellelt may yet change its mind on this bill if we can hear convincing argument, but the politburo is against UN meddling of any sort as regards drugs laws.

Why should people provide you with arguments? The text of the proposal is clear to anyone who bothers to read it with any attempt at understanding. Your attention has been directed to clause 2. The effect of that clause has been explained to you. We think that should suffice for anyone who actually cares to understand the issue.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

No we do not consider Alcohol or "magic" mushrooms to be necessarily beneficial to society, we do feel that their detriment is out weighed by the expense it would take to control. "magic" mushrooms as they are used by a remote tribe mainly are rarely encountered by our population out side of the eastern most areas of Ziberia. As far as Alcohol goes it is a matter of culture, like the mythical French culture is unthinkable without wine, Elleltian culture is unthinkable without vodka. Tobacco and Marijuana have yet to prove to have any detrimental effect on society especially when the vast majority of Elleltians use a nasal snuff rather than smoking the tobacco. The worst side effect of the nasal snuff is having to have a handkerchief which has brown stains on it.

VK

With a plainly irritated look on his face, the Altanari ambassador stands up to speak.

We are starting to think that a UN resolution aimed at banning recreational drug use in certain countries only might be beneficial, based on some of the arguments we've seen in this debate. Some of our esteemed colleagues have plainly been hitting their stashes a bit too hard.

This proposal does not force you to do anything, nor is it any kind of attack on national sovereignty. It affirms the eminently desirable right of nations to address drug use in their nations as they desire. And the argument that this resolution is somehow linked to other resolutions already passed, or to terrorism, is nothing more to us than evidence that if you plan to take drugs recreationally, don't buy the cheap ones.....they really do a number on you, apparently.

I have just revcived a telegram from the Department for the Interpretation of International Law saying that this will not effect our laws currently unless we change them and the Politburo has approved a favorable vote for this resolution.

Wow, it's only in queue, and people are already starting a tough road for this resolution. As I said before, the nation of Havvy shall vote against this resolution thinking that blockers are only detrimental to the ability of the UN.

The Nation of Havvy likes to see 'real' resolutions getting a fair chance at things. That is why I'd like to see more good resolution, and a repeal the 'do-nothing' resolutions that aren't really blockers at this time. Unfortunately, we have little we can do about it.

Oh, and drugs need to be chosen by the nation. I don't like any resolution on it, as none of them are really useful. Maybe a way to stop illegal drug trafficking would be better.

Oh well, I digress. Carry on with your arguments ahem* debates. I had a piece of popcorn in my mouth.

UN Ambassador
Dr. Sizofren

As I said before, the nation of Havvy shall vote against this resolution thinking that blockers are only detrimental to the ability of the UN.

The Nation of Havvy likes to see 'real' resolutions getting a fair chance at things. That is why I'd like to see more good resolution, and a repeal the 'do-nothing' resolutions that aren't really blockers at this time. Unfortunately, we have little we can do about it.

This is true, since you can't write proposals yourself....or repeals....oh wait! You could! You just choose not to, and would apparently rather carp about "blockers" and such. Beyond such piddle, does your delegation have a substantive reason for opposing this proposal?

Well, as a reason stated before, it is was too broad a definition. Almost any element can be considered a drug in that way.

Also, I am sorry for my rant. I just haven't had one in such awhile.

UN Ambassador
Dr. Sizofren

(Notice that everything that has that seal 2-3 lines above means that it's IC)

And you don't need one to take it away. This kind of proposal is called a "blocker": it prevents anything less sovereignty friendly from passing. This kind of proposal was considered by four other members of the National Sovereignty Organization, and this proposal started life there too. No, the UN hasn't shown any great inclination to pass a resolution on drugs: but why give it the chance?

In accordance with long-standing Goobergunchian policy, I will be voting against this resolution for precisely this reason. If the UN wishes to pass a resolution on drugs and this resolution passes, it will simply have to pass two resolutions instead of one. I see no benefit to the United Nations passing three resolutions to accomplish a goal that may be achieved through only one resolution. Meanwhile, if the UN does not wish to pass a resolution on drugs, there is no point to this resolution, so nothing is achieved by its passage.

I also remind the representative from Altanar that one nation does not have the power to bring a resolution to the floor.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Author, "Outlaw Pedophilia"

I also remind the representative from Altanar that one nation does not have the power to bring a resolution to the floor.

OOC: Glad to see I'm not the only one who has that pet peeve. ;)

The Nation of Havvy likes to see 'real' resolutions getting a fair chance at things. That is why I'd like to see more good resolution, and a repeal the 'do-nothing' resolutions that aren't really blockers at this time. Unfortunately, we have little we can do about it.

There is a great deal that can be done about it. There are works underway by many to try to "do something". Some of them make it to vote, some don't. That's the way of it sometimes. Besides that, blockers do "do something". They block.

Oh, and drugs need to be chosen by the nation.

Pretty handy that this would let them do that, then, eh?

I don't like any resolution on it, as none of them are really useful.

Then you should love something like this that would prevent future legislation in the area.

Maybe a way to stop illegal drug trafficking would be better.

This would not stand in the way of something like that. Begin drafting. We would be more than happy to help with it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a resolution that would target illegal international smuggling of contraband items of any nature would be a fantastic idea. IntSec, Significant, something that requests or requires international cooperation regarding cracking down on smugglers, drug runners, etc. There's a good chance somebody's already working on one, for that matter.

The Nation of Havvy likes to see 'real' resolutions getting a fair chance at things. That is why I'd like to see more good resolution, and a repeal the 'do-nothing' resolutions that aren't really blockers at this time. Unfortunately, we have little we can do about it.

UN Ambassador
Dr. Sizofren

We're afraid that Dr. Sizofren has just pushed one of our buttons. The only thing that's keeping him from "doing something" is his own self-limiting attitude. If he believes that all he can do is complain, he's right. But every member of the NSUN has many opportunities to contribute to the passage of "real" resolutions if they choose to do it.

Has the doctor ever drafted a proposal? Has he ever volunteered to help with a TG campaign for one he favored? Has he ever posted an idea for a proposal for someone else to draft (if he feels he can't do it himself)? Has he made sure his delegate knows he wants an approval added to a proposal he supports? Has he ever visited any of the several off-site forums where people work on proposals and contributed his ideas and suggestions?

If he's done this sort of thing, fine. If not, we have no time to listen to his complaints. It's really easy to complain; it takes some effort to make a difference.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

In accordance with long-standing Goobergunchian policy, I will be voting against this resolution for precisely this reason. If the UN wishes to pass a resolution on drugs and this resolution passes, it will simply have to pass two resolutions instead of one. I see no benefit to the United Nations passing three resolutions to accomplish a goal that may be achieved through only one resolution. Meanwhile, if the UN does not wish to pass a resolution on drugs, there is no point to this resolution, so nothing is achieved by its passage.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Author, "Outlaw Pedophilia"

We're afraid we must disagree with the distinguished senior representative of Goobergunchia. Our nation has no such policy on blanket support or opposition to any type of proposal, blocker or otherwise. We try very hard to take each proposal on its own merits, without applying any sort of overarching "rule".

In the case of blockers, we believe that they can serve a useful purpose in making it less likely that this Assembly will have its time wasted by deliberation on worthless legislation. In the case of each blocker proposal, we try to assess the likelihood that sound, meaningful legislation might be proposed. If we think that's highly unlikely, we consider supporting the blocker. If we see a reasonably possibility that good legislation might be blocked, we will most likely oppose the blocker. Of course, every case is a judgment call. We try to make that judgment carefully, weighing the probabilities as best we can.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

It seems this discussion has ran out ahead of us: After reviewing the queued proposal, we, the family-oriented government of Matianus, cannot find substansial reason for or against this resolution. Quite frankly, my own initial feelings tell me to vote against for no other reason than because it is a lot of words that seems to accomplish very little. That was later counter-argued by my reasoning through the proposal.

Forgiving the broad definition of "Recreational drugs", we do find merit in the proposal's attempt to limit the ability of future proposals--seen quite clearly in Clause 2, where it provides a written right of nations to decide whether or not to legalize these troublesome drugs. We also recognize that nations who do not wish to legalize the use of these mind-altering chemicals do not need to pay much attention to most of the other clauses of the resolution--those being written for nations who do.

The problems that I do have with the resolution likely come from its likely audience: Nations who have or will legalize the use of recreational drugs. Because most of the proposal (in fact, all but Clause 2) is written for the above audience, nations who will not be legalizing the use of such drugs (such as ourselves at this moment) are left with a small feeling of alienation. Still, that is not enough of a reason to vote against it, despite the (perhaps) paranoid feelings of one-sidedness that this proposal implies within the UN.

Outside of this proposed resolution, Matianus strongly supports anything that limits the powers of the UN as an attempted world government (if world means about 29% these days). Because of our own indecisiveness on the issue, we are quite anxiously looking at this proposal's debate. The arguments presented against it thus far have been--well, they have attempted to blow key phrases out of proportion. Despite this, we hope to see an active dialogue between nations.

In hopes of promoting such discussion, I will pose what I see to be a key question as both a freshman ambassador and one of newer nation:

Is there a serious likelihood that a resolution could pass--assuming this proposal's non-existence--that alienates the right that would be affirmed by Clause 2? If so, how does the responsibility of the proposal not fall on the regional delegates who supported it into queuing?

Thank you.
-Fraj' Doodle Al' Mutin
Brother to the--err--emperor?

The Most Serene Republic of Gretpr needs some clarification on this resolution. We do not support the use of recreational drugs, and we further believe there are alternative medical treatments besides those considered "recreational drugs" in this resolution. Does Clause 1 require us to still allow these drugs open for medical use, even if they are illegal and we can provide an alternative method? If Gretpr is going to be forced to use a new source of "medicine" when it has an alternative, we must vote against this resolution. Gretpr supports all but Clause 1 of this resolution.

The Most Serene Republic of Gretpr needs some clarification on this resolution. We do not support the use of recreational drugs, and we further believe there are alternative medical treatments besides those considered "recreational drugs" in this resolution. Does Clause 1 require us to still allow these drugs open for medical use, even if they are illegal and we can provide an alternative method? If Gretpr is going to be forced to use a new source of "medicine" when it has an alternative, we must vote against this resolution. Gretpr supports all but Clause 1 of this resolution.

Clause 1 of this resolution is a non-binding request by the United Nations to its member states. It does not require your nation to do anything.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Author, "Outlaw Pedophilia"

Is there a serious likelihood that a resolution could pass--assuming this proposal's non-existence--that alienates the right that would be affirmed by Clause 2?

Likelihood or not--as there has only been one other proposal ever voted on in this category, so this is not seen as an extremely pressing issue--the possibility exists of proposals being passed which impose a blanket ban or legalization of recreational drugs on all of the UN. This proposal hopes to prevent or "block" this possibility.

Does Clause 1 require us to still allow these drugs open for medical use, even if they are illegal and we can provide an alternative method?

No. "URGES" is not "MANDATES". Your nation is urged to allow drugs in these areas, however your nation may still exercise its national sovereignty in these cases. Clause 2 affirms this.

The Holy Empire of Anchova, although not entirely sure why, is officially declaring this a "damn fine bill".

bill. haha. funny word. anybody have some chips?

This is a divisive issue in Sirat. Currently, recreational drugs are illegal in Sirat, and the leadership wants it to stay that way. But, many citizens indulge, especially when outside the country. *takes a drink from bottle* I am undecided on how to vote for this blocker.

I hate blockers, even though I did write one, but feel this is one of the few subjects that does need one. There are no international or human rights concerns with this subject, so I agree that recreational drug laws need to be something kept at the national level.

While a lot of the language in this resolution is sympathetic to the legalisation of all recreational drugs, none of that is binding, and this legislation will protect our nation's right to decide our own drug laws in the best interest of our nation and its people, and allow all other UN nations to do the same. Waterana has mixed recreational drug laws, meaning some are legal, and some aren't, so either a blanket ban or legalisation proposal passing would negatively affect us.

Waterana has voted for, and we have our fingers crossed that it passes.

I've always thought I would support a blocker on this issue, as long as it wasn't more than a blocker. And this is a very good proposal. Nice little "urges" and all, and a good clause two. Very nice, very nice...

Oh, yes. We support, of course.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We support this resolution.

Benedictions,

I can't tell whether this resolution is letting us be able to choose our own laws about recreational drugs or just legalizing them in general.

I'm all for the medical purposes of marijuana, and it could definitely be a lifesaving drug, but I don't like people melting their minds with it just because it makes them high.

I'm all for the medical purposes of marijuana, and it could definitely be a lifesaving drug, but I don't like people melting their minds with it just because it makes them high.

You would've loved Sheik Larebil then...

Too bad I killed him (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11881792&postcount=48).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Umbar Tutian tribal chiefs , shamen and witch doctors as well as the official sociology and ethics department have some information that many can use as a guideline when voting the resolution. It is proven by many different social science researchers that drugs as opioids and CNS affecting substances offer far less dangerous effects ans sideffects than most legal perscription drugs.Anti - depressants and analgetics deriving from benzodiazepamine produce the same effect as cocaine while addiction is more certain and heavier than opioids. The real issue is the social effects. Through banning we make drugs more difficult to find for the drug addicts/users. Thus making them prone to deviant behavior. The drugs are sold in blackmarket for a small fortune , boosting capitalism , when their true price is a bit higher than oregano.Or parsley.If we legalise the so-called drugs we avoid these effects:

Crime:Addicts/Users no longer need to result to crime to fund their addiction/need.

Social Degrading :Above mentioned group keep their self esteem and quality of life intact while they purchase drugs like cigarettes or whisky.

Uncontrolled Economy: Drug dealers now become taxed and controlled by the goverment for distributing a product leading to a richer economy

Safety:With drugs legal the eduacational system can inform and educate the people for the benefits/harms of each drug without being a taboo for modern education.

Science:With free use of drugs science is free to test beneficial substances to volunteers / current drug addicts/users for the purose of research.

Freedom: It is after all a citizen's choice to do whatever he likes to do with his body and mind.


Therefor the People's Republic of Umbar Tutu votes AGAINST the resolution.I dont like Jey!

Just joking we vote FOR!

OK, first time poster for UN, things i'd like to point out.

1) What religion asks you to smoke some marajuana or a joint or whatever???*wedding- I now pornounce you man and wife...you may smoke the joint*
2) The Definition in the act is WAY too broad...things like sugar...caffine all follow that definition...therefore they are drugs? MAN ive been a drug addict for QUITE some time.

Anyone who can convince me with a reasonable argument, props to you.

Welcome to the UNDEFINES 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;Okay, so if we accept that sugar and caffine are included....Since individual consumption is permitted, what is the problem?

The only issue you should have is if you had sugar outlawed in your nation. If this passes, you would have to make personal consumption legal.

Other sources - such as production, selling etc are national matters. So you could still jail all those nasty sugar dealers if you really wanted and liked to have crap ice cream.1) What religion asks you to smoke some marajuana or a joint or whatever???*wedding- I now pornounce you man and wife...you may smoke the joint*Welcome to NS - trust me, there are nations out there who would not suprise me if this was the case.

Hirota-
If i were to approve of this proposal...than is that not sayin something like this would happen- on a DAILY basis-
"yo mom im gonna go out and have a joint...maybe smoke some pot...ill be back at about ten"
"Ok Timmy just be sure your back in time for your 5th birthday party"

and props to you...almost had me convinced there

So wat your saying about the 2nd comment (1st post) is that unless sugar is an already banned product in the Armed republic of Emense stupidity, than i should have no problem and really it is an arguement made for those who approve of this act?

Likelihood or not--as there has only been one other proposal ever voted on in this category, so this is not seen as an extremely pressing issue--the possibility exists of proposals being passed which impose a blanket ban or legalization of recreational drugs on all of the UN....
So you are saying that you don't see much of a likelihood in such a situation ever surfacing, but this proposal is aimed at stamping out the radical druggies or anti-druggies that wouldn't care enough to submit a proposal anyway.

I can see a point to that.

1) What religion asks you to smoke some marajuana or a joint or whatever?This point has already been brought up. And covered. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12081544&postcount=25) Twice. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12082151&postcount=27) Yet I will attempt to bring another, slightly more visable concept to mind. Certain native Tribes of America often prefer the use of various smokes in hopes of obtaining "Spiritual Enlightenment." Many famous people formerly of my own country have left and become such smokers of enlightenment shit, but--as they are currently outside of our jurisdiction--it no longer concerns us in Matianus.

The Definition in the act is WAY too broad(;)things like sugar (and) caffine all follow that definition.... MAN ive been a drug addict for QUITE some time.Yes, you have--in Matianus' view. However, in your own country's view, maybe certain recreational drugs are already legal, such as this "caffiene" (though I will contest the sugar--its primary purpose is to provide energy to the body so that it may exist, therefore its primary purpose would not be altering the mind).

I can't tell whether this resolution is letting us be able to choose our own laws about recreational drugs or just legalizing them in general.Admittedly, this is a struggle that I had as well. However, after review, it is clear to me that--through all of the seemingly pointless urging, requesting and supporting--this proposal will only be acting through Clause 2. The rest of the proposal feels written as though to gain support from pro-recreational drug countries, and for that I still am withholding of my vote.

I think most mothers are intelligent enough to know how to discipline their own children. If your cultural values permit 5 year olds to smoke pot, then fair enough. Hirota's age of majority is 16.

Secondly, where does this legislation say anything about 5 year olds being allowed to leave the house unattended?

As for the second point..... yes, that's my view on the matter. Others might have different views and hopefully would be eager to express them on here.

Fraj' Doodle stares off in the distance after losing his long-windedly written papers.

Err, umm--what? Since when do wind currents come inside of a building?

Ahem, anyway. My response to my esteemed colleagues of Jey and Emense Stupidity were better written in another draft, but the wind has--that still doesn't make sense. If any of you could catch those papers for me, that'd be great.

-Fraj' Doodle Al' Mutin
Ambassador, Big Brother, and Military Head of Matianus.

Good answer, matianus, good answer.
you have convinced me.....VOTE CHANGING TIME!!!!


Oh and...hahahaha...wind inside an office.....it would be funnier if you were in a windowless cubicle.....=P

but still...the definition i believe is STILL way too broad.....even if sugar isn't a drug.=P

and dontrt corrrrekt mi grmmar ;)

last thing...doesn't the wink look more like a lump of fat or something hanging over his eye??;)<---FATT

(A)nd dontrt corrrrekt mi grmmarSorry about that, ol' chum. It's just that I see things through a certain lense and, in more confusing instances, I like to show how I'm reading things. How better to show that than by editing people's occasionally erroneous grammar to show (not tell) exactly how I read something? No offense intended, I just like to pervert all things to become what I see.

And the wink is--indeed-- a hot, phatt, sexy monster that I would rather not exist.

I stand against this. If it's meant to be a compromise, it hasn't worked. For one, a compromise is a bad idea. Secondly, it's gone too far towards legalising recreational drugs. Not a good idea. The masses cannot be trusted to make the right choices and not harm others. Liberties are over rated. Vote against this, and don't give people the option of wrecking themselves, others and their countries.

I stand against this. If it's meant to be a compromise, it hasn't worked. For one, a compromise is a bad idea.

Please explain why it doesn't work or why compromise is a bad idea. Unsupported rhetoric is like music without notes.

Secondly, it's gone too far towards legalising recreational drugs. Not a good idea.

Again, why?

The masses cannot be trusted to make the right choices and not harm others.

Speak for your masses....ours are perfectly capable of doing so.

Liberties are over rated.

I can't tell if you're joking or not.....if not, your opinion is appalling.

Vote against this, and don't give people the option of wrecking themselves, others and their countries.

Don't give people the option? By any right, they already have the option. It's called freedom. If you don't like it, fine, but don't expect other nations or their peoples to blindly follow your lockstep ignorance.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

My first post in the UN..... I just want to say that I am for this and will be happy to help anyone get their new pot farms off the ground. LOL:p

Hello All,

This is Crivvensland's first time speaking in the UN, and hence please forgive any lapses in etiquette. But to the meat of the matter.

Firstly, We must commend the People's Republic of Umbar Tutu, for their coherent and common sense approach. We feel that that post expressed The People's Republic of Crivvensland's opinion most eloquently, and so we as a nation have nothing to add. Furthermore, Crivvensland requests that post-debate, Umbar Tutu might consider opening a legation in our wonderful land, as a first step towards strengthening relations.

Whilst supporting the resolution as a whole, we particularly would like to underline and draw attention to the medicinal benefits of marijuana. His Excellency, Our Glorious Leader is disabled and uses various preparations for pain alleviation. Which is why upon his succeeding to The Palace of The Martyrs, the first proclamation was the legalisation of all drugs in Crivvensland. It has drastically reduced crime too. In our country, recreational and medicinal drugs are sold openly in drugstores, cafes, bars, and even newsagents. There are no "bad fixes", there are no "pushers", there are no dirty needles. Thus we would urge other nations to support this resolution, and rethink drug policy with an open mind.

Therefore it will be no surprise that Crivvensland is voting in favour of the resolution.

Thank you for the chance to pass on our feelings. We are more than happy to arrange meetings with UN delegates and state representatives post-debate.

Under the Seal of His Excellency,

Sir Austin Steele,
UN Delegate for the People's Republic of Crivvensland

I understand that the Resolution allows nations to create their own laws regarding drug use. With that in mind, what does this resolution do? The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Because this resolution is not repealing anything, that means that nations already maintain the right to create their own laws concerning drug use. The only thing that the resolution "requests" is that nations that allow drug use must provide some service for rehab.
I say we must vote down this resolution on the basis that it is a waste of time and that the only obligation that it imposes cost governments money.

Cannabis isn't a "chemical substance", it's a plant. The same goes for Tobacco, Salvia divinorum, Mitragyna speciosa (Kratom), Papaver somniferum (Opium), Amantia and Psilocybin Mushrooms, Datura, and many others.

Cannabis isn't a "chemical substance", it's a plant. The same goes for Tobacco, Salvia divinorum, Mitragyna speciosa (Kratom), Papaver somniferum (Opium), Amantia and Psilocybin Mushrooms, Datura, and many others.
Ya but it's turned into pot, right?

Ya but it's turned into pot, right?

A lot of things can be turned into other things. Rubber is made into tires. Fabric is made into clothing. Chickens are turned into tasty snacks. What exactly is your point?

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I understand that the Resolution allows nations to create their own laws regarding drug use. With that in mind, what does this resolution do? The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Because this resolution is not repealing anything, that means that nations already maintain the right to create their own laws concerning drug use.

Yes. Nations maintain this right already, and this proposal plans to protect these rights against possible future proposals which take this right away. It is what is called a "blocker" proposal. And blockers certainly do things: they block.

I say we must vote down this resolution on the basis that it is a waste of time and that the only obligation that it imposes cost governments money.

I'm unaware of any costs that governments are forced to pay in any part of my proposal. Perhaps you could point this out?

(W)hat does this resolution do? The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.Respectfully, we wish to bring forth clause 2--which does do something. This clause brings reinforces the right of nations to create their own laws on the matter. Comparing to certain other democratic countries, that could be seen as a Resolution of Rights, or something. To be frank, it is something that this UN will always need, as there will always be members who want the UN to have far too much power over our nations.

Hmm, on that note--I think I should consult my brother on which way to vote for this proposal, for each argument against it proves to be more and more well-thought out and reliant on previous discussion.

-Fraj' Doodle Al' Mutin
Big Brother of Matianus.

Ya but it's turned into pot, right?The only "turning into" involved is drying the buds, and maybe curing them.

A lot of things can be turned into other things. Rubber is made into tires. Fabric is made into clothing. Chickens are turned into tasty snacks. What exactly is your point?

- Jaris Krytellin, AmbassadorHad he been talking about a drug like cocaine, he would have had a valid point. Cocaine is an alkaloid that comes from the Coca plant, and it is definatly a chemical, even though it comes from a natural source.

Cannabis isn't a "chemical substance", it's a plant. The same goes for Tobacco, Salvia divinorum, Mitragyna speciosa (Kratom), Papaver somniferum (Opium), Amantia and Psilocybin Mushrooms, Datura, and many others.

Opium must be processed out of the poppy plant. It is no longer a pure plant product. Not to mention that it is the specific chemicals within the plant that cause the effect, not the plant itself.

Ya but it's turned into pot, right?

Pot is slang. MJ, Cannabis, THC, etc, all refer to the same drug. The plant can be consumed without processing. It is still the chemical THC that creates the desired effect, not the plant itself.

Opium must be processed out of the poppy plant. It is no longer a pure plant product.Opium is the hardened fluid from the seed pods of a poppy plant, so it is a pure plant product. Opoids like Morphine and Heroin are the refined drugs.
Not to mention that it is the specific chemicals within the plant that cause the effect, not the plant itself.This is true of all plants...
Pot is slang. MJ, Cannabis, THC, etc, all refer to the same drug. Pot, MJ, Cannabis, etc refer to the plant, THC refers to the chemical.

OK, first time poster for UN, things i'd like to point out.

1) What religion asks you to smoke some marajuana or a joint or whatever???*wedding- I now pornounce you man and wife...you may smoke the joint*


Um, well, certain factions that worship Rasta encourage the use of Marajuana to induce visions and receive revelations.

If a country wants to legalize drugs it is there business. The problem I have with this bill is the statement "given that these actions pose no threat of harm to any individual other than the user,". It is an outright falsehood. Most any recreational drug warps a person's sense of reality and compromises their good judgement. When someone is on these type drugs they may decide to get in a car and their "augmented" perception causes them to miscalculate a maneuver and cause an accident. Someone could "hear voices" that convince them that their neighbor is a goblin king that steals children to take back to his castle and turn them into goblins, and that the goblin king must be killed.

There is indeed "threat of harm" to other individuals when someone uses recreational drugs. Ensure a states right to legalize drugs all you want, just don't make any false statements in a UN proposal.

Cannabis isn't a "chemical substance", it's a plant. The same goes for Tobacco, Salvia divinorum, Mitragyna speciosa (Kratom), Papaver somniferum (Opium), Amantia and Psilocybin Mushrooms, Datura, and many others.

You forget, the plant contains chemical substances that can be regulated. I fyou can produce a cultivor that does not contain the recreational drug chemicals go for it, but any cultivors that contian the recreational drug would be open season for governments to regulate.

I think it's extremely well-written and a great way to bring up an issue that could otherwise never go through. Porn needs more friends like this.

When someone is on these type drugs they may decide to get in a car and their "augmented" perception causes them to miscalculate a maneuver and cause an accident.Driving under the influence of drugs would not be legal...

Someone could "hear voices" that convince them that their neighbor is a goblin king that steals children to take back to his castle and turn them into goblins, and that the goblin king must be killed.Such schizophrenia is caused by heavy drug abuse, and would be detected and treated before such an incident would likely happen. You can't try a drug once and become a serial killer, it takes substantial abuse to do something like that to you.

You forget, the plant contains chemical substances that can be regulated. I fyou can produce a cultivor that does not contain the recreational drug chemicals go for it, but any cultivors that contian the recreational drug would be open season for governments to regulate.My point was simply that the definition isn't a very good one.

The only "turning into" involved is drying the buds, and maybe curing them.

So it doesn't take much at all.

this is nuts... legalizing such things will turn half of the words populas into drug addicts. even though its is only legal on if there responsible yada yada but you can't ensure this. and what happens to the new generation of people if you legalize such? they will get ahold of it and they will use it to polute there minds. not to mention that say if wemon take it while pregnent therre goes that child. the legalization of such is a horrible turn for the world and should not be aloud to pass in the vote as it is currently winning. i would like to ask what sort of hippys are you all that aprove of such to happen in the world but that wouldn't get anyone anywhere. so i say this is a horrible turn for the world and it must not be aloud to pass!


"drugs" :sniper:

i may be pretty new, but, in my view, this does not seem to take much action for or against. Clause 2 states that any laws in the country can still be implemented on drug use, and no rebutive action can be taken.
please Correct me if you see otherwise

this is nuts... legalizing such things will turn half of the words populas into drug addicts. even though its is only legal on if there responsible yada yada but you can't ensure this. and what happens to the new generation of people if you legalize such? they will get ahold of it and they will use it to polute there minds. not to mention that say if wemon take it while pregnent therre goes that child. the legalization of such is a horrible turn for the world and should not be aloud to pass in the vote as it is currently winning. i would like to ask what sort of hippys are you all that aprove of such to happen in the world but that wouldn't get anyone anywhere. so i say this is a horrible turn for the world and it must not be aloud to pass!

This proposal doesn't legalize drugs, so you're fine then, no?

"drugs" :sniper:

I am so tempted to draft something to outlaw the use of gun smilies.

this is nuts... legalizing such things will turn half of the words populas into drug addicts.Just because it's legal doesn't mean everyone's going to use it. Tobacco is widely legalized, does everyone smoke? Moreover, drug use != drug addiction. Not all drugs are addictive, and even ones that are potentially addcitive can be used responsibly.even though its is only legal on if there responsible yada yada but you can't ensure this.:rolleyes:and what happens to the new generation of people if you legalize such?Legalizing a drug != deregulating it. You can legalize drugs and have them illegal for use by minors.they will get ahold of it and they will use it to polute there minds.Drugs don't "polute" minds, they alter them for a short period of timenot to mention that say if wemon take it while pregnent therre goes that child.Mothers have the self-control to not drink heavily during pregnancy, and alchohol is more toxic than a large amount of drugs.the legalization of such is a horrible turn for the world and should not be aloud to pass in the vote as it is currently winning. i would like to ask what sort of hippys are you all that aprove of such to happen in the world but that wouldn't get anyone anywhere. so i say this is a horrible turn for the world and it must not be aloud to pass!We're the kind of "hippys" that support our citizen's personal freedoms, and feel that it's not the government's role to tell it's citizens what it feels they should and should not do.

The United States supports this proposal. We hold governments are not doctors and should not restrict what doctor's prescribe for patients suffering extreme agony.
Further, it is the position of the United States that as some religions require the use of certain drugs as part of their ceremony, banning such groups from using the drugs is tantamount to religious persecution. It is incumbent upon governments to give religious groups as much leeway as possible such that it does not hamper their right of free religious practice. But we also recognize the necessity of certain laws to protect the rights of members who are not members of such groups. Therefore the US continues to support the soverignty of all nations to determine their own affairs and asks them to take into consideration the religious rights of their people when considering laws that may impact on the free practice thereof.

i may be pretty new, but, in my view, this does not seem to take much action for or against [drug legalization]. Clause 2 states that any laws in the country can still be implemented on drug use, and no rebutive action can be taken....
That's exactly right. However, it cannot be ignored that it is written to a pro-legalizing set of nations which is--sadly--where the proposal earns much undue criticism. I am sure that there is plenty of due criticism for this proposal, but as I cannot see any at this time, nor does it stand against the best interests of Matianus (in fact, it stands in favor of our interests) I, and my brother, believe that it is time to vote in favor of the piece.

We have already offered ourselves arguments for and against this blocker and find that--despite the seeming uselessness of the proposal, and the broad definition of "recreational drugs" (which is quite forgivable since it will likely be more clearly defined within nations)--it would be nice to have another right of nations written within the UN resolutions.

-Fraj' Doodle Al' Mutin

Respected members,

We have often spoken strongly against National Sovereignty arguments in previous debates as we feel that the United Nations should have teeth and should legislate on matters of fundamental rights.

However, in the case of drug laws, while we feel that general legalisation is the best move, we accept the right of other nations to choose according to the needs of their societies. It does not affect us whether smoking marijuana is a criminal act or not in Cluichistan (for example.) Thus we support this well-written blocking resolution that prevents our time being wasted by more extreme proposals that would never be passed (on either side of the debate.)

As to the representative from Windowslive, we respectfully refer him to both a grammar book and the numerous studies that suggest prohibition only contributes to societal problems. We encourage his government to decriminalise recreational drugs in his nation, but respect its right to not do so.

Finally we would like to offer our support to the honourable representative from Altanar in their gun-smiley resolution. Such childishness has no place in this chamber.

Respectfully

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

Fellow NationStates of the UN, I may be a new nation and this being the first time I've voiced my opinion, but I'm strongly AGAINST this resolution of legalizing drugs for the purpose of recreation.

Legalizing some drugs would heavily increase the consumption on drugs and your citizens. Drugs usage will spread and people will be enticed to use more dangerous drugs. Drug flow will increase both in- and out of the nation.

Drugs can cripple a strong country, look at the Opium war that occured in China.

Fellow NationStates of the UN, I may be a new nation and this being the first time I've voiced my opinion, but I'm strongly AGAINST this resolution of legalizing drugs for the purpose of recreation.

Legalizing some drugs would heavily increase the consumption on drugs and your citizens. Drugs usage will spread and people will be enticed to use more dangerous drugs. Drug flow will increase both in- and out of the nation.

Drugs can cripple a strong country, look at the Opium war that occured in China.

I completely agree. Someone earlier mentioned that legalising the drug will not increase consumption. But I still say that the people cannot be trusted to act responsibly! We cannot give them the liberty. If it starts here, where will it end? Having a comprimise over murders? Even this small step towards complete freedom is a step too far in the wrong direction.

It does not affect us whether smoking marijuana is a criminal act or not in Cluichistan (for example.)That's not strictly true, especially if you happen to be a major exported of marijuana and have a close trading relationship with them.Legalizing some drugs would heavily increase the consumption on drugs and your citizens.That's true....maybe. Perhaps those consuming the drugs will simply come out of the woodwork. You've failed to consider that just because drugs are illegal, does not eliminate their usage.Drugs usage will spread and people will be enticed to use more dangerous drugs.Define dangerous.Drug flow will increase both in- and out of the nation.See, now this is where you are incorrect. Lets say it again, with bold for particular emphasis.

Personal usage will be legalised, However, nations continue to hold self-determination over the legality of supply, providing and distribution. Meaning if you catch little timmy with enough for personal use, it's legal, but if you catch little timmy with enough to supply a small town, well, that's down to your legislation.

Do you see horses using drugs? do you? No. We should all live like the horses. Communal, with an alpha male in charge, and NO DRUGS! And seeing we ALL should live like the horses, NO ONE should legalise drugs in any way or form. Live Like the horses. They got it right.

Do you see horses using drugs?Yes, we do. All the time. Soddin' horses are always off their faces on Ketamine.

And horses don't even have opposable thumbs - stupid animals.

Do you see horses using drugs? do you? No. We should all live like the horses. Communal, with an alpha male in charge, and NO DRUGS! And seeing we ALL should live like the horses, NO ONE should legalise drugs in any way or form. Live Like the horses. They got it right.

Looks like someone's already dipped into the drugs...

I am so tempted to draft something to outlaw the use of gun smilies.

Banning Gun Smilies

Category: Furtherment of Sanity
Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

SEEKING to foster an environment of constructive diplomacy rather than rampant stupidity,

BELIEVING that gun smilies are the epitome of stupidy,

BANS the use of gun smilies in the UN and

DECLARES that violating this ban will result in the perpetrator receiving a thorough bludgeoning about the face and neck with a large trout.


:headbang: This is your legalisation:sniper: :mp5: The purpose is not important

Get out the trout. We can start with this guy.

Driving under the influence of drugs would not be legal...

Yea man, how dare you drive under that influence of that asprin you just took. Or did you just mean the recreational drugs, like viagra?

We should all live like horses? I prefer to sleep horizontal, thank you very much! Still an occasional carrot does sound nice. And if I can get someone to comb my hiar every day that would be nice also.

Sincerely, Red Hot Blonde secretary to Flash Blonde.

It seems to me that this resolution is misunderstood.

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

Dont fight eachother. The resolution UNDERSTANDS.

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

This is an effort to allow personal freedom.Dictators please ignore.

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

b. Medicinal benefits, such as medicinal marijuana;


Either for cultural reasons or medical reasons.Some people need them more than water.

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;

You can still control your nation if things turn wild.

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;


No more dealers and dark people out in the streets at night. No more bad influence for your children.

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;

Alcoholic Anonymous without the DEA haunting.No more deviation due to illegalisation.


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.

No more "makes you blind" jibberish.Kid will know what drugs do.And can easily escape.

PLUS the following benefits:
1.Less crime/murders/thefts.Its legal and free.
2.Higher economy due to imports/exports/taxation.
3.Advanced culture due to scientific research.

FURTHERMORE consider these facts.
1.Most of the perscription drugs are far more dangerous than common drugs.Yet they're used for medicinal appliance.No one stops a mentally "challenged" person to swallow a bucket of Lexotanyl,Prozac or Efexor.

2.It is after all our right to harm ourselves if we feel up to it.

3.60% of the deaths from drug usage are actually deaths from bad quality and invalid mixture of drugs.Imagine a drug market free of theese dangers.

4.Did I mention its a gold mine for either a left or a right wing nation?

Banning Gun Smilies

Category: Furtherment of Sanity
Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

SEEKING to foster an environment of constructive diplomacy rather than rampant stupidity,

BELIEVING that gun smilies are the epitome of stupidy,

BANS the use of gun smilies in the UN and

DECLARES that violating this ban will result in the perpetrator receiving a thorough bludgeoning about the face and neck with a large trout.

I am so in favor of this. *thwaps Progressive Nation with a trout*

Fellow NationStates of the UN, I may be a new nation and this being the first time I've voiced my opinion, but I'm strongly AGAINST this resolution of legalizing drugs for the purpose of recreation.

NO ONE should legalise drugs in any way or form.

This is your legalisation The purpose is not important

Wow....some of you really cannot read. Perhaps you've shortchanged educational funding in your respective nations.

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

THINK about what that clause really means, and try again.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

It really bothers us that so much obviously well-intentioned opposition to this resolution is based on a complete misunderstanding of its provisions. Let us try to make one thing clear:

This resolution does NOT legalize drugs!

Here's Article 2:

AFFIRMS the right of UN member states to determine their own laws with regard to the legality of any activity involving recreational drugs....

That means it's completely up to each nation to decide what sort of laws it enacts regarding drugs. Now, there are some other clauses. But they only URGE and REQUEST things. They are NOT binding on any nation. They're suggestions. Follow them if you want. Ignore them if you want. Under Article 2, what your drug laws say is your nation's business, not the NSUN's.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

This resolution does NOT legalize drugs!

And here I thought poll option #2 would help people understand...but what does it have? 9 votes? :confused:

Just got back from the debates in Gruenberg and boy is my goat tired.

This resolution does NOT legalize drugs!

Of course it does! It's in the stat wank portion of the resolution. Once this thing passes those gnomes will be spreading the good word to the hippies in your nation faster than you can text message the fact that this resolution doesn't really do anything. The economic impact of the resulting wave will be devistating! Personally I would avoid the brownies for at least a week after this resolution passes just to be on the safe side.

Still you are correct in that this resolution doesn't really do much other than URGE. It doesn't legalize anything, it just urges you to legalize them. I would like to urge you to vote for this. I can't force you to vote for this. I would like to urge you to vote for this and then ignore any other urgings, like making drugs that can kill you legal and stuff like that.

Flash Blonde

This resolution does NOT legalize drugs!

Here's Article 2:
But it urges their legalization. Here's clause 1:
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:
As such, we will be voting against, regardless of the affirmation in clause 2.

I think if people well take drugs based on the fact that they are not allowed to. If we ban drugs the drug rates will go up not down.

Yea man, how dare you drive under that influence of that asprin you just took. Or did you just mean the recreational drugs, like viagra?I was saying that if for instance, marijuana was legalized in your nation, it could still be illegal to drive blazed. You could make it would fall under the same laws as drunk driving.

Driving under the influence of drugs would not be legal...


Um, The point is that the consumption of the drugs does indeed have an affect on someone other than the consumer. Thus, the statement in the proposal saying that it doesn't is a false statement.

Such schizophrenia is caused by heavy drug abuse, and would be detected and treated before such an incident would likely happen. You can't try a drug once and become a serial killer, it takes substantial abuse to do something like that to you.

My father used to work for a place that maintained group homes with mentally and physically handicapped tennants. At one time they had a tennant who fried his brain off his first hit of something (sorry can't remember what it was, it was like 15 years ago that my dad was at that specific group home). It is quite conceivable for such commanding voices to affect someone that is not a long-time habitual user. Just because you haven't personally seen it happen doesn't mean that it can't or hasn't already.
And once again, the point stands that the affects of recreational drug is NOT limited to the imbiber alone. Therefore the proposal contains a false statement.

correct me if im wrong, but is this entire bill just a bunch of "urgings" that really instates no law whatsoever

correct me if im wrong, but is this entire bill just a bunch of "urgings" that really instates no law whatsoever

That is correct. There is no inherent mandate contained in the text.

That is correct. There is no inherent mandate contained in the text.

we should think of better things to argue about. but what the hell i'll vote for it.

My father used to work for a place that maintained group homes with mentally and physically handicapped tennants. At one time they had a tennant who fried his brain off his first hit of something (sorry can't remember what it was, it was like 15 years ago that my dad was at that specific group home). It is quite conceivable for such commanding voices to affect someone that is not a long-time habitual user. Just because you haven't personally seen it happen doesn't mean that it can't or hasn't already.
And once again, the point stands that the affects of recreational drug is NOT limited to the imbiber alone. Therefore the proposal contains a false statement.If he really managed to cause that much damage himself in one go he overdosed on something, which isn't really a valid representation of recreational drug use.

Drug use != drug abuse. Drug abuse can affect people other than the imbiber, but drug use doesn't.

Example of drug use: A man snorts a line of cocaine in the privacy of his own home during his free time.
Example of drug abuse: A man overdoses on cocaine and dies, devastating the lives of his immediate family.

Recreational drugs are not bad, the abuse of them is.

Drugs are not useful. It increases crimes, medical health problems, negative social issues and all sorts of things. It must be banned unless the drug is scientifically approved that it is healthy for normal use.

Im feeling a bit depressed here... Please someone tell me that you understand my statements and realise that all drug related society problems derive from the illigalisation and if they were legal the above mentioned problems would cease to exist... After all its commonly accepted to smoke , drink , eat chocolate and take anti-depressants.Puh-leeease...!?

Im feeling a bit depressed here...
So go smoke a bowl. Your wild, unfounded assertions are entirely tangential to this debate, unless - as is not presently the case - you were to make such an overwhelmingly powerful case for legalisation that it would become apparent than we should vote this down to make way for UN-mandated legalisation.

Im feeling a bit depressed here... Please someone tell me that you understand my statements and realise that all drug related society problems derive from the illigalisation and if they were legal the above mentioned problems would cease to exist...

No they do not. They key word is "all." There are a number of drug related society problems that derive from a general odd state of legal laws that punish some popular moderately inoffensive drugs while at the same time making other more dangerous drugs available to the general public or with vastly reduced punishements. There is the notion that passing a law will have a direct impact on the moral choices of the people under the law.

But they are not "all" the problems. There are many drug related society problems that occur with legal drugs. There are many society problems that occur as a result of legal additives and non "drug" chemicals as well.

This proposal will not cure cancer. It may in fact cause cancer. You may think it is the dawning of the age of Aquarius, but it's probably the dawning of the age of Cancer.

The most of you say druggs are good,

But do you think about consequences or results. Do you want your children to use druggs?

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;


It seems to me the opposition is forgetting the second clause. According to this you can keep drugs illegal if you want to!!!!

The first clause Is merely an Urges clause.

Put clauses one and two together and guess what you have...?

"The UN urges you to legalize drugs but you don't really have to if it would be wrong for your nation."

Ellelt supports this and we wont be legalizing our drugs.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

No they do not. They key word is "all." There are a number of drug related society problems that derive from a general odd state of legal laws that punish some popular moderately inoffensive drugs while at the same time making other more dangerous drugs available to the general public or with vastly reduced punishements. There is the notion that passing a law will have a direct impact on the moral choices of the people under the law.

But they are not "all" the problems. There are many drug related society problems that occur with legal drugs. There are many society problems that occur as a result of legal additives and non "drug" chemicals as well.

This proposal will not cure cancer. It may in fact cause cancer. You may think it is the dawning of the age of Aquarius, but it's probably the dawning of the age of Cancer.

And those problems do not derive from alcohol and tobacco use/abuse?

The most of you say druggs are good,

But do you think about consequences or results. Do you want your children to use druggs?

Which are the consequences of smoking and drinking? Do you allow your children to smoke and drink?Would it help if you banned smoking and drinking in your nation?Check the alcohol related problems at the american 1920's.

This resolution doesnt suggest that you should shoot some white.It only suggests we liberate our nations from an illegal , murderous industry while increasing our national/private profits and boost our scientific research.

Parents will prevent their children from abuse as well as educational systems.
Medical organisations will prevent and help those in need.
Crime ratings will drop like dead.
Who do I have to sleep with to convince you?
Our goverment plans for Umbar Tutu:
1.Cannabis will be legal and used like tobacco or food flavour.
Heroine,cocaine and other strong drugs will have medical appliance.(analgetic,anaesthetic)

2.There will be more rehabilitation centers.Goverment funded.

3.Drugs will be taxed at a 18% rate. As a luxury.

4.Schools and educational shows in Tv will be prompted to reveal scientific information about drugs.

5.Drug use will be banned from schools as smoking and drinking.(Due to the nature of our educational system we feel there is no reason for students to loose attention)

6.Being stoned at the street will get you arrested and transported to a hospital.No other charges.

7.All drugs will be available at pharmacies.At low costs.(Only tax apply no private profit since drug market will be goverment controlled)

8.Places with "no smoking" rules may have a "no drugs" rule.

9.Black drug market WILL be illegal.

I see two problems in this act:
First in section one the wording is poor in my perception. As it states: "URGES UN member states to legalize the practice of individual consumption, cultivation, preparation, and possession of recreational drugs" This is a problem as it is URGING states to adopt a practice they may not individually agree with

Second in section 5 it states: " URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access... value-neutral information concerning the effects of recreational drug use" Thisseems to me that it is URGING states to restrict the rights of special interest groups to give easy access to information based on their Value systems. Values are presented by groups on both sides of this debate and it is difficult to find value free information.
Topics such as: "Is it more important to stay marijuana free or relieve symptoms of glycoma?" Is a debate filled with value statements from both sides.

In my opinion this document needs reworded before being appropriate for adoption into the UN.

Im feeling a bit depressed here... Please someone tell me that you understand my statements and realise that all drug related society problems derive from the illigalisation and if they were legal the above mentioned problems would cease to exist... After all its commonly accepted to smoke , drink , eat chocolate and take anti-depressants.Puh-leeease...!?


I bed to differ on this statement. Alcohol has been legalized and there is still a significant amount of problems based in its use. Such as drunk driving, drunks beating spouses, drunks losing their jobs due to drinking on the job, and cases of alcohol poisoning (often resulting in death)

I see two problems in this act:
First in section one the wording is poor in my perception. As it states: "URGES UN member states to legalize the practice of individual consumption, cultivation, preparation, and possession of recreational drugs" This is a problem as it is URGING states to adopt a practice they may not individually agree with

We don't agree with our new colleague that the wording of the resolution is poor. However, he is quite correct in his interpretation of Article 1. The key, though, is in the word "URGES". This is not a mandate. If your nation doesn't want to do it, don't. Article 2 guarantees your right to make whatever drug laws are appropriate for your nation and its people.

Second in section 5 it states: " URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access... value-neutral information concerning the effects of recreational drug use" Thisseems to me that it is URGING states to restrict the rights of special interest groups to give easy access to information based on their Value systems. Values are presented by groups on both sides of this debate and it is difficult to find value free information.
Topics such as: "Is it more important to stay marijuana free or relieve symptoms of glycoma?" Is a debate filled with value statements from both sides.

We disagree. There is nothing in the resolution that restricts the right of any group to provide whatever information it wants about drugs.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I bed to differ on this statement. Alcohol has been legalized and there is still a significant amount of problems based in its use. Such as drunk driving, drunks beating spouses, drunks losing their jobs due to drinking on the job, and cases of alcohol poisoning (often resulting in death)

Exactly! Many many bad things happen when you drink , smoke , take drugs , eat much sugar , take many pills and so on.

What can you do about it? inform people. And legalise it! By that way not only you reduce the sideffects but you can control your economy and crime rates. No more black market drugs. We all agree that as single citizens all we care is not to get killed by a junkie or protect our children from drug use and abuse. Both problems can be solved by this resolution.
If its legal and cheap why kill/rob/become prostitute?Buy it and get some milk on your way!

We care about reprecussions.We care about our society. We just want it better!

Regarding that line from Clause 5, I believe it's a hanger-on from the failed proposal Recreational Drug Legalization that Jey, _Myopia_, my puppet Sheknu and a few others drafted a while ago. I recall the reason the phrase "value neutral" was used (I think at my urging, so blame me not Jey if you still don't like it) was that it replaced some previous wording that implied that no bias should be allowed. I didn't like that: bias should be allowed. Drugs are bad m'kay/drugs are great m'kay. There should just be a balance.

So the way I would interpret that clause is not as a restriction of anyone's right to provide information, but rather as an equal time provision: if you want to let people play Reefer Madness and tell you cocaine causes homosexuality, fine; but you have to let the useless stoners drone on about freedom, man, too.

There are a number of drug related society problems that derive from a general odd state of legal laws that punish some popular moderately inoffensive drugs while at the same time making other more dangerous drugs available to the general public or with vastly reduced punishements. There is the notion that passing a law will have a direct impact on the moral choices of the people under the law.

Since Umbar Tutu brought up the topic of prohibition, as told in those real world urban legends, I thought it would be appropriate to explain some more my previous comment, and provide some proper examples of each. I stated that “There is the notion that passing a law will have a direct impact on the moral choices of the people under the law.” Prohibition was just such an example. It was not accepted by the people and thus widely violated. On the other hand consider another important ingredient/drug in the classic James Bond martini, the wormwood in classic vermouth. It’s illegal in the United States and, frankly, few people know and fewer people care. It is generally not considered harmful in the quantities normally found in European vermouth, but its use is not considered important by the people at large. Since you mentioned smoking, I should point out that three very common places for communal smoking, bowling alleys, BINGO parlors and restaurants are generally throughout the United States smoke free by popular demand.

Once again I point that this resolution is merely a series of urgings, stat wanking effects aside, and doesn’t really do much to your nation in either direction.

Others have noted the overly-broad definition of recreational drugs contained in the proposal. We have yet to hear an adequate response, though we may have been away from the Assembly at that time.

We are concerned that the definition would include all psychiatric medications and a goodly number of general medications. Clause 1 then urges legalization of individual preparation of recreational drugs. Now, citizens of Rubina are quite fond of their afternoon toke. In fact, we have never had recreational drug laws of any kind. The manufacture of medicinal pharmaceuticals on the other hand is heavily regulated. This proposal appears to put us in the untenable position of either removing regulation of medicinal pharmaceuticals or extending such to the production of recreational drugs.

Even more problematic for us is the inclusion of the use of drugs for religious purposes in this proposal. The free exercise of religion is far too important to be tossed off with an "urges legalization". Whether this resolution will prevent future work in the area is to be seen, but it certainly muddies the waters.

As an aside, we note that clause 3 exempts medical personnel from the suggestion to illegalize deceiving or co-ercing drug use. In Rubina, we seriously frown on health care providers deceiving patients no matter the goal.

Leetha Talone
Ambassador to the UN
Rubina

if you want to let people play Reefer Madness and tell you cocaine causes homosexuality, fine; but you have to let the useless stoners drone on about freedom, man, too.Leetha turns to Basherie... Cocaine causes teh ghey?! Well that explains sooo much, eh? ;)

What illegal drug out there doesnt actively manipulate the CNS? Not only marijuana, but cocaine, meth, and heroine. If some of you stoners want legal weed, make a bill for that, otherwise were going to have a huge problem. Its bad enough that people in my country refuse to pay there extremely high taxes, but when they start getting stoned and thinking there above the law, well, I have to take em out back and :sniper: The more people I have to kill, the less money I make. I'm sure many other countries could understand the predicament I would be in.

No, it doesn't. This proposal will make it so no nation can force other nations adopt a stance on either side of the issue through a UN resolution. Hence, blocker. How do I know this? Clause 2, as stated earlier.

Admittedly, much of it is written for a pro-drug audience, but that's all pretty wording that doesn't do anything. Note all of the urging and requesting and whatnot. Also note that my own nation prohibits the use of many of said "recreational drugs" and defines each in and individual fashion, rather than a vague categorial sense. Defining "recreational drugs" in this proposal is left almost entirely to the individual nations.

Now don't get me wrong; no one is able to say that sugar is a recreational drug under this definition. I've already refuted that one. But there are many chemicals out there that primarily effect the brain, so have fun with it. my guess is that most nations already have some form of drug-limitation. Taking my own nation, we have outlawed all caffeine as well as the traditionally illegal drugs. Alcohol is also illegal. But it doesn't matter so much with Matianus because we're all upright citizens with a strong education system and no lower classes--we simply ship poorer people to other nations.

A less radical nation might want to legalize Caffeine and alcohol, perhaps even the "gate-way drug" for medical purposes, but it would not wish to legalise other forms of drugs such as the commonly cited coccaine, heroine, meth, LCD, etc.... Under this, that is allowable too. For the super drug-friendlies, an individual nation can legalize everything. Really, the proposal is emphasizing that it is not the UN's right to decide whether or not drugs are legal in all, or any, of its member nations.

and doesn’t really do much to your nation in either direction.

Wrong.
It does. It ensures freedom , civil rights , higher quality of society , scientific research and all other benefits i mentioned. Please read carefully.

Yes , I agree its not THAT well written but what is these days? I mean the state of the art Umbar Tutan constitution can be "well bypassed" by the worst Umbar Tutan lawyer. If you really think that this resolution does nothing then why not vote FOR? From my point of view it is beneficial. If all the URGES wont make you change your mind why not allow your citizens to move to a more "liberal" nation.
I already stated that my rehab centers and support organistations are very good and will be better after this resolution that does nothing more than improve the quality level of the UN.

Mikeswill's vote against UN Drug Act has been noted.

Be it known the The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill is Pro-Legalization of All Drugs...

WE have our own research and reasons for such a determination.

However, the current UN Resolution imposses legislation upon UN Members who may not agree with such positions thereby constituting a breech of National Soveriegnty. Including the message from the Nations of our Region Rejecting said UN Resolution ~ We have submitted our vote Against said Resolution.

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates Region

However, the current UN Resolution imposses legislation upon UN Members who may not agree with such positions thereby constituting a breech of National Soveriegnty.
Have you ever, in your entire time in the UN, actually read the damn thing you're voting on? Because it doesn't seem like it.
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;
Man, national rights really took it in the kidneys on that one.

Mikeswill's vote against UN Drug Act has been noted.

Be it known the The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill is Pro-Legalization of All Drugs...

WE haved our own research and reasons for such a determination.

However, the current UN Resolution imposses legislation upon UN Members who may not agree with such positions thereby constituting a breech of National Soveriegnty. Including the message from the Nations of our Region Rejecting said UN Resolution ~ We have submitted our vote Against said Resolution.

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates Region

Um...this is a pro-sovereignty blocking resolution preventing the UN from mandating the issue. Just thought I'd mention that.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

OOC: I realize that from a game stats perspective, it's mandating legalization, but frankly the stat changes are easily overcome by issue choices and I tend to operate as if they were largely irrelevant.

Gruenberg: You may want to reread my post yourself sir.

I vote my Region's Voice and they have determined that this Resolution merits Rejection based upon National Sovereignty.

Your remarks are indicative of your ignorance of my Region's freedom of choice and also of your intolerance of other's differing opinions.

Peace out

Love Conquers Fear

Mikeswill

this Resolution merits Rejection based upon National Sovereignty.
They're wrong.

This proposal is a good thing, though a better thing would be legalization. Many of you have said that the real aim of drug laws and treaties should be to get rid of the illegal trade and organized crime involvement in drugs. Could you please tell me why organized crime would want to be involved in drugs if they were a legal good, sold legally in pharmacies for legal consumption? Organized crime was an argument against legalization of gambling. After legalization, their involvement in gambling dropped significantly and is almost nonexistent at this time. Organized crime thrives on goods which society has deemed 'bad', and it is them, as well as high costs, which create the crime associated with drugs. Almost no drug actually makes you violent and crime-prone - even PCP has a certain exaggerated reputation. Legalization would cut costs immensely and provide safe, measured doses provided by people with extensive education in chemical substances and their effects on the body.

I have received a very polite request from the author of this Resolution to reconsider the 87 Votes Against that the NationStates Region has posted.

Unlike previous retorts to Our position, The Allied States of Jey has pursued an honorable and diplomatic course of persuation which has resulted in my posting of his/ her message on my Region's Message Board for possible reconsideration.

We shall see what becomes of these activities.

As always: Love Conquers Fear

I have received a very polite request from the author of this Resolution to reconsider the 87 Votes Against that the NationStates Region has posted.

Unlike previous retorts to Our position, The Allied States of Jey has pursued an honorable and diplomatic course of persuation which has resulted in my posting of his/ her message on my Region's Message Board for possible reconsideration.

We shall see what becomes of these activities.

As always: Love Conquers Fear


We're glad you're reconsidering your vote based on diplomatic contact, but your comments are still unwarranted. And for the record, we are abstaining from the vote.

The issue is not so much with your region's vote, but your misunderstanding regarding National Sovereignty and this resolution. Other delegates have stated repeatedly that this resolution is very pro-NatSov, and their assertions are correct.

I'd take a look at this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280700&postcount=4) to clear up any questions you have about NatSov. Also, take a look at the National Sovereignty Organization.

your comments are still unwarranted.
I happen to think that his comments are fine, and it's Gruenberg's comments that were unwarranted. Mikeswill represents one of the largest democratic player-created regions in the game, and he votes as they tell him. That's all he was expressing here.

As for the UN members of the NationStates region, it's entirely possible they misread the proposal, or are as guilty of laziness as many players. That's no reason to insult Mikeswill, nor reason to expect him to stand up in his regions forums in support of the proposal against the declared will of the residents.

Jey is taking the correct approach, and y'all would do well to respect that in future.

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has now changed her vote to FOR the resolution "UN Drug Act" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region.

Hellar Gray

Jevian Voting Report

UN Drug Act

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/images/senate/icon.lg.pro.winner.gif FOR -- 4,986 -- (57.60%)
--- AGAINST -- 3,671 -- (42.40%)

Votes Reporting: 69% (Compared to votes for Environment Protection Act)

After some deliberation, the Jevian UN Office is prepared to project that the proposal "UN Drug Act", our own project, will pass in the election of 12.24.2006, with 4,986 current votes, or 57.60% of the total votes. Approximately 69% of the UN's votes have been recorded at this time. We are very pleased with the results of this vote, and are proud of the UN Drug Act's probable passing.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative,
Voting Analyst

I vote my Region's Voice and they have determined that this Resolution merits Rejection based upon National Sovereignty.

You don't say. "They" have determined. Yet on your own regional message board YOU say ...

Mikeswill's vote against UN Drug Act has been noted.

Be it known the The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill is Pro-Legalization of All Drugs...

WE haved our own research and reasons for such a determination.

So apparently "they" didn't determine, the royal "we" determined based on your "own research and reasons."

Let's look at the current results:
Votes For: 4,992
Votes Against: 3,670

(Note the system still has Nevadar on both sides of the vote.)

Looks at post above mine!
Look Another Victory for Gatesville!

And Another Defeat for Nationstates!
And apparently Another Defeat for the North Pacific!

My guess is you just voted because you saw the feeders vote.

Sincerely, Flash Blonde

Regarding Retired WerePenguins:

Amazingly another Nation attempts to construe ambiguity by taking my statements out of context in their vehement cause to find error in my Region's choice which apparently disagrees with many.

My statement is that I am personally in favor of essence of this Resolution. Secondly, I have my own personal reasons and research for my personal position.

However, thirdly, the Nations of my Region perceive a problem with National Sovereignty and have therefore instructed, democratically, a vote against said Resolution.

We are as a Region reconsidering our vote.

We are open for the Penguins to join my Language Arts class so that we may explore strategies to improve his comprehension of text. Keep in mind that I am a Special Education teacher. ;p


Kisses
(my currency)

Mikeswill

Look, saying "fine, but the nations in my region feel very differently" is all very well, but it's no kind of rebuttal in the long run. Why do they feel differently? What have they identified as damaging to national sovereignty? The RMB reveals only one nation changing their nation to FOR, and then commentary by you.

If you're representing your region's votes, that's fine, of course. But I would say that you need to actually represent them, by standing up for their arguments (which may well be valid) rather than retreating into a shell of "well, it's just what we think, ok?"

Keep in mind that I am a Special Education teacher. ;p

Good, I think there are a lot of people in the General Assembly who could use "special education."

My point still stands, you used "they" here and "we" there. You said you had your reasons there. Yet you seemed to distance yourself from your own region when posting here. Considering the general nature of the other posts in the regional list at the time (I think they too could use some "special education") I could find no evidence whatsoever that "they" even so much gave a hoot about the issue at the UN.

Anyway, back to the resolution. This resolution has no mandatory clauses; it doesn't force a nation in the United Nations to do anything. It urges. Nothing more. It urges two things, both are in some ways opposite of each other; the first is legalization (hey it's in the category it's got to do that) and the second is the recognition that nations can have laws making drug use illegal (including possession). This resolution is therefore a blocker; a resolution that must be repealed first in order for a stronger resolution to be approved. Since blockers prevent stronger resolutions and generally support Nat Sovereignty, this is as Nat Sovereignty friendly as one can get and hope for.

If he really managed to cause that much damage himself in one go he overdosed on something, which isn't really a valid representation of recreational drug use.

Drug use != drug abuse. Drug abuse can affect people other than the imbiber, but drug use doesn't.

Example of drug use: A man snorts a line of cocaine in the privacy of his own home during his free time.
Example of drug abuse: A man overdoses on cocaine and dies, devastating the lives of his immediate family.

Recreational drugs are not bad, the abuse of them is.

So, you expect people to be able to use drugs and still be able to have the mental capacity to not abuse them? Even alcohol throws you off enough to make you lose track of how many you have consumed and how many you can withstand. You really think someone can take a dose and not have the idea to go out and get more, in there car, or have "fun" along the way? That just isn't the way it usually works, especially with long-time "users".

Greater Seattle votes FOR.

Just barely, though -- I do wonder what business the UN has in affairs such as these, but hey, far be it from me to stand in the way of needless legislation.

So, you expect people to be able to use drugs and still be able to have the mental capacity to not abuse them? Even alcohol throws you off enough to make you lose track of how many you have consumed and how many you can withstand. You really think someone can take a dose and not have the idea to go out and get more, in there car, or have "fun" along the way? That just isn't the way it usually works, especially with long-time "users".

In fact, yes.

I expect there are millions of perfectly functional recreational drug users out there who are not abusing their chosen elixir. The tolerance of folks in North Dakota alone to alcohol is staggering. The only people who think that drugs can't be used responsibly are those who don't use them at all. Drug use (including alcohol and nicotine), is part of the lives of incredibly responsible people around the world. Just because YOUR dad dresses up like half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo and spanks you with a vintage hairbrush doesn't mean others' parents do.

In fact, yes.

I expect there are millions of perfectly functional recreational drug users out there who are not abusing their chosen elixir. The tolerance of folks in North Dakota alone to alcohol is staggering. The only people who think that drugs can't be used responsibly are those who don't use them at all. Drug use (including alcohol and nicotine), is part of the lives of incredibly responsible people around the world. Just because YOUR dad dresses up like half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo and spanks you with a vintage hairbrush doesn't mean others' parents do.

You know, name calling and bad jibs at parents or heritage are tactics that normally come from those that either have no counter argument or have a mind too feable to express themselves. Somehow I suspect that in your case it is indeed both.

And yes, there are a minority of users that are able to control themselves and are able to create some sort of stop-gap to keep them from over-imbibing in their drug of choice, but the majority do end up either hocking up a lung from smoking, or go vomitting their intestines out from alcohol, or get so stupid off of whatever they think they might have taken that they can't remember what they did. The usage you describe is profeessed by many, maintained by a slim fraction, and is nothing more than an illusion to nearly everyone.

I'm sorry that your online life has twisted your hold on reality. Maybe you need to cut back a little on yoru internet usage, watch the news, go outside into the sunlight . . . I know that big bright ball of light hanging in the sky is a little scary, but trust me, it is a wonderful thing.

You know, name calling and bad jibs...are tactics that normally come from those that either have no counter argument or have a mind too feable to express themselves.I would agree. What's more, I would prefer to omit the words "At parents or heritage" and let it stand alone. Yes, maturity if great. Respectfulness is included. Your response is so filled with venom that we, in Matianus, get rather sad when looking to debates for mature and beneficial discussion.

[T]he majority do end up either hocking up a lung from smoking, or go vomitting their intestines out from alcohol, or get so stupid off of whatever they think they might have taken that they can't remember what they did....I'm sorry that your online life has twisted your hold on reality.(OOC: Umm, excuse me? I would so like to see evidence on either side of the issue. As for me, the best I can find on either side of the issue is the recommendation of moderate use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage#Alcohol_consumption_and_health). There have been no reliable studies that reach my ears on the matter, and if one has reached either of yours--SomeUN and Intangelon--do give us the favor of sharing the information with us. Seems to me that I remember hearing a study that reflected Intangelon's view, but I cannot be certain on that. Times change.)

(Well, I suppose it continues: Not to forego mentioning that this is all semantics in the first place because the issue is irrelevant to the proposal--which only gives each nation the right to choose on their own. Seriously, guys. Before tossing such venom about, try not to make yourselves look like hypocrites.)

I know that big bright ball of light hanging in the sky is a little scary, but trust me, it is a wonderful thing.Umm, skin cancer? I'd rather not. Nor would most of my people.

Our people have decided that this proposal suits our needs nicely. Though we currently have no drug policy, due to having little enough time to waste it being nonfunctional, knowing that should we choose to enact one, we can, is sufficient to warrent our approval.

General Zandar Sardaal
UN Representative, Drogren Colony

I would agree. What's more, I would prefer to omit the words "At parents or heritage" and let it stand alone. Yes, maturity if great. Respectfulness is included. Your response is so filled with venom that we, in Matianus, get rather sad when looking to debates for mature and beneficial discussion.


You know, you comment on me and the "venom" contained in my post, yet you do not bother to chastise anyone else. Sounds like a typical UN ambassador, doesn't do anything to the invador, yet condemns the invaded for defending themselves.

Seriously, people, this is just a game. There is no need to stoop to name calling or heritage bashing. If you have to do that maybe you need to go find a game where that is encouraged and fostered.

Based upon the previous discussions (conducted by the Member Nations of the NationStates Region) ~ The Mikes Hope of Mikeswill retracts our Region's vote Againt the aforementioned UN Resolution and casts our vote For the Resolution.

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
UN Delegate
The NationStates Region

Many thanks to the region of NationStates for their thoughtful reconsideration of this resolution. You will receive several cases of HotRodia tequila as symbol of appreciation.

Also, congratulations to the Jevian delegation on the passage of the resolution.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

[QUOT=SomeUNExperiment]...yet you do not bother to chastise anyone else. [/QUOTE]Well, dear delegate, I have been commenting on people's arguments throughout the discussion, so I think that this comment is rather baseless. Especially considering more pointed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12122620&postcount=138) commentaries (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12114127&postcount=84)--though, in fairness, the tone of those two posts was much less inflammatory in nature.

I chastised you because you were attempting to take the moral high ground, though both of you were using the same name-calling tactics. I don't think either of you, Intagelon included, were in the right. Intagelon's attack was poorly disguised as a part of a larger example while SomeUN's attack on Intagelon was much more direct, despite your own professing of a wish against personal attacks as diplomatic tactics.

I think here the case was taken rather far out of context--but as I didn't take any offense to anything, I can't really have a say on that.

In any event, I wish you all well in the next debate. To victory!--whatever that may be.

Also, congratulations to the Jevian delegation on the passage of the resolution.

We thank HR for their support. Jey is celebrating this victory, and eagerly awaiting the first repeal infraction against this resolution, probably one claiming that this resolution legalizes drugs.

i comply with the resoultion

From Representative Massud of Gilabad,

Do you imbeciles realize what you've done!?! It was the fact that recreational drugs were illegal, that made them so lucrative and expensive. Now that they have been legalized, the products themselves will lose all of their capitol value and the Nation of Gilabad will have to find other means to sell once "illegal" narcotiques as useless "legal" narcotiques! What once used to be a 200$ Kilo of Opium is now only a mere 50$ kilo, thanks to this bill!! The drug industry is doomed!!!!

-Representative Massud

From Ambassodor Massud of Gilabad,

Do you imbeciles realize what you've done!?! It was the fact that recreational drugs were illegal, that made them so lucrative and expensive. Now that they have been legalized, the products themselves will lose all of their capitol value and the Nation of Gilabad will have to find other means to sell once "illegal" narcotiques as useless "legal" narcotiques! What once used to be a 200$ Kilo of Opium is now only a mere 50$ kilo, thanks to this bill!! The drug industry is doomed!!!!

-Ambassodor Massud

Will someone show this guy clause 2 of this resolution?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Will someone show this guy clause 2 of this resolution?

I would, if I felt it would do any good. Unfortunately, it won't, based on how many times that was done during that debate, for various nations.

And we congratulate Jey on the passage of this resolution. Some of Altanar's finest recreational drugs will be available for free to other delegations, at our office, in celebration of its passage. Please consume them AWAY FROM our office, though.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador