NationStates Jolt Archive

Drug Trafficking Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild

The General Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Recognises the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor goods at point of departure and arrival for possible illicit activity;

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

Co-authored by Rehochipe

~~~~~
Many people may find this familiar. Possibly because I've been working at this (under various names) since November '05, and Rehochipe had a go at a similar concept before that (hence the co-author). I'm looking at finally getting this up and running, but I'm not entirely sure whether it is all still legal (as in, I haven't yet gone over the many passed resolutions since my previous nation expired midway through last year).

Previous debates on this happened here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=488090) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=456848), as well as non-Jolt (UNOG mainly, can't remember if I went to IDU).

I'm looking for discussion, critiqueing and debate before another submission (pending endorsements, ::glares at fellow IDU members:: ).

There were several discussions with the mods to decide the category. The best fit was Int'l Sec: Mild. Request was made here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466234).

We consider this an excellent idea for a proposal, and cannot see any resolutions that have passed in the intermediate period of drafting that would obstacle its passage. (The UN Drug Act is simply a waste of paper that does nothing; this certainly doesn't contradict or duplicate it, mainly on grounds there's nothing to contradict or duplicate.)
1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, drugs as chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and/or potential addiction, and defining all drugs as being recreational, unless they are widely recognised by individual nations as legitimate medical substances and used in a manner deemed appropriate by medical experts;
This does seem to overlook the issue of sacraments. Alcohol would clearly qualify as a drug under this definition, yet its use by Catholics at Mass is hardly 'recreational'.

Also, the definition is a little broad. A number of foodstuffs would presumably be covered. (Though I admit I have no better alternative, and can't immediately think of how the broadness would cause problems.)

Otherwise, we have no immediate issues with the draft.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

The issue of sacramental usage has been raised several times throughout several attempts at submitting this. I haven't been able to work it into the proposal without leaving open a massive loophole.

e.g. "We are the Church of... er... Drugzilla! Heroin and Cocaine are our sacred drugs! Therefore, we demand you give us access to our sacred drugs!"

That said, any suggestions are welcome!

I really wish I had something that I could add or suggest, because I'd love to be able to take part in any further drafting of this.....Unfortunately for me, I believe all I can do is support this with approval and vote. I like it. I might be missing something, but I think you've got something good here. Well done.

This does seem to overlook the issue of sacraments. Alcohol would clearly qualify as a drug under this definition, yet its use by Catholics at Mass is hardly 'recreational'.

Also, the definition is a little broad. A number of foodstuffs would presumably be covered. (Though I admit I have no better alternative, and can't immediately think of how the broadness would cause problems.)

Since the actual drug laws themselves remain under the purview of individual nations, I can't really see how the definition is a problem, as these are really the only operative clauses:

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

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

If your nation bans alcohol, it can do so. If it wants to make exceptions for sacraments, (e.g., the use of wine by some religions), it can do so. The same goes for foodstuffs, I should think (I'm guessing you were thinking about caffeine in coffee as an example, Mr. Madison?). The remaining clauses merely request and urge action but don't mandate anything. All they do is ask that nations help each other out.

That said, I find this bit objectionable myself:

neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their recreational drugs policy

What constitutes pressure? Would this mean that a staunchly anti-drug nation can't encourage other nations to adopt its position through dimplomatic means, or that they can't take non-military action (e.g., cutting off trade) to accomplish their purpose? Either way, we think it needs to be chucked. You've got this bit in your draft:

nor violating international borders in military or policing actions, covert or otherwise, without consent;

Leave it at that.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Actually, the clause you object to is the one I was thinking of. I'm a bit uncertain about prohibiting 'pressuring other nations' to change their policies; I understand the intent, but the wording seems to rule out normal diplomatic pressure as well as excessive force.

Plus, we now realize the language about human rights and international law would probably be enough to offset any attempt to use this resolution to revoke religious freedoms, so there's no real issue there. But we would tend to agree that at least 'pressuring other nations' should be amended to make it clear what kind of pressure is being prohibited, or else simply dropped.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

OOC: Incidentally, I think the category's right: this is about law enforcement cooperation, and seems to fall within an IS ambit.

My government reiterates the complaints that the government of St Edmund previously made about this proposal's definition of all non-medicinal drug-use as "recreational", on the basis that this implies religious activity is itself purely recreational in nature and is thus an insult to everybody who takes their religious beliefs seriously: We will try to draft a suitable modification for this aspect your text (but Jolt is running very iffily for me today, so maybe tomorrow...).

Also, we feel that clause #6 requires modification, because as currently written it would seem to say that a vessel involved in the legal transport of drugs can not be impeded for any purpose regardless of what else it might be carrying or of any crimes that members of its crew might have committed.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume...)

Well, here — finally — are the suggestions about this proposal that I promised [roughly] a couple of weeks ago: I’m sorry for the delay, but I got sidetracked by various other matters (in both NS and RL). I’ll start by posting an annotated copy of your draft, and then give you my suggested re-drafting of it…


Drug Trafficking Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild

The General Assembly,
Okay so far… ;)

Recognising the right of nations to legalise, illegalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit, within the bounds of any past or future UN resolutions concerning such substances,
This has already been recognised in Resolution # ‘UN Drugs Act’, apart from the reference to taxation, but obviously there’s no harm in re-stating it here too.

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

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

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

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

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

Basically okay, but given the references to “recreational” drugs in some of these clauses wouldn’t it be better if their definition was moved to before this section? And the clause about punishing offenders is now covered by Resolution #, the Fair Sentencing Act, so that its inclusion — although harmless — is no longer as ‘necessary’ as was previously the case…

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, drugs as chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and/or potential addiction, and defining all drugs as being recreational, unless they are widely recognised by individual nations as legitimate medical substances and used in a manner deemed appropriate by medical experts;
As I’ve already said, my government would prefer it if this definition also recognised sacramental purposes as another, separate reason for the use of some drugs.

2. Demands that all nations, in taking action to suppress illegal drug trafficking, recognise the sovereignty of other nations; neither pressuring said nations to adopt changes in their recreational drugs policy, nor violating international borders in military or policing actions, covert or otherwise, without consent; nor using domestic recreational drugs policy as justification for any breach of human rights or international law;
There’s the question that somebody else has already raised about whether this would still allow peaceful, diplomatic attempts at persuading other nations to change their drugs policies: Changing the terms used from “pressuring” to “coercing” might be one solution to this…
Also, the line about not “using domestic recreational drugs policy as justification for any breach of human rights” could lead to claims that using drugs was a “human right” in itself and therefore that no “domestic recreational drugs policy” short of complete legalisation would be in compliance with this resolution, which is a view with which my government is definitely not in agreement…

3. Requires that no nation take action against recreational drug production by biological, chemical or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal, or likely to create health risks;
What if those other nations’ governments freely consent to the use of those methods? And what about possible risks to other types of legal crops?

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

5. Urges that all nations producing recreational drugs closely monitor and publish records dealing with the production capacity and exchange record of any body or individual producing, transporting or purchasing such substances other than for personal consumption;
Wouldn’t these two clauses work better with each other if their positions were switched over? Also, as I’ve already said, my government would prefer it — on the grounds of religious tolerance — if these clauses made it clear that nations don’t have to help other nations suppress the shipping of drugs when those substances are meant for genuine sacramental use.

6. Recognises the right of vessels, engaged in the transport of recreational drugs legal in both exporting and importing countries, to use international territory without threat of impediment or harassment from other nations;
This would seem to say that if a vessel is carrying drugs on that basis then it can’t be impeded or harassed for any reason, no matter what else it might be carrying or what other laws it & its crew might have broken, not even by vessels belonging to nations that are at war with the one to which it belongs…

7. Reaffirms the right of nations to monitor vessels using international territory in order to prevent illicit activity;
Wouldn’t this be better left for a subsequent proposal on the difference between territorial and international waters/airspace/space, or law-enforcement in international territories, or something along those lines? Unless we explain that it’s only the movements of those vessels that nations are allowed to monitor, with no authorisation [here] for boarding & searches, of course…

8. Recognises the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor said goods at point of departure and arrival;
I’m not entirely happy about the position of this clause, but am still unsure about where else it might be better placed…

9. Recognises the right of nations to deny entry to vessels transporting recreational drugs.
Even if they’re drugs of types whose use is legal within the nation concerned, and this clause is therefore just being used as an excuse to cover some other reason (such as the protection of domestic producers from competition) for blocking them? This point would also be covered by a proposal on the international transportation of goods in general that I’ve already been working on in private for a few weeks [on-&-off] and intend to post in this forum quite soon…

Co-authored by Rehochipe
Which means that even if you use all of my ideas my government can’t be cited as co-author… Oh well, c’est la vie… ;)


And now _

Drug Trafficking Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild

The General Assembly,

Defining drugs, for the purpose of this resolution, as substances that that are not normally either essential for life nor seen primarily as foodstuffs but that people may deliberately consume in various manners anyway, and that may have addictive properties,

Recognising that people may take drugs for medical purposes, for sacramental purposes (as a part of religious rites), for recreational enjoyment, or possibly for other reasons,

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

Aware that nations with widely differing policies on the recreational use of drugs may share borders or be linked by trade-routes,

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

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

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

1. Demands that all nations, in taking action to suppress illegal drug trafficking, recognise the sovereignty of other nations; neither trying to coerce said nations into changing their policies about the use of drugs, nor violating international borders in military or policing actions, covert or otherwise, without consent; nor using domestic recreational drugs policy as supposed justification for any breach of international law;

3. Requires that no nation take action against drug production by biological, chemical or biochemical methods, such as the introduction of crop-destroying pests or of abortive strains, which may be judged likely to affect the production of those or any other crops within nations wherein said crops are legal (except with the freely given consent of those other nations’ governments) or likely to create health risks to people;

4. Urges that all nations within which drugs are produced monitor that production and the trade in those drugs within their borders;

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

6. Recognises that nations may choose to refrain from such international cooperation if they honestly believe that the drugs concerned are intended for sacramental use in a way that would be legal within their own territories;

7. Declares that the transport aboard vessels of any drugs that are legal in both exporting and importing countries does not constitute legal justification for interference by any other nation in those vessels’ use of international territory;

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

9. Recognises the right of nations to deny entry into their territories to vessels transporting any drugs of types that are illegal there.

Co-authored by Rehochipe

How about this, or a close variant?

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

That still gives leeway over what sacramental usage is, while recognising that it does exist. I'm not really sure I want to make too many other changes to this article though.

I've fiddled with it a bit. How about this?

Drug Trafficking Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild

The General Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Co-authored by Rehochipe

What if those other nations’ governments freely consent to the use of those methods?
I'm trying to think of a possible reason why Nation A would allow Nation B to destroy Nation A's crops, when said crops are legal in Nation A. Unless you can give me a clear example of when this might happen, I don't see why that needs to be changed.

And what about possible risks to other types of legal crops?
That is covered by the use of the word 'production'. That doesn't only refer to the crop being targeted, but to all types of crop production. I don't see how to make that any clearer without going into serious rules lawyering and micromanagement.

Drug Trafficking Act

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild

The General Assembly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Recognises the duty of both exporting and importing nations to closely monitor goods at point of departure and arrival for possible illicit activity;

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

Co-authored by Rehochipe

~~~
(Hopefully) final version. I've thought about it, and have decided to drop the former Article 6. I couldn't find a workable alternative without going into extreme micromanagement, but the article as stated was unsuitable. It could be the genesis of another proposal possibly, relating to usage of international territory, but that's too big for something like this.

If there are no major problems, I'll be starting submission next week. We'll see if this beats Habeas Corpus for the all-time record.

This has now been submitted to the UN, and I've begun a TG campaign. Hopefully this won't take long to get up.

[edit] I've replaced the version in the OP. That now shows the final version as submitted.

Approved.

This has now been submitted to the UN, and I've begun a TG campaign. Hopefully this won't take long to get up.

OOC: If you're having a problem getting it up, there are quite a few drugs on the market now to help you with that problem. :p

Although personally very pro legalization, I like the idea behind this proposal, and think it has alot of potential. What you really need to do though, Emen Un, is limit the scope of the proposal simply to cross-border drug trafficking and related national disputes. There are some really good ideas here (particularily clause 3), but anything related to rights of drug use needs to be dropped, as well as all the re-affirming other resolutions stuff.

Beyond that, I'd also re-write the definition of a drug, as there are alot of drugs out there, and any single one could be banned.

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a drug as a chemical substance that alters behaviour, perception, or normal body fuction in a human being.

1.2 Defines medication (medical drugs), as any chemical substance used for specifically to increase personal health, releive pain, disinfect wounds, or another medical purpose under the supervision or recommendation of an accredited medical proffessional.

1.3 Defines recreational drugs as substances that are used without specific medical purpose and without the recommendation of an accredited medical professional.


Personally, I'd drop 1.2 and 1.3 because you really don't need to define different kinds of drugs. However, if you take the proposal in a different direction, these definitions might come in handy.


OOC: If you're having a problem getting it up, there are quite a few drugs on the market now to help you with that problem.

Har...hardy har...har........har.