NationStates Jolt Archive

As there is no resolution currently at vote, I have submitted a proposal that will reduce the amounts of illegal drugs in member nations where drugs are outlawed and greatly boost the economy of member nations where certain drugs are legal:
"
AWARE that member nations may not wish to outlaw drugs,

OBSERVING that trafficking of drugs across borders may lead to large untaxed amounts of money being poured from one nation to another,

NOTING that drug trafficking between nations may lead to conflict due to differences in drug laws of member nations.

CONCLUDING that cutting down on international drug trafficking will benefit all nations involved economically and socially.

THEREFORE HEREBY MANDATING all member nations to follow this resolution that is:
§1 ENACTING that nations put immediately into effect laws imposing a fine, imprisonment, or other such correctional actions acceptable by the UN upon drug traffickers.

§2 DEFINING drug traffickers as any individuals who are caught involved in the international:

-Buying
-Selling
-Otherwise exchanging in any form

of drugs that were not legally passed through the borders of both nations involved and were hence properly taxed and monitored.

§3 ADVISING member nations to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do not follow similar courses of action.
"

Is this not a good resolution for all member nations? This will reduce black market drug trafficking and will reduce possible tensions between nations. Just like the real-life example of Columbia shipping immense amounts of illegal drugs into the US that are untaxed and unmonitored. If both sides agree to this resolution it will help them both. All possible options: (nations where drugs are:)
Legal to Illegal - the legal will benefit from taxing exports and cutting down on resources pouring out of its country and the illegal would benefit from the reduction of amounts of drugs.
Legal to Legal - obviously both sides would benefit from taxation.
Illegal to Illegal - although such nations probably have such international trafficking bans, it will help reduce it furtherly.
If you may ask, what good is this resolution for, if nations may choose whether to legalize or make it illegal to possess drugs already? Well, this forces the legal one in the example of Legal to Illegal to crack down on individuals that do so through black market - harming the illegal nation. Also, the possible sanctions proposed would aid such helpless nations where drugs are not legal but cannot stop the pouring of drugs into their coutnry because neighboring nations do nothing to stop trafficking in their own country.
In addition to this, if certain nations have only certain drugs legalized, these black market drug lords are obviously involved in much more than the selling of your legal drugs, because illegal ones are much more demanded and costly.
Any reasons why this proposal is flawwed/unfavorable to certain countries? I would love to hear counterarguments.

Urm...aren't you just telling national governments to enact laws that, logically, already exist in the UN nations in question?

To clarify, if drugs are illegal in a country, it's already going to be illegal to import, buy and sell drugs - otherwise they wouldn't be illegal in that country. Thus no need for the UN to tell you that if drugs are illegal in your country you should make drugs illegal.

Similarly, if drugs are legal, there seems to be little point in saying that they have to be legally imported, as if they aren't then they are already illegally imported and the UN has no need to tell countries that illegally imported drugs are illegal

What you are basically saying is illegalise illegal things!

indeed you pose a valid argument, but I insist that this will enforce strickter law enforcement, as in cases where for example Columbia is trafficking vast amounts of drugs into the US illegally. Drugs are not legal in either country, but Columbia does not have strict laws against people who are illegally exporting drugs. This causes tensions between the US and Comolmbia, and also increases the amount of drugs in the US because of Colombian governemental actions or lack of them. This is mainly for the nations that are currently not doing much about preventing shippment of drugs into other countries, forcing them to do something about the issue internally, because other nations suffer from their actions. If they do not comply, sanctions may be placed on them. Is this not reason enough to pass this resolution even though some components of it may already be in place for each nation individually?

I think this is a valid proposal. There are situations where some type of international legislation such as is would be necessary. An example is when a particular substance is legal in one nation but illegal in another. This would prevent the nation that allows the use of said substance from importing it from a nation where it is illegal and controlled by criminal groups. By compelling UN nations to respect each other's internal laws in relation to illegal substances, it will keep the profits out of the hands of the criminal organizations. It will also simplify the international criminal extradition process.

This is a good point, that I didn't necessarily think about while writing this proposal. This is another positive side about it, facilitating issues that involve extraditions and nations wishing that individualls in other nations be arrested despite different laws. A nation is very much powerless when it comes to wanting to arrest someone in another nation with different laws. This resolution will help that in the case of drug lords. Thank-you for your support.

I like this proposal, it has a good system. I do not agree with the idea that this is declaring illegal things illegal. I think it's enforcing already existing laws. Not declaring them.

Thank you for you support as well. I would indeed have liked to add some anti-drug laws to apply to every country to this proposition but realized that countries where certain drugs are legal would not support this and was aiming for a proposal that would benefit all nations so there will be no opposition. Perhaps it would be an idea to think about to do what you suggested in a seperate proposal that will lead to UN drop out nations when a law outlawing drugs in some form or another and a very heated clash between nationstates. If you are anti-drugs, as I suppose you are from your comment, I think this proposal will help your nation in reducing the amounts of drugs in it. I hope that when this proposal becomes a resolution, you will encourage members of your regino to vote in favor of it, and same to you Pretorian.

First, the tag end of section 2 is missing a "not", and should possibly use "or" instead of "and". Exactly where is left as an exercise for the drafter :-)

Second, I'm not entirely sure I approve of this. While in a vast majority of cases most nations would be entirely happy to do just this, there are silly cases that we can see happening that would be made much sillier by taking away national discretion like this.

Suppose that Gobbannium is an unsuitable nation for growing coffee (which it is), and therefore we import our entire coffee supply from Nowhereinparticula (which we don't). Now suppose that there is a revolution in Nowhereinparticula, and the new regime considers the consumption of caffiene as a religious sin and hence bans it quite thoroughly. Naturally a thriving black market (or white, with milk) springs up, and beans are smuggled across the border to a welcoming Gobbannaen public. Being partial to my morning cuppa, I'd rather pin a medal on the coffee-runners than a jail sentence, particularly since the new state religion of Nowhereinparticula is anathema to Gobbannaen Strict Druidism.

This may sound like a particularly strange situation, but stranger have occurred and the all-encompassing nature of the proposal would demand a strict response.

You definitely pose a possible concern. Although from the point of view of Gobbannium it might not be so worrysome that caffeine is entering your nation illegaly you must look at other perspectives as well. I'm quite sure that Nowhereinparticula is NOT your only source of imports of caffeine. First of all, if caffeine is banned there, the amount of caffeine still grown there surely does not exceed a bare minimum. Second, think about all the potential tax money you may have lost from possible importing from other nations. Not to mention the hightened degree of tensions between Nowhereinpaticula and its non-caffeinated allies and ur own respectable nation of Gobbannium. Such tensions often lead to conflicts and those are not favorable in the point of view of most UN member nations. By pinning medals on Gobbannian coffee-runners, you don't only encourage the abstinence of tax payments but also anger your neighboring Nowhereinparticulans. Instead, perhaps you should search for a more peacefull alternative where both sides would benefit?

Two minor questions:
1. What form of sanctions would be endorsed by this particular resolution;
and 2. Would a drug mule be considered a trafficker, since they are not really buying or selling drugs so much as they are selling their body for transport (is that considered within the "exchange" area)?

Good questions.
1. It would be at the discretion of each nation in particular which sanctions to impose upon non-compliant nation if at all, since it is a recommendation, but the intentions were mostly economical sanctions in general
2. Yes since a drug mule would fall under the definition of an international drug trafficker since it clearly states: "any indicvidual INVOLVED in...".

I hope this better helps you understand and be in favor of this proposal.

Suppose that Gobbannium is an unsuitable nation for growing coffee (which it is), and therefore we import our entire coffee supply from Nowhereinparticula (which we don't). Now suppose that there is a revolution in Nowhereinparticula, and the new regime considers the consumption of caffiene as a religious sin and hence bans it quite thoroughly. Naturally a thriving black market (or white, with milk) springs up, and beans are smuggled across the border to a welcoming Gobbannaen public. Being partial to my morning cuppa, I'd rather pin a medal on the coffee-runners than a jail sentence, particularly since the new state religion of Nowhereinparticula is anathema to Gobbannaen Strict Druidism.

This may sound like a particularly strange situation, but stranger have occurred and the all-encompassing nature of the proposal would demand a strict response.

OOC: And of course that would also work when the situation was the other way around, too... Such a rule would mean that if a Muslim-run nation totally banned the purchase & consumption of alcohol by all of its residents, even those of them who were not themselves Muslims, then other nations (even predominantly-Christian ones) would be required to block the shipment of Communion Wine to any Christian groups who lived there...
(This was an objection that I raised back when Enn was working on a proposal about such matters, some months ago...)

Indeed this perhaps may be a problem, but a very minor one indeed. Surely, the exports of the neighboring Christian nations do not rely subsistently on wine exported to this Muslim country if it has a Muslim majority as you say, and this is not particularly a problem of illegal black marketing. If up to this point it was legal to trade in wine between the two nations, why in the world would there be illegal networks already set up for its trafficking????? This would mean a neighboring Christian nation is intentionally trying to intervene and break the laws of its neighboring Muslim nation and will surely be met with hostility from its Muslim counterparts. In order for this resolution to even BEGIN to become a problem in the situation you described, the governemtn of the Christian nation would have to purposefully fund illegal trafficking, which would make little sense, if they recieve no taxes whatsoever from such trades. Although it may seem important in a religious sense to continue trafficking wine into the Muslim country, the Christian citizens there would simply have to rely on home made wine ONLY. And this is the a main purpose of this resolution, to limit illegal drugs availability to home grown only. I hope this convinces you to vote in favor of this resolution. If not I would be pleased to hear any further concerns you may wish to voice.

Indeed this perhaps may be a problem, but a very minor one indeed. Surely, the exports of the neighboring Christian nations do not rely subsistently on wine exported to this Muslim country if it has a Muslim majority as you say, and this is not particularly a problem of illegal black marketing. If up to this point it was legal to trade in wine between the two nations, why in the world would there be illegal networks already set up for its trafficking????? This would mean a neighboring Christian nation is intentionally trying to intervene and break the laws of its neighboring Muslim nation and will surely be met with hostility from its Muslim counterparts. In order for this resolution to even BEGIN to become a problem in the situation you described, the governemtn of the Christian nation would have to purposefully fund illegal trafficking, which would make little sense, if they recieve no taxes whatsoever from such trades. Although it may seem important in a religious sense to continue trafficking wine into the Muslim country, the Christian citizens there would simply have to rely on home made wine ONLY. And this is the a main purpose of this resolution, to limit illegal drugs availability to home grown only. I hope this convinces you to vote in favor of this resolution. If not I would be pleased to hear any further concerns you may wish to voice.

My original concern was less about the economic aspects involved in the hypothetical Christian nation's level of trade being reduced and more about the fact that Christian nations would at least theoretically be required (even if those Christian communities under Muslim rule could produce home-made wine, which could be made rather difficult after all -- assuming that wine actually made from grapes rather than from other fruit instead is considered theologically necessary -- if those Muslim governments took the simple step of preventing the cultivation of vineyards...) to assist the Muslim governments in suppressing those Christian communities' religious practices...
(And yes, before anybody asks, I would object on the same principle to any nations being obliged to help foreign governments suppress the international trade in any other [genuinely] 'sacramental' drugs that might be legal within those nations' own territories too...)

Further concerns? Well, there's the simple fact that because the current draft targets the individual traffickers instead of actually requiring that nations suppress the illicit trade as a whole, and because it leaves the punishments to be imposed on those traffickers to be determined at the national level (as it must do, to avoid an illegal conflict with the 'Fair Sentencing Act'), it actually leaves the nations fully entitled to impose purely nominal penalties on any traffickers whom they catch & convict whilst letting the trade continue...

Oh, and isn't there a "not" missing from where I've inserted an asterisk into the following passage?of drugs that were not legally passed through the borders of both nations involved and were hence * properly taxed and monitored.

First off, I would like to state that the Protectorate of Planting sees this proposal as both viable and good intentioned. We are prepared to support this resolution were it to come to vote.

To the Representative from Gobbannium:

You posed a good point

Suppose that Gobbannium is an unsuitable nation for growing coffee (which it is), and therefore we import our entire coffee supply from Nowhereinparticula (which we don't).

but we would like to point out that we (in addition to our lemonade stands) harvest a fair amount of coffee beans every year. The point I make here is... just because one member nation might change it's stance on what is legal or illegal within its borders, there is generally another nation that has legalized whatever it is you are looking for... and if not, some of the more capitalistic nations out there might take that as a hint to start loosening their laws to make a Mushroom or two off of you.

Further concerns? Well, there's the simple fact that because the current draft targets the individual traffickers instead of actually requiring that nations suppress the illicit trade as a whole, and because it leaves the punishments to be imposed on those traffickers to be determined at the national level (as it must do, to avoid an illegal conflict with the 'Fair Sentencing Act'), it actually leaves the nations fully entitled to impose purely nominal penalties on any traffickers whom they catch & convict whilst letting the trade continue

We feel that this provision:

§1 ENACTING that nations put immediately into effect laws imposing a fine, imprisonment, or other such correctional actions acceptable by the UN upon drug traffickers.

covers your concerns as it states that the punishment must satisfy the UN as well as the nation levying the punishment.

You bring up a great point. That is precisely true. I appreciate your support.

First off for your 'further concerns' see Planting's response above as I agree with him as to the interpretation of the resolution.

As for your original concern: Under the resolution, The Christian nations aren't physically assisting the Muslim ones, but they are simply NOT aiding illegal activity within that nation. Please do not attempt to claim that such Christian nations you speak of have desire to constantly supply wine to Christian minorities in every nation not dominated by a christian majority. If you do wish to make this claim, please notice the fact that this would demand that enormous amount of product left the country via black marketting and therefore would not be taxed and very soon this nations economy would be in rubble. This resolution does not require of these nations to 'aid suppress' communities in other nations but simply to step aside and allow each government to do as it wishes respectfully and peacefully. If you should wish to declare war upon this nation due to its 'oppressing regime' in your own opinion, you are entitled to do so at your own discretion, although this would most likely be highly frowned upon by other members of the UN, especially if purely for religious reasons. Although this may hypothetically be immoral in your country's standards, I assure you that most Christian nations do not believe that they are solely responsible to provide wine to minorities in other nations. By supporting illegal trafficking, as you claim to wish to do, you are aiding criminals in other nations, no matter what your personal opinion is on the subject; and such situations, of entire nations aiding criminals in other nations, is simply unacceptable. If you still disagree, I am still very much open minded to hear additional remarks or replies to this comment, if you have futrther arguments and/or concerns.

We feel that this provision:
[snip]
covers your concerns as it states that the punishment must satisfy the UN as well as the nation levying the punishment.
Ah, thank you for bringing that up. I hadn't noticed that contravention of the Fair Sentencing Act (which basically says that the UN will keep its grubby fingers off sentencing decisions, thank you very much). That would make the proposal illegal, which makes me much happier.

The most basic problem with this whole approach is that it's based on the idea that if you prohibit something hard enough, it will stop being a problem. Historical evidence strongly suggests that it has exactly the opposite effect: prohibit something and it acquires a mystique, becomes more of a problem amd more prevalent, puts more money into the coffers of organised crime, and so on. [OOC: for example, under Prohibition the US consumed more alcohol that it did previously, and funded Al Capone amongst others.] While I'm perfectly happy for nations who don't want to learn to do their own thing -- well, not perfectly happy, but it's their right to be wrong -- I'd rather not be required to contribute to the problems of others.

The only part of fair sentencing act that you may quote for this purpose is section 2:

"2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions; "

which is precisely in accord with the current proposal:

"§1 ENACTING that nations put immediately into effect laws imposing a fine, imprisonment, or other such correctional actions acceptable by the UN upon drug traffickers"

This clearly and obviously allows nations to choose which punishment they wish to give to each specific case in particular, which is basically what the fair sentencing act was meant for due to extinuating circumstances and all that.
The phrase "acceptable by the UN" specifies that these punishments may not include forms of torture for example that are unacceptable by UN standards. Also each member nation may decide if it is acceptable from its point of view and then individually consider sanctions against the nation, not as the UN body in whole but as a nation. For example, if simply to comply with the law, the nation of Druggedupdrugland does not wish to withdraw from its membership in the UN and this resolution does pass, it sentences the biggest drug lord ever caught in their nation that was trafficking large amounts of every illegal drug thinkable of, to a public service of 1 day cleaning public streets, I am sure that many nations would consider this insufficient and hence the ADVICE to consider possible sanctions. Not only is Advising instead of forcing nations to do so, it is also as an individual choice rather than the entire UN.
As for the prohibition - the idea of this proposal is not NECESSARILY to ban drugs. It would limit drug availability to legal trade among nations where such drugs are legal, and illegal drugs made in the home country inside of its borders. This is much different than prohibitions you speak of. I think most member nations would agree that this will not cause a RISE in drug use, but quite the opposite: it will reduce the amounts of illegal drugs in nations where its illegal and increase the amounts of LEGALly traded drugs in nations where they are legal. It will be the entire opposite of putting money into the hands of crime, but regulating it - not to mention making it MUCH safer for users.
If you still wish to bring up further issues, as always, I would be glad to hear them.

The phrase "acceptable by the UN" specifies that these punishments may not include forms of torture for example that are unacceptable by UN standards.
If that's what you intend the phrase to mean, then I suggest you change it to say that. I think "in accordance with international law" is the usual boilerplate.

Beyond that, I think that history is still against you, but that's a philosophical matter outside the scope of a drafting debate.

Unfortunately I think we are at a stage where popular support is overwhelming and a new proposal would indeed be necessary if it would have been a major issue. Since it is a minor thing, I think it will be quite fine going through as it is now. But thank you for the tip, and if it does not pass, I will be sure to correct that on a revised version. I certainly hope and quite honestly believe that this resolution will not do more harm than good as you say it might. I hope you will see more good than bad to it if it does pass indeed.

Wait, this is already submitted? I missed that. In that case, the "minor point" becomes a question of legality, and I still think that as phrased it's a contravention of the FSA.

Yes it is already submitted. But I'm sure most delegates would disagree with you in this manner of interpretation. And even if some do interpret it in the same way as you, I do not believe it is in direct conflict with the FSA because nations still have the choice as to which punishment to inflict upon their own criminals. Acceptable by the UN is a phrase that is added to "or any other forms of punishment". It is not saying that a small fine is not acceptable, if for example the nation in question is really poor. But it is also clear that the sanctions are voluntary. This is not at all conflicting to the FSA.

This is a response to the argument relating to importing banned substances used in religious practices, ie. the example of exporting communion wine into a state where alcohol is banned;

According to international law, citizens of all member states are gurranteed freedom of religious practice. Therefor, it would be illegal for any nation to outlaw practices integral to said religion, such as the imbibing of sacremental wine. Under this proposal, it would be inpermissible to allow the export banned substances for commercial/recreational purposes. But, if it can be demonstrated that said substance was required for religious practices, it could not be prohibited from use in that specific situation.

Yes Indeed, to tell the truth, this proposal was meant mostly with regard to heavy drugs.

OOC:

Me: It contravenes FSA.
Int: Doesn't.
Me: Does to.
etc

Any chance of a mod shutting us up? :-)

I am not arguing, simply trying to point out that it is purely a matter of interpretation, and may the majority decide, it will do nothing to argue about the words, but about the ideas. If there are any further IDEAs you wish to discuss, I would be pleased to continue hear and respond to your observations and opinions.

As for your original concern: Under the resolution, The Christian nations aren't physically assisting the Muslim ones, but they are simply NOT aiding illegal activity within that nation.
*Ahem* This proposal would specifically require them to help police the cross-border trade concerned: That is requiring physical assistance from them in upholding the ban.

Please do not attempt to claim that such Christian nations you speak of have desire to constantly supply wine to Christian minorities in every nation not dominated by a christian majority. If you do wish to make this claim, please notice the fact that this would demand that enormous amount of product left the country via black marketting and therefore would not be taxed and very soon this nations economy would be in rubble.
"Constantly", in every such nation? No, of course not... but if they saw the actions of another nation's government as aimed at suppressing the local members of their own faith then I suspect that -- even if they didn't choose to organise any such shipments themselves -- they would object on principle to being told (however ineffectually) that they had to take legal action against any of their people who chose to do so...
(And ditto for Rastafarian governments & marijuana, Native American Church or Wenaist governments & peyote, and so on...)

This resolution does not require of these nations to 'aid suppress' communities in other nations but simply to step aside and allow each government to do as it wishes respectfully and peacefully.
If you consider requiring national governments to try blocking the export of goods that are perfectly legal within their nations as allowing "each government to do as it wishes respectfully and peacefully" then there's something wrong with either your dictionary or your idea of logic...

If you should wish to declare war upon this nation due to its 'oppressing regime' in your own opinion, you are entitled to do so at your own discretion, although this would most likely be highly frowned upon by other members of the UN, especially if purely for religious reasons.
Haven't been around the UN for very long, have you? ;)

I assure you that most Christian nations do not believe that they are solely responsible to provide wine to minorities in other nations.
And I never said that they did...

By supporting illegal trafficking, as you claim to wish to do, you are aiding criminals in other nations, no matter what your personal opinion is on the subject; and such situations, of entire nations aiding criminals in other nations, is simply unacceptable.
Only if one is willing to regard people who simply want to practice their religion in peace, despite oppressive measures by their nation's government, as "criminals" (because the sacramental drugs wouldn't necessarily have to be passed through the hands of professional smugglers, rather than from church members to church members, after all...), which I do not...

This is a response to the argument relating to importing banned substances used in religious practices, ie. the example of exporting communion wine into a state where alcohol is banned;

According to international law, citizens of all member states are gurranteed freedom of religious practice. Therefor, it would be illegal for any nation to outlaw practices integral to said religion, such as the imbibing of sacremental wine. Under this proposal, it would be inpermissible to allow the export banned substances for commercial/recreational purposes. But, if it can be demonstrated that said substance was required for religious practices, it could not be prohibited from use in that specific situation.

No. It would be illegal for any nation to ban the import/export/production/etc of those materials for the specific purpose of some religion's sacramental use, but if they ban the import/exort/production/etc of those materials altogether then -- as that would theoretically treat all religions' (and other philosophies') members equally -- they wouldn't be in breach of the existing resolutions.
Otherwise that "freedom of religious practice" would also force them to allow the permission of all other types of actions that might otherwise be illegal in non-sacramental contexts, such as murder for the sacramental purpose of 'human sacrifice'...

I am not arguing, simply trying to point out that it is purely a matter of interpretation, and may the majority decide, it will do nothing to argue about the words, but about the ideas. If there are any further IDEAs you wish to discuss, I would be pleased to continue hear and respond to your observations and opinions.
OOC: I'm not arguing either, but you're wrong. On questions of legality the majority does not decide. That's what the moderators do. I'm taking the silence (and the fact that the proposal hasn't been deleted) to mean that they think this is legal.

The time for discussion of IDEAS was while you were drafting the proposal. Unfortunately you didn't deign to ask for them until after you'd submitted it. I, for one, am unimpressed.

I appologize for not giving enough time prior to its submission to the posting of ideas and will be sure to do so should it not pass and a rewrite will be necessary or should I choose to write other proposals.

Ok this is going to take a long post so bare with me.

1. If nations do not put any means of protection of their borders, which I doubt many nations dont, it would be very unwise of them to do so. Other crime is also involved in border crossing.

2. The nations that will object to do so will have to deal with the fact that they are aiding individuals that are considered 'criminal' in the other nation.

3. It will certainly not 'halt the exports'. it surely has many other trade partners aside from the nation where it has been outlawed. The respectfully and peacefully part means that each nation respects laws in other nations and maintains peace if possible by not angering nearby nations with actions such as supporting criminals within them.

4. If you speak of only a very small number of nations with such fundamentalistic policies, I believe they will need to change their policy because the rest of the UN views it as illegal and unacceptable to the international community.

5. Although a nation may not identify an individual within another nation as a 'criminal' it must respectfully recognize that the nation he/she resides in may do so and act accordingly as to maintain the tranquility.

6. As for religious practices in general, in my own personal opinion another resolution, or even perhaps two, are necessary for such matters.

Any further matters you may bring up, I will gladly discuss.

i think this is illeagal in many ways

I would be very glad if you pointed some of these out to us.

Ok this is going to take a long post so bare with me.
"bear", maybe, but NOT "bare"! For one thing I don't know you, and for another I'm currently in a public library... ;)

1. If nations do not put any means of protection of their borders, which I doubt many nations dont, it would be very unwise of them to do so. Other crime is also involved in border crossing.
DId I say that they shouldn't protect their borders? No I bloody didn't! Of course I realise that actual crimes may also involve crossing borders.What I said was that they might well object on principle to being required to use whatever border controls they do have for blocking this specific flow of goods...

2. The nations that will object to do so will have to deal with the fact that they are aiding individuals that are considered 'criminal' in the other nation.
And do you seriously think they will consider that technical breach of another nation's law as more serious than the fact that the actions of that nations' government are interefering with their co-religionists' ability to practice their religion properly?!?

3. It will certainly not 'halt the exports'. it surely has many other trade partners aside from the nation where it has been outlawed. The respectfully and peacefully part means that each nation respects laws in other nations and maintains peace if possible by not angering nearby nations with actions such as supporting criminals within them.
I point out, again, that it was NOT the actual loss of trade to which I saw those nations' governments as objecting: It was the interefence in their co-religionists' faith practices... which the fact that those nations themselves might have alternative markets for their goods available would not affect.

4. If you speak of only a very small number of nations with such fundamentalistic policies, I believe they will need to change their policy because the rest of the UN views it as illegal and unacceptable to the international community.
According to which Resolution? You do know that it's only the letter of the law that's binding on national governments, and not the presumed (or even stated) intentions of the resolutions' authors, don't you?

5. Although a nation may not identify an individual within another nation as a 'criminal' it must respectfully recognize that the nation he/she resides in may do so and act accordingly as to maintain the tranquility.
Would you still say the same if this were a matter of political rather than religious dissent? If, for example, a national government objected to the fact that somebody in a nearby country was being allowed to broadcast political propaganda -- or just accurate news, without that government's distortions of the truth -- by radio across the border?

Still OOC. Mercifully this failed to reach quorum, so I don't feel any obligation to try and drag this discussion back in character. Please try discussing your next draft in this forum before putting it on the proposal queue.

As the prposal feel less than 10 approvals short of the quorum I will now make the revisions you have all proposed and contributed in your ideas. Tell me how this new one sounds:

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution, a "recreational drug" as a chemical substance whose primary 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;

FURTHER DEFINING that the substances of caffeine, tobacco, and alchohol as substances exempt from this definition.

AWARE that member nations may not wish to outlaw drugs,

OBSERVING that trafficking of drugs across borders may lead to large untaxed amounts of money being poured from one nation to another,

NOTING that drug trafficking between nations may lead to conflict due to differences in drug laws of member nations.

CONCLUDING that cutting down on international drug trafficking will benefit all nations involved economically and socially.

THEREFORE HEREBY MANDATING all member nations to follow this resolution that is:

§1 ENACTING that nations put immediately into effect laws imposing a fine, imprisonment, or other such forms of correctional action that are allowed by the UN upon drug traffickers.

§2 DEFINING international drug traffickers as any individuals who are caught involved in the international:

-Buying
-Selling
-Otherwise exchanging in any form

of drugs that were not legally passed through the borders of the nations involved.

§3 URGING member nations to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do not follow similar courses of action.

§4 ADVISING each member nation to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do follow similar courses of action, but fail to present their choice of correctional action as sufficient and fitting for the crime commited.



I hope there are less problems with this version, I have made the corrections you suggested. (Except for your VERY minor concern Antarctic about very few nations where religion is conflicting in your opinion).
Is this better?

I was convinced to remove a certain clause, new one:

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution, a "recreational drug" as a chemical substance whose primary 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;

FURTHER DEFINING that the substances of caffeine, tobacco, and alchohol as substances exempt from this definition.

AWARE that member nations may not wish to outlaw drugs,

OBSERVING that trafficking of drugs across borders may lead to large untaxed amounts of money being poured from one nation to another,

NOTING that drug trafficking between nations may lead to conflict due to differences in drug laws of member nations.

CONCLUDING that cutting down on international drug trafficking will benefit all nations involved economically and socially.

THEREFORE HEREBY MANDATING all member nations to follow this resolution that is:

§1 ENACTING that nations put immediately into effect laws imposing a fine, imprisonment, or other such forms of correctional action that are allowed by the UN upon drug traffickers.

§2 DEFINING international drug traffickers as any individuals who are caught involved in the international:

-Buying
-Selling
-Otherwise exchanging in any form

of drugs that were not legally passed through the borders of the nations involved.

§3 URGING member nations to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do not follow similar courses of action.

§4 ADVISING each member nation to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do follow similar courses of action, but fail to present their choice of correctional action as sufficient and fitting for the crime commited.

Good?

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution, a "recreational drug" as a chemical substance whose primary 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;

AWARE that member nations may not wish to outlaw drugs,

OBSERVING that trafficking of drugs across borders may lead to large untaxed amounts of money being poured from one nation to another,

NOTING that drug trafficking between nations may lead to conflict due to differences in drug laws of member nations.

CONCLUDING that cutting down on international drug trafficking will benefit all nations involved economically and socially.

THEREFORE HEREBY MANDATING all member nations to follow this resolution that is:

§1 ENACTING that nations put immediately into effect laws imposing a fine, imprisonment, or other such forms of correctional action that are allowed by the UN upon drug traffickers.

§2 DEFINING international drug traffickers as any individuals who are caught involved in the international:

-Buying
-Selling
-Otherwise exchanging in any form

of drugs that were not legally passed through the borders of the nations involved.

§3 URGING member nations to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do not follow similar courses of action.

§4 ADVISING each member nation to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do follow similar courses of action, but fail to present their choice of correctional action as sufficient and fitting for the crime commited.

First, the picky drafting stuff:


The edit button is your friend. It's certainly our friend.

Your punctuation is inconsistent. (I said this was picky!) Clauses seem to end with commas, semicolons and periods more or less at whim. It helps the feel to pick one and stick with it; it also helps make the odd grammatical mistake easier to spot, not that that's an issue here.

"THEREFORE HEREBY MANDATING all member nations to follow this resolution that is:" makes me seem like the soul of brevity and clarity. Seriously.


Then the personal disagreements.

Why do you define "recreational drugs"? You never use the term again in the proposal.

"OBSERVING that trafficking of drugs across borders may lead to large untaxed amounts of money being poured from one nation to another," leaves a sour taste in my mouth. There's an implication about it that it would all be fine if we got our tax cut, particularly given the later claim that we'd benefit economically from cutting down on trafficking. That argument doesn't seem to hang together anyway, but the two together inexplicably make me feel unclean just for reading them.

Section 1 is now pretty much a null clause: nations should do what they are already allowed to do, which runs right the way down to nothing.

Section 2 belongs in the preamble. It's a definition of something we've spent the entire proposal talking about, it shouldn't be buried at the bottom.

Section 3 is fine.

Section 4 is trying to get round the Fair Sentencing Act, and should be roundly condemned in my humble opinion.


I'm not a National Sovereigntist particularly, but you're jangling all my NatSov nerves with this. It's heavy-handed and prescriptive, all about forcing nations to enact punishments severe enough to satisfy all UN members, even if they don't share borders and even given that many nations have radically different ideas of how to maintain law and order. I appreciate that you're trying to encourage international co-operation, but going about it this way is more likely to exacerbate international frictions.

Truly, your comments reflect you really care about this proposal. I think I'm fine with the grammatical stuff, and I hope you're not insulted by this. I defined drugs to make things clearer and prevent possible abuses of the word drug after this proposal does pass. I personally feel that section 1 is the main goal of this resolution, that is what I am personally trying to achieve. About section 2, I highly considered putting it before section 1, but decided it was better off after, and prefer to keep it this way. Thank you for your approval of section 3. And as for section 4, it is only advise given to nations. Perhaps you are right about its intentions of getting around the FSA, but it succeeds in doing so, and therefore makes nothing about this proposal illegal. In my opinion, this resolution will do quite the contrary, it will reduce international frictions by the ways I have described in prior posts in this thread. I appreciate your suggestions to improve on this proposal. Also, I am glad that despite disagreements we've maintained a very friendly and positive communication. I hope this continues.