NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been instructed to pass this message along to the other member nations here by my government.

Description: UN Resolution #191: UN Drug Act (Category: Recreational Drug Use; Decision: Legalize) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

COMMENDS Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" for its intent to provide a more friendly environment for users of drugs,

NOTING that Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" urges, but does not require the passing of laws protecting rights of those using recreational drugs,

CONCLUDES that Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" is unable to protect the rights it sets out,

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act".

(OOC: This is my first resolution... cheesy since its a repeal... just want to be sure I'm doing it right. Secondly, I'd like to mention that I do agree with your ideas Jey, but that the resolution, as worded, offered no solid action, or recourse if there was no action on the part of the member nations.)

(OOC: This is my first resolution... cheesy since its a repeal... just want to be sure I'm doing it right. Secondly, I'd like to mention that I do agree with your ideas Jey, but that the resolution, as worded, offered no solid action, or recourse if there was no action on the part of the member nations.)That was precisely its intention, to apply pressure to member states to legalize drugs without forcing them to do so, and in fact, protecting their right to determine their own drug-use laws. Jey, mind you, also authored a previous resolution to legalize drugs, but it failed miserably on the UN floor. The thinking was, since recreational drug use was primarily a national and local issue, it was best to keep the UN out of it. And a majority agreed to keep it that way.

Besides, "The language isn't as strong as I'd like it" isn't really all that great a repeal argument, since repealing the law only means there will be no language whatsoever pressuring nations to legalize.

Let us preface this by saying that we will likely agree with your government on many positions involving recreational drug use. Recreational drugs are legal throughout Jey, and we're glad to have the UN Drug Act on the books to protect our right to allow citizens to exercise their rights.

We tried long ago to pass legislation legalizing drugs throughout the United Nations, in our resolution Recreational Drug Legalization (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Recreational_Drug_Legalization). This was by far the poorest turnout of Jey's resolution history, only getting 37% of the vote. Interpreting the votes and comments on the issue, we came to understand that the United Nations would not like to have laws imposed universally on this subject. However, in repealing the UN Drug Act, this is what you would inevitably be trying to do.

Should you repeal the UN Drug Act, there would be no laws on the books urging legalization of recreational drugs, which you support. Drugs could be banned; drugs could be legalized. However, as it's been shown in the past, the United Nations would rather not legislate on this issue in that way. I do not think that the proposal you seek to pass after the repeal will meet much more success than our first drug resolution.

With that, we'll get to the repeal:



NOTING that Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" urges, but does not require the passing of laws protecting rights of those using recreational drugs,

That was not the intention. The intention was to protect nations' rights to allow their citizens to use drugs if they choose to.


CONCLUDES that Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" is unable to protect the rights it sets out,

Again, you misinterpret the intention. As Kenny said, the purpose of the UN Drug Act was to allow all nations their right to decide on the issue nationally. The resolution does have a pro-legalization language, as all nations are urged to allow individual determination regarding drug use. But ultimately it's in the hands of nations as a national issue.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

The problem with the UN Drug Act is that it's so comprehensive and vast in its scope that there is virtually no drug proposal that could pass muster (either pro OR con) without being seen as an amendment. UN member nations should have the right to put forward proposals on recreational drug use, and with the UNDA on the books that is currently impossible.

The problem with the UN Drug Act is that it's so comprehensive and vast in its scope that there is virtually no drug proposal that could pass muster (either pro OR con) without being seen as an amendment. UN member nations should have the right to put forward proposals on recreational drug use, and with the UNDA on the books that is currently impossible.

You're pretty much right. As the distinguished representative of Jey explained, that's exactly what the resolution was intended to accomplish. It's what we call a "blocker". It keeps the NSUN from legislating on "recreational drugs" by reserving that right to the member nations. Because the UN is made up of members with a wide variety of populations, we think that's the way it has to be. Because our populations differ greatly, not only in their cultures and political beliefs, but also in their physiologies, we can't imagine that the UN could come up with "one-size-fits-all" legislation that would be appropriate for everyone.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

You're pretty much right. As the distinguished representative of Jey explained, that's exactly what the resolution was intended to accomplish. It's what we call a "blocker". It keeps the NSUN from legislating on "recreational drugs" by reserving that right to the member nations

this is why i predict the repeal to be so easy : )
UN member nations from both sides of this issue will be ready to back the repeal weather ther are for or against drugs, because as it stands now neither of us can gain any ground.


i understand why some of you think is so important for a nation to reserve the right choose its own drug laws AND THATS ALL GOOD AND WELL UNTILL IT HURTS PEOPLE!
i put the people of your nations ABOVE those who aqre running it and if they need to use meical marijuana i will be fighting to give them that right


WOULD YOU SUPPORT A NATIONS CHOICE TO NO LONGER ALLOW THEIR CITIZENS ANTIBOTICS????

Does it realy have to be complicated? After all it is giving nations the right to decide drug laws for themselves. What is there to change? If it gives countries the right to make it's own drug laws. There's no need to be detailed, and if you add limits to this right (Except for drug trade to an illegal country of course.) then you limit the freedom and efficiency of this resolution.

this is why i predict the repeal to be so easy
Yes, the repeal might pass, but then what? Do you honestly think the UN is going to pass legislation mandating the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes?

As it stands the UN is on record, via the UN Drug Act, as urging member nations to legalize recreational drugs. Repeal that and you're unlikely to see any pro-legalization resolution passed as a replacement.

WOULD YOU SUPPORT A NATIONS CHOICE TO NO LONGER ALLOW THEIR CITIZENS ANTIBOTICS????

I'll start by assuming that you mean "antibiotics", but the answer is the same: Yes. They can do what they want, it's their business, whether I like it or not.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

We fear that the only point on which you might get significant agreement amongst nations here is one that is not currently listed at all; that the definition of "recreational drugs" is rather sweeping, and in particular does not limit itself when such drugs have non-recreational uses, such as were brought to light by the discussion of the medicinal uses of marijuana. If that is the author's long-term intent, may we respectfully suggest that there are much more basic matters to be considered as regards healthcare? The UN's current primary legislation on such is frankly rather embarrassing.

Yes, the repeal might pass, but then what? Do you honestly think the UN is going to pass legislation mandating the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes?

yes : ) in fact im alost SURE of it, did you see how many approvals we got on the UNMMA? and i didnt even start talking to other delegates asking for approvals untill the last 2 days.

this UNMMA was made as kind of a spur of the moment thing, the next draft will be a bit longer (if i have any say in it) and it wont be only about medical marijuana it will cover ANY treatment that a doctor recommends and it will also offer protection for doctors to do as they see fit with regard to any treatment.


I'll start by assuming that you mean "antibiotics", but the answer is the same: Yes. They can do what they want, it's their business, whether I like it or not.
~Dr. Jules Hodz

does my whole argumenmt go out the window because i forgot one letter of one word? ;)
to deny medication to people is the kind of thing that starts wars, however i respect your opinion that any nation should be able to do as seen fit by its leaders, i just dont agree with it : )



We fear that the only point on which you might get significant agreement amongst nations here is one that is not currently listed at all; that the definition of "recreational drugs" .

yes thats a good point but one that im afraid to comment on at this point other than to say the game mod's will only allow it to be listed under "recreationl drugs"

OOC: Just, from past experience, can I recommend sticking to the text of the proposal and really, really, really, really not getting into a general cannabis debate with Fat sackville; it won't be pretty.

yes : ) in fact im alost SURE of it, did you see how many approvals we got on the UNMMA? and i didnt even start talking to other delegates asking for approvals untill the last 2 days.


We were almost SURE that everyone would just love our Recreational Drug Legalization proposal, too. We were wrong; we beleive you're wrong. Our proposal received about 200 approvals; yours received 130. It failed at 37%. The number of approvals a proposal receives isn't much of an indicator for how it's to be received at the General Assembly.

Our suggestion is that you understand why the UN forum regulars are not quite supporting your movement: we've seen it before (with two well-known and experienced authors: Jey and _Myopia_) and it's failed before. If you repeal the UN Drug Act, we beleive you will be repealing the only support for recreational drug legalization that the United Nations will ever be putting upon the books. You will not find many supporters for your legalization proposal (and your ~130 approvals is only a small fraction of the entire United Nations; remember you need but only 6%), and we would not be surprised to see this legalization proposal fail by worse than 37%.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Personally I think arguing that nations should have the right to self-determine policy on issues like this is rather close to just shouting "L'EGGO MY NAT SOV!" at any proposal.

I would support a repeal because I don't think future UN legislation should be "blocked" and I don't think drugs should be legalized or any pressure should be put on nations to move towards recreational drug legalization. I only support medicinal marijuana under the tightest of regulations, as well.

As UN members we need to be ready to take stances on things even when we're stepping on people's rights because no matter what you do, you're always stepping on someone's rights. I just prefer to stomp on the rights of junkies who want to get high as opposed to the rights of innocent citizens who have the right to be happy and not have themselves or their families affected by recreational drug usage or usage-related incidents.

Intriguingly, we find ourselves opposed to every single point the delegate from Nykibo makes. Clearly we are going to have to hand our International Federalist credentials in at the door.

We were almost SURE that everyone would just love our Recreational Drug Legalization proposal, too. We were wrong; we beleive you're wrong. Our proposal received about 200 approvals; yours received 130. It failed at 37%. The number of approvals a proposal receives isn't much of an indicator for how it's to be received at the General Assembly.

Our suggestion is that you understand why the UN forum regulars are not quite supporting your movement: we've seen it before (with two well-known and experienced authors: Jey and _Myopia_) and it's failed before. If you repeal the UN Drug Act, we beleive you will be repealing the only support for recreational drug legalization that the United Nations will ever be putting upon the books. You will not find many supporters for your legalization proposal (and your ~130 approvals is only a small fraction of the entire United Nations; remember you need but only 6%), and we would not be surprised to see this legalization proposal fail by worse than 37%.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Had the esteemed Jey calmly and responsibly explained the reasoning behind the opposition to the UN Medical Marijuana Act, I would have taken that into consideration regarding going forward with the proposal. However, the telegram I received from Jey was hardly up to the diplomatic standards used here on the forums. As such, I won't be quoting directly from the telegram but let's just say that it was far ruder than it needed to be. I suggest that in the future it is not in the best interests of your nation to try and make enemies so easily. We can be friends and work together if we treat each other cordially.

Had the esteemed Jey calmly and responsibly explained the reasoning behind the opposition to the UN Medical Marijuana Act, I would have taken that into consideration regarding going forward with the proposal. However, the telegram I received from Jey was hardly up to the diplomatic standards used here on the forums. As such, I won't be quoting directly from the telegram but let's just say that it was far ruder than it needed to be. I suggest that in the future it is not in the best interests of your nation to try and make enemies so easily. We can be friends and work together if we treat each other cordially.

The telegram in its entirety follows:

No, I'm not approving it. Stop telegramming me. By the way, it's highly likely that your proposal will be deemed contradictory to UNR #191 "UN Drug Act," which I authored. It may be deleted.

For reference, UNR #191 allows all nations the right to impose their own national drug-related laws upon their citizens.

Jey

It is our understanding that the "diplomatic standards" of which you speak of in the forums do not exist in the telegrams. Telegrams are OOC, these forums are largely IC. We use the telegrams to send personal messages to nations; we use the forums to discuss openly with many nations.

Regardless, we hardly find our telegram to be "rude". Blunt, yes, but not rude. You or one of your associates had contacted us about this particular proposal not once, not twice, but three different times, and we consider that to be "rude." We were not derogatory in our message: we requested that you stop telegramming us [about the proposal], and informed you that we will not approve of it.

Personally I think arguing that nations should have the right to self-determine policy on issues like this is rather close to just shouting "L'EGGO MY NAT SOV!" at any proposal.

We find this statement completely offensive and without any reasonable foundation. We have never been guilty of what we call "knee-jerk NATSOVism" and have harshly criticized that approach to legislation. We explained our opposition to "one-size-fits-all" legislation on this subject. Now we see this insulting remark.

We expect a retraction.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

I just prefer to stomp on the rights of junkies who want to get high as opposed to the rights of innocent citizens who have the right to be happy and not have themselves or their families affected by recreational drug usage or usage-related incidents.

If someone uses a recreational drug in the privacy is her own home, I fail to see how it affects "innocent citizens" (whatever the space that means). If you're concerned about incidents related to usage -- and I'm guessing you're thinking of stuff like drunk-driving accidents -- then address such incidents. And do it with your own laws, not international ones.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

If someone uses a recreational drug in the privacy is her own home, I fail to see how it affects "innocent citizens" (whatever the space that means). If you're concerned about incidents related to usage -- and I'm guessing you're thinking of stuff like drunk-driving accidents -- then address such incidents. And do it with your own laws, not international ones.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

I agree completely if people use the drugs at home and dont bother other people with them then whats the problem.

New Vandalia: I've come to realize something. I guess I'm going to have to give up trying to convince nations not to let their people hurt themselves and others. You win.

Ausserland: I respect you but I still believe that if you can say it's alright to use blocking legislation to preserve national sovereignty in this situation, that you can say that for any issue. I feel that this is a slippery slope because the more times we cite national sovereignty in UN arguments, the less useful the UN really becomes. If you want to leave certain things to individual governments, I think not legislating on the issue at all is a better course of action than legislating for national sovereignty. That said, I'm sorry you feel offended and I'm clarifying here, but I'm not retracting anything.

Here we go again: broad, sweeping denunciations of so-called "blockers" because they supposedly emasculate the UN and make it "less useful." This is a very simple-minded, unsophisticated and generally nonconstructive view of things. In some cases, preserving national self-determination on some issues is the best route, because far from making the UN less useful, it sets reasonable boundaries for international law and recognizes that nations don't need UN guidance on every single little issue.

If blockers are your big issue, then maybe instead of dwelling on insignificant matters such as recreational drug use, you focus on Freedom of Scientific Research, which would very likely prevent you from passing a replacement for stem-cell research?

Discuss.

You have some valid points, but I think its simple-minded, unsophisticated, and nonconstructive to denounce someone's opinion because you're frustrated about hearing it so many times when you feel differently about it. If you're so passionate about something, why not meet your opposition with peacefulness and patience (as opposed to venom) when trying to explain to someone what you believe in? Maybe it's wise to step back if things get personal to the point where you're citing one of my non-related projects.

Blockers aren't my big issue, I just feel that we shouldn't use them very often. You can disagree, but you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

I think in the case of this particular resolution it was written as a blocker because past experience indicated that a strong, mandating type resolution had no chance of passing.

Having said that, I support its blocking function. I can't imagine how domestic drug policy could possibly be seen as an international issue.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

You have some valid points, but I think its simple-minded, unsophisticated, and nonconstructive to denounce someone's opinion because you're frustrated about hearing it so many times when you feel differently about it.

We, conversely, think it no less than rude and highly undiplomatic to make those statements of an ambassador who has lucidly argued a position contrary to your own, and whose logic you yourself are guilty of flatly ignoring. If anyone in this debate is being simple-minded, unsophisticated and nonconstructive, it is most certainly not Prime Minister von Aschenbach, and for that accusation if nothing else you owe him an apology.

We, conversely, think it no less than rude and highly undiplomatic to make those statements of an ambassador who has lucidly argued a position contrary to your own, and whose logic you yourself are guilty of flatly ignoring. If anyone in this debate is being simple-minded, unsophisticated and nonconstructive, it is most certainly not Prime Minister von Aschenbach, and for that accusation if nothing else you owe him an apology.

I was most certainly not talking to Prime Minister von Aschenbach, I was talking to the representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny. Prime Minister von Aschenbach misunderstood me and for being unclear, I apologize. The statement you cited was addressed to the hostility I received from O.M.G.T.K.K.'s UN ambassador.

Mmm. Stripper commandos.

Heh. Would you rather we defenestrated you? The discussion about hostility in this chamber has also been revisited more times than we care to mention, and we are hardly the worst of the worst in that arena. This is the NS United Nations, after all, where attacks by destructor bunnies and stripper commandos are far more common than even-handed diplomacy.

As to blockers, of the 200-some resolutions that have passed, I could count off maybe ten. I pray that meets your standards for "not very often."

And at the risk of posting on-topic, we would note that on the whole, we too agree with the standing legislation, and believe that recreational drug use is a matter best reserved for the individual member states. Although we weren't wild about this act when it first came to vote. Ho-hum.

... O.M.G.T.K.K.'s UN ambassador.There was no way you could know, so your gaffe is easily forgiven, but I thank you for the promotion just the same. :p

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

Well, Cdr. Chiang, I appreciate the warmer reply this time. I'm sorry I was what I consider vicious in return.

I still don't support recreational drug usage, whether it should be an international matter or not. I would just like to say that not all recreational drugs are home-grown and produced, and many are traded internationally, something we do have some jurisdiction over. The income from recreational drugs can be put towards things like terrorism (although I recognize there are other potential and actual sources of income for terrorists). Restricting recreational drug usage on an international level is one way we could curb this type of thing.

Ausserland: I respect you but I still believe that if you can say it's alright to use blocking legislation to preserve national sovereignty in this situation, that you can say that for any issue. I feel that this is a slippery slope because the more times we cite national sovereignty in UN arguments, the less useful the UN really becomes. If you want to leave certain things to individual governments, I think not legislating on the issue at all is a better course of action than legislating for national sovereignty. That said, I'm sorry you feel offended and I'm clarifying here, but I'm not retracting anything.

Sweeping generalizations are always wrong. To say that believeing one issue should be left to national decision somehow makes that an appropriate decision on other, completely different and unrelated issues makes no sense whatever. It's like saying that if you don't like oranges you can't like apples either.

We would agree that no legislation by the UN on this issue would be the best situation. But we have seen any number of proposals brought forward on the issue. And with the voting history of this body, we haven't a whole lot of confidence that something truly unpalatable wouldn't pass. So we support legislation -- on this particular issue -- that reduces that possibility and preserves the situation as it was before the resolution passed: legislation on the issue left up to national governments. There is absolutely no reasonable way to argue that this means we should, must, or will adopt that same stance on any other subject.

As for the ever-popular slippery slope.... We've heard that sort of argument time after time in debate after debate. And we've never seen a single instance of the prediction coming to pass.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

I think I may withdraw from this debate. I'm a little bored already of people telling me my opinion is wrong. I very carefully worded my theory as an opinion, and I highly doubt, Prime Minister, that you've kept track of every "slippery slope" statement you've heard to survey their eventual results.

I also never said that you, specifically, or anyone else in this discussion would be ones to overuse blocking legislation, but I certainly think as prominent UN policymakers you should be aware that others follow you by example. That was all I ever meant, and if you knew me any better I'd be insulted that you thought I would apply such an ignorant sweeping generalization.

so is anyone going to submit a repeal???

if so let me check it out first im sure i can help, if i must i will submit it myself but as a raider i dont keep my UN nation in any one region for long, speaking of raiding i see that the delegate of jey's region is 8 days inactive :D \:sniper:

we are called the "marijuana militia" for a reason : )
it would be great to use jey's own region to endorse the repeal of the UNDA

so is anyone going to submit a repeal???

I'd love to, unfortunately, my office has been overrun with hornets and I've only recently cleared through them to find my filing cabinet. After retrieving the appropriate forms for filing said proposal, I noticed that there isn't a place for me to denote the proposal as a 'repeal'. Are there any delegates with more current versions of this form that are willing to help the Protectorate with this?

(OOC - I hit the submit proposal link and none of the catagories listed are 'Repeal', and not wanting to stick it in the wrong place... I'm sorta lost.)

I'd love to, unfortunately, my office has been overrun with hornets and I've only recently cleared through them to find my filing cabinet. After retrieving the appropriate forms for filing said proposal, I noticed that there isn't a place for me to denote the proposal as a 'repeal'. Are there any delegates with more current versions of this form that are willing to help the Protectorate with this?

(OOC - I hit the submit proposal link and none of the catagories listed are 'Repeal', and not wanting to stick it in the wrong place... I'm sorta lost.)

I'd help you, but I don't want to see this submitted. Figure it out yourself. Or, better yet, drop it altogether.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

(OOC - I hit the submit proposal link and none of the catagories listed are 'Repeal', and not wanting to stick it in the wrong place... I'm sorta lost.)

OOC: Go to the resolution you're trying to repeal. The link you need is there.

I'd help you, but I don't want to see this submitted. Figure it out yourself. Or, better yet, drop it altogether.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

I admire your choice of words Doctor.

OOC: Go to the resolution you're trying to repeal. The link you need is there.

Thank you Ambassador, the proposal has been submitted for our peers to review.

speaking of raiding i see that the delegate of jey's region is 8 days inactive :D \:sniper:

we are called the "marijuana militia" for a reason : )
it would be great to use jey's own region to endorse the repeal of the UNDA

We consider invaders to be the lowest form of NationStates players in the entire game. Thank you for putting yourself in your deserved place.

Also, we are the delegate of the United Nations region, "jey's region," and have been active as recently as 15 seconds ago.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

P.S. If you want anything you say to be taken seriously, including your threats of invasion, please stop using gun smilies.

Repeal submitted:

Repeal "UN Drug Act"

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #191
Proposed by: Planting

Description: UN Resolution #191: UN Drug Act (Category: Recreational Drug Use; Decision: Legalize) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Description: UN Resolution #191: UN Drug Act (Category: Recreational Drug Use; Decision: Legalize) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

COMMENDS Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" for its intent to provide a more friendly environment for users of drugs,

NOTING that Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" urges, but does not require the passing of laws protecting rights of those using recreational drugs,

CONCLUDES that Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" is unable to protect the rights it sets out,

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act".

Approvals: 5

This has already reached the Jevian UN Office, and we will be responding accordingly.

Warren Baytes
Jevian UN Representative
Counter Campaign Coordinator

(OOC: I wish there were a rule that held repeals to some level of truth, as in you can't interpret the resolution in a bizarre fashion and argue with that interpretation in a repeal. The UN Drug Act did not "intend to provide a more friendly environment for users of drugs," so the COMMENDS line is incorrect; the UN Drug Act did not "set out" the protection of recreational drug use, so the CONCLUDES line is incorrect. However, I suppose that rule would be somewhat unfeasible. People can think what they want, no matter how much they massacre the interpretation of the resolution.)

There already is a rule against false repeal arguments. Whether these arguments are false enough to warrant deletion I don't know, but I certainly hope so.

There already is a rule against false repeal arguments.

There is? We would be indebted if you could provide us with a reference to this.

Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't (UN Taxation Ban comes to mind...).

Thank you. Sadly we were hoping for something that covered more dishonest 'mistakes'.

(OOC: I wish there were a rule that held repeals to some level of truth, as in you can't interpret the resolution in a bizarre fashion and argue with that interpretation in a repeal. The UN Drug Act did not "intend to provide a more friendly environment for users of drugs," so the COMMENDS line is incorrect; the UN Drug Act did not "set out" the protection of recreational drug use, so the CONCLUDES line is incorrect. However, I suppose that rule would be somewhat unfeasible. People can think what they want, no matter how much they massacre the interpretation of the resolution.)

(OOC: I understand what you are saying Jey, but when I read this resolution that is how it comes off to me. Its the words of the law we must follow, and not necessarily the intent of the law. If its a rules violation (which in my heart I do not believe) the mods will surely smite me for it.

We consider invaders to be the lowest form of NationStates players in the entire game. Thank you for putting yourself in your deserved place.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN RepresentativeYou know, for some strange reason, I find myself agreeing completely with Representative Aceon

Thank you. Sadly we were hoping for something that covered more dishonest 'mistakes'.
I agree, there's no way this could be an "honest mistake." In fact, I'd go so far as to call this out and out lying.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We are quite willing to accept that, initially, this was indeed an honest mistake. The representative of Planting simply misunderstood the intent of the resolution. But now, after having had the error pointed out by the author of the resolution, confirmed by other members, and discussed at some length, he submits the repeal, unchanged.

This is no longer an honest mistake. It's deliberate misrepresentation. While it may not rise to cause for deletion under the somewhat nebulous "honest mistake" rule, it's a dishonorable act and an affront to this Assembly. The only course of action left to the representative to try to salvage his honor and credibility is to ask the Moderators to delete the proposal.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

After reviewing the debate to this point, and the repeal draft/original resolution in question, I am hereby stating the opposition of the UCMA to this repeal. Policies and laws concerning recreational drugs are, in our firm estimation, inherently a matter that individual nations should have the freedom to decide for themselves, whether they are in favor of them being legal or opposed to it.

We also feel that repealing the UN Drug Act would remove the only even remotely pro-legalization legislation that has (or could) gain approval of the majority of this assembly. As a nation that has legalized most recreational drugs, we feel repealing this legislation would thus be counterproductive. We won't even address the misleading statements within the repeal, as other delegates have ably covered that issue.

- Jinella Agaranth
Ambassador, United Constitutional Monarchy of Altanar

We are quite willing to accept that, initially, this was indeed an honest mistake. The representative of Planting simply misunderstood the intent of the resolution. But now, after having had the error pointed out by the author of the resolution, confirmed by other members, and discussed at some length, he submits the repeal, unchanged.

This is no longer an honest mistake. It's deliberate misrepresentation. While it may not rise to cause for deletion under the somewhat nebulous "honest mistake" rule, it's a dishonorable act and an affront to this Assembly. The only course of action left to the representative to try to salvage his honor and credibility is to ask the Moderators to delete the proposal.


This assumes that the representative of Planting has any honor or credibility. That, von Aschenbach, seems to be the only "honest mistake" here. ;)

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

I do not understand why you feel the need to attack my honor. The reasons as to why this was proposed are as I stated. That is how it reads. We are to uphold the law... the letter of the law. It is up to our judicial systems to debate over the intent. Enforcement is based upon one solid thing... how the law reads. This proposal was written towards a two-fold purpose. Firstly to remove legislation that (as we see it, and I can acknowledge that you don't see it as we do) is ineffectual and secondly to enable the passing of legislation that defines medical marijuana more thoroughly.

Planting Mushrooms
Ambassador to the UN
The Protectorate of Planting

That is how it reads. We are to uphold the law... the letter of the law. It is up to our judicial systems to debate over the intent. Enforcement is based upon one solid thing... how the law reads. This proposal was written towards a two-fold purpose. Firstly to remove legislation that (as we see it, and I can acknowledge that you don't see it as we do) is ineffectual and secondly to enable the passing of legislation that defines medical marijuana more thoroughly.

We completely agree, Ambassador of Planting. We agree to uphold the letter of the law, which is precisely why you are being accused of dishonesty in your repeal.

Let's examine your repeal, line by line, in comparison to the letter of UNR #191:

COMMENDS Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" for its intent to provide a more friendly environment for users of drugs,

Letter of the law aside, immediately you already misinterpreted the intent. Nonetheless, we are dealing with the letter of the law, interpret the intent as you may..

NOTING that Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" urges, but does not require the passing of laws protecting rights of those using recreational drugs,

This is true. The UN Drug Act does urge for legalization, but never requires it. We cannot argue this point.

CONCLUDES that Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" is unable to protect the rights it sets out,

This is where your repeal falls apart. Nowhere in the text of the UN Drug Act is the right of universal recreational drug use "set out". The UN Drug Act is not "unable to protect the right it sets out" because:

1) The right it actually does "set out" (national government's rights) is protected, see the "AFFIRMS" clause below (bolded);
2) The right you think it "sets out" (and thus is unable to "set out") is incorrect, not by the intent, but by the letter of the resolution.

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act".

With the basis of your CONCLUDES clause being wholly incorrect, you have no premise to repeal this resolution. All you do is state a fact (that the UNDA doesn't allow total legalization), and misinterpret the intent. This is not a legitimate repeal.

For reference, here is the text of the UN Drug Act:

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.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

I do not understand why you feel the need to attack my honor. The reasons as to why this was proposed are as I stated. That is how it reads. We are to uphold the law... the letter of the law. It is up to our judicial systems to debate over the intent. Enforcement is based upon one solid thing... how the law reads. This proposal was written towards a two-fold purpose. Firstly to remove legislation that (as we see it, and I can acknowledge that you don't see it as we do) is ineffectual and secondly to enable the passing of legislation that defines medical marijuana more thoroughly.

Planting Mushrooms
Ambassador to the UN
The Protectorate of Planting

We tend to be a bit more reserved in our language than our distinguished collegue from Flibbleites. But there are limits.

Your repeal "COMMENDS Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" for its intent to provide a more friendly environment for users of drugs". You have been told repeatedly that that was not the intent. You've been told that by the author of the resolution, and there is no better authority on what his intent was. You've been told that by other members who participated in the original debate. We don't give a flying fadoodle what your slipshod reading of the resolution led you to think its intent was. You have been told, by completely reliable sources, what the intent was. You persist in ignoring that and misrepresenting the intent of the resolution.

That is lying. It's dishonest and dishonorable. It would have been a simple matter for you to just change that preambulatory clause before you submitted the repeal. You didn't. You persist in the lie.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

At the risk of being branded as anti-marijuana, I have to agree with the view that this Repeal contains terminal factual errors. It has been removed.

I get the feeling that no matter how much thoughtfulness or common sense may be put into an argument, certain people on here will argue the letter of the law to death :headbang:

Oh, what I wouldn't give for the Old West when we could settle our disputes in a duel...

At the risk of being branded as anti-marijuana, I have to agree with the view that this Repeal contains terminal factual errors. It has been removed.

After deleting the proposal, Hack kicks back and relaxes (http://www.lenswoman.com/img/shop/shop_bob3.jpg). :p

*sighs with slight relief*

Thanks for sorting that, Hack.

so is anyone going to submit a repeal???

if so let me check it out first im sure i can help, if i must i will submit it myself but as a raider i dont keep my UN nation in any one region for long, speaking of raiding i see that the delegate of jey's region is 8 days inactive :D \:sniper:

we are called the "marijuana militia" for a reason : )
it would be great to use jey's own region to endorse the repeal of the UNDA
Interesting approach you have to the UN and resolution passage, Fat sack . . . Ever heard of the phrase, "Out of my cold, dead hands?" :D

I've been instructed to pass this message along to the other member nations here by my government.

Description: UN Resolution #191: UN Drug Act (Category: Recreational Drug Use; Decision: Legalize) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

COMMENDS Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" for its intent to provide a more friendly environment for users of drugs,

NOTING that Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" urges, but does not require the passing of laws protecting rights of those using recreational drugs,

CONCLUDES that Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act" is unable to protect the rights it sets out,

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #191: "UN Drug Act".

(OOC: This is my first resolution... cheesy since its a repeal... just want to be sure I'm doing it right. Secondly, I'd like to mention that I do agree with your ideas Jey, but that the resolution, as worded, offered no solid action, or recourse if there was no action on the part of the member nations.)

This is an outrage! My country will not support this bill and I urge all member nations to please NOT repeal this resolution...

Respectfully,
The Armed Republic of Phalynx