NationStates Jolt Archive

Ban International Trafficking
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.


Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Outlaw
Proposed by: Intelligenstan

Description: 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,

FURTHER NOTING that drug trafficking in many instances directly funds terrorism and illegal weapon trade,

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 committed.

REITERATING, finally, that member nations who do carry out legal drug trade will be able to continue to do so.

Approvals: 114 (Intelligenstan, Servojsek, Jesus freaks4062, Sabrina The Wise, Ranayn, Conner Island, New Steelton, Letonija, Kanturrelic, Extremation, Polaris Sigmar, The Seventh Realm, Take the damn name, Homieville, Njeering, Greendem, Jesioneka, Cardinal Ximenez, Peso_lover, Slices Right, Auevia, Kevin Hunt, Cake vs Pie, Hellastica, Norwedenland, Manussa, The Apathy, NSDAR, James Bonder, Aleeworld, Flying-Circus, The Great Naked Tribe, United_Deception, Vandrossia, Misplaced States, Sea Dolphin Lovers, Ardiden, WZ Forums, Yarallstupid, Yshurak, Kemibia, Kotire, Modeneheim, Bangladeath, One World Alliance, Tsruhkwah, Mondega, Sancte Michael, Pelagic Spectres, Bataaf, Cemetary Wastelands, Drysdale-Melbournia, COMUNI, Agapios, MercyMe, 849, Nellyphant, Kivistan UN Bordello, Soviet Remnants, Beninta, Nurdia, Kapinbeka, Caring State, Sturmen Sie Drachen, The East Dogs, Breckinshire, Super awsomeland, Sarejavo, Upper Urs, Monkeydonkey, Patifes, Esoteric Thought, AgnosticHighlanders, Furira, Free Liberal America, Crapooza, Charlotte Ryberg, Voregh, Archadelphia, Arkbergen, Ventei, Subterranis, East Hylia, Dasburgerstan, Hedingrad, Bakhairistan, New Androssia, Belussa, Kolko, Rarthuville, Dian, Fahadia, El Guerrero, Piratemonkeytopia, CrazyVampiredom, Aurania-Shifre, Invicible Burninator, The insane pack mules, Unified United Union, Mengjiang, Grtgrtgrtgrt, Munroscotia, Kyrakkarin, Ellenburg, Grawrland, Spaz Land, Solar Vengance, Crash-Co, Mukkina Faso, Central roman africa, Nomadic Zealots, HolyKnights, Pharaoh Yohance 2, Promora)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

"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,"

Yes, this includes Alchohol, Tobacco, and Caffeine, as well as certain medications that may be legal in member nations.

"AWARE that member nations may not wish to outlaw drugs,"

And this Resolution WOULD NOT, I repeat, WOULD NOT harm such nations.

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

If a nation legally produces drugs and illegal traffickers smuggle it to other countries, the nation loses tax money. Also, If a nation cannot produce its own legal drugs, and instead of importing them with safety checks and other regulations, they are brought in illegally, it can also lead to a loss of tax money.

Drugs that go through borders are safer to use for the population, as they would not be mixed with other harmfull substances.

"NOTING that drug trafficking between nations may lead to conflict due to differences in drug laws of member nations,"
For example, The US was quite mad at Columbia for some time for not enforcing its drug laws. Same with Canada during prohibition.

"FURTHER NOTING that drug trafficking in many instances directly funds terrorism and illegal weapon trade,"

Opium = Talliban.
Other drugs: Turkey -> Lebanon -> Syria -> Iran -> Hizballah.

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

Would definitely improve the economies of nations where they are legal, and help cut down on crime where they are illegal.

"§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."

This is the part that some may debate conflicts the UN drug act clause that: "2) AFFIRMS the right of UN member states to determine their own laws with regard to the legality of any activity involving recreational drugs, including but not limited to the consumption, cultivation, preparation, possession, exchange, and distribution of recreational drugs by any individual or group of individuals, within their own jurisdiction;"

WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. This is the key difference. In the current resolution, it speaks of INTERNATIONAL BORDERS, which are not in the jurisdiction of neither country. And it also speaks only of INTERNATIONAL drug traffickers, thereby leaving the jurisdiction of each individual country.

It says in short that 'UN members can choose whether to make legal the exchange of recreational drugs within their own jurisdiction'. And this remains the same after this resolution, which only says that: 'UN members can choose whether to make legal the exchange of recreational drugs within their own jurisdiction, but must pass laws prohibiting illegal interjurisdictional exchange of recreational drugs.

"§3 URGING member nations to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do not follow similar courses of action."
This refers to non-UN members which will not be forced to pass such laws.

"§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 committed. "
This refers to UN-members which pass laws that are very light in comparison to the crime, just to comply with the resolution.

"REITERATING, finally, that member nations who do carry out legal drug trade will be able to continue to do so."

And would even HELP, that's right, HELP, legal drug trade.

A further goal of this resolution is to help those nations where drugs are illegal, and have no power to enforce laws stopping incoming drugs from nations where they are legal, because most of the action must be taken by the nation where the drugs are coming FROM. This leads to unhappy relations between nations, and this is contrary to the goals of the UN.

Congratulations on reaching the quorum level! I am looking forward to the real vote.

Thank you, although the good in this is not for me, but for the UN as a whole, because I think this would be a good resolution should it pass, and benefit everyone (which my nation of course is part of and hence would benefit from it as well).

Thread retitled to standard format, stuck.

thank you Frisbeeteria.

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,

While you define recreational drugs as such, what do the terms "primary purpose" mean exactly? Alchohol's primary purpose as far as I'm concerned is as an antiseptic. Getting drunk off it is entirely secondary. I can and will make up some other things to get around this law in my own nations should it pass.

AWARE that member nations may not wish to outlaw drugs,

Darn tootin'.

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

If a nation doesn't have taxes, this point is entirely moot, but beyond that I have no qualms about it.

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

Which this resolution doesn't actually address, as a matter of fact, it specifically doesn't address different drug laws between nations.

FURTHER NOTING that drug trafficking in many instances directly funds terrorism and illegal weapon trade,

It helps fund my military too, come to think of it. I also really don't like the fact that my soldiers might not be able to use marijuana on long tours in Kharjackistan.

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

The conclusion is based on some false premises. That's ok, because the next part doesn't actually do anything about it.

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.

Oh this makes it easy! Lets see, you don't define drug traffickers(the next clause defines "international drug traffickers"). I can put into effect a law that contradicts your resolution, saying that drug traffickers are immune to prosecution for drug trafficking, as that is a form of correctional action allowed by the UN. Or if we read it another way, the only actions the UN specifically describes for drug traffickers would come out of THIS resolution, which defines no punishment in enough detail to use.

§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.

Key word here, "caught". Who's doing the policing? Your clause mandating a law is weak enough to be completely ignored. By including the word "caught" you've effectively neutered your resolution to meaningless.

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

Three words: No.

§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 committed.

In this you don't define sufficient. This is something that could've been done without this resolution. You didn't even have to mention it.

REITERATING, finally, that member nations who do carry out legal drug trade will be able to continue to do so.

True, but we could still carry on illegal drug trading too. This resolution doesn't stop that.

Far too much weak language. Far to much encouraging. Far to little definition.

I'm tempted to help you campaign for it to make sure there is a hurdle against future resolutions that would actually do something. Telegram me if you need help.

As I said in the other thread: You bring up some good points definitely. Some are purely of your semantical interpretations, but I will reply.

While you define recreational drugs as such, what do the terms "primary purpose" mean exactly? Alchohol's primary purpose as far as I'm concerned is as an antiseptic. Getting drunk off it is entirely secondary. I can and will make up some other things to get around this law in my own nations should it pass.



Darn tootin'.



If a nation doesn't have taxes, this point is entirely moot, but beyond that I have no qualms about it.



Which this resolution doesn't actually address, as a matter of fact, it specifically doesn't address different drug laws between nations.



It helps fund my military too, come to think of it. I also really don't like the fact that my soldiers might not be able to use marijuana on long tours in Kharjackistan.



The conclusion is based on some false premises. That's ok, because the next part doesn't actually do anything about it.



Oh this makes it easy! Lets see, you don't define drug traffickers(the next clause defines "international drug traffickers"). I can put into effect a law that contradicts your resolution, saying that drug traffickers are immune to prosecution for drug trafficking, as that is a form of correctional action allowed by the UN. Or if we read it another way, the only actions the UN specifically describes for drug traffickers would come out of THIS resolution, which defines no punishment in enough detail to use.



Key word here, "caught". Who's doing the policing? Your clause mandating a law is weak enough to be completely ignored. By including the word "caught" you've effectively neutered your resolution to meaningless.



Three words: No.



In this you don't define sufficient. This is something that could've been done without this resolution. You didn't even have to mention it.



True, but we could still carry on illegal drug trading too. This resolution doesn't stop that.

Far too much weak language. Far to much encouraging. Far to little definition.

I'm tempted to help you campaign for it to make sure there is a hurdle against future resolutions that would actually do something. Telegram me if you need help.

The definition is the same as that in the previously passed and not yet repealed UN drug act. If the primary use of Alchohol in your country is as a contraceptive, then this act does not apply to it. And yes you can get around this law that way.
As for the definition of drug traffickers. You bring up a good point because the word trafficking has several meanings. I meant it in the form of 'trade between different countries or places' and 'to trade or deal in a specific commodity or service, often of an illegal nature' *from dictionary.com
And thought it was made pretty clear from the preceding and superceding statements.

Punishment cannot be enforced on someone who is only suspected to do a crime, this is in accordance with fair trial and so on..

Thank you for your offer to help (although for the wrong reasons). And it seems like we have different motives. I am not doing this purely for my nation, but for the betterment of the UN as a whole (where I would benefit as well). Your help is welcomed if it will bring about more approvals, but I'm afraid it would be somewhat redundant as there are already 125 (at this time) approvals while the quorum is 114.
Thank you for your comments.

Selling drugs in other people's nations is how Pandapajamastan makes its money!

I'll vote for anyway, since we're not UN members. Eliminates some of the competition, you know.

Grast Zaran
Apparently one of Pandapajamastan's UN reps

I have qualms on several issues but some have already been addressed (such as I don't have taxes and what qualifies as a drug trafficker and the enforcement of this).

But, what is classified as an illegal drug? There is no such list in this resolution. I may have a drug classified legal in my nation but another nation may have the same drug classified as illegal or not classified at all. What happens in that situation?

Who has the right to say what is and is not a legal drug? I daresay this is not and should not be part of the UN's purview. It belongs to the individual nation states to decide what is best for themselves.

This resolution must not pass so as to avoid it causing harm to the UN and other nations out there. A better crafted (less wordy, less urging) version could perhaps receive my endorsement...someday but the one before this august body needs to be dropped like a stone.

I agree. My country's main revenue is from taxes, but even still I do not believe that this resolution is worthy of an outright ban or outlaw. This resolution may send a warm, fuzzy feeling through your tummy with the wording about "banning illegal drug trade", but it is much too vague to do any good. The UN should not be making policies on illegal drug trades if they can't even define what illegal is. Not every nation in the UN is alike, therefore we can't treat them like they are.

These ideas should be left to the countries themselves.

I object to the resolution at hand because of errors both semantically and philosophically.

The issue of semantics has already been more or less covered in earlier posts, the vagueness in interpretation makes this law fairly easy to bypass. Heroin, THC, MDMA, etc... can all be used legally in my country under the preconception of medical need. If you are outlawing that transferring, then it should be spread to all pharmaceuticals that alter brain chemistry as a primary method of action.

On the philosophic issue, curving the global conflict is not a bad idea, but you do not do that here... instead, you try and enforce punishment on criminals that will become increasingly desperate. The trade in mind altering substances is as old as civilization itself, and despite numerous attempts to make it unlawful, it continues and gets even more violent.

Also, the effect of this resolution could have a severe impact on the global economy. If intranation selling of a drug like caffeine became illegal think of the devastating impact that could have on global markets.

I strongly urge that we rationally try and deal with this problem instead of aggravating it.

Smuggling, meaning bringing a substance that shouled be tulled to another country whitout tulling it, is allready illegal by deffinition, as far as i'm concerned, therefor i do not see the point of a proposition saying it's illegal to do that with a substance that may or may not be illegal. All it do is to mess things up in the comunication between the to countries.

After long talks with our minister of Health and our minister of Education and Human Resources, we have come to the conclusion that while other nations may provide the means for the use of recreational drugs in their own nation, such poisons will not be available to the people within the borders of HawaiianFreedom.

Our reasoning stems from the very core of what our people stand for. We pride our values on the sound judgement of our people to protect the freedoms we hold dear. Our compassion for our fellow person comes from our willingness to not harm intentionally where a helping hand might be accepted. Recreational drugs as defined in the current resolution alter the brain chemistry of the user temporarily. Though, our scientists have researched the effects of these chemicals and have found that in many cases, extended use will permanently damage the user. If you haven't figured it out yet, a chemical like that, even if called a recreational drug, is poisoning your body. You might think you can build up an immunity to it, however serious damage has already been done and further use may kill you.

As responsible citizens of the United Nations we will not permit the sale or "trafficking" of these "recreational drugs," which we call "poisons", here. Therefore we are in favor of the current resolution to punish any offenders who try to market or trade these poisons here.

HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Outlaw
Proposed by: Intelligenstan

I couldn't find a 'Regulate' option so this must be the category of best fit.

Description: 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,

Drugs do alter brain function, but it also affects the health too.

AWARE that member nations may not wish to outlaw drugs,

Good point being made.

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

...and a waste of taxpayers' money: well said.

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

...e.g. Nation A outlawed drugs but allowed it for medical use, but Nation B allowed it outright and relied on it for their economy; Nation B wanted Nation C to accept their drugs but they outlawed it outright. And sometimes, drugs can be used as 'mental warfare'.

FURTHER NOTING that drug trafficking in many instances directly funds terrorism and illegal weapon trade,

Good point. No RL references, just plain and straight.

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

It's an opinion, but most developed nations like me would accept it.

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.

Tough sentences in my country: death for the most serious. Good flexibility.

§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.

Good definition, I have no problem with that.

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

See that this is optional to all nations, like Nation C who relies on Nation G for their resources, yet Nation C frowns upon the secret smuggling to Nation F by Nation G's government, and that F and G have no regulations against it. I clearly see what you mean.

§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 committed.

So you mean that I have the option to sanction Nation X if they give offenders a 50-year season ticket to Disneyland? …sounds useful and promising.

REITERATING, finally, that member nations who do carry out legal drug trade will be able to continue to do so.

…i.e. for medical purposes.

In conclusion, this is the first resolution I've actually analyzed in detail. On balance, Intelligenstan gets my vote, set in stone. Nice work.

and of course we can't let such thing as drugs roaming free around ou nations... right?

Rainbow light starts to swirl and buzz where the Ithanian representative would normally stand; a photonic chaos collapsing inwards and defining until a perfect replica of Anravelle stands bathed in radiant white light. A shot glass carefully hidden behind one hand as she picks up her pre-prepared comment.

"We’re afraid that we were under the impression that the United Nations was attempting to remove pointless feel good language from the legislative records, not create more.

In our assessment, nothing will change if this passes as member nations that wish to eliminate trafficking would have already been employing the measures listed prior to this legislative attempt and nations that wish to ignore drug trafficking issues are free to continue doing so due to the extreme flexibility of this resolution. We have cast Ithania’s vote against as we believe it does not serve any useful purpose.

In our view, the effective communication that the International Criminal Police Information Network facilitates between all member nations on matters relating to drug trafficking is more than sufficient to allow members to prevent it.

May the blessings of the Planners be upon you."

The shimmering avatar pops like a soap bubble, the light drifting away into nothing.

Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful.

Let's heat up the resolution vote like the General Election... has anyone got a 'yes' and 'no' campaign poster?

Selling drugs in other people's nations is how Pandapajamastan makes its money!

I'll vote for anyway, since we're not UN members. Eliminates some of the competition, you know.

Grast Zaran
Apparently one of Pandapajamastan's UN reps

If selling drugs illegally in other people's nations is how your country makes its money, and you are not a UN member, after this resolution passes, expect a gigantic wave of sanctions coming in your direction from UN members.

I have qualms on several issues but some have already been addressed (such as I don't have taxes and what qualifies as a drug trafficker and the enforcement of this).

But, what is classified as an illegal drug? There is no such list in this resolution. I may have a drug classified legal in my nation but another nation may have the same drug classified as illegal or not classified at all. What happens in that situation?

Who has the right to say what is and is not a legal drug? I daresay this is not and should not be part of the UN's purview. It belongs to the individual nation states to decide what is best for themselves.

This resolution must not pass so as to avoid it causing harm to the UN and other nations out there. A better crafted (less wordy, less urging) version could perhaps receive my endorsement...someday but the one before this august body needs to be dropped like a stone.

The purpose of this resolution is exactly to adress differences in laws concerning the legality of certain drugs between different nations.
If a drug is legal in one nation and illegal in another, and traffickers from the nation where it is legal illegally send it across the border into the nation where it is illegal, the nation where it is illegal would be very angry at the nation where it is legal because it does nothing to stop these traffickers. The purpose of this resolution is to help out this nation where it is illegal but is helpless against this incoming flow of traffickers from the nation where it is legal.
It does nothing to define for each nation which drugs should be legal or illegal in it.

I agree. My country's main revenue is from taxes, but even still I do not believe that this resolution is worthy of an outright ban or outlaw. This resolution may send a warm, fuzzy feeling through your tummy with the wording about "banning illegal drug trade", but it is much too vague to do any good. The UN should not be making policies on illegal drug trades if they can't even define what illegal is. Not every nation in the UN is alike, therefore we can't treat them like they are.

These ideas should be left to the countries themselves.

Once again, I agree that it should be left up to the countries themselves to define what illegal should mean there. YET, this resolution deals with international affairs, and thus having different international policies from different nations is the danger, which leads to conflict.

I object to the resolution at hand because of errors both semantically and philosophically.

The issue of semantics has already been more or less covered in earlier posts, the vagueness in interpretation makes this law fairly easy to bypass. Heroin, THC, MDMA, etc... can all be used legally in my country under the preconception of medical need. If you are outlawing that transferring, then it should be spread to all pharmaceuticals that alter brain chemistry as a primary method of action.

On the philosophic issue, curving the global conflict is not a bad idea, but you do not do that here... instead, you try and enforce punishment on criminals that will become increasingly desperate. The trade in mind altering substances is as old as civilization itself, and despite numerous attempts to make it unlawful, it continues and gets even more violent.

Also, the effect of this resolution could have a severe impact on the global economy. If intranation selling of a drug like caffeine became illegal think of the devastating impact that could have on global markets.

I strongly urge that we rationally try and deal with this problem instead of aggravating it.

On a first note, how coincidencial that a nation with the name of 'Smoking Drugs' should have the most objections to this resolution. But that aside, even if your nation has legalized every single drug out there, this resolution would still help you.

The primary purpose of the drugs in medical needs, is to alter the brain as defined in the resolution. This resolution also cuts down on certain kinds of illegal medication trafficking, if such medication does indeed act in these ways. The medical usage, or recreational, or hypnotical, or any other usage of these drugs doesn't change the fact that when they are taken, the primary purpose for them is to alter the brain. It does extend to some pharmaceuticals too, because there are differences in laws between nations about some of those too, and while one nation may consider it an over the counter medication, another may consider it an illegal drug. Again, same goes for caffeine (and alchohol, and tobacco, and so on).

I am happy you agree that curbing the global conflict is a good idea. Exactly, that is the point of this resolution. The traffickers will become desperate, driving up the costs of illegal drugs in an exponential rate, and thus make illegal drugs unavailable. The trade in mind altering substances is old, but now that we are civilized and have nations, it should be done in accordance with our law codes. The connections to violence is precisely one of the reasons why it should be banned.

Yes, it will have a severe impact on the global economy. It will boost it. I think you misread the resolution. (did you mean INTERnation selling of caffeine?) Legal trade between nations would still go on, of all drugs that are legal in both. There are rarely any instances as of right now where a nation is trading with another nation where the substance is legla in one but illegal in the other. It seems as if you are confused.

That's a very good idea, I believe dealing rationally with every resolution is the way to go. Please bring up any further concerns.

Smuggling, meaning bringing a substance that shouled be tulled to another country whitout tulling it, is allready illegal by deffinition, as far as i'm concerned, therefor i do not see the point of a proposition saying it's illegal to do that with a substance that may or may not be illegal. All it do is to mess things up in the comunication between the to countries.

If nations do not impose any taxes and all its borders are open and unmonitored, drug traffickers from there could easily transport illegal substances across the border unfettered. This is what this resolution is trying to stop.

After long talks with our minister of Health and our minister of Education and Human Resources, we have come to the conclusion that while other nations may provide the means for the use of recreational drugs in their own nation, such poisons will not be available to the people within the borders of HawaiianFreedom.

Our reasoning stems from the very core of what our people stand for. We pride our values on the sound judgement of our people to protect the freedoms we hold dear. Our compassion for our fellow person comes from our willingness to not harm intentionally where a helping hand might be accepted. Recreational drugs as defined in the current resolution alter the brain chemistry of the user temporarily. Though, our scientists have researched the effects of these chemicals and have found that in many cases, extended use will permanently damage the user. If you haven't figured it out yet, a chemical like that, even if called a recreational drug, is poisoning your body. You might think you can build up an immunity to it, however serious damage has already been done and further use may kill you.

As responsible citizens of the United Nations we will not permit the sale or "trafficking" of these "recreational drugs," which we call "poisons", here. Therefore we are in favor of the current resolution to punish any offenders who try to market or trade these poisons here.
HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

Precisely. Good points. Since a nation cannot punish traffickers in other nations, it is the nation where the traffickers are coming from that must do the punishing. And this is what this resolution is trying to do. Since a nation does not have the power to enforce laws upon other nations for its own good, that is why the UN was created. For example, if nation A and nation B share a border, with a river flowing from A to B, B cannot enforce a law in nation A saying that it is prohibited to litter in the river. That's what the UN is here for. This resolution is the same thing. A helpless nation suffering from an unstoppable incoming flow of illegal drugs from a nation where they are legal needs help from the UN.

I couldn't find a 'Regulate' option so this must be the category of best fit.



Drugs do alter brain function, but it also affects the health too.



Good point being made.



...and a waste of taxpayers' money: well said.



...e.g. Nation A outlawed drugs but allowed it for medical use, but Nation B allowed it outright and relied on it for their economy; Nation B wanted Nation C to accept their drugs but they outlawed it outright. And sometimes, drugs can be used as 'mental warfare'.



Good point. No RL references, just plain and straight.



It's an opinion, but most developed nations like me would accept it.



Tough sentences in my country: death for the most serious. Good flexibility.



Good definition, I have no problem with that.



See that this is optional to all nations, like Nation C who relies on Nation G for their resources, yet Nation C frowns upon the secret smuggling to Nation F by Nation G's government, and that F and G have no regulations against it. I clearly see what you mean.



So you mean that I have the option to sanction Nation X if they give offenders a 50-year season ticket to Disneyland? …sounds useful and promising.



…i.e. for medical purposes.

In conclusion, this is the first resolution I've actually analyzed in detail. On balance, Intelligenstan gets my vote, set in stone. Nice work.

Thank you. And I am glad that you have analysed it completely, unlike some other posters who are quick to respond as soon as they get to the line 'outlaw'.
That is precisely the point of section 4, that a nation does not grant the punishment of dining in the Prytaneum at public expense. It COULD do this, according to this resolution, but then face the enormous sanctions accompanying that decision.

and of course we can't let such thing as drugs roaming free around ou nations... right?

That is up to your nation to decide for itself, and not something this resolution concerns itself with.

"We’re afraid that we were under the impression that the United Nations was attempting to remove pointless feel good language from the legislative records, not create more.

In our assessment, nothing will change if this passes as member nations that wish to eliminate trafficking would have already been employing the measures listed prior to this legislative attempt and nations that wish to ignore drug trafficking issues are free to continue doing so due to the extreme flexibility of this resolution. We have cast Ithania’s vote against as we believe it does not serve any useful purpose.

In our view, the effective communication that the International Criminal Police Information Network facilitates between all member nations on matters relating to drug trafficking is more than sufficient to allow members to prevent it.

Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful.

Nations that wish to ignore trafficking issues will fall into 2 categories: 1. They are not a UN nation - large sanctions against them. 2. They are a UN nation, they must enforce some kind of punishment. If it is light, sanctions follow, if it seems appropriate to other nations, they will not sanction it.

The International Criminal Police Information Network is useless in the scenario when in one nation the drugs are legal and in another illegal, I have said this repeatedly. Because the nation where they are legal will see no need for it to hunt down traffickers who in fact only carry legal substances in their nation. This resolution is to enforce upon them not to turn a blind eye at these traffickers.

Let's heat up the resolution vote like the General Election... has anyone got a 'yes' and 'no' campaign poster?

I am glad that you are enthusiastic about this resolution, but no I am not campaigning for it, I believe it should be up to the general assembly to decide.

*Prime Minister Viridio finishes reading the piece of legislation that was sent to his office early this morning. He settles back in his chair and begins to think aloud.*

Quite an interesting U.N. proposal - my first vote in the United Nations is indeed one of importance. It appears some believe it is too vague, but I understand it clearly! Though drugs are not allowed in Eaglus, who am I to say what the other nations in my region will do? Once I have some that is...

At any rate, trafficking between nations, whether there is legalized drugs or not, obviously has a negative impact on economics. Alrighty. Azula! Prepare an official press release!

-------------------

It is the official position of this nation, and therefore this region, that drug trafficking should be banned between all nations. Therefore, the vote is for.

Join the Hegemony of Music! We are on our way to becoming a serious power!

Prime Minister Viridio
The Federation of Eaglus
Founder of the Hegemony of Music
Only Region with U.N. representation

OOC: Would you greatly mind writing one post in future dear?

IC: The hologram of Anravelle appears as it did before, the only difference being that she looks a lot more perturbed that her peaceful drink has been interrupted. Again.

If selling drugs illegally in other people's nations is how your country makes its money, and you are not a UN member, after this resolution passes, expect a gigantic wave of sanctions coming in your direction from UN members.
‘We believe the representative from Intelligenstan is incorrect in their assessment of the repercussions this resolution would have as we believe member nations would have already taken economic action to punish Pandapajamastan if they so desired.

The passage of this resolution will not cause a dramatic increase in retaliatory economic measures as nations possessed the right to utilise such methods prior to this legislative attempt and such measures will remain entirely optional after this passes. We see no change there.

Nations that wish to ignore trafficking issues will fall into 2 categories: 1. They are not a UN nation - large sanctions against them.
‘Nations possess the right to utilise the retaliatory measure highlighted by the ambassador irrespective of whether this resolution exists or not thus we consider this legislation pointless. It does nothing beyond stating existing options which does not reduce trafficking at all.’

2. They are a UN nation, they must enforce some kind of punishment.
‘This section of the resolution is useless as sentences are within the purview of respective member nations due to the Fair Sentencing Act.

The inclusion of punishments in the resolution does nothing to reduce trafficking as nations will continue to sentence in exactly the same manner as they do now even if this succeeds.’

If it is light, sanctions follow, if it seems appropriate to other nations, they will not sanction it.
‘As we have previously stated, this will continue to be an option even if this resolution does not pass so we would like to ask the ambassador a question: If your delegation’s resolution does nothing beyond reiterating already existing options and cannot force nations to utilise stringent punishments for traffickers then how does it help combat drugs crossing borders illegally? What does it change?

We merely see repetition of present practices which means this resolution does not increase protection for tthe international community in any shape, way, or form.

If you can illustrate a single new right this grants to nations or a single process that does not already occur then we will gladly change our vote.’

Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful.

*Prime Minister Viridio finishes reading the piece of legislation that was sent to his office early this morning. He settles back in his chair and begins to think aloud.*

Quite an interesting U.N. proposal - my first vote in the United Nations is indeed one of importance. It appears some believe it is too vague, but I understand it clearly! Though drugs are not allowed in Eaglus, who am I to say what the other nations in my region will do? Once I have some that is...

At any rate, trafficking between nations, whether there is legalized drugs or not, obviously has a negative impact on economics. Alrighty. Azula! Prepare an official press release!

-------------------

It is the official position of this nation, and therefore this region, that drug trafficking should be banned between all nations. Therefore, the vote is for.

Join the Hegemony of Music! We are on our way to becoming a serious power!

Prime Minister Viridio
The Federation of Eaglus
Founder of the Hegemony of Music
Only Region with U.N. representation

That's true, any untaxed trafficking is bad.

OOC: Would you greatly mind writing one post in future dear?

IC: The hologram of Anravelle appears as it did before, the only difference being that she looks a lot more perturbed that her peaceful drink has been interrupted. Again.


‘We believe the representative from Intelligenstan is incorrect in their assessment of the repercussions this resolution would have as we believe member nations would have already taken economic action to punish Pandapajamastan if they so desired.

The passage of this resolution will not cause a dramatic increase in retaliatory economic measures as nations possessed the right to utilise such methods prior to this legislative attempt and such measures will remain entirely optional after this passes. We see no change there.


‘Nations possess the right to utilise the retaliatory measure highlighted by the ambassador irrespective of whether this resolution exists or not thus we consider this legislation pointless. It does nothing beyond stating existing options which does not reduce trafficking at all.’


‘This section of the resolution is useless as sentences are within the purview of respective member nations due to the Fair Sentencing Act.

The inclusion of punishments in the resolution does nothing to reduce trafficking as nations will continue to sentence in exactly the same manner as they do now even if this succeeds.’


‘As we have previously stated, this will continue to be an option even if this resolution does not pass so we would like to ask the ambassador a question: If your delegation’s resolution does nothing beyond reiterating already existing options and cannot force nations to utilise stringent punishments for traffickers then how does it help combat drugs crossing borders? What does it change?

We merely see repetition of present practices which means this resolution does not increase protection for tthe international community in any shape, way, or form.

If you can illustrate a single new right this grants to nations or a single process that does not already occur then we will gladly change our vote.’

Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful.

You will gladly change your vote? Fantastic! A nation that previously did not care to hunt down drug traffickers must now bring them to trial and enforce SOME KIND of punishment upon them, while before they would have just let them continue to do what they are doing.

You Intelligenstan, there's a multi-quote option. Learn to use it.

The image next to the quote icon on each post? Click it on as many posts as you like, and you can quote them all in a single post.

OOC: Would you greatly mind writing one post in future dear?
Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful.

You Intelligenstan, there's a multi-quote option. Learn to use it.

The image next to the quote icon on each post? Click it on as many posts as you like, and you can quote them all in a single post.

Thank you, but does it really make a difference, I find it quite easier to read a post in response to each post rather than one big long mumbo-jumbo of responses. But yes I will use it more in the future, no problem.

You will gladly change your vote? Fantastic! A nation that previously did not care to hunt down drug traffickers must now bring them to trial and enforce SOME KIND of punishment upon them, while before they would have just let them continue to do what they are doing.

Anravelle shakes her head in dismay, sighing loudly.

‘Do not interpret our words so literally ambassador, what is the point of the change you highlight? How does it decisively reduce drug trafficking if any punishments could be made as weak as a nation desires? Nations can stilll "let them continue to do what they are doing".

We believe that the process you highlight will merely result in a mild annoyance rather than any definitive reduction in drug trafficking and by endorsing this we would be hindering potential future legislation that deals with the subject decisively.

We shall review our earlier comment considering we are addressing a literalist; if the representative can demonstrate a new, useful process or right that would noticeably serve the international community then we will gladly endorse this legislation.’

Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful.

Anravelle shakes her head in dismay, sighing loudly.

‘Do not interpret our words so literally ambassador, what is the point of the change you highlight? How does it decisively reduce drug trafficking if any punishments could be made as weak as a nation desires? Nations can stilll "let them continue to do what they are doing".

We believe that the process you highlight will merely result in a mild annoyance rather than any definitive reduction in drug trafficking and by endorsing this we would be hindering potential future legislation that deals with the subject decisively.

We shall review our earlier comment considering we are addressing a literalist; if the representative can demonstrate a new, useful process or right that would noticeably serve the international community then we will gladly endorse this legislation.’

Anravelle Kramer,
Representative of the Faithful.

It is not a new right that is added, but one that is taken away. If in a nation drugs are legal, this resolution takes away one's right to transport drugs that are legal in one's nation to another nation where they are illegal without recieving punishment from the nation where one is from despite the legality of the substance. The new process is the enforcement of a punishment of some form (in the discretion of each country, usually proportionate to other such punishments in the nation) upon drug traffickers. I don't see any way in which this would hinder potential future resolutions, and if it does in any way, please bring up any ideas that you have not previously on how you wish to add to this resolution, perhaps through its reppeal, or the addition of a further resolution. If you have already conceded that it will serve at least even a mild annoyance to drug traffickers in your nation, it has already had a positive effect, and therefore I see no reason why you should not vote in its favor.

We have yet to see a bigger pile of moralistic feel good claptrap in our tenure here at the UN than the current resolution at vote. It is an obvious attempt to make an end-run around the UN Drug Act, and yet fails at the attempt. It appears to be a matter of a nation being miffed that they cannot force their policies concerning drug use onto others and is instead encouraging economic punishment for those who don't tow their line.

More specifically...

"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,"

Yes, this includes Alchohol, Tobacco, and Caffeine, as well as certain medications that may be legal in member nations.We see that the author has adopted in whole the flawed definition of "recreational drug" contained in UN Drug Act. Overly broad, including vast swaths of legitimate medical treatments, and ignoring the intent of the user completely it results in a dead-on-arrival definition that serves only to harm legitimate medical use and trade. We note that such a definition would include such things as table sugar (sucrose) which has been shown to alter brain chemistry, result in changes in mood and behavior and which is consumed for that very alteration.

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

For example, The US was quite mad at Columbia for some time for not enforcing its drug laws. Same with Canada during prohibition.
It certainly will with this resolution urging nations to sanction others who meet their displeasure rather than encouraging the diplomacy necessary to work through these types of problems.

Perhaps if this mythical US didn't presume to impose their politics and policies on other nations they wouldn't get mad at other nations so often.

"FURTHER NOTING that drug trafficking in many instances directly funds terrorism and illegal weapon trade,"

Opium = Talliban.
Other drugs: Turkey -> Lebanon -> Syria -> Iran -> Hizballah.
We wonder if the Intelligenstan have any objective evidence for this at all.

(ooc: Honestly, was the Kool-Aid tasty? The Taliban banned opium production in Afghanistan. The US Govt. itself inspected Afghan poppy fields in Feb. 2001 and found zip, zero, nada production. While we're at it, want to discuss the role of the CIA in funding drug operations in order to maintain their chosen dictator in power? No?)

§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."

This is the part that some may debate conflicts the UN drug act clause that: "2) AFFIRMS the right of UN member states to determine their own laws with regard to the legality of any activity involving recreational drugs, including but not limited to the consumption, cultivation, preparation, possession, exchange, and distribution of recreational drugs by any individual or group of individuals, within their own jurisdiction;"

WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. This is the key difference. In the current resolution, it speaks of INTERNATIONAL BORDERS, which are not in the jurisdiction of neither country. And it also speaks only of INTERNATIONAL drug traffickers, thereby leaving the jurisdiction of each individual country.

It says in short that 'UN members can choose whether to make legal the exchange of recreational drugs within their own jurisdiction'. And this remains the same after this resolution, which only says that: 'UN members can choose whether to make legal the exchange of recreational drugs within their own jurisdiction, but must pass laws prohibiting illegal interjurisdictional exchange of recreational drugs.Here the author ignores the reality of transactions of any kind. If the sale of a substance is legal in my nation, it is not incumbent on the seller to determine the origin of the buyer or the destination of the goods. The buyer violates a nation's laws when he enters with contraband. At that point one's national laws are quite sufficient to address the crime. If the seller crosses a border in order to complete a transaction that is criminal where the transaction will take place then the seller is subject to that nation's laws and punishments.

A further goal of this resolution is to help those nations where drugs are illegal, and have no power to enforce laws stopping incoming drugs from nations where they are legal, because most of the action must be taken by the nation where the drugs are coming FROM. This leads to unhappy relations between nations, and this is contrary to the goals of the UN.[/QUOTE]

I am happy you agree that curbing the global conflict is a good idea. Exactly, that is the point of this resolution. The traffickers will become desperate, driving up the costs of illegal drugs in an exponential rate, and thus make illegal drugs unavailable. The trade in mind altering substances is old, but now that we are civilized and have nations, it should be done in accordance with our law codes. The connections to violence is precisely one of the reasons why it should be banned.Really? That doesn't seem to be the reality in any nation that has attempted such stringent interdiction. If anything such illegal import is hardly impacted and large, violent criminal organizations are favored and "rewarded" by becoming the sole suppliers.

There are rarely any instances as of right now where a nation is trading with another nation where the substance is legla in one but illegal in the other. Then why the need for this resolution, if the situation is rare?

Since a nation cannot punish traffickers in other nations, it is the nation where the traffickers are coming from that must do the punishing. And this is what this resolution is trying to do. Since a nation does not have the power to enforce laws upon other nations for its own good, that is why the UN was created.And well such a nation shouldn't be able to punish an individual who is not committing a crime in their own nation. The persons committing the crime are those in the nation in which the drug is illegal, and who are completely subject to that nation's laws.

Nations that wish to ignore trafficking issues will fall into 2 categories: 1. They are not a UN nation - large sanctions against them. 2. They are a UN nation, they must enforce some kind of punishment. If it is light, sanctions follow, if it seems appropriate to other nations, they will not sanction it.Some may have no problem with your attempt to involve the UN in blackmail, we do. Perhaps sanctions should be levied at any nation who is more interested in telling other nations whom to punish than they are in determining why so much of their population wishes to self-medicate.

As responsible citizens of the United Nations we will not permit the sale or "trafficking" of these "recreational drugs," which we call "poisons", here. Therefore we are in favor of the current resolution to punish any offenders who try to market or trade these poisons here. And you have the authority under the UN Drug Act to criminalize the sale of whatever you wish without this needless resolution. If someone sells or possesses substances you deem illegal while in your nation, you have the jurisdiction to impose whatever legal punishments you so choose.

We have cast our regional vote against this resolution.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

The new process is the enforcement of a punishment of some form (in the discretion of each country, usually proportionate to other such punishments in the nation) upon drug traffickers.
‘We wish to cut through the needless repetition of what we have already addressed and focus on the core facts; your delegation cannot assert that punishments will be proportionate to other punishments within the nation as you have not and cannot include a provision for this in your proposal so any repercussions may be as negligible or stringent as a member state desires. There is no “usually” in such an environment.

In our assessment, the new process that this resolution introduces has no noteworthy effect on illegal drug trafficking thus is completely useless due to this.’

I don't see any way in which this would hinder potential future resolutions, and if it does in any way, please bring up any ideas that you have not previously on how you wish to add to this resolution, perhaps through its repeal, or the addition of a further resolution.
‘We regret that we have not considered the issue of trafficking in depth as it is not an issue which troubles Ithania. We are a Higher culture thus your primitive Lesser crimes and illegalities are inconsequential irrelevancies that we do not concern our minds with but equally we detest futile legislative efforts, hence our comments here.

Further, we believe there is a high probability that alternatives couldn’t possibly be as ineffective as this and we are subscribers to the notion of a “psychological blocker” advocated by other delegations so believe that it is better to leave the legislative records hushed on the matter so that a hypothetical author can create something that is actually useful in the future.’

If you have already conceded that it will serve at least even a mild annoyance to drug traffickers in your nation, it has already had a positive effect, and therefore I see no reason why you should not vote in its favor.
‘Creating a “mild annoyance” is hardly a victory for the international community is it representative? We are not of the opinion that “something is better than nothing” in the same manner that your nation’s culture must advocate because we believe such an approach reduces the United Nations to an interminable cycle of passing and subsequently repealing resolutions.

We believe that the international legislature must remain silent on an issue until such a time that it is capable of addressing the subject in a definitive manner. Your delegation’s resolution does not achieve that in our opinion; there will be no measureable reduction in illegal drug trafficking due to the fact it is devoid of any clauses promoting mutual cooperation thus the resolution does not meet our definition of “positive effect”.

We firmly believe that it meets our definition of “negative effect” due to the irresponsible advocacy of punitive economic measures instead of providing alternatives.’

Anravelle Kramer,
Ambassador that really wants her drink.

We see that the author has adopted in whole the flawed definition of "recreational drug" contained in UN Drug Act. Overly broad, including vast swaths of legitimate medical treatments, and ignoring the intent of the user completely it results in a dead-on-arrival definition that serves only to harm legitimate medical use and trade. We note that such a definition would include such things as table sugar (sucrose) which has been shown to alter brain chemistry, result in changes in mood and behavior and which is consumed for that very alteration.

Although sugar is a carbohydrate and qualifies as a food whose primary purpose is to nourish the body.

It certainly will with this resolution urging nations to sanction others who meet their displeasure rather than encouraging the diplomacy necessary to work through these types of problems.
yes, sanctions will be collective by a large number of nations, not just by the nation affected negatively by the situation, hence it helps the nation that would otherwise be helpless.

Perhaps if this mythical US didn't presume to impose their politics and policies on other nations they wouldn't get mad at other nations so often.
I didn't argue in favor of the US so don't get political about this.


We wonder if the Intelligenstan have any objective evidence for this at all.

Links between drug networks and illegal weapon trades have been demonstrated countless times.

(ooc: Honestly, was the Kool-Aid tasty? The Taliban banned opium production in Afghanistan. The US Govt. itself inspected Afghan poppy fields in Feb. 2001 and found zip, zero, nada production. While we're at it, want to discuss the role of the CIA in funding drug operations in order to maintain their chosen dictator in power? No?)


No one said the US gov. is innocent Ok woah. Seems like you have a grudge against the US trying to express it without any relation at all within this resolution.

Here the author ignores the reality of transactions of any kind. If the sale of a substance is legal in my nation, it is not incumbent on the seller to determine the origin of the buyer or the destination of the goods. The buyer violates a nation's laws when he enters with contraband. At that point one's national laws are quite sufficient to address the crime. If the seller crosses a border in order to complete a transaction that is criminal where the transaction will take place then the seller is subject to that nation's laws and punishments.

You cannot enforce punishment upon a citizen of a different nation that temporarily spends time within your nation, and often the best way to stop traffickers is from where they come from. You know this.

A further goal of this resolution is to help those nations where drugs are illegal, and have no power to enforce laws stopping incoming drugs from nations where they are legal, because most of the action must be taken by the nation where the drugs are coming FROM. This leads to unhappy relations between nations, and this is contrary to the goals of the UN.

"Then why the need for this resolution, if the situation is rare? "
Once again, you either misread or misunderstood. The situation is rare that nations TRADE with one another as nations (not individuals or groups within them) where a substance is illegal in one nation and legal in the other. The situation that this resolution describes is not rare at all, but a very common practice. (US-Mexican border for example).


Some may have no problem with your attempt to involve the UN in blackmail, we do. Perhaps sanctions should be levied at any nation who is more interested in telling other nations whom to punish than they are in determining why so much of their population wishes to self-medicate.


Sorry, but to me it sounds like someones trying to defend their illegal drug traffickers.
Haha I went running earlier and am a little sore. I think I'll go self medicate my self with some heroin. Right.

I maintain my position that this resolution is for a helpless nation to be able to force a neighboring nation to inflict punishments on its illegal drug traffickers. That is a purpose I see in the UN. If you don't believe the UN should be to do this, then this resolution isn't for you, or if it passes, I guess the UN isn't for you.

How do all!

Firstly, the Ambassador from Putzi should like to say it is a pleasure to be back with you all after my recent skydiving holiday launched from the sky-bar balcony at the top of the tallest tower of the UN building. It took days to reach the ground due to some very strong thermals, presumably all that hot air coming from the main debating chamber...

Regarding this resolution, international drug trafficking is a very slippery and complex issue and we feel that this subject needs strong legislation to have any impact. We feel the resolution as it stands is decidedly on the Brie side of the cheeseboard (as detailed point-by-point by others already), as opposed to being in the highly preferred Parmesan regime.

Therefore Putzi will vote AGAINST in order to try and keep the way clear for a much bigger hammer / tougher resolution and save the bother of a repeal.

The Ambassador from Putzi

P.S. To those nations that desire/depend on drug trafficking for whatever reason, surely this resolution will not make the slightest bit of difference since you can just legislate a 'corrective' fine of one apple and a 'corrective' imprisonment of length five minutes (with a reduction to two minutes for good conduct)...

‘We wish to cut through the needless repetition of what we have already addressed and focus on the core facts; your delegation cannot assert that punishments will be proportionate to other punishments within the nation as you have not and cannot include a provision for this in your proposal so any repercussions may be as negligible or stringent as a member state desires. There is no “usually” in such an environment.

In our assessment, the new process that this resolution introduces has no noteworthy effect on illegal drug trafficking thus is completely useless due to this.’


‘We regret that we have not considered the issue of trafficking in depth as it is not an issue which troubles Ithania. We are a Higher culture thus your primitive Lesser crimes and illegalities are inconsequential irrelevancies that we do not concern our minds with but equally we detest futile legislative efforts, hence our comments here.

Further, we believe there is a high probability that alternatives couldn’t possibly be as ineffective as this and we are subscribers to the notion of a “psychological blocker” advocated by other delegations so believe that it is better to leave the legislative records hushed on the matter so that a hypothetical author can create something that is actually useful in the future.’


‘Creating a “mild annoyance” is hardly a victory for the international community is it representative? We are not of the opinion that “something is better than nothing” in the same manner that your nation’s culture must advocate because we believe such an approach reduces the United Nations to an interminable cycle of passing and subsequently repealing resolutions.

We believe that the international legislature must remain silent on an issue until such a time that it is capable of addressing the subject in a definitive manner. Your delegation’s resolution does not achieve that in our opinion; there will be no measureable reduction in illegal drug trafficking due to the fact it is devoid of any clauses promoting mutual cooperation thus the resolution does not meet our definition of “positive effect”.

We firmly believe that it meets our definition of “negative effect” due to the irresponsible advocacy of punitive economic measures instead of providing alternatives.’

Anravelle Kramer

I fully understand your position. I believe this resolution WOULD cut down (not completely, obviously, but yet still significantly) on drug trafficking. Oh you are a higher culture I appologize I didn't realize this before posting earlier. Well I am a lower culture, yes, inferior to yours, and sorry but my nation is not full proofed against illegal drug traffickers coming in from neighboring nations where the drugs are legal and the nations do nothing to enforce any form of punishment upon these citizens of theirs. If I impose sanctions alone, this would have no effect whatsoever, hence the UN proposal to force them to punish these people.
The mutual cooperation would come in with this callign upon a massive number of UN nations sanctioning non-UN nations who don't follow this course of action. If you have a better resolution to adress the issue I would aid you in repealing this resolution and helping to pass yours, and I understand again that this is not a problem for your nation, but it is for mine, and this must be adressed, as soon as possible.
And to Putzi right up there, same thing.

Frank leaned back in his chair, studying the crowd around him. After a brief, amused thought on how they would react if Billie Rogantini (his Temporary Special Assistant), who sat next to him, whipped out the flask of moonshine she habitually carried somewhere about her person, he reached into his pocket and withdrew a coin marked on one side with a stylized crab and the number ten; and on the other with the Mariner's Cross of Delmarva Jersey. He surreptitiously flipped it, under Billie's disapproving glance, then slipped the decicrab coin back into his pocket.

Standing, he spoke. "We of D-Jersey could really care less about this resolution. Currently, pretty much every drug under the sun is illegal; and is still widely used; since we've had a thriving moonshine industry for centuries, and they took the opportunity of the outlawing of alcohol and other drugs to expand their businesses. Basically, moonshiners just provide some off-season practice for our Riverine Combat Patrol, the Chesapeake Naval Guard, and the Mountain Defense Battalions. We make sure no one crosses our borders with anything we consider illegal, and don't really bother if it's inside our borders."

"The ensign here will clarify our position," he sat back down and grinned evilly at Billie, who flashed him a brief glare before standing.

"I be Diploma'ic Officer Corps Ensign Billie Rogantini, assigned Temp'rary Special Assistan' to Frank. I temp'rarily served wit' the RCP during my training, and I kin attes' hat very few drugs get past our borders. I kin also attest that we approve of this resolution. We's fine wit' our own people poisonin' each udder, but when we got furriners doing it to us we git pissed. Since when we gets pissed we tend to send in the Mountain Regimen's and the RCP 'stead uh waitin' to impose sanctions, we don' usually got no problems wit' the smugglers, but we do got trouble wit udder nations tryin' to extradite they criminals back, an' then not punishin' them. This legisla'ion les us call on the rest of the UN to sanction 'em when they do 'hat, don't it? So we kin do something effec'ive wi'out raiding-- always a plus."

Frank stood up and smiled his thanks to Billie, before turning back to the room. Billie sat down and surreptitiously took a swig from a bottle she pulled from the side of her boot (it's actually Gatorade, but no one ELSE knows that.) "As the ensign said, we appreciate the implied ability to call on sanctions from the rest of the UN to help ours, since our sanctions don't usually have much effect. Thank you."

He sat down again, and looked to Billie, who was returning her bottle to her boot. "I wan' summa dat in a minnit," he said. Billie briefly snickered, but didn't reply otherwise.

Frank leaned back in his chair, studying the crowd around him. After a brief, amused thought on how they would react if Billie Rogantini (his Temporary Special Assistant), who sat next to him, whipped out the flask of moonshine she habitually carried somewhere about her person, he reached into his pocket and withdrew a coin marked on one side with a stylized crab and the number ten; and on the other with the Mariner's Cross of Delmarva Jersey. He surreptitiously flipped it, under Billie's disapproving glance, then slipped the decicrab coin back into his pocket.

Standing, he spoke. "We of D-Jersey could really care less about this resolution. Currently, pretty much every drug under the sun is illegal; and is still widely used; since we've had a thriving moonshine industry for centuries, and they took the opportunity of the outlawing of alcohol and other drugs to expand their businesses. Basically, moonshiners just provide some off-season practice for our Riverine Combat Patrol, the Chesapeake Naval Guard, and the Mountain Defense Battalions. We make sure no one crosses our borders with anything we consider illegal, and don't really bother if it's inside our borders."

"The ensign here will clarify our position," he sat back down and grinned evilly at Billie, who flashed him a brief glare before standing.

"I be Diploma'ic Officer Corps Ensign Billie Rogantini, assigned Temp'rary Special Assistan' to Frank. I temp'rarily served wit' the RCP during my training, and I kin attes' hat very few drugs get past our borders. I kin also attest that we approve of this resolution. We's fine wit' our own people poisonin' each udder, but when we got furriners doing it to us we git pissed. Since when we gets pissed we tend to send in the Mountain Regimen's and the RCP 'stead uh waitin' to impose sanctions, we don' usually got no problems wit' the smugglers, but we do got trouble wit udder nations tryin' to extradite they criminals back, an' then not punishin' them. This legisla'ion les us call on the rest of the UN to sanction 'em when they do 'hat, don't it? So we kin do something effec'ive wi'out raiding-- always a plus."

Frank stood up and smiled his thanks to Billie, before turning back to the room. Billie sat down and surreptitiously took a swig from a bottle she pulled from the side of her boot (it's actually Gatorade, but no one ELSE knows that.) "As the ensign said, we appreciate the implied ability to call on sanctions from the rest of the UN to help ours, since our sanctions don't usually have much effect. Thank you."

He sat down again, and looked to Billie, who was returning her bottle to her boot. "I wan' summa dat in a minnit," he said. Billie briefly snickered, but didn't reply otherwise.

A very fine piece of RP. I would just like to thank both Diplomatic Officer Corps Ensign Billie Rogantini, the Temporary Special Assistant to Frank, and Frank himself for realizeing the good in this resolution and what it would bring to your respective nation.

yes, sanctions will be collective by a large number of nations, not just by the nation affected negatively by the situation, hence it helps the nation that would otherwise be helpless.So you knowingly and gladly encourage more strife in the world, all for the sake of a hypothetical helpless nation.

I didn't argue in favor of the US so don't get political about this.
...
Links between drug networks and illegal weapon trades have been demonstrated countless times.
...
No one said the US gov. is innocent Ok woah. Seems like you have a grudge against the US trying to express it without any relation at all within this resolution.ooc: Perhaps you shouldn't be using real-life examples (and then with fallacious connections and conclusions) to bolster your argument.

You cannot enforce punishment upon a citizen of a different nation that temporarily spends time within your nation,Here you are completely in error. Anyone (without diplomatic immunity) committing a crime in your nation is subject to your laws. Period.

and often the best way to stop traffickers is from where they come from. You know this.We know that you have been convinced that this is true. Experience, however, has shown that forcing other nations to conform to your laws by threatening them with economic disaster tends to not work very well. Not only do the people you wish to punish generally evade such punishment, the sanctions you're urging others to adopt frequently ensnare the innocent. Said blackmailed nation then feels no compunction to earnestly support the sanctioning nations in other areas of interest.

Despite your use of the helpless-nation model, what you are asserting in this resolution is a might-is-right policy.

A further goal of this resolution is to help those nations where drugs are illegal, and have no power to enforce laws stopping incoming drugs from nations where they are legal, because most of the action must be taken by the nation where the drugs are coming FROM. This leads to unhappy relations between nations, and this is contrary to the goals of the UN.You keep on saying this as if it is true. Some of us believe whole-heartedly that demand leads supply. And honestly, would someone please forward us a copy of the goals of the UN... if you can find them?

"Then why the need for this resolution, if the situation is rare? "
Once again, you either misread or misunderstood. The situation is rare that nations TRADE with one another as nations (not individuals or groups within them) where a substance is illegal in one nation and legal in the other. The situation that this resolution describes is not rare at all, but a very common practice. (US-Mexican border for example).Odd, we quoted you in context. Be that as it may, we disagree with your assessment of the frequency of trade between nations where a substance has different legal statuses. Based on personal experience. (ooc: And again with the RL examples--if you don't want RL politics/policy brought in, don't rely on the U.S. drug policy and consequences.)

Sorry, but to me it sounds like someones trying to defend their illegal drug traffickers. ... am a little sore. I think I'll go self medicate my self with some heroin. Right.Right. And we're terrorists, too. Who said anything about heroin? The definition you're using encompasses literally just about every medication available for consumption.

I maintain my position that this resolution is for a helpless nation to be able to force a neighboring nation to inflict punishments on its illegal drug traffickers. That is a purpose I see in the UN. If you don't believe the UN should be to do this, then this resolution isn't for you, or if it passes, I guess the UN isn't for you.Although we would prefer it to not pass for ideological reasons, the resolution is easily side-stepped and will accomplish little to nothing.

--L.T.

Although my country gets most of its money from taxes, I do not support this legislation. The only thing that will happen after this is put in place is that drug use and distribution will go underground. However, if we legalize it, then all the money made is taxable. After that all we must do is pass legislation on the amount of drugs allowable to have on your person.

*After spending an enormous amount of time in the Stranger's Bar, Zarquon finally gathereed enough nerve to enter the General Assembly. After only being in the chamber for ten minutes he noticed that the resolution on the floor and the debate was seemingly much like the legislation that was previously passed. Trying to decide wheather to stay and hear what will be a rather dull debate, or to stay and try to make a difference he finally made his way to the center podium.*

My fellow members. What we have here is another piece of weak legislation, which in my mind does absolutely nothing. I had thought that after the repeal of a resolution which had a similar demeanor, we would be beyond this weak resolutions. I can see that I was wrong. As such, Zarquon Froods votes AGAINST in the hopes that a stronger resolution may reach the floor in the coming weeks.

*Rather slowly he made his way back to his desk where Joebot™ had a glass with some fizzy liquid in waiting for him. He sat down and began taking long pulls from the glass.*

This is going to be another long one.

Here you are completely in error. Anyone (without diplomatic immunity) committing a crime in your nation is subject to your laws. Period.


oh yea, and then what, you extradite them, and they get set free just to repeat the offense.



You keep on saying this as if it is true. Some of us believe whole-heartedly that demand leads supply. And honestly, would someone please forward us a copy of the goals of the UN... if you can find them?

yes, but guess what, curbing the supply solves the problem just as well as curbing the demand. Even better because people are not tempted to begin demanding such illegal substances.


Right. And we're terrorists, too. Who said anything about heroin? The definition you're using encompasses literally just about every medication available for consumption.
--L.T.

Yes, again, all legally traded medication would still be available. Do you mean to say that your populace uses illegally traded unregulated medications? Would you take a home-made Advil made in Tajikistan that you got through someone who illegally crossed the border?

Although my country gets most of its money from taxes, I do not support this legislation. The only thing that will happen after this is put in place is that drug use and distribution will go underground. However, if we legalize it, then all the money made is taxable. After that all we must do is pass legislation on the amount of drugs allowable to have on your person.

foolish words. Reread, come back.

*After spending an enormous amount of time in the Stranger's Bar, Zarquon finally gathereed enough nerve to enter the General Assembly. After only being in the chamber for ten minutes he noticed that the resolution on the floor and the debate was seemingly much like the legislation that was previously passed. Trying to decide wheather to stay and hear what will be a rather dull debate, or to stay and try to make a difference he finally made his way to the center podium.*

My fellow members. What we have here is another piece of weak legislation, which in my mind does absolutely nothing. I had thought that after the repeal of a resolution which had a similar demeanor, we would be beyond this weak resolutions. I can see that I was wrong. As such, Zarquon Froods votes AGAINST in the hopes that a stronger resolution may reach the floor in the coming weeks.

*Rather slowly he made his way back to his desk where Joebot™ had a glass with some fizzy liquid in waiting for him. He sat down and began taking long pulls from the glass.*

This is going to be another long one.

Again, had anyone proposed anything better earlier....
Also, instead of going about criticizing legislature tell us what you would like to see in it. Oh you are all so mighty, jeez its so hard to say you want something stronger. Really, what would you like to see in a resolution that the current one does not offer you?

Wow, over a thousand votes. Mind you, it does pay to read carefully.

Just for humour...

REITERATING that Charlotte Ryberg will never issue theme park season tickets to illegal drug traffickers offenders. No way.

SUPPLEMENTING that the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg guarantees the above clause to be a hundred percent true, otherwise the Home Secretary will personally humiliate himself before a massive crowd in your capital city's square for entertainment purposes, no questions asked.

DEFINING that humiliation is not limited to: wetting of trousers, walking with pants down, buckets of water, gunge, nul points, custard pies and bungee jumping stunts gone wrong.

oh yea, and then what, you extradite them, and they get set free just to repeat the offense.We would suggest that you brush up on criminal procedure. If the person is arrested in your nation committing a crime per your laws, no extradition is involved.

yes, but guess what, curbing the supply solves the problem just as well as curbing the demand. Even better because people are not tempted to begin demanding such illegal substances.As well, we would suggest you brush up on broad sociological experiments in which prohibition of substances was attempted, and try to tell us again that curbing supply is even possible, much less effective.

Yes, again, all legally traded medication would still be available.Please revisit the definitions you have used. Nothing in said definitions limits itself to any class of drug. Thus our objection with the definition.
--L.T.

§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.

So exactly how strict are nations that support Drug Trafficking going to be when deciding their penalty? Abstain for the time being.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

We of Evoinia, as now UN Delegate for PAU, think it both unwise for us to support this legislation along with the fact such 'Wars' on drugs, usually fail and waste capital.
So, we are AGAINST this legislation.

Wow, over a thousand votes. Mind you, it does pay to read carefully.

Just for humour...
haha!

Please revisit the definitions you have used. Nothing in said definitions limits itself to any class of drug. Thus our objection with the definition.
--L.T.
Haha YOU are telling ME when I wrote the resolution. It is clear that You don't understand it. All legal medications and all legal drugs will still be available. Only ones transported illegally will not be available anymore. what part of this don't you understand. I would be more than willing to explain this to you as many times as it takes. I think you too perhaps should reread it.
So exactly how strict are nations that support Drug Trafficking going to be when deciding their penalty? Abstain for the time being.

Richard York
UN Ambassador
it is up to each nation to decide such matters as the UN Drug Act provides for this.
We of Evoinia, as now UN Delegate for PAU, think it both unwise for us to support this legislation along with the fact such 'Wars' on drugs, usually fail and waste capital.
So, we are AGAINST this legislation.

This would help nations gain capital. It's already been established.

We regret that other matters kept us from paying attention to this proposal while it was in draft. While we commend its intent, we cannot support it. To us, the language of laws must be clear and precise if they are to be effectively, justly, and properly enforced. This resolution fails that test. Our distinguished colleagues from Ithania and Rubina have raised significant issues regarding the resolution; we'll focus on a different aspect.

The resolution requires punishment of "drug traffickers" with these clauses:

§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.

Now we are REQUIRED by these clauses to punish the individuals thus defined. Who are they? The only criterion for imposing the punishment is that they be "involved". There is no consideration for persons who may very well have been "involved" in the activity but not through any criminal intent or culpable negligence. An example would be a truck driver who transports the prohibited material across borders with no knowledge of the nature of the cargo. Another would be a bank clerk who accomplishes transmission of payment with no knowledge of what the payment is for. Both are very clearly involved in the activity. Should either one be subject to punishment? Not in a system where fairness and justice rules.

The intent of the resolution is obviously to ensure punishment of those who knowingly, willfully, or negligently violate the law. If it contained proper language to that end, we would likely support it. But the dangerous vagueness of the term "involved" has required us to vote NO.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

it is up to each nation to decide such matters as the UN Drug Act provides for this.

See that's what I have a problem with, states supporting drug trafficking will simply just set low fines and penalties to get around it. It's easily abused.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

We regret that other matters kept us from paying attention to this proposal while it was in draft. While we commend its intent, we cannot support it. To us, the language of laws must be clear and precise if they are to be effectively, justly, and properly enforced. This resolution fails that test. Our distinguished colleagues from Ithania and Rubina have raised significant issues regarding the resolution; we'll focus on a different aspect.

The resolution requires punishment of "drug traffickers" with these clauses:



Now we are REQUIRED by these clauses to punish the individuals thus defined. Who are they? The only criterion for imposing the punishment is that they be "involved". There is no consideration for persons who may very well have been "involved" in the activity but not through any criminal intent or culpable negligence. An example would be a truck driver who transports the prohibited material across borders with no knowledge of the nature of the cargo. Another would be a bank clerk who accomplishes transmission of payment with no knowledge of what the payment is for. Both are very clearly involved in the activity. Should either one be subject to punishment? Not in a system where fairness and justice rules.

The intent of the resolution is obviously to ensure punishment of those who knowingly, willfully, or negligently violate the law. If it contained proper language to that end, we would likely support it. But the dangerous vagueness of the term "involved" has required us to vote NO.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

You bring up a very good point. Firstly, I am glad you would support it if it would have included the word 'Knowingly' involved. The driver of the truck you speak of is required to declare anything he is transporting across the border that needs to be taxed. If he doesn't, even unknowingly, he is still held accountable under the law.

See that's what I have a problem with, states supporting drug trafficking will simply just set low fines and penalties to get around it. It's easily abused.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

That is why sanctions are encouraged against such punishments. There are previously passed laws in the UN prohibiting it to dictate for other nations what the punishment for certain crimes should be.

This would help nations gain capital. It's already been established.
I disagree, as it would require us to waste capital in the restricting of our own citizenry in their actions of transporting such goods.

As well, it would require we increase Police and Border Security in our own nation which again would outweigh the tax collected.

As a nation which prides itself on a utter lack of laws reguarding Drug Use, we remain unmoved in our position.

OOC: I think of the American War on Drugs with any legislation like this, it will all boil down to the same result. Waste of Time, Capital and no real reduction of drug use.

I disagree, as it would require us to waste capital in the restricting of our own citizenry in their actions of transporting such goods.

As well, it would require we increase Police and Border Security in our own nation which again would outweigh the tax collected.

As a nation which prides itself on a utter lack of laws reguarding Drug Use, we remain unmoved in our position.

OOC: I think of the American War on Drugs with any legislation like this, it will all boil down to the same result. Waste of Time, Capital and no real reduction of drug use.

No, because if Mexico would have been forced to cut down on drug traffickers, the US drug problem would have been reduced. And if they only did little by giving minor punishments, they would be sanctioned by many UN nations until they would comply.
Cutting down on drugs cuts down on violence, as certain drugs such as crack have been shown to have a direct link to vilence - hence saving more capital. And arrests for usage or possession or distribution would also go down. Capital would be gained.

Do we have to report nations who turn a blind eye on smugglers or have an inneficient bureaucracy that is designed to only catch a small percentage of drug runners? Window dressing as phony compliance should or should not be reported? We don't want to be a whistleblower but, if the law says we must... luckily it does not seem to say that.

Why worry about the drug trade anyway? If your citizenry are falling prey to this, then perhaps your society is not offering hope or alternatives to self-destruction, you could invite some of our Wawis to show you the Wawa.

See thread "Religion of ShogunKhan, The spread of Wonderful War" in NationStates forum for more info.

Marayevkohara K. D., Head of the Ministry of Trade in Charlotte Ryberg would like to make a short statement in relation to the UN resolution at vote:

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/3073/imagesdu6.jpg

"I would like to congratulate the Government of Intelligenstan on reaching of quorum with their resolution, Ban International Trafficking. I am very confident that this resolution will pass through, and we will continue to support this resolution at vote to the very end.

I have become aware that some of our relations within the ministry have not been reading and analyzing this resolution at vote with considerable care. I would like to reiterate that it is absolutely essential to study proposals very carefully before finalizing a decision.

I am very confident that this new resolution will combat illegal drugs trafficking, which is putting our children and our vulnerable citizens, and their future at risk. The Ministry of Trade does not tolerate illegal drugs trade in the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg. I am confident that the costs of combating drugs trade will be less than the losses suffered by the taxpayer.

Once again I praise the actions of Government of Intelligenstan and I wish you the very best of sucess in future."

Marayevkohara K. D.
Head of the Ministry of Trade

i am wondering if my dealers would still be able to cross borders with Drugs....most of witch are still legal here, across borders to countries that have the same drugs laws as us?

i am wondering if my dealers would still be able to cross borders with Drugs....most of witch are still legal here, across borders to countries that have the same drugs laws as us?

It should be legal to continue, but it may be, and it may has always been subject to duties.

correct. In addition, this would help your dealers by cutting down on illegal competition.

It should be legal to continue, but it may be, and it may has always been subject to duties.

If selling drugs illegally in other people's nations is how your country makes its money, and you are not a UN member, after this resolution passes, expect a gigantic wave of sanctions coming in your direction from UN members.
Oh no! Whatever will we do? I'm sorry, Mister, I'll be good now.

But seriously, apparently sarcasm doesn't work in the General Assembly any better than it does on the internet. Our money from selling drugs only encompasses about half of our government earnings.

Grast Zaran
Pandapajamastani UN Guy

Oh no! Whatever will we do? I'm sorry, Mister, I'll be good now.

But seriously, apparently sarcasm doesn't work in the General Assembly any better than it does on the internet. Our money from selling drugs only encompasses about half of our government earnings.

Grast Zaran
Pandapajamastani UN Guy

This is serious. Half of your government earnings is quite a lot, but you will experience sanctions all around from UN members. I sure hope for your nation's sake that most of your trade comes from non-UN members.

Utterly against. Waste of money and time, regardless of what some delegates may insist has 'been established'.

Actually, Pandapajamastan might only have license them, declare all the drugs to cross-border customs and pay the necessary fees to call it legal trade.

Half of Pandapajamastan's earnings from drugs does not indicate that they trade illegally. Best not to jump to conclusions.

Well, It's past nine o'clock PM in Funen and it's time to go home for the night. Take care! :)

Chancellor Mueller is angry. The Populace of Der Volkenland, though generally against drug abuse, have kept it legal, for no reason other than drug-trafficking in Der Volkenland is rarely observed. The Chancellor wishes the UN to remember a quote from Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.". If the verb 'say' is replaced with 'smoke' or 'use', it applies directly to the situation at hand. And everyone loves Voltaire (or at least the Chancellor does, and by extension the people of Der Volkenland).
Let's say that the anti-drug supporters are the angry smiley. The Der Volkenland Military is the smiley wielding a Maschinengewehr '42.
:mad: :mp5:

I've been asked to come down off the "mountain" on which I've been sitting and say why I believe this resolution to be so weak.

AWARE that member nations may not wish to outlaw drugs,
<snip>
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 committed.

REITERATING, finally, that member nations who do carry out legal drug trade will be able to continue to do so.

What is the point exactly. All you've done is define what trafficing is, and that we are urged to help end illegal trafficing and let legal alone. All this does is say individual nations are now required to impose fines or whatever punishment deemed appropriate.

Reading the title of the resolution, I assumed this would an iron fist crushing illegal trafficing altogether. What I see is suggestions that we should crack down on it more rigorously which is in my opinion a waste of time as all we are doing is restating what nations have had the power to do the entire time. This is a waste. Should a resolution come up that would put an end to it altogether and not urge the nations to impose sanctions I would support. Otherwise, I will not.

We have tried to find some redeeming qualities in this legislation, but we cannot percieve any way in which this would help end drug trafficking. Our vote is nay.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a188/kuroutesshin/shand_sig2.jpg
Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

I'll put in my vote for the resolution, but I feel that the resolution only tackles part of the trafficking problem. I'm talking illegal arms trades here (trafficking in persons has already been dealt with in Resolution 68), which we still need to discuss.

Also, there's a few minor quabbles I have with the wording:
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,
I agree with the Dourian Embassy with this one. The inclusion of "primary purpose" seems to unnecessarily restrict the field somewhat, even cutting out what should be included; after all, alcohol is an antiseptic and anaesthetic, marijuana can be used to produce hemp, and tobacco and the opiates can (operative: "can") be used ceremoniously. If these are seen as the primary purpose, then they are automaticaly excluded from what is considered a "recreational drug".

FURTHER NOTING that drug trafficking in many instances directly funds terrorism and illegal weapon trade,
May. Not always funding terrorism or IWT. Nor are terrorism or IWT always funded by such transactions (i.e. they could be funded by otherwise legal means). These need to be dealt with separately.

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 committed.
I don't know about anyone else, but doesn't this seem to be a bit of a breach of power? I may be wrong here; I apologise if I am.

Damanucus' vote: FOR

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Mickey Special, criminally insane UN Liason for The Long Drunken Roadtrip of 77 Camaro, puts down his bottle of Jack Daniels, grabs a microphone, and addresses the General Assembly.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b106/Yelda/300px-BonScottBig.jpg

Yeah! Hell yeah! This is the kinda law we've been lookin' for. Fucked up definition of traffickers....nothin' sayin' what the penalties gotta be....what....where's my whiskey?

*fumbles about looking for his bottle of whiskey*

*doesn't find it*

*drinks a can of lighter fluid instead*

...Yeah! Anyway...what...where was I?...Oh yeah! Sanctions! I don't know what the fuck a sanction is. That's why we have lawyers. Here's my attorney, Thurston. He's got some shit he wants to say.

*Mr. Special collapses back into his chair, lights a cigarette and starts looking through a stack of cassette tapes on the table.*

*His "attorney", Thurston, rises to speak.*

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b106/Yelda/mickeyspecialsattorney.jpg

Hello there! I'm Thurston Owsley, Mr. Special's attorney.

§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.
We're happy with this! It doesn't specify what the penalties are. Nations that oppose drug trafficking will already have stiff penalties in place, so no change there. Nations which support drug trafficking, who will...remain unnamed, will enact a penalty of, oh I don't know, $20. Or $50. Or nothing. Sounds fair to us! *smiles*

§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 committed.
So they "consider" it then decide not to? What then? Additionally, these aren't UN sanctions, but sanctions placed by individual nations, most likely in a piecemeal fashion. We see no problem here. The nations most likely to impose these sanctions are probably already hostile to our clients, partners and sponsors anyway, so there's no threat.

Approvals: 114 (Intelligenstan, Servojsek, Jesus freaks4062, Sabrina The Wise, Ranayn, Conner Island, New Steelton, Letonija, Kanturrelic, Extremation, Polaris Sigmar, The Seventh Realm, Take the damn name, Homieville, Njeering, Greendem, Jesioneka, Cardinal Ximenez, Peso_lover, Slices Right, Auevia, Kevin Hunt, Cake vs Pie, Hellastica, Norwedenland, Manussa, The Apathy, NSDAR, James Bonder, Aleeworld, Flying-Circus, The Great Naked Tribe, United_Deception, Vandrossia, Misplaced States, Sea Dolphin Lovers, Ardiden, WZ Forums, Yarallstupid, Yshurak, Kemibia, Kotire, Modeneheim, Bangladeath, One World Alliance, Tsruhkwah, Mondega, Sancte Michael, Pelagic Spectres, Bataaf, Cemetary Wastelands, Drysdale-Melbournia, COMUNI, Agapios, MercyMe, 849, Nellyphant, Kivistan UN Bordello, Soviet Remnants, Beninta, Nurdia, Kapinbeka, Caring State, Sturmen Sie Drachen, The East Dogs, Breckinshire, Super awsomeland, Sarejavo, Upper Urs, Monkeydonkey, Patifes, Esoteric Thought, AgnosticHighlanders, Furira, Free Liberal America, Crapooza, Charlotte Ryberg, Voregh, Archadelphia, Arkbergen, Ventei, Subterranis, East Hylia, Dasburgerstan, Hedingrad, Bakhairistan, New Androssia, Belussa, Kolko, Rarthuville, Dian, Fahadia, El Guerrero, Piratemonkeytopia, CrazyVampiredom, Aurania-Shifre, Invicible Burninator, The insane pack mules, Unified United Union, Mengjiang, Grtgrtgrtgrt, Munroscotia, Kyrakkarin, Ellenburg, Grawrland, Spaz Land, Solar Vengance, Crash-Co, Mukkina Faso, Central roman africa, Nomadic Zealots, HolyKnights, Pharaoh Yohance 2, Promora)
I see some familiar names in there. Good job guys! *gives thumbs up*

We will be advising our sponsors and financiers to vote FOR!

*Mickey Special finally finds the tape he was looking for. He places the tape in a giant boombox, presses "play" and turns the volume up to 11. The 77 Camaroan national anthem, Steeley Dan's Kid Charlemagne, blasts at full volume.*

*Mickey Special stands and salutes*

Chancellor Mueller is angry. The Populace of Der Volkenland, though generally against drug abuse, have kept it legal, for no reason other than drug-trafficking in Der Volkenland is rarely observed. The Chancellor wishes the UN to remember a quote from Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.". If the verb 'say' is replaced with 'smoke' or 'use', it applies directly to the situation at hand. And everyone loves Voltaire (or at least the Chancellor does, and by extension the people of Der Volkenland).
Let's say that the anti-drug supporters are the angry smiley. The Der Volkenland Military is the smiley wielding a Maschinengewehr '42.
:mad: :mp5:
This would not affect nations where drugs are legal. How many times does this need to be said?
Actually, Pandapajamastan might only have license them, declare all the drugs to cross-border customs and pay the necessary fees to call it legal trade.

Half of Pandapajamastan's earnings from drugs does not indicate that they trade illegally. Best not to jump to conclusions.

Well, It's past nine o'clock PM in Funen and it's time to go home for the night. Take care! :)
you are right. my appologies. i was mistaken.
Utterly against. Waste of money and time, regardless of what some delegates may insist has 'been established'.
Good argument. Regardless of what is said.

What is the point exactly. All you've done is define what trafficing is, and that we are urged to help end illegal trafficing and let legal alone. All this does is say individual nations are now required to impose fines or whatever punishment deemed appropriate.

Reading the title of the resolution, I assumed this would an iron fist crushing illegal trafficing altogether. What I see is suggestions that we should crack down on it more rigorously which is in my opinion a waste of time as all we are doing is restating what nations have had the power to do the entire time. This is a waste. Should a resolution come up that would put an end to it altogether and not urge the nations to impose sanctions I would support. Otherwise, I will not.
Again, as I say to all of you, tell me specifically what you want a resolution to say that this one doesn't.
We have tried to find some redeeming qualities in this legislation, but we cannot percieve any way in which this would help end drug trafficking. Our vote is nay.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens
Look back through the thread and read previous posts. It seems like repetition is still not enough for some of you.
I'll put in my vote for the resolution, but I feel that the resolution only tackles part of the trafficking problem. I'm talking illegal arms trades here (trafficking in persons has already been dealt with in Resolution 68), which we still need to discuss.

I agree with the Dourian Embassy with this one. The inclusion of "primary purpose" seems to unnecessarily restrict the field somewhat, even cutting out what should be included; after all, alcohol is an antiseptic and anaesthetic, marijuana can be used to produce hemp, and tobacco and the opiates can (operative: "can") be used ceremoniously. If these are seen as the primary purpose, then they are automaticaly excluded from what is considered a "recreational drug".


May. Not always funding terrorism or IWT. Nor are terrorism or IWT always funded by such transactions (i.e. they could be funded by otherwise legal means). These need to be dealt with separately.


I don't know about anyone else, but doesn't this seem to be a bit of a breach of power? I may be wrong here; I apologise if I am.

Damanucus' vote: FOR

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus
Indeed, good points. I am aware that illegal weapon trafficking must be adressed as well. but i think the place for that is in a different resolution. When a drug as defined by the resolution is taken as a drug, it becomes such an illegal substance whose trafficking is banned by this resolution. If marijuana is used to produce hemp, then the illegal traffickers that brought it into the country where it was made into hemp would not be affected by this resolution. No breach of power involved.
We're happy with this! It doesn't specify what the penalties are. Nations that oppose drug trafficking will already have stiff penalties in place, so no change there. Nations which support drug trafficking, who will...remain unnamed, will enact a penalty of, oh I don't know, $20. Or $50. Or nothing. Sounds fair to us! *smiles*

So they "consider" it then decide not to? What then? Additionally, these aren't UN sanctions, but sanctions placed by individual nations, most likely in a piecemeal fashion. We see no problem here. The nations most likely to impose these sanctions are probably already hostile to our clients, partners and sponsors anyway, so there's no threat.

We will be advising our sponsors and financiers to vote FOR!
The penalties are set by each individual nations. If it is not a fitting punishment, it will face sanctions. This is what this resolution does. Nations who don't support trafficking all over the world will now impose sanctions, even if your illegal trafficking only affects one other nation negatively. It is a call out for UN nations to unite against bullies. It makes ignoring illegal drug trafficking unprofitable for a nation. Thank you for your support even though it is for an opposite reason.

Not a very good idea if you ask me. Quoting a regional fellow nation, "Essentially, its a UN sponsored trade embargo from nations who chose to make such drugs illegal, imposed on nations who promote the free trade of such drugs." Just another way to increase the UN's stranglehold on our private economies.


§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.

Nations involved? So I am expected to punish traffickers bringing drugs legal in my nation for the drugs being illegal in the nation they came from? What's next, a ban on political asylum? Once again, "United" Nations, moving towards a world oligarchy.

Look back through the thread and read previous posts. It seems like repetition is still not enough for some of you.

I don't really care what people said in the thread. What matters is the text of the resolution. We don't feel that this is a successful or prudent way to go about ending illegal trafficking of drugs. One can't simply say "tell me what to put in a resolution and I'll do it," one must look critically at other's comments and reevaluate the original proposal.

We're still voting against.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a188/kuroutesshin/shand_sig2.jpg
Harmlan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

We the government and peoples of Ingorland have voted in support of the resolution to "Ban International Trafficking".

But we feel the best way to stop the international trafficking of recreational drugs, is for the UN to pass a resolution banning the growing and/or production of such drugs for recreational use. The resolution can define what constitutes a recreational drug and what are its legal and illegal uses. The resolution can also define which recreational drugs are legal.

We feel this would be a better way of controlling the illegal trafficking of drugs world wide.

William Pitt.
Minister for Regional and UN Affairs.

This is serious. Half of your government earnings is quite a lot, but you will experience sanctions all around from UN members. I sure hope for your nation's sake that most of your trade comes from non-UN members.
Please ignore my colleague, he's an idiot. Pandapajamastan does not and never has made any large amount of money off of illegal drugs, though there have been allegations thereof for years. Apparently he thinks himself a political humourist. Or he's just a moron. I suspect the latter. Anyway, never take anything he says seriously.

Though he is right that we're voting for the resolution.

Luri Zanth
UN Representative A

I don't really care what people said in the thread. What matters is the text of the resolution. We don't feel that this is a successful or prudent way to go about ending illegal trafficking of drugs. One can't simply say "tell me what to put in a resolution and I'll do it," one must look critically at other's comments and reevaluate the original proposal.

We're still voting against.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a188/kuroutesshin/shand_sig2.jpg
Harmlan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens
That's true, the resolution needs to hold to itself. I was saying look back because people like you who misunderstood or misread part of the resolution posted similar posts and i responded to them. if you don't want a response but just feel good posting your feelings somewhere that's fine.
We the government and peoples of Ingorland have voted in support of the resolution to "Ban International Trafficking".

But we feel the best way to stop the international trafficking of recreational drugs, is for the UN to pass a resolution banning the growing and/or production of such drugs for recreational use. The resolution can define what constitutes a recreational drug and what are its legal and illegal uses. The resolution can also define which recreational drugs are legal.

We feel this would be a better way of controlling the illegal trafficking of drugs world wide.

William Pitt.
Minister for Regional and UN Affairs.
we cannot do that because of the UN drug act.

Since my esteemed colleagues have already addressed the same points I opened with, I'll take up a particular argument here.

The penalties are set by each individual nations. If it is not a fitting punishment, it will face sanctions. This is what this resolution does. Nations who don't support trafficking all over the world will now impose sanctions, even if your illegal trafficking only affects one other nation negatively. It is a call out for UN nations to unite against bullies. It makes ignoring illegal drug trafficking unprofitable for a nation. Thank you for your support even though it is for an opposite reason.

You wrote the damn thing and even you can't get it straight.

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

For gods sake, you don't even urge us to issue sanctions. You urge us to consider issuing sanctions.

Also, similar to... what? The ones that my nations imposes? My nation won't set real penalties. So this clause urges me to consider issuing sanctions on nations that do. I can do that, you're first!

Edit: OOC: And for gods sake, if you have 50 things to say, put it in one post. Edit it, it's what I do.

The wording of the proposal defines antidepressents and other medications for psychiatric health as "recreational"

For gods sake, you don't even urge us to issue sanctions. You urge us to consider issuing sanctions.

Also, similar to... what? The ones that my nations imposes? My nation won't set real penalties. So this clause urges me to consider issuing sanctions on nations that do. I can do that, you're first!

Edit: OOC: And for gods sake, if you have 50 things to say, put it in one post. Edit it, it's what I do.

Stronger language does not imply stronger legislature. Same meaning. Similar to the ones described above. stop being picky about every little word. this is obvious to 99.99% of the readers. I think you're just trying to find something at fault with it.

The wording of the proposal defines antidepressents and other medications for psychiatric health as "recreational"

Yes. YES IT DOES. YES if their primary purpose is recreational. How many times does this need to be said. YES. Medications passed illegally through borders would fall under this resolution.

If you meant it one way, say it that way. Otherwise you're wasting our time.

You know, more.

If you meant it one way, say it that way. Otherwise you're wasting our time.

You know, more.

don't understand what you're saying. The resolution is exactly worded as it is meant. Your interpretation of it is the 1 out of 1000 who tries to pretend you don't understand the real meaning. It's like looking up words in the dictionary and going with definition number 7 rather than 1 2 or 3 which are usually very much alike.

don't understand what you're saying. The resolution is exactly worded as it is meant. Your interpretation of it is the 1 out of 1000 who tries to pretend you don't understand the real meaning. It's like looking up words in the dictionary and going with definition number 7 rather than 1 2 or 3 which are usually very much alike.

I know. It's ok though, so far The Dourian Embassy, Republicanianopalis, Garchyland, Smokingdrugs, Ithania, Rubina, Putzi, Zarquon Froods, Charlotte Ryberg, Cookesland, Ausserland, ShogunKhan, Snefaldia, Damanucus, and 77 Camaro, have all mentioned either problems with your definitions, uncomfortableness with them, or are outright telling you that your resolution is nothing but a stumbling block towards something that would actually solve the problem.

But you don't understand.

Stronger language does not imply stronger legislature. Same meaning. Similar to the ones described above. stop being picky about every little word. this is obvious to 99.99% of the readers. I think you're just trying to find something at fault with it.

Contradiction. Stronger language in the NationStates United Nations does mean stronger legislation. The difference between REQUESTS and URGES is a huge one. Clearly, if this is such an oft-repeated point, it's rather important, yes?

Yes. YES IT DOES. YES if their primary purpose is recreational. How many times does this need to be said. YES. Medications passed illegally through borders would fall under this resolution.

And what about smuggling medical drugs not normally available in the destination country? The Centralized Mountain States would have no problem with a group of traffickers smuggling AIDS medication or Tuberculosis vaccines into a country which has banned them for religious or moral reasons. Is such a side effect justified?

don't understand what you're saying. The resolution is exactly worded as it is meant. Your interpretation of it is the 1 out of 1000 who tries to pretend you don't understand the real meaning. It's like looking up words in the dictionary and going with definition number 7 rather than 1 2 or 3 which are usually very much alike.

It helps if you look at your own resolution with a critical eye. To quote the honored Ausserland delegates- "The law means what the law says." If your legislation (and it is the contention of many delegations that it is ) is poorly worded or leaves large loopholes open, then it is bad legislation and needs to be voted down. Or, if you see reason, you can ask the Secretariat to remove it from the queue, it's been done before.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

Look, it seems as though none of this mentioning of blatant flaws or other such things are getting to our friend from Intelligenstan. I propose that we in opposition instead reaffirm our opposition and hope that others will see reason.

One last try Evonia.

Intelligenstan: I'm going to put this in a way that I hope you'll find reason with.

We're not out to get you.

We actually have the best interests of the UN at heart, almost none of us feel this is strong enough to be a UN law. The UN JUST repealed a law for the very reasons we're stating now. What you're doing is creating a stumbling block for future resolutions that would actually do what needs doing. I humbly congratulate your telegram campaign. You did a spectacular job, I just think that if you honestly felt this kind of thing needed to pass, you'd have worked on a repeal to the UN Drug Law. I would suggest you withdraw this and work on that. It is a pressing matter that does indeed need dealt with. We should work together on comprehensive laws that respect national laws inside nations, respect international rights outside of them, and doesn't block me from sending aid to a nation that doesn't want it.

I hope you can understand the cooperation we're hoping for. Listen, please.

The penalties are set by each individual nations. If it is not a fitting punishment, it will face sanctions. This is what this resolution does. Nations who don't support trafficking all over the world will now impose sanctions, even if your illegal trafficking only affects one other nation negatively.
But what if the sanctions never are imposed? You've left it up to the various nations, in the hopes that lots of them will jump on the sanctions bandwagon. Basically, you're just assuming that sanctions will occur, but without some central authority to organize and/or lobby in favor of imposing them what makes you think it's certain that they will?

It is a call out for UN nations to unite against bullies. It makes ignoring illegal drug trafficking unprofitable for a nation.
Again, who will organize these sanctions? Even in the mythical land of RL that they show on TV, their "UN" has trouble getting everyone on-board when it comes time to sanction some nation or another. And that's with their UN lobbying in favor of the sanctions and twisting arms to get nations to vote in favor of imposing them. Here you're leaving it up to the discretion of individual nations and hoping that they will decide to "do the right thing".

Ever heard the expression "it's like herding cats"? Well in this case the cats aren't even being herded, you're hoping that they'll just wander into the corral on their own.

Thank you for your support even though it is for an opposite reason.
You're very welcome. The vote is going well, by the way. Congratulations!

Thurston Owsley, esq
Attorney And Counselor At Law

I know. It's ok though, so far The Dourian Embassy, Republicanianopalis, Garchyland, Smokingdrugs, Ithania, Rubina, Putzi, Zarquon Froods, Charlotte Ryberg, Cookesland, Ausserland, ShogunKhan, Snefaldia, Damanucus, and 77 Camaro, have all mentioned either problems with your definitions, uncomfortableness with them, or are outright telling you that your resolution is nothing but a stumbling block towards something that would actually solve the problem.

But you don't understand.

I didn't understand your very last comment. Firstly, I'd like to mention that over half of those did not repost after I responded to their comments. Secondly, I bet most of these are those bully nations that don't care about their drug traffickers that go into other nations. Finally, some do support the resolution. Those who do, just don't post here, they simply vote in its favor (notice the large lead). Just because you post here, doesn't mean you are smarter or look at it more carefully than all the other UN members. I have responded to every single post, and have yet to find good enough reason to abandon the resolution. I think every resolution will have people trying to get around the semantics because they think it is against their nation

Contradiction. Stronger language in the NationStates United Nations does mean stronger legislation. The difference between REQUESTS and URGES is a huge one. Clearly, if this is such an oft-repeated point, it's rather important, yes?


And what about smuggling medical drugs not normally available in the destination country? The Centralized Mountain States would have no problem with a group of traffickers smuggling AIDS medication or Tuberculosis vaccines into a country which has banned them for religious or moral reasons. Is such a side effect justified?



It helps if you look at your own resolution with a critical eye. To quote the honored Ausserland delegates- "The law means what the law says." If your legislation (and it is the contention of many delegations that it is ) is poorly worded or leaves large loopholes open, then it is bad legislation and needs to be voted down. Or, if you see reason, you can ask the Secretariat to remove it from the queue, it's been done before.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

You are right, Requests is stronger than urges. But advise is not stronger than advise to consider. I love how your arguments and examples follow each other. Really, you would buy home-made AIDS medication that went through criminal hands? neither would they. You can't do something to another nation or decide for them. That's what the UN is for. That's what sanctions are for, and so on. It's not your job to do that.
I am looking at the resolution with a critical eye and have done so and continue to do so. It is worded as best as can be and all loopholes have been taken care of. Noone has YET and I say his for the third or fourth time, pointed to a SPECIFIC change or poor wording or loophole they would like to see corrected. You say general statemnets like 'it is weak'. Great. But indeed, if it has poor wording and loopholes I should have it removed. Please convince me and I will.

Look, it seems as though none of this mentioning of blatant flaws or other such things are getting to our friend from Intelligenstan. I propose that we in opposition instead reaffirm our opposition and hope that others will see reason.

Very well, it is always easy to give up the logical way altogether and stop trying to convince someone that you are right. just because you know you are so what's the point. That's good debating skills you've got yourself there. Talk about dogma.

One last try Evonia.

Intelligenstan: I'm going to put this in a way that I hope you'll find reason with.

We're not out to get you.

We actually have the best interests of the UN at heart, almost none of us feel this is strong enough to be a UN law. The UN JUST repealed a law for the very reasons we're stating now. What you're doing is creating a stumbling block for future resolutions that would actually do what needs doing. I humbly congratulate your telegram campaign. You did a spectacular job, I just think that if you honestly felt this kind of thing needed to pass, you'd have worked on a repeal to the UN Drug Law. I would suggest you withdraw this and work on that. It is a pressing matter that does indeed need dealt with. We should work together on comprehensive laws that respect national laws inside nations, respect international rights outside of them, and doesn't block me from sending aid to a nation that doesn't want it.

I hope you can understand the cooperation we're hoping for. Listen, please.

Thank you, reason always comes first. I understand you are not out to get me, and we share the common goal of wanting to improve the UN. I feel some others don't (such as some posters who aren't even UN members I noticed and many where all drugs are legal and so on). What part of this resolution creates a stumbling block? I have asked this before, remember? you again make a statement without supporting it. I have already told you to show me what part of this would block future resolutions? But you just went on to something else. Half of the topics of the posts that I responded to have been abandonned. That already shows. Half of the posters didn't come back. It's absolutely NOT about the telgram campaign or the good job I did. It is in my interest to improve the UN and thus improve my nation. A repeal on a resolution such as the UN drug act is almost not realistic considering as you can see the large number of druggies around.
So now as a final statement you bring up an issue you have not discussed before. You want to give aid to individuals within the nation, not as a country, but with individual illegal traffickers, based on your own justification. This is something this resolution, is trying to prevent. This is something you have not even brought up before.
Again guys, it's very easy to pour a bunch of general statements out there. I want for cooperation too. Let's face the issues, straight up and clear, with examples, and specific things you don't like about the resolution, and discuss them one by one. I am still waiting for someone to do that.

But what if the sanctions never are imposed? You've left it up to the various nations, in the hopes that lots of them will jump on the sanctions bandwagon. Basically, you're just assuming that sanctions will occur, but without some central authority to organize and/or lobby in favor of imposing them what makes you think it's certain that they will?


Again, who will organize these sanctions? Even in the mythical land of RL that they show on TV, their "UN" has trouble getting everyone on-board when it comes time to sanction some nation or another. And that's with their UN lobbying in favor of the sanctions and twisting arms to get nations to vote in favor of imposing them. Here you're leaving it up to the discretion of individual nations and hoping that they will decide to "do the right thing".

Ever heard the expression "it's like herding cats"? Well in this case the cats aren't even being herded, you're hoping that they'll just wander into the corral on their own.


You're very welcome. The vote is going well, by the way. Congratulations!

Thurston Owsley, esq
Attorney And Counselor At Law

Firstly, it is not me you must congratulate, it's all the UN members that will benefit from it. Sanctions do not need to necessarily be organized, I am much in favor of many individual nations imposing sanctions. To get the entire UN body to do so would be nearly impossible. I am not certain that every nation will impose sanctions, but I leave it up to their discretion. If a nation has 85% of its trade with the nation in question and feels like these are hard economic times and that the punishment is borderline acceptable in their eyes, they shouldn't be forced to impose sanctions. I AM leaving to the individual nations, but do urge them to impose sanctions. And yes I do hope they do the right thing and begin to sanction nations who don't have effective punishments, even if they are half way around the world and their illegal drug trafficking policies do not affect them in particular.

Can someone explain in a short sentence or two why I should vote in either direction? My nation is ambivalent about the subject but we wish to make a proper decision. There are alot of long justifications, so we want a nice, sweet and short reason.

Can someone explain in a short sentence or two why I should vote in either direction? My nation is ambivalent about the subject but we wish to make a proper decision. There are alot of long justifications, so we want a nice, sweet and short reason.

I'll do the for,
Vote FOR because:

This resolution will improve international relations by forcing UN members to impose punishments on illegal drug traffickers. If the punishments seem to be insufficient in the eyes of individual nations, the nation in question will be sanctioned by such nations. Thus drug-trafficking bully nations would be stopped and the helpless ones where drugs are illegal would be helped.

I will bring just a couple points to bear then for now.

One: Assuming for a moment that your sanctions clause actually required sanctions to be issued, the vast majority of all nations are not UN members. Imposing sanctions on them would hurt US, not the other way around.

Two: If someone in the future repeals the UN Drug Law, and then decides to pass a law that says

"REQUIRES that international trade of drugs and or chemicals be banned in nations where it would be illegal to own, sell, purchase, or barter for them,"

I will be the one who stands up and says, Oh no, you can't do that. "Ban International Trafficking" already covers this, it does a really bad job, we completely ignore it because it's not really binding, and you can't actually require any of the things it "suggests, urges or whatever" until you repeal it too.

I'll do the for,
Vote FOR because:

This resolution will improve international relations by forcing UN members to impose punishments on illegal drug traffickers. If the punishments seem to be insufficient in the eyes of individual nations, the nation in question will be sanctioned by such nations. Thus drug-trafficking bully nations would be stopped and the helpless ones where drugs are illegal would be helped.

I'll do the against,
Vote AGAINST because:

This resolution DOES NOT just impose punishments on illegal drug traffickers. It gives recreational drugs an incorrect definition that could be interpreted as including pharmaceutical drugs that treat mental illness (e.g. anti-depressants). Therefore, carefully analyzed, this resolution makes illegal the international trade of perfectly legitimate medecines for mental illness, simply becuase they alter the individual's psychological state.

I'm shocked no one else caught this. This resolution should be defeated, and rewritten to include a better definition of what constitutes a "recreational drug".

Can someone explain in a short sentence or two why I should vote in either direction? My nation is ambivalent about the subject but we wish to make a proper decision. There are alot of long justifications, so we want a nice, sweet and short reason.

We would recommend that the ambassador cast his nation’s vote against this resolution as it does nothing to serve the international community. The delegation from Intelligenstan previously conceded that this legislative effort amounts to a very “mild annoyance” to drug traffickers which is insufficient for an international legislature.

The ambassador requested a short summary so we shall give him (?) one; this resolution does nothing. It merely repeats rights and abilities nations already have so if it changes nothing important how can it help the world? It can’t.

Hologram of Anravelle Kramer.

OOC: Sorry sweeties if that kinda drifted into OOC, I’m very tired and typed this quickly before being off for sleep.

Firstly, it is not me you must congratulate, it's all the UN members that will benefit from it. Sanctions do not need to necessarily be organized, I am much in favor of many individual nations imposing sanctions. To get the entire UN body to do so would be nearly impossible. I am not certain that every nation will impose sanctions, but I leave it up to their discretion. If a nation has 85% of its trade with the nation in question and feels like these are hard economic times and that the punishment is borderline acceptable in their eyes, they shouldn't be forced to impose sanctions. I AM leaving to the individual nations, but do urge them to impose sanctions. And yes I do hope they do the right thing and begin to sanction nations who don't have effective punishments, even if they are half way around the world and their illegal drug trafficking policies do not affect them in particular.
OOC: This would be hard to say in-character so let me answer OOC. What I was getting at in that post is that by leaving it to the discretion of the nations you're basically leaving it up to roleplay. You'll say that sanctions are, or will be, imposed. Someone else says "no they aren't". Which one is right?

If you had included a committee or commission to determine when sanctions should be imposed and then see that they were, it would be different. I would agree that "yes, sanctions probably were imposed". But that would have opened up a whole other committee-related can-o-worms.

I hope you realize that I don't actually support drug trafficking OOC. I'm just using 77 Camaro to illustrate how this proposal doesn't do much to really curtail it.

I will bring just a couple points to bear then for now.
good. one at a time is definitely a good strategy so we can focus in depth on eahc.

One: Assuming for a moment that your sanctions clause actually required sanctions to be issued, the vast majority of all nations are not UN members. Imposing sanctions on them would hurt US, not the other way around.

That is possible. The nation imposing the sanctions would get hurt, although the degree would be varying. But the key is Collective sanctions. Since there are many UN members, if most issue sanctions against this one non-UN nation that does not comply, it will suffer significantly. Also I'd assume that a nation that tries to protect its illegal drug traffickers, is usually not the most economically powerfull one, but that's just a side note.

Two: If someone in the future repeals the UN Drug Law, and then decides to pass a law that says

"REQUIRES that international trade of drugs and or chemicals be banned in nations where it would be illegal to own, sell, purchase, or barter for them,"

I will be the one who stands up and says, Oh no, you can't do that. "Ban International Trafficking" already covers this, it does a really bad job, we completely ignore it because it's not really binding, and you can't actually require any of the things it "suggests, urges or whatever" until you repeal it too.
It is very good that you finally bring up a real example for the first time. As I see it right now, before this resolution should be appealed, for any future resolution concerning the matter, the UN drug act must be repealed first as you say. And as I at least see it right now, that is close to unrealistic for the reasons I put forth before. yet what you say is ban the international trade of something that is illegal in a nation. This is not only different from what is trying to be implemented here, but also kind of redundant don't you think. Haha now I'm the one trying to criticize your hypothetical resolution should you be able somehow to repeal the UN Drug Act (P.S. if you feel so strongly about it, why have there been no attempts made to repeal it?)
If it is already illegal to sell purchase or barter for them, what would banning of international trade do for that nation? Maybe I don't realize what this would do further than that, if that is the case, honestly explain it to me. You are going in the right direction of beginning to convince me though, because if you do find something that I hadn't thought about before that would actually make a good resolution in my opinion (maybe this one that you said above, just me not understanding it completely), I would change my mind.
THIS is cooperation. Working together to try to convince the other of your point.
(Quite different from: 'oh its weak' 'I don't like it' 'it has poor wording' 'FORCES is stronger than SUGGESTS so its a bad resolution' 'it wouldn't do anything' and all other such statements I've read in this thread)

OOC: This would be hard to say in-character so let me answer OOC. What I was getting at in that post is that by leaving it to the discretion of the nations you're basically leaving it up to roleplay. You'll say that sanctions are, or will be, imposed. Someone else says "no they aren't". Which one is right?

If you had included a committee or commission to determine when sanctions should be imposed and then see that they were, it would be different. I would agree that "yes, sanctions probably were imposed". But that would have opened up a whole other committee-related can-o-worms.

I hope you realize that I don't actually support drug trafficking OOC. I'm just using 77 Camaro to illustrate how this proposal doesn't do much to really curtail it.

Yes, it is up to RP. Though the nation in question will not literally go down in its rating of economic strength, but virtually.
If I had included such a committee it would force nations to impose sanctions that they don't want to impose - a bad thing.
That's very good that you don't actually support drug trafficking because I bet some of these posters actually are. I've gotten non-RPing telegrams telling me to F*** off because they support illegal drug trafficking.

That is why sanctions are encouraged against such punishments. There are previously passed laws in the UN prohibiting it to dictate for other nations what the punishment for certain crimes should be.

Yes, but simply encouraging does not solve this problem, it just verbally circumvents it. May I please see the previously passed resolutions that state this?

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Let me compose this illegal resolution properly then:



Would that be sufficient to do what needs to be done?

Forcing nations to put a minimum punishment of 1 year in jail is not allowed by the UN, and also some nations don't have prisons. But yes, good try, I would definitely like to see more in that direction of reasoning.

Let me compose this illegal resolution properly then:


DEFINES drugs in this resolution as chemicals that cause harmful effects on the body with little or no redeeming positive effects.

DEFINES the illegal drug trade in this resolution as the international trade of drugs when at least one of the trading partners has laws that would make it illegal to own, sell, purchase, or barter said drugs.

MANDATES that nations ban the illegal drug trade.

REQUIRES nations to actively pursue and arrest citizens who knowingly participate in the illegal drug trade.

REQUIRES nations to impose a jail term of at least 1 year on citizens who knowingly participate in the illegal drug trade.


Would that be sufficient to do what needs to be done?

Edit: OOC: Missed the argument though.

IC: Of course, such a resolution, even without the UN Drug Act, would never make it to the floor because of the UN's strict laws on redundancy. Your's suggests all those things, and encourages with sanctions. Mine would require it, but requires a repeal first. If your law passes, it would require TWO repeals.

I've gotten non-RPing telegrams telling me to F*** off because they support illegal drug trafficking.
If you're getting threatening or offensive TGs you should report them.

Yes, but simply encouraging does not solve this problem, it just verbally circumvents it. May I please see the previously passed resolutions that state this?

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Let me compose this illegal resolution properly then:



Would that be sufficient to do what needs to be done?

Edit: OOC: Missed the argument though.

IC: Of course, such a resolution, even without the UN Drug Act, would never make it to the floor because of the UN's strict laws on redundancy. Your's suggests all those things, and encourages with sanctions. Mine would require it, but requires a repeal first. If your law passes, it would require TWO repeals.

By the way look what I found: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030080&postcount=48
"That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime." Helping my case.

And look at this Black Market arms trade (see any similarities?)
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030153&postcount=58
"1. ADOPTS the following recommendations for the curbing of illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons with respect to the definitions of this weaponry articulated in the annex of this resolution;
ENCOURAGES the establishment of national programmes to combat the illicit transfer of small arm
RECOMMENDS that participating States should implement programmes of action which would"

and so on.
was this not a good resolution?


And Finally what you've all been waiting for:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973198&postcount=181
"Recognising that different societies treat crime and punishment in different ways, and adopt different attitudes to which sentences may be appropriate
2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;"

Forcing nations to put a minimum punishment of 1 year in jail is not allowed by the UN, and also some nations don't have prisons. But yes, good try, I would definitely like to see more in that direction of reasoning.

It's late and I'm tired, point out what where won't let a resolution define a prison sentence. It's not part of the rules, I think... a resolution I missed?

As to some nations not having prisons, they'll just have to go uncovered(I could always impose a fine defined in terms of goods, to cover all my bases but I probably wouldn't). I'm letting a few nations fall through the cracks here, but optionality allows ALL nations to fall the the cracks.

It's late and I'm tired, point out what where won't let a resolution define a prison sentence. It's not part of the rules, I think... a resolution I missed?

As to some nations not having prisons, they'll just have to go uncovered(I could always impose a fine defined in terms of goods, to cover all my bases but I probably wouldn't). I'm letting a few nations fall through the cracks here, but optionality allows ALL nations to fall the the cracks.

Fair sentencing act (look above). I'm off to. 'Till tommorow!

By the way look what I found: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030080&postcount=48
"That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime." Helping my case.

Proportional can differ from state to state, in a nation supporting drug trafficking the verdict will be different than one staunchly opposed.


And look at this Black Market arms trade (see any similarities?)
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030153&postcount=58
"1. ADOPTS the following recommendations for the curbing of illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons with respect to the definitions of this weaponry articulated in the annex of this resolution;
ENCOURAGES the establishment of national programmes to combat the illicit transfer of small arm
RECOMMENDS that participating States should implement programmes of action which would"
and so on.
was this not a good resolution?

It is good, because it goes a step farther than this current proposal:

2. REQUESTS an independent council be formed to continue to consider the matter and report to it at its subsequent sessions on the implementation of this resolution and to seek and consider the views of all Member States on the objective, scope, agenda, dates and venue of an international conference on the illicit arms trade;

And Finally what you've all been waiting for:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973198&postcount=181
"Recognising that different societies treat crime and punishment in different ways, and adopt different attitudes to which sentences may be appropriate
2. Declares the right of nations to determine for themselves the sentences for violations of laws committed within their jurisdictions;"

Then there is no way i can support this proposal, as it has no effective way of stopping/banning drug trafficking other than "encouraging" imposing sanctions.

Cookesland votes AGAINST

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Fair sentencing act (look above). I'm off to. 'Till tommorow!

My theoretical resolution would govern laws broken in a country other than your own. Fair Sentencing only covers sentences for laws broken in your own country.

I would suggest you withdraw this and work on that.Point of order, at this point the resolution can't be withdrawn. (OOC: Once a resolution goes up for vote the mods can't touch it. Theoretically an admin could remove it, but no one knows what doing so might do to the game.)

My theoretical resolution would govern laws broken in a country other than your own. Fair Sentencing only covers sentences for laws broken in your own country.

But if said other nation is also a UN member, wouldn't the Fair Sentencing Act still apply?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Union Socialist States of The Noble Star appeals to other member nations to reject this resolution, as the Union will for the following reason:

1. The Union feels that recreational pharmaceuticals use and trade will continue, whether or not it is criminalized.

2. The criminalization of recreational pharmaceuticals use and trade will only create uncontrollable demands, further expanding the negative impacts of abuse.

3. Our drug laws, or more specifically the absence thereof, believe that recreational the use of recreational pharmaceuticals is a victimless "crime" if it is a crime at all. We believe that it is not the role of the state to tell its adult citizens what he/she may or may not do with his/her own body, as it does not pose a threat or disruption to public interest.

4. Furthermore, any abuse or excess that may emerge from the use of recreational pharmaceuticals, such as disorderly conduct, crime or the selling to minors, is already covered within our extensive legal system.

5. The Union feels that it is much more effective to control the use of recreational pharmaceuticals by registering vendors and users, and taxing its trade. This will prove to be an ample source of income for the state.

6. The Union votes no on this resolution.

ooc: Apologies for the ping-ponging....
ic:
haha!

Haha YOU are telling ME when I wrote the resolution. It is clear that You don't understand it. All legal medications and all legal drugs will still be available. Only ones transported illegally will not be available anymore.What is clear, is that you have little understanding of the subject areas involved with this issue nor of what you have written and its effects (or lack thereof).

We have no drug laws whatsoever in my nation. Thus there is no such thing as an illegal drug nor an illegal drug transaction, regardless to whom said drug is being sold. Your misguided attempt to impose your morality on others and force them to enforce your laws attempts to change that situation for my nationals. How can you stand there, sir, and maintain that it will have no impact?
Stronger language does not imply stronger legislature. Same meaning. Similar to the ones described above. stop being picky about every little word. this is obvious to 99.99% of the readers.If by readers you mean voting UN members, past legislation has shown that 90% seldom reads past the title. As others have pointed out to you, different words have different impact. We're making law here, not writing a grocery list.
YES if their primary purpose is recreational. [ed.: speaking of what drugs are included in the definition.]No. The label you applied is "recreational". The definition you wrote includes all chemical substances that have an effect on brain chemistry; it does not specify recreational ingestion as part of the definition. [/QUOTE]
Firstly, I'd like to mention that over half of those did not repost after I responded to their comments.And I'd like to point out that many delegates have other business to attend to elsewhere and may not have the time at hand to respond. Then again, others may have just concluded from your responses that it isn't worthwhile to pursue points with you.
Secondly, I bet most of these are those bully nations that don't care about their drug traffickers that go into other nations.Frankly, we're not sure where you got this idea. It speaks to your willingness to attack others for having different policies than yourself. Who really is the bully here?
I have responded to every single post, and have yet to find good enough reason to abandon the resolution.

I am looking at the resolution with a critical eye and have done so and continue to do so. It is worded as best as can be and all loopholes have been taken care of. Noone has YET and I say his for the third or fourth time, pointed to a SPECIFIC change or poor wording or loophole they would like to see corrected. You say general statemnets like 'it is weak'. Great. But indeed, if it has poor wording and loopholes I should have it removed. Please convince me and I will.A number of delegates have pointed out gaping loopholes and poorly worded passages. Unfortunately, as Representative Flibble has pointed out, your abandoning the resolution is impossible at this point.
Let's face the issues, straight up and clear, with examples, and specific things you don't like about the resolution, and discuss them one by one. I am still waiting for someone to do that.You haven't been paying attention.

My theoretical resolution would govern laws broken in a country other than your own. Fair Sentencing only covers sentences for laws broken in your own country.Such a resolution would be met with stringent opposition. What my nationals, or for that matter your nationals within my nation, do while in my nation are not and will not be subject to criminal penalties on my part at your behest. Should you wish to charge your national upon return for actions taken in my nation, that is up to you. Misguided, but up to you. Nor can you expect me to provide you with procedural support or evidence.

Hello there! I'm Thurston Owsley, Mr. Special's attorney. As an aside, we'd like to say it's good to see Mr. Owsley looking so fit, and look forward to making his re-acquaintance.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

We have no drug laws whatsoever in my nation. Thus there is no such thing as an illegal drug nor an illegal drug transaction, regardless to whom said drug is being sold.Really? You can sell crack to a four-year-old in Rubina, and not do time?

Awesome...

~Susa

Really? You can sell crack to a four-year-old in Rubina, and not do time?

Awesome...

~SusaAbsolutely. Then again the Rubinan four-year-old is smarter than the average bear and generally isn't interested in crack. Our emphasis on a well-educated populace has been quite sufficient to result in good judgment where the use of drugs is concerned.

But you, Ambassador Susa, would still be welcome. ;)

--L.T.

The leaders of Smoking Drugs have decided that the legislation at hand is full of loop-holes. We will accept this legislation, but it is still our holding that the language still allows the commercial drug trade. We, the leaders of the People's Republic of SmokingDrugs also believe national sovereignty, recognized by this resolution, allows us to define the primary use of substances.

Or, if you see reason, you can ask the Secretariat to remove it from the queue, it's been done before.As has been mentioned, this is past the point of no return. We can remove from queue, not from the floor.


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,Sadly, Intelligenstan, your definition is working against you. You defined the "drug" part, but not the "recreational" part. Yes, we know that you mean drugs used for recreational purposes, but your definition mentions absolutely nothing about how the drugs are being used, just what they are.

By your definition, Depakote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depakote) is a recreational drug, even though nobody uses it for recreational purposes. But, since its "primary purpose" is to "alter brain function" and to "change [..] mood" (being a mood stabilizer and all) it falls under the net your Proposal has cast.

It may not be what you intended, but it's what you've got.

Technically speaking, this would outlaw the pharmaceutical industry, as even simple aspirin falls under the category as a chemical substance whose primary purpose is to act upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function (i.e. blocking the transmission of pain information to the brain) to alter perception, mood, consciousness (in the event used to assist in heart attacks) and/or behavior.

The resolution also states that member nations who do carry out legal drug trade will be able to continue to do so yet fails to define the term "legal drug" and the resolution also urges UN nations 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 committed. Thus any nation who carry legal drug trade may still be sanctioned by other nations.

Lastly, the resolution forces nations to 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. Yet fails to recognize sovereignty of enlightened UN Nations that have chosen to stop the barbaric practices of incarceration, or UN Nations which exist in a currency-less democratic socialist society.

Regardless of the pretty language or the moral superiority tone used, by forcing the "moral" values of a select few states upon the members of the UN, this resolution is a perverse violation of Civil and Human Rights. Sucram-Leon recognizes the sovereign rights of nations to follow in a fascism philosophy, yet cannot in good conscious allow the honorable body of the United Nations to follow said system, thus we urge all enlightened member nations to vote against this resolution.

Alright folks,

After reading the very weak reasoning behind keeping such flawed legislation, I believe it is time for those of us who oppose this to gather together and start a larger campaign of somekind. I believe the Proposer himself started a telegram campaign to get this to quorum in the first place... I think we could easily do the same.

Technically speaking, this would outlaw the pharmaceutical industry, as even simple aspirin falls under the category as a chemical substance whose primary purpose is to act upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function (i.e. blocking the transmission of pain information to the brain) to alter perception, mood, consciousness (in the event used to assist in heart attacks) and/or behavior.
OOC: No, it wouldn't. It leaves the definition of what drugs are legal within each nation to that nation's own government (as the 'UN Drug Act' already requires), so those nations in which the pharmaceutical industry is currently legal would NOT be complled to ban it: All that it affects is the trade in drugs between nations where the laws of those nations differ about the legality of the specific drugs concerned.

The resolution also states that member nations who do carry out legal drug trade will be able to continue to do so yet fails to define the term "legal drug" and the resolution also urges UN nations 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 committed. Thus any nation who carry legal drug trade may still be sanctioned by other nations.
OOC: Whether something is a "legal drug" for trade within your nation is a matter for your own laws to specify.
Whether something is a "legal drug" for trade across your nation's borders is a matter for your own laws and those of the specific other nation[s] concerned to specify: If a drug is illegal on either side of an international border then cross-border trade in that drug is illegal.
That seems clear enough to me...

Lastly, the resolution forces nations to 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. Yet fails to recognize sovereignty of enlightened UN Nations that have chosen to stop the barbaric practices of incarceration, or UN Nations which exist in a currency-less democratic socialist society.
OOC: Unless such nations have absolutely no means whatsoever for dealing with criminals, other than surrendering totally their whims, they must presumably have some "correctional" process -- whether primarily punitive or primarily rehabilitational in nature -- that could be used in such cases. If they don't have currency (or some equivalent, in terms of government-issued rations or whatever...) then they'll just have to use some process other than fines, as they would for any offences that might be committed against their own laws.

(This post is meant solely to clear up some misconceptions about what the proposal would do, and should not be taken as implying actual support for the proposal.)

Right. My last attempt to speak in this infernal debate disappeared into the air, so, y'know, this is going to be short. I've got a killer headache. Two problems:

1. Preventing drugs from funding organised crime I could almost get behind, but the knee-jerk emotive 'terrorism' line gets me sceptical. Pedantic, maybe. Semantic, maybe. Still, no dice.

2. You're targeting addicts.

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

-Buying
...

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

No fair. Addicts are themselves victims of this 'terrorism' malarkey, y'know. They might not be at the wrong end of the bomb, but I think we can accept the existence of physical and psychological addictions. Yet you're asking us to treat a smack addict - who may be funding illegal activity, but hardly due to his extremely strong self-control - the same as a Mafia don or a madman in a cave. When I buy some cannabis off that guy down behind the convenience store, I'm an 'international drug trafficker'?

Quadalingo votes against. And now I need an aspirin, if it's still legal to buy those.

Moonbeam 'The' Queen
Quadalingan Ambassador to the United Nations

If a drug is illegal on either side of an international border then cross-border trade in that drug is illegal.

I would dispute that. The laws of foreign nations are not the concern of Kelssek Customs or the Kelssek Border Services Agency, their concern is purely the enforcement of our own laws, under which carrying any of the substances commonly regarded as recreational drugs, as well as many common ones covered under the extremely clumsy definition of this proposal, into or out of Kelssek, is perfectly legal. We do try to prevent people taking them to some other countries to avoid messy extradition disputes but it isn't illegal to do so.

However, this proposal seems to require us to detain people who are doing absolutely nothing wrong by our laws. It implies an extraterritorial claim by other nations on persons who are within our jurisdiction which we find wholly unacceptable. And by some readings of section 1, it requires us to change our laws to criminalise carrying drugs across international borders, which surely is a step too far NatSov-wise, especially considering that we don't consider trafficking drugs at all illegal.

Do not get the impression, however, that this would only apply to our specific situation. The acceptance of the principle enunciated in this proposal that the domestic criminal laws of another nation must affect your own criminal laws will apply to all and is at best worrying, and in our view, a grevious infringement on the commonly accepted boundaries of respect for national sovereignty.

It's truly unfortunate that a lot of delegations are going to see this, think immediately "drugs BAD!" and vote in favour blindly.

Erin Caswell
First Secretary, Permanent Mission to the UN.

I would dispute that. The laws of foreign nations are not the concern of Kelssek Customs or the Kelssek Border Services Agency, their concern is purely the enforcement of our own laws, under which carrying any of the substances commonly regarded as recreational drugs, as well as many common ones covered under the extremely clumsy definition of this proposal, into or out of Kelssek, is perfectly legal. We do try to prevent people taking them to some other countries to avoid messy extradition disputes but it isn't illegal to do so.

However, this proposal seems to require us to detain people who are doing absolutely nothing wrong by our laws. It implies an extraterritorial claim by other nations on persons who are within our jurisdiction which we find wholly unacceptable. And by some readings of section 1, it requires us to change our laws to criminalise carrying drugs across international borders, which surely is a step too far NatSov-wise, especially considering that we don't consider trafficking drugs at all illegal.

Do not get the impression, however, that this would only apply to our specific situation. The acceptance of the principle enunciated in this proposal that the domestic criminal laws of another nation must affect your own criminal laws will apply to all and is at best worrying, and in our view, a grevious infringement on the commonly accepted boundaries of respect for national sovereignty.

OOC: Would you care to go back and re-read my post? I wasn't arguing what should or shouldn't be the case, as you are doing here, I was simply explaining what would be the case if this proposal passed so that a player who seemed to have mis-read it previously would have a sounder footing on which to base their decision...
When you said "I dispute that" after my explanation of how it would work, although I can see what that you meant was "I don't think that it should do that", isn't there a risk that some of the other people around here -- some of those already been mis-reading various aspects of the proposal -- would take that to mean "I don't think that that is how it would work" and get confused again?

When I buy some cannabis off that guy down behind the convenience store, I'm an 'international drug trafficker'?
Only if you have to cross an international border, and can't pass that drug legally across that border, during your possession of that drug...

*Rereads proposal text carefully*

Yes, apparently this proposal would classify you as a "trafficker" under those circumstances even if you acquired the drug solely for your own personal use...

For. Seems simple enough. High Borders gets to decide how much to tax ... ahem ... fine the drug traffickers, which will I think vary depending on the drug; we can take a small rake off genuine pharmacutical trade and tax ...oops, sorry, that word again .. the harmful stuff to minimise it.

However, this proposal seems to require us to detain people who are doing absolutely nothing wrong by our laws. It implies an extraterritorial claim by other nations on persons who are within our jurisdiction which we find wholly unacceptable. And by some readings of section 1, it requires us to change our laws to criminalise carrying drugs across international borders, which surely is a step too far NatSov-wise, especially considering that we don't consider trafficking drugs at all illegal.

Do not get the impression, however, that this would only apply to our specific situation. The acceptance of the principle enunciated in this proposal that the domestic criminal laws of another nation must affect your own criminal laws will apply to all and is at best worrying, and in our view, a grevious infringement on the commonly accepted boundaries of respect for national sovereignty.Right. Tell the lefties they have to change their drug laws, and suddenly everyone's a sovereigntist! Funny how that works, eh?

~Sammy Fasiano

P.S. The Federal Republic votes no.

The Holy Empire of Mereselt votes in favour of the proposal. We beleive drugs distract people from the 3 most important things in our nation. Work, soccer, and putting down both of our rebelions.

Sen. Sulla is sitting at his usual spot. next to him is a man with a rather awesome mullet(well the part you can see from under the Defenestrator's ballcame is pretty darned awesome), wearing a black and gold number 58 Burgh Defenestrator's football jersey. On the table beside him is a 6 pack...err 5 pack of Iron City beer.

Sen. Sulla looks up and speaks into the microphone.
"I'm afraid I haven't the time to debate this useless piece of drivel, but have no fear, I've invited Stanley P. Bogaslawski, the president of my Brother's fan club, and Station Manager of WBRG-FM to give the Palentine responce. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to the stangers bar to cavort with loose women and hobnail my liver. Take it away Stanley."
With that, the good but unwholesome Senator gets up and walks out.

"I'm Stanley P. Bogaslawski, stating the P is for Platitudes. Now my friend, Horatio comes to me and says, Stanley kenya come on up to the UN an'at. I says jeez, The Defenestrators play tonight, I gotta go buy some jumbo, and Arn, from the Jian'Iggle for the game. I gots a buncha guys coming over to watch da game. He say's its won't take too long, you loaf longer than it should take you talk about this resolution, I'll even give you a case of Arn, for your trouble. Well I don't turn down no free beer so here I am. In regards to the resolution its a buncha crap and platitudes prettied up to look like sumthing nice, kinda like Maureen from dahntahn. She's ugly but ifn she takes some time to pretty up, and you drink a couple of cold Arns, and squint a little she don't look half bad....well not till morning anyway. Now I ain't the smartest person, but all the first half of the resolution does is make yinz feel good an'at. The second part has more holes than I-79. So in this case The Palentine has ta Just Say No! Thank you."

Stanley then cracks open an Arn, takes a long drink and lets out a belch.
"Scuze me. Always tastes better the second time up."

The bill just isn't clear enough for me to vote yes for it. I have very mixed feelings about this one. I think I'm debating myself.

Once a government formally legalizes or if it begins making people pay taxes on something, it is then that they are also taking responsibility for the morons using the drugs. Are you sure that you want your government forking out money to take care of the people who have become mentally or physically incapacitated from over using the recreational drugs? If, however you do decide to take on that responsibility, Strict laws should be enforced for selling, import and export of the products. It should also be specific on drug types, organic or man made. So maybe here's a solution.

I think it needs to be more categorized to personal and corporation.

Personal:
No Tax
We don't tax people for growing roses or cooking . Why tax them for having a pot plant or cooking drugs in there shed? We also don’t' have to make it Legal to grow roses and cooking yet people do it daily. So why not treat this issue the same as you would the flowers and cooking? If you make or grow the stuff yourself it's you're responsibility.

Business:
Business are taxed.
If you want to sell it just go register at your local courthouse as a seller and face the legal consequences if you kill or permanently render someone mentally or physically incapacitated. Just as any other business should do.

Border Crossing
As far as crossing borders a trade are concerned, you must be a registered business to do this. The business would only be able to import and export trade with other countries where the same products are legal. (example: Cuban cigars are not Legal in the US but they are legal in Italy) the product are subject to import and export taxes according to quantity and or size. If you must cross the border of a country were your product if considered contraband you must have a permit that documents size/weight with digital images that are shared with other border patrol stations.
Trying to Smuggle or transport will result in serious fines and possible deadly force.
Other things to be considered
Seeds and starter plants should be claimed at borders and classified as personal or business. Seed should not exceed 2 ounces in weight for personal use for pot plants within a 6 month period. Live starter (non-budding) plants should not exceed 3 plants per month.

I'm sure everyone has other ideas, personally, I've never used illegal drugs so I'm not too familiar with much of it. I have had friends that used recreation drugs most have now stopped , been arrested or have lost just about everything they had. I know pot is legal in Amsterdam and they don't seem to have much trouble with it. It's the hard drugs and man made drugs that concern me. That's all for now, sorry for the long read.

Uh-huh. Tell the lefties they have to change their drug laws, and suddenly everyone's a sovereigntist! Funny how that works, eh?

All of a sudden I feel a strange urge to parade with the flag, as soon as I remember what ours looks like.

Still, Kelssek's got a point: on an issue as contentious as recreational drugs, imposing a solution either way violates the sovereignty of a considerable number of states: as such, NatSov's a valid addition to this one. We already have a drug act we all agree with - it's called 'UN Drug Act' and it states this intention pretty clearly.

Moonbeam 'The' Queen

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/3073/imagesdu6.jpg

[LEFT]During the news conference after the confirmation of Virgin Money's (Funen) confirmation to bid for Southern Rock BBC Funen Today Correspondent Grys Lærke asks Marayevkohara K. D., Head of the Ministry of Trade in Charlotte Ryberg about the resolution at vote:

"The Charlotte Ryberg Government is still confident on this resolution, and therefore it will support it until the end. Tomorrow I hope to outline tougher punishments for drugs traffickers when the resolution is finally implemented."

Sky TV's Adam Patrik-László asks whether vulnerable people will benefit better:

"We put part of our trust on Intelligenstan to combat the drugs problem, but we also have a same priority on creating the best economy as well as teaching our young 'ums to integrate differentiation... such and such... Well, you get the idea.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1870/imageszh4.jpg

Liesl Frieda of Liberty has told the BBC today that the new resolution will result in higher taxes. She has strongly criticized Marayevkohara for using massage-like techniques to iron out all the disadvantages.

"Charlotte's citizens believe that this new resolution is a waste of taxpayers' money, and I urge Charlotte herself to rethink her final decision. We cannot always agree by default, to any UN resolution that's placed on the table."

Okay, let's sum up the Altanari stance on this resolution:

Description: 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,

As many, many delegations have pointed out, this could be just about any and every drug out there, including beneficial ones. Horrible definition.

AWARE that member nations may not wish to outlaw drugs,

Indeed, as we Altanari have no desire to outlaw any drug, recreational or otherwise...

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

Not in Altanar, we tax that stuff if it's going in or out of our country. Gotta give the government its cut!

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

Possibly, but unimportant in our estimation. If a nation is crazy enough to pick a fight over their neighbors' drug laws, they're probably crazy enough to pick a fight for any reason, down to and including the color of the drapes in someone's house across the border.

§FURTHER NOTING that drug trafficking in many instances directly funds terrorism and illegal weapon trade,

As a nation that has fought an insurgency for decades, we can tell you from experience that there are many sources of funding for terrorists, and illegal drugs are hardly the biggest concern in that regard.

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

I fail to see how this will benefit nations that have no problem with recreational drugs, and would frankly prefer that you leave them the hell alone. I also fail to see how a resolution whose operative definition could easily apply to all drugs, period, would benefit any nation, seeing as how a lot of people like things like aspirin, penicillin, etc.

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.

Why should Altanar, or any other nation, that doesn't have or want such laws be forced to implement them? Also, this section is incredibly vague. We could fine someone one solari, imprison them for 1 second, and pronounce them "corrected" and call it good, and still be in compliance.

§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.

We don't like this definition either, for the simple fact that regardless of what the laws in some other country may be, if you passed those drugs into Altanar from that nation, as far as we're concerned, that's legal.

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

You're concerned about "conflict due to differences in drug laws of member nations", yet you want to encourage nations to start slapping sanctions on each other because of those differences? How in the seven hells is that going to help reduce the chance of conflict? Let's say, for example, a hypothetical nation (we'll call it "Moremoralthanthoustan") decides to slap sanctions on Altanar because we allow recreational drugs. You better believe we're going to take offense to that, and will probably respond in kind. See the issue here?

§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 committed.

Oh, that's even better. So, even if Altanar did implement the same laws as our hypothetical Moremoralthanthoustan, but didn't punish the offenders the exact way that said hypothetical nation wanted, you'd want sanctions slapped on us even then? Yeah, that'll help reduce conflict a whole lot.

§REITERATING, finally, that member nations who do carry out legal drug trade will be able to continue to do so.

This is probably the only part of the whole resolution we like. Not good enough. Opposed.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

If nations do not impose any taxes and all its borders are open and unmonitored, drug traffickers from there could easily transport illegal substances across the border unfettered. This is what this resolution is trying to stop.

We don't think that a country with unmonitored borders should have the right of "outsource" the enforcement of its own laws to their neighbors. If you have restrictive barriers on trafficking, it should be up to you to sustain the costs to enforce them.

Moreover, we feel it would be costly and awkward to control the movements of some product that is legal in my country (say, tea), just because it's defined as an illegal drug in some remote country. The Community of Bonto will vote AGAINST.

...the referendum campaign heats up, well past boiling point.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/2168/cleanneedlescrps2.jpg

Heading the NO campaign is the Thai civil rights leader Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L.

Make up your mind up, Charlotte; tell the truth! Choose you position in the UN Drugs debate by the time the polls close! Vote No to retain our freedom on drugs policy, because You can emulate the same policy in a similar manner at the national level.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/6468/referendum2nw5.jpg

Meanwhile the YES campaign is led by Marayevkohara herself. Telling the ITV Lunchtime News, she said:

The one-way sign in our new campaign is a clear indication that we must look forward. This is a policy that we chose to agree on with Intelligenstan, and I will see it to the end, no matter the cost. Vote yes and nail a coffin of another member of illegal trade.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8913/poet1ki1.jpg

But the critically acclaimed poet Amanda Edernegoizane has an alternative, in the ABSTAIN campaign.

Perhaps... the debate has got so hot that Charlotte Ryberg should sit back and be neutral on this proposal. If it passes, it passes; if it doesn't, it doesn't.

Perhaps we should relax and wait for another proposal to debate on...

What is Charlotte final position? The story continues...

STOP PRESS: Marayevkohara intends to visit Intelligenstan tonight if the leader is happy to agree.

I'm seeing a lot of repetition, redundancy, and lack of attention to my responses. I liked what was started yesterday with The Dourian Embassy, actually trying to see what they would like to include in the resolution or improve in it that it does not currently have. Again, I'm seeing a lot of general statements that are just too easy to make.
Marayevkohara is welcome to visit Intelligenstan any time in the condition that she does not illegally traffick drugs into our nation. Other than that, anyone is welcome for a visit if it is in a peacefull cause and with open-mindedness to logical discussion.
There's just too many of you posters that are frustrated from the way the vote is going and come here to pour out your anger. I can't possibly answer all of you, when most of you are saying the same things again anyways.

Marayevkohara is very happy to visit you and she is on her way to defend your proposal and make suggestions for future resolutions by your nation. Boarding the flight to the capital at Funen International Airport, she told the press that Intelligenstan did their very best in making a great proposal like this, and again congratulated the government on their amazing progress.

I've appeared on News 24 to say that we openly support drugs on condition that duty has been paid to the government, and that it is openly declared to customs. I would like Marayevkohara to clearly demonstrate with Intelligenstan's idea of legal drugs trade.

I'm seeing a lot of repetition, redundancy, and lack of attention to my responses.
Pot calling the kettle black, my dear.

There's just too many of you posters that are frustrated from the way the vote is going and come here to pour out your anger.
Oh sweetie, I’m not frustrated at all OOC. The resolution doesn’t do anything and will provide some lucky author with an easy repeal to keep the UN occupied for a week in the future, how can I be frustrated at something that does nothing and will prolong activity?

...the referendum campaign heats up, well past boiling point.

What is Charlotte final position? The story continues...You guys hold a national referendum every time the UN votes on something? Sweet jebus...

I liked what was started yesterday with The Dourian Embassy, actually trying to see what they would like to include in the resolution or improve in it that it does not currently have.You can't change the text anyway, so what's the point?

Omigodtheykilledkenny, it is worth noting that much of the referendums are quite low-key for decades, but this resolution, on the topic of drugs has attracted more opinions from both sides than before: partly because Marayevkohara K. D. is pretty crazy about the drugs debate, and she sometimes promotes her views very strongly.

I'm watching her closely and if she makes a fool of herself, I promise to take disciplinary action against her ASAP. This surprise visit had better work!

The Public Liaison for Foreign Affairs, Marian, has informed me that the plane will land in Intelligenstan's international airport at 7:45 pm tonight.

Charlotte Ryberg
The Mind Herself

Update: The plane has landed in the capital's international airport at 7:46 pm, but so far we have lost communication with Intelligenstan's government.

Ban International

§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. !
Since we have not seen where the UN sets what sentences can be given for such violations of any drug laws then this part we see as not effective and thus makes the full proposal ineffective.

Also the idea the UN is here telling a nation to creat laws which otherwise that nation may not want to creat. As some nations may allow drug usage and see it as no problem for others to use it. This would make them ban it and ever to some point build prisons to house those might break drug laws. Then we go over to those coming to one nation to avoid laws in another nation, as this stops that and is again stepping on the toes on nations and what they prioritize as a crime.. and then deal with.

Thus we have voted against this... and suggest anyone who wants the UN out of national law making to do so also...

8:10 pm.

As Marayevkohara waits in the nearby 5-star hotel lounge, The man behind the NO campaign, Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L. has told BBC News Tonight that he would welcome every single opposition to the resolution. "We still have a thousand votes to go before we defeat this resolution, but every vote has to count."

He went on to say "Nations who already vote yes still has an opportunity to switch sides before Thursday's deadline. I praise Cavirra, who announced their opposition in the last few minutes."

Charlotte herself thinks: Is all eyes on us for our final decision?

You guys hold a national referendum every time the UN votes on something? Sweet jebus...

You can't change the text anyway, so what's the point?

To demonstrate that there in fact is nothing (unless something I hadn't thought of) that should or could be changed in this resolution to make it better.

Since we have not seen where the UN sets what sentences can be given for such violations of any drug laws then this part we see as not effective and thus makes the full proposal ineffective.

Also the idea the UN is here telling a nation to creat laws which otherwise that nation may not want to creat. As some nations may allow drug usage and see it as no problem for others to use it. This would make them ban it and ever to some point build prisons to house those might break drug laws. Then we go over to those coming to one nation to avoid laws in another nation, as this stops that and is again stepping on the toes on nations and what they prioritize as a crime.. and then deal with.

Thus we have voted against this... and suggest anyone who wants the UN out of national law making to do so also...

As I view it, the UN is here to tell nations certain things that they must comply with, such as you can't torture someone. This is a law that the UN forces upon other nations. That is its goal as I see it. You are welcome to quit the UN if you don't like other people telling you what you can't do on certain matters.

Thank goodness you're here, says Marian, as communication with Intelligenstan's communication is up an running again.

Charlotte now phones to say that Marayevkohara is ready to meet any available delegation by midnight. She tells the State press that all nations are encouraged to support the resolution, for the good of morality.

You bring up a very good point. Firstly, I am glad you would support it if it would have included the word 'Knowingly' involved. The driver of the truck you speak of is required to declare anything he is transporting across the border that needs to be taxed. If he doesn't, even unknowingly, he is still held accountable under the law.

You badly misrepresent our position. We did not say we would support the resolution if you stuck in the word "knowingly". First of all, this wouldn't solve the problem we outlined. It would still leave the issues of willing participation and culpable negligence unaddressed. It would also do nothing about the concerns raised by other distinguished representatives. We did not and would not dismiss them lightly.

But all this is irrelevant, isn't it? The resolution, as it stands at vote, is flawed and dangerous. Your definition of drug trafficker is grotesquely and unjustly broad. It would require us to have laws which impose punishments upon people when simple justice would require otherwise.

And to our colleagues who are upset about the resolution's definition of "recreational drugs".... Don't be concerned. The definition is meaningless. Notice that, after the definition, the term "recreational drugs" never appears in the resolution. The resolution's operative clauses all use the term "drugs" -- which would include all drugs, "recreational" or not. Obviously that wasn't the author's intent. But it's just another example of the sloppy thinking and sloppy draftsmanship that should condemn this to the pile of FAILED resolutions.

We stand unalterably opposed to this oversimplistic and badly thought-out legislation. Our concern for justice requires us to do so. We respectfully urge our colleagues to vote for the rule of just law and against this resolution.

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

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

The intent of the resolution is obviously to ensure punishment of those who knowingly, willfully, or negligently violate the law. If it contained proper language to that end, we would likely support it. But the dangerous vagueness of the term "involved" has required us to vote NO.


Hmm, apparently another misunderstanding on my part.
P.S. simplicity is a good thing

Ausserland,

I respect your opinion, as the views of national opinion polls, most that are only hours old, are neck on neck with each other:


MORI says ABSTAIN
Gollup says NO
Gallup says NO
YouGuv says YES
RybergVoice says ABSTAIN
MyVoice says YES


Tomorrow's newspapers at 10pm, Funen Standard Time

The Observer for tomorrow is expected to have an big interview with another abstainer, Cornish native Merrynblejaneseld J. T.

The Ryberg Shout says 'Marayevkohara Night Fever', as the Trade minister greets the crowds at Intelligenton in a surprise visit.

The Funen Telegraph also puts the resolution at vote in the lead story, publishing their own opinion poll, which is widely expected to be very close. The newspaper won't reveal it until 5am. I'll tell what the result is tomorrow.

The Llanfair Standard says that Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L. is content, strong and determined for a wise, manageable UN. He says the latest proposal on the table isn't ready yet, and praises the opponents.

The Pingu Times continues to support the proposal, with the words 'Resolution 1500 votes ahead'.

Finally, The Mirror has a picture of Ryberg with question marks around it. 'Is it your final answer?', it ran.

Breaking News: The BBC in Funen has confirmed that the 3000th vote in favor of the proposal has been cast. We hope to get reaction from Marayevkohara in Intelligenton soon.

Well, I will keep you up to date with the developments of the next few hours tomorrow as Intelligenstan's citizens welcome Marayevkohara with embrace.

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4651/muslimwomenat2.jpg

I leave you with her meeting some of the Muslim minority in the capital.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/5726/closedown286at9.jpg

The Nomadic Tribes of Dhampirland are strongly against this resolution.

Firstly, the definition of recreational drugs extends to most non-antibiotic medicinal drugs.

Secondly, the proposal does not clearly define what is meant by "drug traffickers".

Well, I will keep you up to date with the developments of the next few hours tomorrow as Intelligenstan's citizens welcome Marayevkohara with embrace.

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4651/muslimwomenat2.jpg

I leave you with her meeting some of the Muslim minority in the capital.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/5726/closedown286at9.jpg

Although there is complete seperation of church and state, there is a complete freedom of religion in Intelligenton as well as the rest of Intelligenstan and therefore it would not be uncommon for Smartayevkohara (her new nickname after being warmly welcomed by the citizens) to encounter such minorities.

In response to the comment above by Dhampirland, I'm noticing more and more how posters don't even take the quickest of glances or even skim anything that has been said in the past within the thread.

Just for the record, we're completely AGAINST this.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Voting against. Ambivalent, but allies are against, therefore showing solidarity with their position. Otherwise, I would have abstained.

OOC: Whether something is a "legal drug" for trade within your nation is a matter for your own laws to specify.
Whether something is a "legal drug" for trade across your nation's borders is a matter for your own laws and those of the specific other nation[s] concerned to specify: If a drug is illegal on either side of an international border then cross-border trade in that drug is illegal.
That seems clear enough to me...


And thus we reach the center of the shrubbery maze. The fact of the matter is the resolution is poorly written where some people think it is perfectly clear and understandable while others manage to spot the loop holes and confusing language. Thank you very much for taking the time out to clarify, the simple fact that you had to do so to clear up some misconceptions can be seen as proof of the manipulative semantics used in this resolution.


OOC: Unless such nations have absolutely no means whatsoever for dealing with criminals, other than surrendering totally their whims, they must presumably have some "correctional" process -- whether primarily punitive or primarily rehabilitational in nature -- that could be used in such cases. If they don't have currency (or some equivalent, in terms of government-issued rations or whatever...) then they'll just have to use some process other than fines, as they would for any offences that might be committed against their own laws.


So if an utopian society lacks any barbaric punishment process, this resolution will forced said UN Nation to create new draconic methods of mutilating its citizens via physical, psychological, mental or spiritual means. The fact of the matter is this resolution trade one form of control and cruelty for another.

Intelligenstan, can you admit that there is more effective legislation available, should the UN Drug Law be repealed? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to wait on this, to ensure that the problem it wants to fix is more effectively addressed?

I've covered this many times, and I'll cover it many times more before we're done.

The sanctions are optional. The pool of sanctioning nations would be those who fall under some very specific criteria:

1) Are UN member nations
2) Have harsh penalties for the crimes described.
3) Actually care enough to enforce sanctions on nations that do not.

The pool of nations who must be sanctioned, however, is everyone else. That's 10% of the world enforcing economic sanctions on 90% of the world. Also given the propensity of nations to forgo UN membership for the very reason of protecting their economies, some of the non-un members are the most advanced economies in the world.


What your proposing then, is that nations that have strict drug laws commit economic suicide by restricting their trading partners to only those who share their drug laws.


All in the name of something that doesn't actually do anything. There is vague wording in this resolution, believe it or not. There are many ways to comply with the resolution and still do nothing about the original problem. Therein lies the crux of the issue.

Why do nothing, when something could be done?

Intelligenstan, can you admit that there is more effective legislation available, should the UN Drug Law be repealed? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to wait on this, to ensure that the problem it wants to fix is more effectively addressed?

I've covered this many times, and I'll cover it many times more before we're done.

The sanctions are optional. The pool of sanctioning nations would be those who fall under some very specific criteria:

1) Are UN member nations
2) Have harsh penalties for the crimes described.
3) Actually care enough to enforce sanctions on nations that do not.

The pool of nations who must be sanctioned, however, is everyone else. That's 10% of the world enforcing economic sanctions on 90% of the world. Also given the propensity of nations to forgo UN membership for the very reason of protecting their economies, some of the non-un members are the most advanced economies in the world.


What your proposing then, is that nations that have strict drug laws commit economic suicide by restricting their trading partners to only those who share their drug laws.


All in the name of something that doesn't actually do anything. There is vague wording in this resolution, believe it or not. There are many ways to comply with the resolution and still do nothing about the original problem. Therein lies the crux of the issue.

Why do nothing, when something could be done?

You really think it is 10 to 90? I didn't think that was the case. You also have mistaken assumptions. For a nation to be sanctioned it probably is one that is either anarchy or civil rights lovefest or something like that where there are tons of civil rights first of all. Second, it probably doesn't have any taxes if it doesn't lose money from drug trafficking. Third, it must not care about the internal connections to other crime and violence. Finally, they must be really selfish ones, to not care about any other nation around - a regional bully. And even out of these nations, perhaps drug trafficking does not occur in some of them. So its DEFINITELY not the rest of the world. It would be more like the 10% who are willing to levy sanctions to the maybe 1%? who are behaving this way.

I suspect that there might be a better legislature once the UN drug act is repealed, but as I told you, first, I don't see the drug act getting repealed. Second, I'm not entirely sure how this resolution would stop a new resolution from passing. You began to give an example (which conflicted with the fair sentencing act), and I still want someone to present anything that would be more effective as I asked you before.

I still want someone to present anything that would be more effective as I asked you before.
Why do you insist on repeating this? It isn’t a valid defence of your proposal dear because you are seeking acceptance of your proposal by the international legislature therefore the burden falls on you to tell our IC ambassadors why they should allow it to pass. The responsibility is not on the opposition to provide an alternative; the responsibility is firmly on you to allay concerns and prove it worthy of becoming enshrined in law.

As far as I can tell you’ve just repeated the same argument ad nauseam about levying sanctions collectively (something that is entirely optional after this passes and entirely possible now) and you are yet to refute the fact that your proposal merely codifies already existing options with a useless statement about punishments tagged on.

You also have mistaken assumptions.
You accuse somebody of making assumptions then proceed to make a string of assumptions too, how comical.

As of the current polling, it appears that this legislation will pass.

However, I would suggest that Evoinia, Dourian Embassy and whatever other groups oppose this weak and pitiable legislation draft as swiftly as possible a repeal.

Currently it's enough to fuddle the argument to merely argue the point.

Most people would be bothered by an inability to be moved from an incorrect point of view. However, since your current standpoint that there is nothing wrong with your resolution, there is something wrong with people who think there is, is laughably easy to argue against, I find that a good thing.

But back to the point, my earlier theoretical resolution would NOT be in conflict with the Fair Sentencing Act.

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

Your jurisdiction is your nation, I can create a resolution mandating an arbitrary prison sentence(one year in this case) in one nation for laws broken in another nation. The trick here: this clause doesn't negate the possibility of making one nation punish people in a specific way for a law broken in another country. This is probably a good example of how people can and will shoot holes in your resolution very easily. Even if it does somehow manage to pass, it will be repealed. It's just a fact.

Anyone who does not vote FOR this amendment is a traitor to the UN and should be banned from the organization. I submit further that the UN nations that vote AGAINST this measure should have their governments toppled through military intervention or some other show of force.

I like the cut of your jib, but please explain to me why you feel so strongly.

P.S. simplicity is a good thing

Except in situations where simplicity results in terminal vagueness. And believe me, I am a fan of the K.I.S.S. principle.* Just take a look at my resolution (#109 Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110)), it's short, sweet and gets right to the point. It does one thing and it does it very well. Your resolution, on the other hand, does nothing and it does a piss poor job of it to boot.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*K.I.S.S. principle, Keep It Simple, Stupid

Only part that means anything...

§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.



My problems with the act:

1) No minimum penalty set, so nations can charge 1/10th of a penny to those found in violation

2) Drug isn't defined

3) Isn't limited to recreational drugs

4) Makes it illegal to punish with a fine AND imprisonment, only one or the other

5) Provides no means to enforce the law requiring nations to take funding away from other areas such as Education in order to prosecute

6) In states that drug trade is legal it is literally impossible to enforce.


VOTE: NAY

I like the cut of your jib, but please explain to me why you feel so strongly.


I do not have to explain anything to you or anyone else in this body. In Azkaban Sirius we have no problems with illegal drug trafficking. Anyone who is caught with illegal drugs is...um...swiftly dealt with. If you have a problem with the way I rule or the way I state my opinions, you are free to take it up with me on the battlefield.

Anyone who does not vote FOR this amendment is a traitor to the UN and should be banned from the organization. I submit further that the UN nations that vote AGAINST this measure should have their governments toppled through military intervention or some other show of force.

I do not have to explain anything to you or anyone else in this body.Leetha Talone slaps the riding crop she was holding down on the desk in front of her and stands, carefully holding her seething rage in check.

You sir, are entitled to your opinion, your vote, and your right to speak as you wish in this body. However, you have advocated that my nation be expelled and banned from this organization and, further, should be invaded militarily. You damn well better start explaining that.

Leetha reseats herself, but continues glaring in the direction of the Azkaban Sirius delegation.

--L.T.

The Rogue Nation of Bulgaristann is firmly against this resolution and urges the other member countries to see how ridiculous that proposal really is!
Countries that tolerate legal drug trading shouldn't be restricted to trade among themselves.
If countries who do not tolerate legal drug trade can't protect their borders its their own problem for heaven's sake!
Why should the right of free trade be violated just because a bunch of psychotic dictators don't care enough to enforce their own laws and are hoping that the UN will do that for them?!

If nations do not impose any taxes and all its borders are open and unmonitored, drug traffickers from there could easily transport illegal substances across the border unfettered. This is what this resolution is trying to stop.

You say that every nation still decides them selfs what taxes they will have on drugs and if they should be illegal or not but now you contradict that and say that this resolution exists to control that. We all ready has our own boarder rules therefor i just don't see the point of an UN law saying that exact thing.

I do not have to explain anything to you or anyone else in this body. In Azkaban Sirius we have no problems with illegal drug trafficking. Anyone who is caught with illegal drugs is...um...swiftly dealt with. If you have a problem with the way I rule or the way I state my opinions, you are free to take it up with me on the battlefield.

Actually no, I liked the immediate call for war. However, this resolution doesn't help you do any of those things, and actually stops you from thinking up stronger measures later.

You sir, are entitled to your opinion, your vote, and your right to speak as you wish in this body. However, you have advocated that my nation be expelled and banned from this organization and, further, should be invaded militarily. You damn well better start explaining that.

We second the honorable Ambassador Talone's remarks, as the comments made by the ambassador from Azkaban Sirius could very easily be construed as a threat to Altanar as well. While Altanar is a neutral and nonaggressive state, we will defend ourselves to our utmost capabilities if attacked in any way. I should also point out that Altanar has more people in its military than the aforementioned Azkaban Sirius has in its entire nation, and that we aren't even close to being the most populous or powerful nation voting against this tripe. It might be a good idea to keep a lid on such threats in the future.

Oh, and just as an fyi to the Azkaban Sirius delegation: this isn't an "amendment".

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

The term recreational drug can be refered to alcohol, tobacco, and even caffiene. Accepting this would ban items such as, tea, coffee, many soft drinks and alcoholic beverages.

Hmm, apparently another misunderstanding on my part.
P.S. simplicity is a good thing

Simplicity is a good thing. But sloppy thinking and vague language makes for bad law. Your resolution is commendably simple, but also a good example of very bad law.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Developments since 10 pm yesterday, Funen Time:

Mrs. 'Smartayevkohara' Marayevkohara rallied the people of Intelligenstan; saying that the leaders of their nation did their best and she is strongly determined to defy opposition to the end.

The opposition to the resolution at vote Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L announces that he plans to pay a visit to Jey tonight.

Small clashes broke out in the capital today after Charlotte Ryberg's government temporarily withdrew the vote in order to allow the debate to flow swiftly; they insisted that this would not affect its relationship with intelligenstan. Mrs Ryberg herself has intervened ordering the vote to remain until further notice, saying that there is still two days to go.

For the first time in five year the parliament has been open all hours. The ruling Motherland party has been defending its decision. the opposition leader Screaming Lord Sutch called the defense 'loony'.

Newspaper Update:

The Funen Telegraph's YourRuler poll shows a deadlock, with both YES and NO parties sharing 38% each.

The West End final of The Llanfair Standard's editor has been reacting angrily to the mini-riots today. He calls for round-table discussions from both factions.

The NO campaign intensifies in Charlotte Ryberg:

Breandánigernach: 'I urge you to say NO to the resolution. It is not too late to change your position.'

Anonymous: 'This resolution must be defeated.'

Helen Lovejoy: 'Please Think of the Children!!'

The term recreational drug can be refered to alcohol, tobacco, and even caffiene. Accepting this would ban items such as, tea, coffee, many soft drinks and alcoholic beverages.

OOC: *Sigh* Go back and re-read the proposal. ALL that it tries to ban is shipping drugs into nations where they are already illegal, it leaves you (as the already-passed 'UN Drug Act' requires) with FULL control over which substances are legal -- and which are illegal -- within your own nation's borders...

Mrs. 'Smartayevkohara' Marayevkohara returned home, high in confidence that other UN members will switch votes in favor of her. The Drugs Anonymous spokeswoman Zubinfiruza J. G. told the Six O'clock News that there is no way that the resolution will affect coffee and alcohol.

'Drugs are defined as medicine which are prescribed as medicine. The illegal drugs are disguised as ordinary consumables to deceive the police force. Coffee is not a drug, and alcohol is not dangerous if consumed wisely. I continue to support action against illegal drug smuggling.'

The Sovreign Dominator of Kalashnivoka stands in full support of this resolution!

For too long have the Kalashnivokan government rations of soma been undermined by the outlawed drugs imported from other UN nations, meaning more people are using their ration tokens on bread, which is relatively expensive to make. Citizens purchasing a whole week's groceries, or approximately 6 times the price to produce than the 3 or 4 doses of soma the equivalent number of ration tokens would cost. This has drained the Great Kalashnivoka's budget for too long, and sent many plastic and metal containers that would otherwise be recycled out to other nations less important that Our own, as payment for the drugs.

But with this law, that shall change! And The Sovreign Dominator sends this warning: Any drug traffickers caught bringing drugs into my nation will be killed horribly and ground up for fertiliser!

I will, for the last time, make my arguments why my nation is against this.

The resolution at vote does not firmly set an end to internation trafficking. It does, however, mandate that we invoke punishments on idividuals within our borders who traffic illegaly. This in itself is a good measure. However, it doesn't regulate the punishment. It encourages neighboring nations to invoke sanctions on other nations who don't enforce a strict enough punishment. This is flawed. A resolution that seeks to put an end to something does not suggest or urge, it mandates. Which is something this present resolution is severely lacking. Other nations should not have to bear the responsibility to police their neighbors to keep them in compliance with a UN Law. The law should instead be firm enough that it specifically defines what it seeks to ban, then ban it.

That said, a good resolution for this purpose should first define what illegal trafficking is. And second, mandate that it be banned in all member nations. This does one but not the other and it is weak for it. Therefore I cannot support it. I also state that should it pass, a repeal will be forthcoming to clear way for a stranger law.

I will, for the last time, make my arguments why my nation is against this.

The resolution at vote does not firmly set an end to internation trafficking. It does, however, mandate that we invoke punishments on idividuals within our borders who traffic illegaly. This in itself is a good measure. However, it doesn't regulate the punishment. It encourages neighboring nations to invoke sanctions on other nations who don't enforce a strict enough punishment. This is flawed. A resolution that seeks to put an end to something does not suggest or urge, it mandates. Which is something this present resolution is severely lacking. Other nations should not have to bear the responsibility to police their neighbors to keep them in compliance with a UN Law. The law should instead be firm enough that it specifically defines what it seeks to ban, then ban it.

That said, a good resolution for this purpose should first define what illegal trafficking is. And second, mandate that it be banned in all member nations. This does one but not the other and it is weak for it. Therefore I cannot support it. I also state that should it pass, a repeal will be forthcoming to clear way for a stranger law.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12131355&postcount=192
See UN Drug Act and make sure you repeal that first before you repeal this resolution, if you want a stronger resolution that would ban illegal drug trafficking all together. I would support you in the repeal of that act.

Why do the hard one first? This one will be easier to repeal, so if it's a stumbling block as well, we'll remove it first.

So, are you just trying to do an end-run around previous legislation, then? That's rather silly.

But it seems all the objections that can be made have been, without the effect of changing the author's mind. We can at this stage only retire and hope this poorly-concieved piece of writ is voted down.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12131355&postcount=192
See UN Drug Act and make sure you repeal that first before you repeal this resolution, if you want a stronger resolution that would ban illegal drug trafficking all together. I would support you in the repeal of that act.


I've read the Drug Act. And if your intent was to put a ban on illegal drugs why didn't YOU seek to have it repealed instead of wasting our time voting on this? You realize that if I were to repeal the UN Drug Act I would also in turn have to repeal this as well. We can deal with the UNDA later, but what you have before us now is meaningless. Therefore we can skip the whole process of drafting a repeal for this, and vote it down already.

If you knew the UNDA wouldn't allow this mess to be stopped, why the hell did you draft this to begin with?

Why do the hard one first? This one will be easier to repeal, so if it's a stumbling block as well, we'll remove it first.

That's exactly the bang-your-head against a wall strategy that all of you have been using. Just to not have this resolution in place, when in fact it is a very good one while the UN drug act is in place. You know what will happen, you will try to repeal this one but fail to repeal the UN drug act. It is obvious you just want this resolution gone, not because you think it is weak, ineffective, or just plain bad, but because you think it will hurt your nation. It has yet to be shown how this resolution would be a stumbling block in any way without the repeal of the UN drug act, so why be so stubborn. I think you're just mad because the resolution passed by over a 2/3 vote despite your vote against it, and want to get revenge. We both know that while the UN drug is in place, this is a great resolution that will help the situation as much as possible. I urge you to repeal the UN drug act first, but with your stubbornness and vendetic desires, I don't see that happening. Let me tell you, as a side note, that if you do somehow magically repeal the UN drug act, and show me a way how this resolution would stop a resolution you want to pass (such as ban all drugs in the world overall), I will help and support your repeal.

Developments since 10 pm yesterday, Funen Time:

Mrs. 'Smartayevkohara' Marayevkohara rallied the people of Intelligenstan; saying that the leaders of their nation did their best and she is strongly determined to defy opposition to the end.

The opposition to the resolution at vote Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L announces that he plans to pay a visit to Jey tonight.

Small clashes broke out in the capital today after Charlotte Ryberg's government temporarily withdrew the vote in order to allow the debate to flow swiftly; they insisted that this would not affect its relationship with intelligenstan. Mrs Ryberg herself has intervened ordering the vote to remain until further notice, saying that there is still two days to go.

For the first time in five year the parliament has been open all hours. The ruling Motherland party has been defending its decision. the opposition leader Screaming Lord Sutch called the defense 'loony'.

Newspaper Update:

The Funen Telegraph's YourRuler poll shows a deadlock, with both YES and NO parties sharing 38% each.

The West End final of The Llanfair Standard's editor has been reacting angrily to the mini-riots today. He calls for round-table discussions from both factions.

The NO campaign intensifies in Charlotte Ryberg:

OOC: With all due respect, and I'm sure others feel the same way, we don't need to know about every little thing that pops up on your news wires about this debate. If you want to keep people up to date with what's going on in your nation please do it in the RP threads and leave this one for the debate itself.

That's exactly the bang-your-head against a wall strategy that all of you have been using. Just to not have this resolution in place, when in fact it is a very good one while the UN drug act is in place. You know what will happen, you will try to repeal this one but fail to repeal the UN drug act. It is obvious you just want this resolution gone, not because you think it is weak, ineffective, or just plain bad, but because you think it will hurt your nation. It has yet to be shown how this resolution would be a stumbling block in any way without the repeal of the UN drug act, so why be so stubborn. I think you're just mad because the resolution passed by over a 2/3 vote despite your vote against it, and want to get revenge. We both know that while the UN drug is in place, this is a great resolution that will help the situation as much as possible. I urge you to repeal the UN drug act first, but with your stubbornness and vendetic desires, I don't see that happening. Let me tell you, as a side note, that if you do somehow magically repeal the UN drug act, and show me a way how this resolution would stop a resolution you want to pass (such as ban all drugs in the world overall), I will help and support your repeal.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time understanding people that are talking out of their ass. You assume too much. You ASSUME we don't want this passed because it will our nations. Wrong, we oppose it because it is WEAK WEAK WEAK WEAK. Did I mention WEAK? Why are you so damn stubborn to defend this resolution? You've already admitted that it is weak by saying the UNDA causes it's stumbling blocks. If this is true why did you chose to draft this?

By passing this piece of legislature, you stop any other attempt at a resolution that will crack down on trafficking, period. We can't modify the laws stated within this resolution, therefore the only way to better the laws is to repeal this one, end of story. Is it clear now, or are you going to come up with some more mindless rambling?

OOC: With all due respect, and I'm sure others feel the same way, we don't need to know about every little thing that pops up on your news wires about this debate. If you want to keep people up to date with what's going on in your nation please do it in the RP threads and leave this one for the debate itself.

I happen to be very interested what Charlotte's final decision was????????

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time understanding people that are talking out of their ass. You assume too much. You ASSUME we don't want this passed because it will our nations. Wrong, we oppose it because it is WEAK WEAK WEAK WEAK. Did I mention WEAK? Why are you so damn stubborn to defend this resolution? You've already admitted that it is weak by saying the UNDA causes it's stumbling blocks. If this is true why did you chose to draft this?

By passing this piece of legislature, you stop any other attempt at a resolution that will crack down on trafficking, period. We can't modify the laws stated within this resolution, therefore the only way to better the laws is to repeal this one, end of story. Is it clear now, or are you going to come up with some more mindless rambling?

nope, there's more mindless rambling. Despite what you like to believe, weak is better than nothing. Even a mere call upon sanctions against specific nations is already good. This is the optimal resolution that can pass while the UNDA is in place (or that's what I believe and haven't been convinced otherwise). Noone has even tried to persuade me how this would stop a resolution that could be passed with the UNDA in place that is better than this one. I say it again and again and again and again and again and again. So keep saying weak as many times as you want, but it's still the best that has been brought up so far. Keep criticizing this resolution all you want, but there haven't been any better ones. As far as I can see, this is the best option we have as for right now. You say stuff about people talking out of their ass, but you say that the only way to better the laws is to repeal this one, without giving any examples. No other resolution will crack down on trafficking better than this one as I see it right now and that makes it the strongest one and the best one and way better than nothing. If you do go about repealing this, you know what's going to happen, once it is repealed, all of a sudden everyone will realize 'well, there's nothing stronger we can come up while the UNDA is in place' So all you did was repeal the only thing you do have to help crack down on trafficking. But you'll end up doing it anyways.

What you have there, is a 2nd block on more effective legislation. No if, ands, or buts about it. I know it's like hitting a brick wall with us, but it's ok. We're trying to help, and if helping means repealing this and wiping it off the records entirely, I can live with that. You ask for specific examples, of what exactly? You say you can be convinced, but each time I get you close to the point of convincing you make a broad statement and walk away. This doesn't bother me, you see, because it's a positive thing when you walk away. To know that I've argued you into a corner. To have given you no choice but to accept defeat, ignore it entirely, or act irrationally, gives me a certain sense of satisfaction.

I know I'm right. You're the author of this legislation, and you want your name in stone in these hallowed halls. I don't begrudge you that.

It will however, be struck out.

I happen to be very interested what Charlotte's final decision was????????



nope, there's more mindless rambling. Despite what you like to believe, weak is better than nothing. Even a mere call upon sanctions against specific nations is already good. This is the optimal resolution that can pass while the UNDA is in place (or that's what I believe and haven't been convinced otherwise). Noone has even tried to persuade me how this would stop a resolution that could be passed with the UNDA in place that is better than this one. I say it again and again and again and again and again and again. So keep saying weak as many times as you want, but it's still the best that has been brought up so far. Keep criticizing this resolution all you want, but there haven't been any better ones. As far as I can see, this is the best option we have as for right now. You say stuff about people talking out of their ass, but you say that the only way to better the laws is to repeal this one, without giving any examples. No other resolution will crack down on trafficking better than this one as I see it right now and that makes it the strongest one and the best one and way better than nothing. If you do go about repealing this, you know what's going to happen, once it is repealed, all of a sudden everyone will realize 'well, there's nothing stronger we can come up while the UNDA is in place' So all you did was repeal the only thing you do have to help crack down on trafficking. But you'll end up doing it anyways.

You're right, I will end up doing it anyways, cause weak isn't better. Do it right the first time and quit wasting our time. Yeah, UNDA needs to be repealed, I don't dispute that. But this needs to go too. I've told you, with this on the books we can't pass anything different that is even remotely similar to it. Quite honestly even with this on the books, not much is going to change. There's a big open hole that's just asking to be breeched.

I happen to be very interested what Charlotte's final decision was????????




As am I, but do we really need to hear every little detail? This chamber is reserved for debate, not the local tabulature.

Weak is not better than nothing, it may be worse because it gives a false sense of accomplishment.

I really like the issue at hand, but will have to vote against it until a "non-prescribed" clause is added. This resolution appears to ban prescription drugs such as the SSRIs, SNRIs, lithium, etc. because they are mind altering substances. This resolution totally neglects the benefits of some drugs when prescribed.

I will be voting against this issue until the "non-prescribed" clause is added.

-David Light of The Dearly Departed

On the third day of intense campaigning, Charlotte Ryberg is due to make that final decision shortly...

Will Marayevkohara finally get her way, or will Ratreekulapanyaawan make a strong case against it?

If Marayevkohara gets her way, she will outline the new penalties.

If Ratreekulapanyaawan gets his way, he wants everyone to switch sides too. He means as many UN nations as possible.

Don't miss it!

I love how the argument for this resolution has devolved from it being a strong act which is the right thing to do to just one that's weak but better than nothing so vote on it anyway.

This IS weak, it ISN'T better than nothing because it'll just be another stupid hurdle we all have to clear in the effort to make some legislation on the topic that isn't so weak and utterly useless. The only thing this will provide is creation of more work while people work on a repeal so that we can pass some REAL legislation.

That's why I'm still against it, have been all along, and will continue to be against it.

The Dourians really hit the spot with their latest summation of things, and so without further ado the Roseariean people take their leave of this issue and will not comment further until the inevitable repeal process begins.

- Gordon Tills, Roseariean Ambassador.

This resolution appears to ban prescription drugs such as the SSRIs, SNRIs, lithium, etc. because they are mind altering substances.

OOC: No, it really doesn't.

Charlotte Ryberg says Yes!

The Charlotte Ryberg government has voted in favor of the proposal amid huge challenges to the proposal.

Marayevkohara F. D. has celebrated the announcement by announcing the return of the dark dungeons for drugs traffickers, while Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L vows to push for a repeal in the fastest time possible.

Marayevkohara F. D: This is the greatest day for drugs justice.

Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L: I vow that this resolution will have a hard life!

This resolution is flawed.

Not only are legitimate prescription drugs autmatically classified as "recreational" if they have any mind-altering properties or side effects (surely some legitimate drugs are intended to alter one's mental status int he case of antidepressants, tranquilizers, and antipsychotics, for example), but someone who is an unwilling or unknowing carrier of such drugs (or actual pleasure-only drugs) can be prosecuted under this law.

Intangelon and Cascadia vote AGAINST.

Charlotte Ryberg says Yes!

The Charlotte Ryberg government has voted in favor of the proposal amid huge challenges to the proposal.

Marayevkohara F. D. has celebrated the announcement by announcing the return of the dark dungeons for drugs traffickers, while Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L vows to push for a repeal in the fastest time possible.

Marayevkohara F. D: This is the greatest day for drugs justice.

Ratreekulapanyaawan H. L: I vow that this resolution will have a hard life!

This is wonderfull news. Thank you for your support.

Drug control or the lack thereof ought to be a matter of national sovereignty. Reject this proposal.

Sonnveld casts a jaundiced eye upon this legislation and takes a negative position on it.

This is why:

RECOGNIZING the truism, "When [x] are outlawed, only outlaws will have {x]."

ALSO RECOGNIZING that while "controlled substances" cause health problems, their malefic effect is severely limited when compared to a draconian outlawing, banning and ban-enforcement campaign.

The mechanics behind the "Drug War" effect is that if a substance is outlawed, the demand for it does not diminish and indeed, the (black) market price for it skyrockets, since law enforcement activity represents a limiting factor on the flow of goods-in-question.

Furthermore, the dealership network involved in routing the goods to the end consumer, are outlawed and therefore living on the run, in supreme defense mode. In plain speaking: drug dealers, armed to the teeth, and desperate enough to kill, maim, torture and terrorize anyone who doesn't buy from them.

Furthermore, a good that is unsupervised by the government is likely to be extremely low in quality as the dealers (still on the run and operating surreptitiously) have cut-rate, jerry-rigged and inefficient shops, warehouses and trade routes to ply their product. Read: Windowpane LSD cut with bleach, and methamphetamine-lab toxic waste dumps turning neighbourhoods into Superfund sites.

Frankly, we don't want this in Sonnveld, nor in our neighbouring countries. We prefer to follow the Dutch model of free recreational drugs, provided from government-run sites, produced in well-equipped facilities subject to government inspection for quality assurance, and comprehensive health care and social support given to the addicted who wish to stop.

The result: empty jails, clean streets free of violence, and fair workloads on our estimable police force. Robbery and burglary are unheard of in Sonnveld; indeed, we have been the toast of our past regions in that regard.

The other effect this legislation would have is to ban legitimate medical substances that this or that extremist group objects to, affecting the health of our people.

Think on this before you add your support. Sonnveld's first commitment is to her people.

As others have said, the resolution's definition of a recreational drug is highly flawed. Additionally, it would punish unwitting vessels for international transport. Also, the law doesn't seem to distinguish between transport for personal use and transport with the intent to sell. I'm voting against this proposal.

IC:

Aeons ago our country tried somethng similar. For centuries our government fought the trafficers, and lost. THeir fighting drove the prices up, which only increased the size of the black market.

OOC:

This is a new un named clone. Have we met?

Great Nations...

This is the most non-decisive, limp, and worthless proposal I have ever seen. I heartily commend the writer of this proposal and I must say that they either have ( or shall have ) a very lucrative career in politics.

How else can you take a stand against something then be for it if you were not in the UN? Take every genocide that has happened in the world since the real UN was created for instance.

I personally loathe, hate, dislike, have apathy, like, and love the proposal.

I say that we all vote for it, then say that we did not!

Greater Mikeonia

Great Nations...

This is the most non-decisive, limp, and worthless proposal I have ever seen. I heartily commend the writer of this proposal and I must say that they either have ( or shall have ) a very lucrative career in politics.

How else can you take a stand against something then be for it if you were not in the UN? Take every genocide that has happened in the world since the real UN was created for instance.

I personally loathe, hate, dislike, have apathy, like, and love the proposal.

I say that we all vote for it, then say that we did not!

Greater Mikeonia

I completely tend to absolutely not so much agree with pretty much part of what you didn't say in a different post.

Hello Friends,

As some of you might have found out, there has been an actual opposition campaign to stop this weak and impotent legislation.

Now, I will post for you the letter which we have been sending out and I would ask that those who are for this pitiable resolution, rethink their position firstly and then oppose it with all your might.

---

Esteemed delegates:

May we have a small amount of your time?

We are very concerned about the inherent flaws of the current resolution at vote. Regardless of the author’s good intent, we note:

--the definition of “recreational drug” used includes ALL drugs other than antibiotics
--the definition of “international drug trafficker” used includes persons who are not intending or aware that they are violating the resolution
--the resolution attempts to require nations to punish criminals according to other nation’s criminal codes
--the resolution, because it only “urges” nations to “consider” taking action, fails to even accomplish what it sets out to do.

For these reasons, and to keep this resolution for blocking future efforts in this area, we request that you change your vote to “against.”

Thank you for your time.

The United Socialist States of Evoinia
The Confederated Hells of Rubina

If someone finds my body in the reflecting pool with a gunshot to the head, just take a look at this debate and you'll know why.

Harmaland Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

If someone finds my body in the reflecting pool with a gunshot to the head, just take a look at this debate and you'll know why.

Harmaland Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

Please, no... if you insist on dying, may we suggest that we train you in one of our martial arts and when you feel ready, one of our students who is evenly matched with your capabilities will engage in a duel to the death. If you lose the battle, you win! If you win the battle, you may have gained new understanding in life and continue living or find another friendly student who wishes to go the path of the duel and repeat the process.

Dont worry about any funeral expenses, fallen friends are honored in a very respectable ceremony. We do hope you reconsider your actions of self-destruction.

I've pretty much had my fill with this debate. I'm going back to my office to watch "Keeping Up With Julius." I am also considering sending a new ambassador to take my place. I can't bear to witness these debates any longer.

Once again, I'm the only one enjoying myself here. Ahh well.

It's still weak, still useless, and still going to be repealed. Not now, mind you, a few months from now when the author's nation is in unrest, and he's not really paying attention to the UN anymore.

I just wonder who the lucky bastard that gets to repeal it will be.

why not you?

If someone finds my body in the reflecting pool with a gunshot to the head, just take a look at this debate and you'll know why.

Harmaland Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens
Emo much?

Maddalena Pedrana
Deputy Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the United Nations

Emo much?

Maddalena Pedrana
Deputy Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the United Nations

Oh please. I listen to Bach, not Wentz... and there are some things, my dear, which drive a man to contemplate offing himself.

Harmalan Shandreth
etc.

Like reading Gothe?

Anyway... I will be preparing a Repeal to this pitiable legislation soon.
Rubinia, Douria, and all the rest of you are welcomed to help me out if your interested.

I've pretty much had my fill with this debate. I'm going back to my office to watch "Keeping Up With Julius." I am also considering sending a new ambassador to take my place. I can't bear to witness these debates any longer.

Keeping Up With Julius? As in Lord Julius? Sovereign ruler of Palnu?

I haven't been in on the debate but I'm glad to see someone will be working on a a resolution to repeal this. You've probably pointed out the basic flaws in it, so I won't list off why I see it as a lousy piece of legislation. All it really accomplished is to move my nation's civil rights from Good to Below Average, thanks to it being classified as a bill to outlaw recreational drug use (it's supposed to be about trade!). Hell, a pint of beer can count as a recreational drug here.

(Besides, such policy just drives drug trading further into black markets. We should regulate & tax this stuff rather than call it totally illegitimate and drain resources - and axe personal freedoms - trying to wipe it out.)

Crap, I just said I wasn't going to rant. sry. ;)

Keeping Up With Julius? As in Lord Julius? Sovereign ruler of Palnu?Close. Lord Julius Marx (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=678), prime minister of The Palentine. :D

we should ban international trafficing for some countries not all because people might allow traffing or drugs

The Randomly Coherent nation of Ardchoille would like it known, for later RP purposes, that in a moment of genuine coherence we voted against this. The usual reasons.

As my last act as UN Ambassador of my nation I would like to congratulate the drafter of this fine *coughs uncontrollably then regains composure* piece of legislature. May its stay on the books be a short one, and may it be burned, lost, found, burned again and burried in soft peat for three years before finally being launched into the outter reaches of the universe.

I've enjoyed my stay here, but my nation demands my attention. I have appointed our ex-Public Executioner Bane Wiffle (http://www.houseofanoria.com/Surcoats1/Nobleman_Executioner.jpg) to be my replacement. I'm sure he will do well. Just keep an eye on him if he goes in the bar.

I hope we will meet again.........no, not really.

*Zarquon has left the building.*