NationStates Jolt Archive

A previous repeal attempt (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544239) of this reprehensible resolution fell by the wayside with the civil war and dissolution of its principle author.

As co-author, we have taken up the cause. We welcome comments and concerns at this time.

Repeal “Ban International Trafficking”

Argument: The United Nations,

Convinced that UN Resolution #229, “Ban International Trafficking” contains significant flaws, to wit:

1. The resolution as a whole serves to destabilize regional relations by encouraging the use of economic warfare in order to force recognition of extra-jurisdictional criminal codes;

2. The definition of recreational drug provided by the resolution is inaccurate, too broad and too inclusive, including as it does all drugs other than antibiotics (such as anesthetics, analgesics, hormones and common cold treatments) as well as encompassing component parts of common substances such as coffee, tea and cocoa, with no consideration of the intent or circumstances of their use;

3. The definition of international drug trafficker contained in the resolution includes persons with no intent to traffick in illegal substances, including members of the transportation industry, health care workers and charity organizations. By making no distinction between incidental, low-level trafficking and organized, intentional trafficking and by requiring equal enforcement upon such activities, UNR #299 places an untenable burden on law enforcement and correctional institutions of all members, diverting manpower and materials from critical areas of law enforcement;

4. The resolution’s inclusion in its mandate of medical drugs, coupled with its recommendation for embargoes and other retaliatory measures, serves to limit the scope of UNR #33, “No Embargoes on Medicine” and may prevent access to vital, legitimate medical drugs. Additionally the mandated insertion of government policy into the provider-patient relationship, coupled with the overly broad definitions found in “Ban International Trafficking,” unnecessarily restricts the guarantees provided by UNR #159, "Patients Rights Act";

Concerned that the resolution causes real and significant harm to both individuals and to member nations,

Hereby repeals UN Resolution #229, “Ban International Trafficking”.

----------
The original resolution:
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.

Votes For: 4,706
Votes Against: 3,724

Implemented: Thu Nov 29 2007

Although we do not entirely agree, as the initial resolution provides for the legal traffic, as will be the case for the common goods you cite, we find that indeed the definition provided is not entirely to the point. We also applaud your concern for members of the transport sector who may very well be transporting these goods, unbeknownst to them.

Decapod Ten

Having no problem with recreational drug use,

Having appropriate regulations in place for drug use,

Believing it to be the duty of sovereign nations to regulate their citizens usage,

Believing it to be the duty of sovereign nations to educate their citizens to eliminate illegal usage,

Believing focusing on drug trafficking reduces the attention paid to other smuggling,

Supports any repeal of this resolution, and does not care what words you use to repeal it.

Except meth. meth is bad shit.

And how are you supposed to stop the illegal drug trade then? This resolution ensures that nations would have to punish drug traffickers who break my drug laws, as well as the drug laws of other nations. Take that away, and how am I supposed to enforce my drug laws without the help of the international community? What should I do, for instance, if an illegal drug dealer flees to a UN nation who tolerate the use of illegal drugs?

The definition of a drug trafficker and a recreational drug might be bad, but I still want to hold out for a replacement. Even with the current resolution still being, well, not that strong. I mean, you could fine the guy $0.01 and you'd still be in compliance.
---Dr. Bob

And how are you supposed to stop the illegal drug trade then? This resolution ensures that nations would have to punish drug traffickers who break my drug laws, as well as the drug laws of other nations.

It's not the job of other nations to enforce your laws; it's yours. Why should Altanar, for example, have to worry about enforcing other nations' laws within our borders when we have plenty of our own laws to worry about enforcing? You should also bear in mind that not every nation would want to enforce such laws. Recreational drug use is legal in Altanar, and we have a moral issue with enforcing drug laws that we don't agree with and didn't enact within our borders.

Take that away, and how am I supposed to enforce my drug laws without the help of the international community? What should I do, for instance, if an illegal drug dealer flees to a UN nation who tolerate the use of illegal drugs?

You could always sign extradition agreements with those nations, or otherwise request they expel or turn said individuals over to you. These are matters that should be worked out between member states, not enforced with a blunt hammer of crude legislation over all of them.

The definition of a drug trafficker and a recreational drug might be bad, but I still want to hold out for a replacement. Even with the current resolution still being, well, not that strong. I mean, you could fine the guy $0.01 and you'd still be in compliance.

You can always write a replacement, if you want one. We wish you wouldn't, though, as we feel very strongly that this is not a matter that requires intervention on an international scale. And if the resolution up for repeal, as you point out, doesn't really do a hell of a lot, why bother keeping it?

By suggesting that member states should "consider imposing sanctions on nations who do not follow similar courses of action", and "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", the original resolution creates possibilities of massive conflict between member states, with sanctions flying left and right and generally pissing everyone off. This is in direct conflict with one of the original resolution's supposed reasons for existing, that "drug trafficking between nations may lead to conflict due to differences in drug laws of member nations". And with its poor definitions of what constitutes a recreational drug and a drug trafficker, the original resolution has the potential to affect many people who aren't traffickers at all. This resolution, in our estimation, was the product of some really bad recreational drug in and of itself, and we will be pleased to see it gone.

In case it wasn't clear, we support the repeal.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Er. I didn't actually see all that. It would probraly be better off to rely on diplomacy rather than brute force to go and arrest the drug traffickers then.

*changes support to FOR repeal*

---Dr. Bob

Submitted for test run; no TG campaign.

We support this, and have approved the proposal. As a suggestion, maybe clause 4 could be moved up above some less important clauses: we're more concerned about the restriction of access to medicinal drugs than a few tea-drinkers not getting their fix. However, if you think it attracts more attention nearer the bottom, that's fine.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison & Coffee Drinker, Department of UN Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

We appreciate your support, Ms. Benson, and your concern about the order of clauses.

We consider the four flaws included in the repeal nearly equal, and in fact the fourth clause is dependent on the second. We also were taught by dear Ms. Henley (verily the knuckles remember their lessons well) that the last position in an argument carries equal emphasis to the first.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador, Rubina
Regional Delegate, User Friendlia




------
All things are possible with caffeine.