NationStates Jolt Archive

In the SimRTK region, the one I've been representing for nearly a month now, we have a very pro-Drug use policy. Nearly all nations, including those not in the WA, are very concerned about the number of 'Ban recreational drug use' policies that try to move through the endorsement phase of legislation. Should any of them come up and pass, our region would be severely damaged. Even those not bound by the WA rules would feel the affects of a price jump in drugs and smuggling.

So now I have decided to take a forward leap and act on my own accord. I hope to write a piece with three goals. 1) It allows all nations to form their own positions and laws on recreational drugs. 2) Allows governments to fund, manufacture, and grow materials for recreational use. 3) Makes governments who legalize drugs take action to prevent smuggling into countries that forbid it.

The current draft is below.

The 3rd draft of this proposal is relevant to all posts past 3:00 EST 5-18-08
Formalizing WA Drug Positions

1) OBSERVING that many nations and regions have formed their own individual positions on the use of certain drugs or substances solely for the use of recreation, (e.g. Opium, Nicotine, Marijuana ect.) outlawing many and allowing some.

2) RECOGNIZING the right of each nation to make their own laws involving the use of, internal control of, and manufacturing of all substances used for recreation.

3) OBSERVING that some nations have decided to encourage the industry of recreational drugs for the purposes of trade and/or distribution.

4) APPROVES of actions taken by nations to control and limit the illegal smuggling of drugs by drug cartels.

The World Assembly herby:

5) DECLARES the trade of recreational substances between two nations, whose laws allow it, legal.

6) ENCOURAGES all factions to be responsible in their own right and take active action against smuggling by any means into nations that have had made said substance illegal.

7a) CALLS UPON nations to keep diligent records of the amount and type of recreational substances being transported across borders.

7b) ENCOURAGES nations to enact policies requiring businesses involved in transporting drugs to keep detailed accounts documenting the chain of custody of these items.

7c) URGES nations to freely share these accounts with any nation having problems with smuggled drugs.

8) RECOMMENDS that all nations create an easily obtainable list of substances defined as drugs and/or banned substances, if they have not already done so, so that other World Assembly members may easy determine what falls under the guidelines of this proposal.

Category and strength?

Yes, we should discuss that. I'm thinking about making it "recreational drug use" and "Legalize" But I'm really hoping for suggestions on how to make it more about making it an international standards bill which would then change it's category.

FORBIDS governments from intentionally allowing it's citizens smuggle or trade drugs over international waters to a third party, forcing all transactions be between nation-to-nation or business-to-business.

"their" not "its" (and certainly not "it's")

"to smuggle or trade"

What about any nationals of those nations who aren't actually citizens?

Only "over international waters"? So smuggling over land borders wouldn't have to be blocked?

Is this ban only on smuggling recreational drugs, or did you actually mean it to cover smuggling medicines and sacramental drugs (as the current wording would do) as well?

And is the final phrase supposed to mean
"and requires that all international trade in recreational drugs be between governments and/or legally-recognised businesses, rather than individuals."?

Edit: Oh, and as the only clauses that don't just confirm nations' existing rights are limiting ones I'd say that it was "Outlaw" rather than "Legalise"...

While I'm not exactly happy at the thought of seeing the same old blocker back again, I really don't think anyone's going to be happy about that last clause. We already produce a handy pamphlet (157 pages and growing) of what's legal where, but I don't think our government's going to be happy with the idea of enforcing someone else's laws on people who are on our side of the border.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary.

A few questions about this proposal:

Why is alcohol not mentioned? It surely is a drug. I think it is widely used in NationStates, so we advice putting that one in also.

Why citizens are not allowed to smuggle (or trade)? Business between each others are OK to smuggle? We think nations define smuggle already as outlawed trade. So we advice not to mention smuggle, because that is outlawed already by definition. And we think that legal trade could be done between citizens to, because we do not like to ban civil rights.

But for the rest we agree on this, so if some changes are made we would support that as being WA-delegate for Intelligentsia Islands.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
Co-ordinator of The Wierd Anarchists

Why is alcohol not mentioned? It surely is a drug. I think it is widely used in NationStates, so we advice putting that one in also.Believe that this leaves it up to each nation to determine what is a drug and decide of it legal or not and just how to limit or control its uses. As covered in the opening part:
RECOGNIZES the right of each nation to make their own laws involving the use of, internal control of, and manufacturing of all substances used for recreation.So if under this a nation see water, H2O as a drug then that nation can make laws regarding the use of it within their borders. So alcohol like water can be added to individual national drug lists and laws put in place by them on their use.



We tends to be weak on issues of drugs moved between nations but agree if we understand it to mean that individuals can't trade or sale drugs outside their own borders.. This must be done by a business or company appoved by the individual nations. We have laws that insure all drugs used in our borders are safe and these laws cover imported drugs allowed in for use here. However it is not legal for individuals to bring certain drugs in for resale or trade to those here. Since it would be hard to inspect and insure they are all safe, allowing a certain company to deal in certain drugs is easier to control.

Anyone who attempts to enter our borders with illegal drugs is given a chance to leave and not enter or leave the drugs home. Thus who want to try and bring in illegal drugs will serve some hard time in a prison or even get to test the strenght of our ropes... and enjoy the beauty of some of our tall trees for a short stretch... of their neck..

So if under this a nation see water, H2O as a drug then that nation can make laws regarding the use of it within their borders.If a country's leaders want to be idiots, they don't need the help of the WA.

I decided to give this resolution a few days of criticism before responding.


What about any nationals of those nations who aren't actually citizens?

Only "over international waters"? So smuggling over land borders wouldn't have to be blocked?

Is this ban only on smuggling recreational drugs, or did you actually mean it to cover smuggling medicines and sacramental drugs (as the current wording would do) as well?

And is the final phrase supposed to mean
"and requires that all international trade in recreational drugs be between governments and/or legally-recognised businesses, rather than individuals."?

Edit: Oh, and as the only clauses that don't just confirm nations' existing rights are limiting ones I'd say that it was "Outlaw" rather than "Legalise"...

Grammar follies noted and changed. Also included foreign residents in the one clause.

1) The clause prior to the international waters should cover land borders or any other means. The international water part is to simply cover a loophole.

2) Should we make it cover normal medicines? The goal initially was just recreational materials.

3) Yes, and it's been edited slightly for clarification.

4) I'll deal with the classification later once we decide if this is for recreational drugs only or prescription medication. If anything, I think this is more a matter of trade rights or something rather then drug legalization.

While I'm not exactly happy at the thought of seeing the same old blocker back again, I really don't think anyone's going to be happy about that last clause. We already produce a handy pamphlet (157 pages and growing) of what's legal where, but I don't think our government's going to be happy with the idea of enforcing someone else's laws on people who are on our side of the border.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary.

The last two clauses have gotten some editing for clarification, and should be relatively easy to follow. As far as I can tell, you won't be following other countries laws. You'll just be saying that you can't export tobacco to countries that have tobacco make illegal, and you should restrict your citizens from doing so. Otherwise thats downright supporting smuggling.

A few questions about this proposal:

Why is alcohol not mentioned? It surely is a drug. I think it is widely used in NationStates, so we advice putting that one in also.

Why citizens are not allowed to smuggle (or trade)? Business between each others are OK to smuggle? We think nations define smuggle already as outlawed trade. So we advice not to mention smuggle, because that is outlawed already by definition. And we think that legal trade could be done between citizens to, because we do not like to ban civil rights.

But for the rest we agree on this, so if some changes are made we would support that as being WA-delegate for Intelligentsia Islands.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
Co-ordinator of The Wierd Anarchists

1) We could. Rather then just make an international list of substances that can be labeled abusive or not, I've decided to add on another clause. #8 recommends all nations dictate a simple list so that we may know is protected under this and what isn't.

2) I've completely altered the wording on clause 6, added clause 7 and 8. The goal here now at the end of this document is to make what was generally considered "unwritten rules" to be officially written. You can't trade with cargo thats banned in the place it came from or is going to. Private citizens can't trade drugs because in our experience these people tend to be small crime rings rather then much else worth expecting. You can't go off on your own hoarding beers to trade to a company over in another border. Maybe you can within your OWN borders according to your own laws, or to a business in your own borders, but to keep good track of taxes and inventory, we shouldn't allow citizens to make private runs.

(For example, according to our rules a country one could only buy marijuana from a business, and a citizen simply hoarding or smuggling can't sell untaxed marijuana from their home as a source of income.)

We tends to be weak on issues of drugs moved between nations but agree if we understand it to mean that individuals can't trade or sale drugs outside their own borders.. This must be done by a business or company appoved by the individual nations. We have laws that insure all drugs used in our borders are safe and these laws cover imported drugs allowed in for use here. However it is not legal for individuals to bring certain drugs in for resale or trade to those here. Since it would be hard to inspect and insure they are all safe, allowing a certain company to deal in certain drugs is easier to control.

Anyone who attempts to enter our borders with illegal drugs is given a chance to leave and not enter or leave the drugs home. Thus who want to try and bring in illegal drugs will serve some hard time in a prison or even get to test the strenght of our ropes... and enjoy the beauty of some of our tall trees for a short stretch... of their neck..

Yes this puts it much better, and I hope by turning clause 6 into three clauses, (6,7,8) we can give nations more leeway and control over substances that move through their borders.

I should note that we intentionally have said nothing about each country's punishments if caught smuggling. I don't think it needs to be said that anyone caught moving illegal is subject to law the law of whomever catches them.

The last two clauses have gotten some editing for clarification, and should be relatively easy to follow. As far as I can tell, you won't be following other countries laws. You'll just be saying that you can't export tobacco to countries that have tobacco make illegal, and you should restrict your citizens from doing so. Otherwise thats downright supporting smuggling.

"You're either for me or against me." It was dumb the last time a politician said it, and it's dumb now. We're aren't supporting smuggling, but we aren't doing other people's enforcement work for them either. Caveat emptor and all that.

Strangely, we also aren't all that interested in stamping out private enterprise, which is the other thing that clause does.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary.

Caveat emptor and all that.


What does "Caveat emptor" have to do with this?

In the SimRTK region, the one I've been representing for nearly a month now, we have a very pro-Drug use policy. Nearly all nations, including those not in the WA, are very concerned about the number of 'Ban recreational drug use' policies that try to move through the endorsement phase of legislation. Should any of them come up and pass, our region would be severely damaged. Even those not bound by the WA rules would feel the affects of a price jump in drugs and smuggling.

So now I have decided to take a forward leap and act on my own accord. I hope to write a piece with three goals. 1) It allows all nations to form their own positions and laws on recreational drugs. 2) Allows governments to fund, manufacture, and grow materials for recreational use. 3) Makes governments who legalize drugs take action to prevent smuggling into countries that forbid it.

The current draft is below.

The current edit of this proposal is relevant to all posts past 4:00 EST 5-15-08

I appreciate your justification here. Great start! :)

A quick minor suggestion:

RECOGNIZES the right of each nation to make their own laws involving the use of, internal control of, and manufacturing of all substances used for recreation.

Is already true, so I'd make this a pre-ambulatory clause and reword it to be:

RECOGNIZING the right of each nation to make their own laws involving the use of, internal control of, and manufacturing of all substances used for recreation.

In other words, you aren't changing anything here (but you are reinforcing it). :)

As it is worded now, I'm pretty sure my government would quickly vote yes. The intent of this resolution is consistent with Mikitivity foreign policy -- especially where alcohol is concerned!

That said, I have two thoughts / opinions. First, I prefer numbered clauses. They make it easier for others (like me) to quickly scan a proposal/resolution. Second, I think the following clause could be reworked a bit:

FORBIDS governments from intentionally allowing their citizens or foreign residents to trade drugs by any means, including international waters, to a third party, forcing all transactions be nation-to-nation, nation-to-business, or between two legally recognized businesses.

I think you are suggesting that the chain of custody should be limited / or direct. I'm trying to think it should still be legal for one company to own something, hand it to a shipper, and then have the shipper deliver the product / service to a customer.

I think your point is just to make sure that everybody involved in shipping a controlled substance should assume responsibility for the commodity when it is in their possession. Is this somewhat correct, or did I misunderstand? :)

I don't mind the whole of this, but the execution is a bit flawed. I think once improved it can be a worthy piece of legislation. Category is easy though: Recreational Drugs, Promote. We're not legalizing it or banning it, but we're definitely promoting it, albeit responsibly(hence the smuggling stuff).

I don't mind the whole of this, but the execution is a bit flawed. I think once improved it can be a worthy piece of legislation. Category is easy though: Recreational Drugs, Promote. We're not legalizing it or banning it, but we're definitely promoting it, albeit responsibly(hence the smuggling stuff).

*nodding* Promote sounds good to me as well. What if the FORBIDS third parties section was changed to a "STRONGLY URGES that nations and businesses selling controlled substances, as defined above, to maintain custody and assume full legal responsibility for these substances" and a "CALLS UPON nations transporting these substances to take every reasonable measure to ensure they are not lost, smuggled, or accidentally delivered to nations that prohibit these substances".

The wording of both of my suggestions needs a major overhaul too, but I'm just tossing ideas out there for anybody to weigh in on. :)

I sent over a revised draft to him, I'm waiting to see if he uses it or not before I make further comments.

I like the suggestions and I'm finding them very useful, yet before I go about making the 3rd edition, I'd like to discuss the one part brought up by Mikitivity.


That said, I have two thoughts / opinions. First, I prefer numbered clauses. They make it easier for others (like me) to quickly scan a proposal/resolution. Second, I think the following clause could be reworked a bit:

FORBIDS governments from intentionally allowing their citizens or foreign residents to trade drugs by any means, including international waters, to a third party, forcing all transactions be nation-to-nation, nation-to-business, or between two legally recognized businesses.

I think you are suggesting that the chain of custody should be limited / or direct. I'm trying to think it should still be legal for one company to own something, hand it to a shipper, and then have the shipper deliver the product / service to a customer.

I think your point is just to make sure that everybody involved in shipping a controlled substance should assume responsibility for the commodity when it is in their possession. Is this somewhat correct, or did I misunderstand? :)

Essentially the goal of that one clause is made for two reasons. The first is so that nations can be very aware who has what and who is responsible, (though the minimum amount of regulation on our part as possible), and the the second is to keep large crime organizations and/or individuals out of the mix. (I'd much rather specifically ilegialize their work since it's very difficult to hold them accountable.)

As time goes on I find it harder for me to justify the clause and it's very clear my wording is poor. I'd like advice on whether to cross it out or how I should write it?

'Promote' has stronger effects than 'Legalise': I still don't see it as appropriate.

This is going to sound strange coming from me but I don't really see the need for this. I mean 9 times out of 10 the "legalize drugs" proposals sound like they were written by someone on drugs, and I can't remember seeing a "ban drugs" proposal even coming remotely close to quorum ever.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I like the suggestions and I'm finding them very useful, yet before I go about making the 3rd edition, I'd like to discuss the one part brought up by Mikitivity.



Essentially the goal of that one clause is made for two reasons. The first is so that nations can be very aware who has what and who is responsible, (though the minimum amount of regulation on our part as possible), and the the second is to keep large crime organizations and/or individuals out of the mix. (I'd much rather specifically ilegialize their work since it's very difficult to hold them accountable.)

As time goes on I find it harder for me to justify the clause and it's very clear my wording is poor. I'd like advice on whether to cross it out or how I should write it?

Rewrite first, and then hold a one week poll asking nations if that have major objections.

The goal is to keep track of custody. So I suggest that we simply say that, and don't get into the details of how (yes, you'll instantly get many no votes for doing that, but trust me, people are gonna vote no or yes based on the big picture ... little details or the lack thereof probably only sways a minor amount of votes both ways).

X. ENCOURAGES nations to enact policies requiring individuals transporting drugs, as described above, to keep detailed accounts documenting the chain of custody of these items,

Y. URGES nations to freely share these accounts with any nation having problems with smuggled drugs,

Z. APPROVES of actions taken by nations to control and limit the illegal smuggling of drugs by drug cartels,

This is just one idea. The RL UN might actually have some example text we could really water down concerning drug trafficking.

:)

What does "Caveat emptor" have to do with this?

A bit of a stretch I know, but my point is still that if a nation bans (say) alcohol, it's not our job to prevent people from taking alcohol into their country. It's their job, beginning and end of the matter.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

The goal is to keep track of custody. So I suggest that we simply say that, and don't get into the details of how (yes, you'll instantly get many no votes for doing that, but trust me, people are gonna vote no or yes based on the big picture ... little details or the lack thereof probably only sways a minor amount of votes both ways).

X. ENCOURAGES nations to enact policies requiring individuals transporting drugs, as described above, to keep detailed accounts documenting the chain of custody of these items,

Y. URGES nations to freely share these accounts with any nation having problems with smuggled drugs,

Z. APPROVES of actions taken by nations to control and limit the illegal smuggling of drugs by drug cartels,

That's a much better approach in my book, though I think X would be better if it was explicitly about transporting drugs across borders. Also why limit it to individuals? Shouldn't businesses and governments be filling out the paperwork too, to show that they aren't smuggling?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

As the author of the previous Drug Blocker, I feel I should add a comment, namely:

Shang Dang, why do you see it necessary to require nations that have legalized drugs to enforce other countries' laws? Smuggling is and will continue to be contested by law enforcement in Jey, but isn't it the responsibility of the nation which bans drugs to prevent it from entering their borders?

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian World Assembly Ambassador

The 3rd draft is now edited in. I'd like to, again, thank you all for the suggestions. Some small and major edits.

The format has been changed. Clauses numbered and the proposal is divided up into 4 "observational and justifying" clauses, and 4 "law producing" clauses.

Clause six and seven have been completely redone. Instead of being forceful and poorly worded items, they are now more focused on record keeping.

I sent over a revised draft to him, I'm waiting to see if he uses it or not before I make further comments.

Thanks! The format was used and much of the first and third clauses got some editing too.

As per your suggestion, clause 4, (now clause 5) was also simplified.)

Rewrite first, and then hold a one week poll asking nations if that have major objections.

The goal is to keep track of custody. So I suggest that we simply say that, and don't get into the details of how (yes, you'll instantly get many no votes for doing that, but trust me, people are gonna vote no or yes based on the big picture ... little details or the lack thereof probably only sways a minor amount of votes both ways).

X. ENCOURAGES nations to enact policies requiring individuals transporting drugs, as described above, to keep detailed accounts documenting the chain of custody of these items,

Y. URGES nations to freely share these accounts with any nation having problems with smuggled drugs,

Z. APPROVES of actions taken by nations to control and limit the illegal smuggling of drugs by drug cartels,

This is just one idea. The RL UN might actually have some example text we could really water down concerning drug trafficking.

:)

Some google searching shows that the UN, in fact, focuses more on record keeping. While I'm certain this is more for finger pointing then actually action, this is how we should conduct this rather then the habble blabble I was doing before. (But the UN documents were HUGE. Cntrl-F Finding things was the only method of navigation.)

Those suggestions were placed in along with some amending and rewording,
but generally we have reduced the power of this proposal while still getting it closer to it's general intent.

X and Y have been turned into clause 7 and divided into c sub-sections. X is a and b, and Gobbannium's suggestion was taken into account for a, in that nation government should only be made to care once these substances have crossed borders, but I decided that businesses and individuals should still be keep track of who is responsible for the custody of those drugs within those borders. That seems more reasonable.

A bit of a stretch I know, but my point is still that if a nation bans (say) alcohol, it's not our job to prevent people from taking alcohol into their country. It's their job, beginning and end of the matter.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

As the author of the previous Drug Blocker, I feel I should add a comment, namely:

Shang Dang, why do you see it necessary to require nations that have legalized drugs to enforce other countries' laws? Smuggling is and will continue to be contested by law enforcement in Jey, but isn't it the responsibility of the nation which bans drugs to prevent it from entering their borders?

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian World Assembly Ambassador

To address these complaints, we have marijuana legal, and lord knows we love it that way. That, and cigarettes, alcohol, all that good stuff is freely available in our country.

Unfortunately, other nations have this annoying tendency to try and tell me I can't keep it legal through WA proposals. Here, I would like to say we get to keep our national sovereignty and our laws, but in return we are agreeing to act more responsible.

You'll notice that in this 3rd draft that the wording and the power of the legislation has been greatly reduced to the point of saying that "enforcing other people's laws" is hardly a valid argument anymore. I'm currently enjoying it's wording and area, and I think it can finally fit in to the "legalize" category. The only thing the proposal really asks from other nations now is a level of responsibility and respect for each other's laws through some basic fundamental actions involving mostly paperwork and goodwill.

I like it.

Some google searching shows that the UN, in fact, focuses more on record keeping. While I'm certain this is more for finger pointing then actually action, this is how we should conduct this rather then the habble blabble I was doing before. (But the UN documents were HUGE. Cntrl-F Finding things was the only method of navigation.)

Those suggestions were placed in along with some amending and rewording,
but generally we have reduced the power of this proposal while still getting it closer to it's general intent.

X and Y have been turned into clause 7 and divided into c sub-sections. X is a and b, and Gobbannium's suggestion was taken into account for a, in that nation government should only be made to care once these substances have crossed borders, but I decided that businesses and individuals should still be keep track of who is responsible for the custody of those drugs within those borders. That seems more reasonable.


Excellent! :)

You are in the driver's seat on this idea, and I honestly like where this is going.

If a substance is harmful, then for legal reasons alone tracking the chain of custody makes sense.

-M

A few things, I appreciate you using the wording I provided(and a couple of items), but a few more things:

Number the active clauses, don't number the preamble. Start numbering after "the world assembly hereby", and don't capitalize every letter in the first word. I used to do that, but I discovered it's actually incorrect to do so. Delete "(e.g. Opium, Nicotine, Marijuana ect.)" from the first item I'd suggest you instead do a definition of recreational drugs:

Defines "recreational drugs" as psychoactive drugs used for recreational purposes rather than for work, medical or spiritual reasons.

Would make a good first active item.

Beyond that, I like it, the shift down in demands and requirements is great.

Edit: It needs a better name though. How about "Drug Trade Act"?

The reason I didn't actually go and define recreational drugs, is that... by the wording itself, it's defined, or so I thought.

I'll look over the format edits for the fourth draft, (Which aside from typos, may be among the last.) At that point, maybe it'll deserve a new name and I can finally categorize it. Like I said, thanks to the "power down" in strength, we can probably put this in the Legalize category.

5) DECLARES the trade of recreational substances between two nations, whose laws allow it, legal.
That's...nice. Does it have any purpose other than being patronizing?

6) ENCOURAGES all factions to be responsible in their own right and take active action against smuggling by any means into nations that have had made said substance illegal.
This reads awkwardly, and not very encouragingly in conjunction with (5). "Factions"? "Responsible in their own right"? These are loaded terms, and they're going to turn a pretty ineffective clause into something that will generate outright dislike for the proposal.

7a) CALLS UPON nations to keep diligent records of the amount and type of recreational substances being transported across borders.
I don't know about anyone else, but I rate "CALLS UPON" as pretty weak. Given that this is only asking for record-keeping, something stronger is surely in order. Also, given that length isn't an issue, maybe "international borders" rather than just "borders" would be a bit clearer?

7b) ENCOURAGES nations to enact policies requiring businesses involved in transporting drugs to keep detailed accounts documenting the chain of custody of these items.
Much the same arguments apply as with (7a), but it's markedly less important. If (7a) is strong, the important bits of (7b) become stronger too.

7c) URGES nations to freely share these accounts with any nation having problems with smuggled drugs.
Fine. I'd rather it was stronger and a little more precise myself, but that's just me.

8) RECOMMENDS that all nations create an easily obtainable list of substances defined as drugs and/or banned substances, if they have not already done so, so that other World Assembly members may easy determine what falls under the guidelines of this proposal.
"and/or" is always a bad sign. Perhaps rephrasing it to ask for a "list of recreational drugs or classes of drugs that are banned within their borders" would read better?

If ICPIN were still around, I'd be tempted to get them to do the coordination. Ah well, such is life.

I know you're aiming for something weak, but I don't think this can get any weaker. I also really don't believe that it's legalising, promoting or restricting drug use; in fact, I'm not sure that it fits the Recreational Drugs category at all at the moment. It's got the feel of a very lightweight trade resolution of some sort, though I can't find a category that fits, or maybe International Security given its anti-smuggling stance.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

5 does have a point, it has a bit of an effect on future legislation.

That's...nice. Does it have any purpose other than being patronizing?

Yes it does. I could tell you, but instead you should think about it since it's pretty basic. You can't think of a single possible reason why I would want to declare that the trade of drugs should remain legal?

This reads awkwardly, and not very encouragingly in conjunction with (5). "Factions"? "Responsible in their own right"? These are loaded terms, and they're going to turn a pretty ineffective clause into something that will generate outright dislike for the proposal.

These aren't "loaded terms", but your right that it could use some rewording. I'll look into improving the sentence quality next draft, but it's essentially going to remain the same.

I don't know about anyone else, but I rate "CALLS UPON" as pretty weak. Given that this is only asking for record-keeping, something stronger is surely in order. Also, given that length isn't an issue, maybe "international borders" rather than just "borders" would be a bit clearer?

Borders = international borders. The only other probable borders are territorial, county and state borders, all of which make no sense if one actually thought thats what I was trying to address.

And Calls upon? Maybe I'll go with something else. I really don't think it's that bad.

Much the same arguments apply as with (7a), but it's markedly less important. If (7a) is strong, the important bits of (7b) become stronger too.

Arguments? You mean the single argument of changing the first word to something stronger? Fine. I'll consider it.

Fine. I'd rather it was stronger and a little more precise myself, but that's just me.

I... can't see how I can make that stronger or more precise. If a nation is having trouble with this. It literally says if a nation is having smuggling problems, you should share your documents. It doesn't get much more precise aside from getting overly specific.


"and/or" is always a bad sign. Perhaps rephrasing it to ask for a "list of recreational drugs or classes of drugs that are banned within their borders" would read better?

It's... generally fine. Looking at it really closely I'm thinking that a few rewords are possible, but wholly optional as no rewords seem to really make it better, just saying the same thing differently. If and/or is really that big of a problem, it can change, however I have no qualms with it.

If ICPIN were still around, I'd be tempted to get them to do the coordination. Ah well, such is life.

I know you're aiming for something weak, but I don't think this can get any weaker. I also really don't believe that it's legalising, promoting or restricting drug use; in fact, I'm not sure that it fits the Recreational Drugs category at all at the moment. It's got the feel of a very lightweight trade resolution of some sort, though I can't find a category that fits, or maybe International Security given its anti-smuggling stance.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

The reason it feels like a lightweight trade document is because our biggest discussion has revolved around that area, and thusly our minds have come across that the most. If this came up for debate and vote, no doubt the overwhelming amount of talk would be about drugs and people's concern about drug use.

I was still considering opening discussion about strengthening the wording on one area in order to keep other resolutions from banning drugs, but I got distracted with the second half. Do you not believe thats this keeps resolutions from banning substances? I think it does, but if people disagree, please suggest how I can strengthen that area because it's a primary part of this legislation.

The reason this was weakened when it came to trade stuff was that it was simply too strong without purpose. The first half was fine, but the second was just off topic and didn't really do what it was supposed to. Now it has a very good balance. I think it's fine and that it isn't too weak and fits. So far your biggest concerns, as it seems, is that I should simply find words that are basically the same but sound slightly more stern. If that the biggest problem this legislation has, then I'm feeling confident.

So... is this Outlawing, Legalizing, or Promoting Recreational Drug use?

Remember, this isn't a Mild/Significant/Strong category...

My preference is promote, as this assures the rights of nations to keep the drugs legal, but also allows nations to have laws that make them illegal.

Either that or fair trade weak.

Yes it does. I could tell you, but instead you should think about it since it's pretty basic. You can't think of a single possible reason why I would want to declare that the trade of drugs should remain legal?
To keep the trade of drugs legal, obviously. Unfortunately the caveats on it make it fairly toothless in reality -- see below -- and something about the phrasing comes over as very insulting.

These aren't "loaded terms", but your right that it could use some rewording. I'll look into improving the sentence quality next draft, but it's essentially going to remain the same.
"Factions" isn't used anywhere else in the resolution, and implies unwarrented division. "Responsible in their own right" further implies that the factions are currently irresponsible. I'm happy for the intent to stay exactly the same, particularly since it only 'encourages' cooperation, but putting down the people you want to support you seems like a bad move.

Borders = international borders. The only other probable borders are territorial, county and state borders, all of which make no sense if one actually thought thats what I was trying to address.
It's not all that much work to interpret these words to be talking about internal borders, though I agree nations would be crazy to do so. I was only suggesting adding the word because space isn't an issue, and being able to point at it during debates and say "No, you numbskull" would make your life so much easier.

And Calls upon? Maybe I'll go with something else. I really don't think it's that bad.
It's right down there with URGES in my book, but hey.

I... can't see how I can make that stronger or more precise. If a nation is having trouble with this. It literally says if a nation is having smuggling problems, you should share your documents. It doesn't get much more precise aside from getting overly specific.
What it actually says is that if any nation anywhere is having smuggling problems, even if there's no likelihood at all of your nation being involved, it would be really nice if you shared all your drug movement records with them, but please don't feel that you have to just in case it might actually be useful.

It's a mild clause in a positively meek resolution, which pretty much guarantees I won't think it achieves anything. If it's what you want, fine, just don't be too surprised if I don't support it with any great enthusiasm.

The reason it feels like a lightweight trade document is because our biggest discussion has revolved around that area, and thusly our minds have come across that the most. If this came up for debate and vote, no doubt the overwhelming amount of talk would be about drugs and people's concern about drug use.
The most nattering that was done in the last debate was about the WA taking land away from nations. Just because people talk about it doesn't make them right.

I was still considering opening discussion about strengthening the wording on one area in order to keep other resolutions from banning drugs, but I got distracted with the second half. Do you not believe thats this keeps resolutions from banning substances? I think it does, but if people disagree, please suggest how I can strengthen that area because it's a primary part of this legislation.
No, it doesn't. It stops future resolutions banning trade between nations that have legalised drugs, but it doesn't stop future resolutions banning drugs in nations. It doesn't say anything at all active about the state of national internal drug laws.

So... is this Outlawing, Legalizing, or Promoting Recreational Drug use?
I'm leaning towards International Security, Mild.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

My preference is promote, as this assures the rights of nations to keep the drugs legal, but also allows nations to have laws that make them illegal."Promote" is a powerful category, and it's more than just "you can use 'em if you want". Think of the Got Milk? ads... Promote involves not just legalizing, but having governments actively encourage their people to use drugs.

I'm leaning towards International Security, Mild....how?

Yeah, and that category is only for USE, which this doesn't actually address.

Free trade, mild?

Agreed on that. Fourth draft coming soon, and then I'm going write a clause of which I'd like some opinions on to put it in or not.

If not, then the fourth draft may be the last.

I'm leaning towards International Security, Mild.
...how?
Apart from the first clause ("drug trading is legal where it's legal," which is some kind of trade category but I'm blowed if I can work out which), all of the active clauses in this proposal are about anti-smuggling co-operation and having the bureaucracy to back it up. Policing, in other words. That makes me think of International Security.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Hrr. We usually try to keep the drug Proposals in the drug category.

If it's IntSec, then it would be treated like, say, a law about banana smuggling: it wouldn't be able to dictate actual drug laws, leaving the door open for someone to come along and ban 'em all...

If it's IntSec, then it would be treated like, say, a law about banana smuggling: it wouldn't be able to dictate actual drug laws, leaving the door open for someone to come along and ban 'em all...

Which it does as far as I can tell. It only legalizes trade between nations, it doesn't do a damn thing to legalize the use of.

Hence Free Trade Mild.

Bah. Makin' me work. I'll look it over more closely.

Hm. What worries me now, is if this is going to be Free Trade or IntSec, clause 2 reads like a blocker, trying to prevent actual drug laws...

I think he may need to delete something to make this fit a category.

You're right, clause 2 is a drug blocker, that puts it into recreational drug use.

Clause 5 is free trade without question. Mild, but free trade none-the-less.

All of the smuggling language makes it international security, mild again.

The real problem is that when making the categories, there wasn't anything for "preserving the right of nations to choose their own way."

It's all black and white with no grays. Shang Dang will have to fit this into one of those categories, and I have no doubt that the drug blocker is the most important part.

So the question I raise is, despite their being no "sub-strengths" on the options, is it possible to class clause 2 as (Recreational Drug Use, Legalize) even though it only preserves the rights of nations to choose their own way? It's obviously not outlawing it, but it's not exactly telling nations they are forced to legalize drugs either. I'd see this as a legalize "mild" but that isn't a category.

What do you think?

Well... one of the things that always irritated me about the old UN Drug Law was that it was listed as Legalize, but didn't actually legalize anything. Seems to me that slotting something it as Legalize but running it as a blocker doesn't work with the category. If the WA is going to legalize drugs, it should do so, not dance around the issue.

Besides, the code doesn't really support running it as a blocker.

Well... one of the things that always irritated me about the old UN Drug Law was that it was listed as Legalize, but didn't actually legalize anything. Seems to me that slotting something it as Legalize but running it as a blocker doesn't work with the category. If the WA is going to legalize drugs, it should do so, not dance around the issue.

Besides, the code doesn't really support running it as a blocker.


What I'm hoping for here, is that we can work our way into being reasonable, even if the code doesn't really support it. I can imagine any number of reasons that a nation would be doing a good thing by banning drugs in their own nation, while I can imagine any number of reasons that another nation with different circumstances would have good reason to leave it legal.

What I ask for is consideration for the moderate side of the debate.

I don't think he was making a debate point about the merits of blocking drug legalisation; it was a point that, for better or worse, the RDU category is 'either/or' (in fact, it's 'either/or/even more'!). Is, not ought.

Can I ask, though: a lot of the substance of this proposal seems quite generic. Is there anything particular to drugs, or is it really a set of general trade principles? For example, everything from apples to zebras would surely benefit from not being traded by organized criminal cartels, having records kept, etc.

If a country's leaders want to be idiots, they don't need the help of the WA.A nations leaders know the treats to the people of that nations that is why the leader is elected to that position to lead them.. Thus it is the leaders of nations that know best what is good for their nations not single minded members of this body that have no clue what other members may or may not believe. Nor what they need to survive in this world.. The WA should be working to promote programs that work to teach all members how to live together and respect each other not work toward killing off one group by working only on something that benifits a few members who happen to be in control.


In another issue up somebody talks about a program to end global warming but what if doing this kills off half the membership with a move in the other direction to global chilling a treat to them as much as global warming is to others. The WA needs to work to bring all together not kill off some to save others. Otherwise one day it's going to kill all it's members trying to save itself.