NationStates Jolt Archive

I have recently submitted a proposal about banning recreational drugs. Below is a copy of my proposal. I hope all of you wish to approve this proposal.

Thank you,
-R539, Delegate of Jesusland

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

The World Assembly,

REALIZING that recreational drug use is at an all-time high,

DEFINES recreational drug usage as the use of psychoactive drugs for recreational purposes rather than for work, medical or spiritual purposes,

Further DEFINES by giving examples of recreational drugs as alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, opium, stimulants, indole alkaloids, inhalants, and many others.

LABELS the substances mentioned above as illegal contraband.

ACKNOWLEDGING that these drugs are damaging to the human body and alters consciousness,

CONCERNED that drug use leads to domestic violence, an increase in murders, and ever growing crime rates,

HEREBY:

1.) AUTHORIZES the destruction of all tobacco and alcohol products and manufacturing plants.

2.) MANDATORY that all persons found with any illegal contraband are arrested and that the contraband is immediately destroyed.

3.) ENTITLES all persons found with illegal contraband to a fair trial in the nation from which they are a citizen.

4.) REQUIRES that all consequences/punishments for the shall be determined by that nation’s Federal Court with the evidence provided by the national authorities, should the accused be found guilty in said court.

5.) OFFICIALLY bans all recreational drugs and use of such.

As a nation that unsuccessfully tried to legalize recreational drug use in the UN and then successfully passed a resolution keeping it a national issue in the UN (it's a historical resolution now, so no duplication issues), I'm going to have to strongly oppose this.

Also, your "all-time high" notion is unsupported, and pretty funny.

I strongly oppose this, due to the fact my whole nations culture is based on the legality of marijuana.

While we here in Desh-Shrik are strongly opposed to the use and encourage the banning of most recreational drugs, we think that banning alchohol is madness. Alcohol is a fine substance, and a few pints can always lighten up the mood in places. Let's not forget the massive economical shift the banning of alcohol and tobacco would bring about. Limittting oneself is key.

On the subject of tobacco, we take the ''Well if you want to die, that's your problem.'' stance and ban the smoking of tobacco in public areas, but allow private consumption.

It should be noted that highly addictive drugs such as Cocaine or Heroine are likely to lead to increased crime rates (for the stealing of money to fund one's addiction, for example, as well as a black market and syndicate forming), but that alcohol will by far be mostly harmless to the majority of the population. They do say two glasses of wine a day is healthy, you know.

Note also that if the illegal contraband must immediately be destroyed there would be little evidence in a trial, which would be very impractical as it would be the policeman's testimony against the defendant's testimony.

And further, ''spiritual purposes'' is a term easily abused. Anyone can found his own religion based on the consumption of drugs and who would we be to doubt their credibility? After all, the performing of miracles is usually not scientifically credible either but we acknowledge the existence of religions based on that.

And as per ''at an all time high'', try showing some exact numbers instead of making vague statements.

If this resolution were thoroughly reworked, stripped of the banning of alcohol and tobacco, closes its loopholes, becomes more practical, and has better arguments we would perhaps support it.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
16th of August, 10:38

Thank you all for you criticism which I find constructive. I will be modifying my proposal and will be submitting it when the other one that is currently submitted, doesn't pass.

Thanks again,
R539, Delegate of Jesusland

While we here in Desh-Shrik are strongly opposed to the use and encourage the banning of most recreational drugs, we think that banning alchohol is madness. Alcohol is a fine substance, and a few pints can always lighten up the mood in places. Let's not forget the massive economical shift the banning of alcohol and tobacco would bring about. Limittting oneself is key.

On the subject of tobacco, we take the ''Well if you want to die, that's your problem.'' stance and ban the smoking of tobacco in public areas, but allow private consumption.

It should be noted that highly addictive drugs such as Cocaine or Heroine are likely to lead to increased crime rates (for the stealing of money to fund one's addiction, for example, as well as a black market and syndicate forming), but that alcohol will by far be mostly harmless to the majority of the population. They do say two glasses of wine a day is healthy, you know.

...

If this resolution were thoroughly reworked, stripped of the banning of alcohol and tobacco, closes its loopholes, becomes more practical, and has better arguments we would perhaps support it.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
16th of August, 10:38

I do agree in much what is being said here. But I do disagree with the conclusion. If the high prices of recreational drugs would be the problem, than the problem is easily solved. Price on illegal recreational drugs are high due to the police trying to stop the use, selling ,transport and production. So if you look which recreational drugs can be made on low prices you could legalize them. That people die on that, like with tobacco, is not the biggest problem for most nations.

And highly addiction is also with alcohol and tobacco. I would like to see a more scientific approach if their would be a ban on recreational drugs.

In nations where you ban gambling the mob is fighting with the police. In nations where you ban popular recreational drugs probably the same will happen.

I agree that limiting oneself is key. So the best will be giving good information to the population and deal with the high prices. In that case no mafia problems and it seems that it works on higly addicted drugs like alcohol and tobacco.

Regards

Wierd Anarchists, I'm sure you know someone who is drunk isn't always the most pleasant of persons. Someone who is high on cocaine, however, or who is lacking the cocaine his body has become so used to, is much more dangerous than a drunk.

Furthermore, alcohol is much less dangerous than most drugs, and smoking is not as addictive as most drugs and not as dangerous either. Legalizing drug use would be bad for the overall state of affairs, we feel. And legalizing them would of course do the opposite of this resolution, too.

Note also that recreational drugs are not a signifigant part of most economies.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
16th of August, 18:45

Yeah, I took a lot into account and suggested that tobacco and alcohol be heavily taxed, but not banned. That is in my revised version. Also, I would never dream of legalizing any drugs. Even one as harmless as marijuana.

Also, I would never dream of legalizing any drugs. Even one as harmless as marijuana.

It's a pity that WA rules require this to be filed under Recreational Drugs rather than Moral Decency. Virtually all such resolutions are designed "for their own good" rather than for any inherent risks to life, limb, or international policy.

Your claim "that drug use leads to domestic violence, an increase in murders, and ever growing crime rates" is specious at best, compared with the overall proper usage. You might as well claim that "all drug users are criminals", due to the fact that your laws made them so. Decriminalization in such cases would drastically REDUCE crime rates, and thereby benefit the nations.

If you don't like recreational drugs, don't take them. Don't assume that your moral judgments on the evils of clouded consciousness are shared by the international community.

Strongly against.

MJ Donovan, CEO Emeritus,
Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeteria.

Your claim "that drug use leads to domestic violence, an increase in murders, and ever growing crime rates" is specious at best, compared with the overall proper usage. You might as well claim that "all drug users are criminals", due to the fact that your laws made them so. Decriminalization in such cases would drastically REDUCE crime rates, and thereby benefit the nations.

Your claim that legalizing all drugs would "drastically REDUCE crime rates" is totally unfounded and is an opinion. Thus it cannot be taken into consideration.

Is it not plausible that a person, desperate for a high after being addicted to LSD or PCP for 10 years, would steal money from their friends and family? Is it also plausible that the same person could steal a vehicle, after using the mentioned drugs, and cause an accident or hit someone with their vehicle?

That person would have committed grand theft auto, petty theft, and manslaughter/3rd degree murder.

So in conclusion, could you tell me how your opinion would "drastically REDUCE crime rates"?

Wierd Anarchists, I'm sure you know someone who is drunk isn't always the most pleasant of persons. Someone who is high on cocaine, however, or who is lacking the cocaine his body has become so used to, is much more dangerous than a drunk.

Furthermore, alcohol is much less dangerous than most drugs, and smoking is not as addictive as most drugs and not as dangerous either. Legalizing drug use would be bad for the overall state of affairs, we feel. And legalizing them would of course do the opposite of this resolution, too.

Note also that recreational drugs are not a signifigant part of most economies.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
16th of August, 18:45

Sorry in many countries recreational drugs are a significant part of economies. Scientific alcohol and tobacco are recreational drugs. And in many countries alcohol use is connected with many crimes and traffic accidents. And tobacco surely is more killing than marijuana. I do not like marijuana either because it can give many problems. But not so much death as tobacco. I should say check the facts on this. I agree that cocaine use is bad, but the same is with loads of alcohol. But why not give the citizens a real choice. Afraid of that, do they lack information (the same way as politicians)? Give it. It would be the best choice. And if recreational drugs users are given trouble to other citizens, than it is normal to stop that. But if they do not, and lots don't, than there is no government task in it I think.

(And from RL, I live in the Netherlands, with lax drugs laws. Surprisingly no much problems, less drugs addicts. How so?)

Regards

It's a pity that WA rules require this to be filed under Recreational Drugs rather than Moral Decency. Virtually all such resolutions are designed "for their own good" rather than for any inherent risks to life, limb, or international policy.

Your claim "that drug use leads to domestic violence, an increase in murders, and ever growing crime rates" is specious at best, compared with the overall proper usage. You might as well claim that "all drug users are criminals", due to the fact that your laws made them so. Decriminalization in such cases would drastically REDUCE crime rates, and thereby benefit the nations.

If you don't like recreational drugs, don't take them. Don't assume that your moral judgments on the evils of clouded consciousness are shared by the international community.

Strongly against.

MJ Donovan, CEO Emeritus,
Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeteria.

Totally agree on this.

I live in a nation with lax drugs laws. So the using of drugs is no criminal thing. The prices are lower, so less criminality. And most important, but already said by our friend Frisbeeteria, if the using of such drugs is not criminal, the criminal rate will go down because much criminal acts are the using of illegal drugs. And just a reminder, if you criminalize the, hard drug, alcohol, that would give a real boost to crime.

Regards

While we in Kryozerkia believe that R339's proposed resolution is done with good intentions, we feel that it crosses the line in one respect. It doesn't take into account the fact that there are many nations that have indeed completely and totally legalised narcotics and feel that this was done in the interests of their people.

I recall an earlier proposal that was similar to this in nature but it acknowledged the nations that voluntarily legalised narcotics within their own national borders. It didn't make it because the delegates endorsing it felt that it was too strict. This one goes even further and smacks of authoritarianism.

Perhaps it would be better for this to be a ban on the smuggling of contraband. Make it illegal to take the narcotics, legal in one country, and smuggle said narcotics into one where it's illegal. Structure the proposal so it tackles illegal activity rather than activity which has been legalised by a number of governments.

Your claim that legalizing all drugs would "drastically REDUCE crime rates" is totally unfounded and is an opinion. Thus it cannot be taken into consideration.

Apparently you didn't read the line before that. If drugs are illegal and you have a million recreational drug users, you have a million criminals. Make the drugs legal, and 1 million criminals evaporate, just like that.

If you don't bother to read the entire post before responding with irrelevancies, we can't really take anything you say as having any basis in reality. So we won't.

Just because using drugs wouldn't be a crime doesn't mean that these people would stop breaking other laws while under the influence of said legal drugs. And since these drugs would be readily available, it would be easier to obtain said drugs and still commit other violent crimes while "high".

With all due respect, show me some guy sprawled on his couch and completely stoned out of his mind, and I'll show you someone who isn't out robbing old ladies or killing cops.

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota is of the opinion that current legislation regarding murder, robbery, assault, and similar crimes sufficiently address the concerns raised by R539.

Just because using drugs wouldn't be a crime doesn't mean that these people would stop breaking other laws while under the influence of said legal drugs. And since these drugs would be readily available, it would be easier to obtain said drugs and still commit other violent crimes while "high".

However, there are criminals who operate with a sound mind. Those who aren't of sound mind. Neither of which are intoxicated. It may alter one's state of mind but isn't the only cause of illegal activity.

If we're going to ban narcotics because of crimes committed while high, we ought to include sugar. Sugar highs are very dangerous. Or caffeine. That's a potent drug.

You know what else acts like methamphetamines? Ritalin and its cousins. It's very easy to take a capsule of Ritalin, especially those which have time-release beads, pour the contents into a dish then crush it and consume it. It doesn't last as long but it acts like Speed/amphetamines when it's crushed and consumed directly. No, I'm not making this up.

With all due respect, show me some guy sprawled on his couch and completely stoned out of his mind, and I'll show you someone who isn't out robbing old ladies or killing cops.

Well I guess it would have to depend on where you were doing said drugs. If you have never watched "Spike" on TV and seen The World's Most Amazing Videos or Disorderly Conduct, a lot of those people are under the influence of some kind of drug.

You know what else acts like methamphetamines? Ritalin and its cousins. It's very easy to take a capsule of Ritalin, especially those which have time-release beads, pour the contents into a dish then crush it and consume it. It doesn't last as long but it acts like Speed/amphetamines when it's crushed and consumed directly. No, I'm not making this up.

I'm sure you would know that. I think that's all I have to say to you.

Well I guess it would have to depend on where you were doing said drugs. If you have never watched [Real World Reference Deleted] on TV and seen [Real World Reference Deleted] or [Real World Reference Deleted], a lot of those people are under the influence of some kind of drug.

It's rarely a good idea to base your laws on telefantasy. Screen-writers, like reporters for that matter, have a really bad habit of simplifying the complex socio-economic elements involve in drug abuse, and rarely mention that the criminals concerned do much the same things when not on drugs.

Also, stupidity is a lot more common than drug-taking in those programmes. If we were to take them seriously, we'd have to make "not thinking through the consequences" a criminal act, and that would be very silly.

I'm sure you would know that. I think that's all I have to say to you.

It's responses like this one that will kill any chance you might have hoped for here. Passive-aggressive flaming isn't going to win anyone's support.

I will be submitting a modified version of this proposal tomorrow. I will post it after that.

You have my nation's full support.

please contact me if there is anything i can do


President Shaw of Delove

I will be submitting a modified version of this proposal tomorrow. I will post it after that.

You know, if you wanted to have a snowball's chance in hell of your proposal actually becoming a passed resolution you'd post the draft here prior to submitting it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I have recently submitted a proposal about banning recreational drugs. Below is a copy of my proposal. I hope all of you wish to approve this proposal.

Thank you,
-R539, Delegate of Jesusland

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

The World Assembly,

REALIZING that recreational drug use is at an all-time high,

DEFINES recreational drug usage as the use of psychoactive drugs for recreational purposes rather than for work, medical or spiritual purposes,

Further DEFINES by giving examples of recreational drugs as alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, opium, stimulants, indole alkaloids, inhalants, and many others.

LABELS the substances mentioned above as illegal contraband.

ACKNOWLEDGING that these drugs are damaging to the human body and alters consciousness,

CONCERNED that drug use leads to domestic violence, an increase in murders, and ever growing crime rates,

HEREBY:

1.) AUTHORIZES the destruction of all tobacco and alcohol products and manufacturing plants.

2.) MANDATORY that all persons found with any illegal contraband are arrested and that the contraband is immediately destroyed.

3.) ENTITLES all persons found with illegal contraband to a fair trial in the nation from which they are a citizen.

4.) REQUIRES that all consequences/punishments for the shall be determined by that nation’s Federal Court with the evidence provided by the national authorities, should the accused be found guilty in said court.

5.) OFFICIALLY bans all recreational drugs and use of such.

:D:D:D
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
:D:D:D
you can't POSSIBLY be SERIOUS? CAN you? :confused:


NEVER gonna happen.

Well here is the new version

[CENTER]---------------------------------------------------------[CENTER]

The World Assembly,

REALIZING that recreational drug use is growing rapidly in popularity,

DEFINES recreational drug usage as the use of psychoactive drugs for recreational purposes rather than for work or medical purposes.

Further DEFINES by giving examples of recreational drugs as caffeine, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, opium, stimulants, indole alkaloids, inhalants, and many others.

LABELS the substances mentioned above as illegal contraband with the exclusion of caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco.

ACKNOWLEDGING that these drugs are damaging to the human body and alters consciousness.

CONCERNED that drug use leads to domestic violence, an increase in murders, and ever growing crime rates.

Further ACKNOWLEDGING that a ban on caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco would never work,

HEREBY:

Section I. Caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol.

1.) AUTHORIZES the closure of all caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol manufacturing plants and that they are taken over by the national government.

2.) ENABLES the national governments to continue to produce caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco in the plants mentioned above, provided that those nations wish to continue to produce the mentioned substances.

3.) ENCOURAGES national governments to heavily tax all alcohol and tobacco substances produced in their manufacturing plants.

4.) REQUIRES that the above mentioned substances (with the exclusion of caffeine) are banned from all public areas and that they are only allowed in private areas (including bars).

5.) MANDATORY that an age restriction of 19 years is placed on all alcohol and tobacco products and that said products will not be sold to a minor of a lesser age.

Section II. Illegal contraband.

1.) AUTHORIZES the destruction of all illegal contraband and all places in which illegal contraband is made (with the exclusion of houses which will be sold to a bank).

2.) MANDATORY that all persons found with any illegal contraband are arrested and that the contraband is immediately filed as evidence for that person’s trial.

3.) ENTITLES all persons found with illegal contraband to a fair trial in the nation from which they are a citizen and are innocent until proven guilty.

4.) REQUIRES that all consequences/punishments for the shall be determined by that nation’s Federal Court with the evidence provided by the national authorities, should the accused be found guilty in said court.

5.) Further REQUIRES that all illegal contraband be destroyed immediately following the trial, even if person mentioned above were found innocent.

6.) OFFICIALLY bans all illegal contraband and use of such.

REALIZING that recreational drug use is growing rapidly in popularity,
Really? There doesn't seem to be a significant problem in either the per capita level of recreational drug use or in levels of self-abuse through recreational drugs in Gobbannium. Maybe you've got a problem with your approach to drugs?

Further DEFINES by giving examples of recreational drugs as caffeine, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, opium, stimulants, indole alkaloids, inhalants, and many others.
This clause is a chocolate teapot. It defines nothing. It gives some examples, which is worthwhile, but ending with "and many others" makes it worthless as a definition.

LABELS the substances mentioned above as illegal contraband with the exclusion of caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco.
Why? Justify this exclusion, or fix your definition.

ACKNOWLEDGING that these drugs are damaging to the human body and alters consciousness.
"Alter", no "s". Also I don't give that blanket acknowledgement. Many recreational drugs can be used without doing significant damage to the human body -- a couple of pints of beer every couple of days won't kill your liver, for instance.

CONCERNED that drug use leads to domestic violence, an increase in murders, and ever growing crime rates.
CONCERNED that the ambassador is getting hysterical...

Further ACKNOWLEDGING that a ban on caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco would never work,
And yet a ban on others would? Bizarre.

HEREBY:

Section I. Caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol.

1.) AUTHORIZES the closure of all caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol manufacturing plants and that they are taken over by the national government.
Well, thank Joss you didn't MANDATE it or anything. I'm more anti-industry than most, and I'm not touching this one with a barge pole.

3.) ENCOURAGES national governments to heavily tax all alcohol and tobacco substances produced in their manufacturing plants.
Oh look, this is just stupid. They're the government's plants. The alcohol and tobacco coming out of them are at government-set wholesale prices. Taxing them at all is just an exercise in pointless bureaucracy.

4.) REQUIRES that the above mentioned substances (with the exclusion of caffeine) are banned from all public areas and that they are only allowed in private areas (including bars).
FOAD.

5.) MANDATORY that an age restriction of 19 years is placed on all alcohol and tobacco products and that said products will not be sold to a minor of a lesser age.
This sentence no main verb. Also, shan't.


1.) AUTHORIZES the destruction of all illegal contraband and all places in which illegal contraband is made (with the exclusion of houses which will be sold to a bank).
So our banking sector is going to have to branch out into the property market now? Thanks a bunch. At least again we only authorized to do it, so we can choose not to. And will.

2.) MANDATORY that all persons found with any illegal contraband are arrested and that the contraband is immediately filed as evidence for that person’s trial.
Out of interest, what category do you think this is again? If it's Recreational Drug Use, you might want to use a better term than the tautologous "illegal contraband," which applies to everything that anyone tries to bring into the country illegally, from munitions to potentially contaminated food.

Also, once again, this sentence doesn't have a main verb.

3.) ENTITLES all persons found with illegal contraband to a fair trial in the nation from which they are a citizen and are innocent until proven guilty.
This partially duplicates "Fair Criminal Trial", probably not illegally so, and is a grammatical mess. Try again.

4.) REQUIRES that all consequences/punishments for the shall be determined by that nation’s Federal Court with the evidence provided by the national authorities, should the accused be found guilty in said court.
For the what? Which nation? Which national authorities? Clause 3 badly muddied the waters on this one, in that more than one nation may be involved. It would be a damn good idea not to require that one country has to implement another country's laws.

5.) Further REQUIRES that all illegal contraband be destroyed immediately following the trial, even if person mentioned above were found innocent.
If they were found innocent, is the stuff actually illegal contraband? Interesting.

6.) OFFICIALLY bans all illegal contraband and use of such.
Another chocolate teapot. If it wasn't already banned, it wouldn't be either illegal or contraband, would it?

So our banking sector is going to have to branch out into the property market now? Thanks a bunch. At least again we only authorized to do it, so we can choose not to. And will.

Actually, that's not all that unusual. If someone fails to pay their mortgage the bank will foreclose and take the house. Although why the banks get the houses in this case is beyond me.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Now let us consider carefully your proposal. I will admit upfront that in so doing I am at the same time brewing a drinking an infusion of tea and mint leaves so I am clearly not an impartial judge in such matters.

You start off with a preamble which basically rambles on and does not even know the difference between a drug and product that contains a drug. Tobacco is not a drug. Nicotine is a drug found in tobacco, but tobacco is in and of itself not a drug. You use this extensively in your proposal. With this auspicious start one wonders how low will you go from here.

Section I

Clause 1 closes all “manufacturing plants” for caffeine, nicotine (there I corrected it for you) and alcohol. But the first two aren’t manufactured, they are processed. One can even argue that “natural” processes such as fermentation is not “manufacturing.”

Clause 2 then opens them up again (can you make up your mind) under government control.

Clause 3 encourages us to tax heavily. Tzorsland doesn’t tax … at least not to speak of.

Clause 4 takes two of these drugs (but not the third one for reasons not mentioned) and bans them from “public” areas allowing them in “private” areas but has no definition of what public and private areas are. Does the “including bars” mean that bars are private areas? I’m really confused here.

Clause 5 creates an arbitrary age which apparently restricts use and sale to people based on the age.

Section 2

Clause 1 requires the destruction of all places where illegal contraband is made. So what is illegal contraband? Let’s look at the preamble.

DEFINES recreational drug usage as the use of psychoactive drugs for recreational purposes rather than for work or medical purposes.

Further DEFINES by giving examples of recreational drugs as caffeine, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, opium, stimulants, indole alkaloids, inhalants, and many others.

LABELS the substances mentioned above as illegal contraband with the exclusion of caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco.

It also requires the destruction of the contraband.

Clause 2 requires the contraband found on a person not be destroyed but held in evidence in direct violation of clause 1 which requires it to all be destroyed.

Clause 3 gives the person a fair trial. (How nice.) Why are they getting a fair trial in the first place?

Clause 4 insists that this be handled at the federal level (assuming that governments have a hierarchical judiciary structure) although the reason for not involving local level judiciary is not intuitively obvious to a casual observer.

Finally clause 5 manages to bring clause 2 back in line with clause 1.

And then, in order to make the universe happy (why can’t you order things in terms of … oh I don’t know … IMPORTANCE) you make it illegal to possess and use said illegal contraband.

Major Sigh.

You start off with a preamble which basically rambles on and does not even know the difference between a drug and product that contains a drug. Tobacco is not a drug. Nicotine is a drug found in tobacco, but tobacco is in and of itself not a drug. You use this extensively in your proposal. With this auspicious start one wonders how low will you go from here.

Section I

Clause 1 closes all “manufacturing plants” for caffeine, nicotine (there I corrected it for you) and alcohol. But the first two aren’t manufactured, they are processed. One can even argue that “natural” processes such as fermentation is not “manufacturing.”

As much as you believe yourself correct about tobacco not being a drug, you are incorrect. You seem to think that you can replace tobacco completely with nicotine. However, tobacco is a drug containing a drug.

If you wish to consult Wikipedia for the list of recreational drugs, the link is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drugs

You will also find all the other drugs on said list that I have in my proposal. As to the "and many more", there is an unclassified section. Just to whoever questioned what I meant about "and many more".

I would make a joke about R539 needing to lay off the drugs while drawing up proposals, but never mind.

On behalf of the People's Republic of GreatTree, I'd like to say:


Oh HELL no.

Wow, I didn't know this many drug addicts played this game.

Deepak Schönnig turned his blue-toned noggin every which way. Having suddenly found himself not in the Rubinan embassy in Paradise City, he was a bit more confused. Than usual. Upon grasping what the GreatTree representative was up in arms about, he added his erudite opinion.

Not only hell no, but no fucking way!

Man you Puritans are all alike. Can't just let the world live and let live. Gotta mold it to what you think your moldy god wants it. Man that's just totally nonsensical, if ya know what I mean, ya know? If Leetha, our regular ambassador were here, she'd have all sorts of reasons why you're way of base. Hehe "base"... yeah. Um... now that I mention it where did she get off to?

The blue-haired one takes a mighty toke and passes the spliff on.

Oh is it okay if I do that here? Like, obviously there's not a law or anything. Anyway... not quite sure how I got here. Was just walking around and went through this red door and *poof*.

But yeah, I don't think the Confederated Hells would ever in a million years support such legislation. Even if it didn't have all sorts of technical flaws.

R539 is such an easy target, I feel insulted.....

Wow, I didn't know this many drug addicts played this game.

Once again ... wow. You really know how to inspire support.

People here aren't pro-drug. They're against poorly phrased, poorly planned, poorly thought-out proposals. Plus, some of us are against folks who want to take away personal freedoms, not for reasons related to harm to others, but out of apparent zealotry and intolerance for anything other than their own beliefs.

You've not responded to any of the constructive or destructive criticism in any meaningful way You've posted a horrible draft without seeking input. And now your only response is to insult us.

Good luck with passage. Let's see if you get more than the standard 25 approvals that even the worst proposals can get just by appearing on the list.

Maybe we can better ban the banners.
:rolleyes: Oh no, than we would ban ourselves.

Another try:
So let us think that you can get addicted to sugar, that you can get unhealthy by using sugar, that you can be out of mind with too much sugar in your blood.
So we ban sugar, destroy the places where it is being made (plants, so all farms). Grrr, still we will die. :confused:

I surrender. :D I will no be serious.

Let us inform people on recreational drugs, let it be in the law that people who are behaving so badly that society suffers will be punished or corrected.
So there will be freedom, there will be a law and there will be correction if needed. Sounds like the way it can work. So let us start information campaigns and do not start bureaucratic oppressions.

Regards

Wow, I didn't know this many drug addicts played this game.

Considering that you added caffeine to your proposal, I would say that a fairly significant number are into coffee and Starbucks, a similarly significant number are into caffeinated cola products (Coke and Pepsi) and the rest of us are tea drinkers. So yes, you assume rightly.

People here aren't pro-drug.

To some extent we are, especially when it comes to two of the three drugs of the first section. (Tobacco needs to be addressed separately because it is not the addictive drug that is the problem but the delivery mechanism and filler material within that causes most of the disease and death.) I am very pro-tea and I can argue how the moderate amounts of caffeine in tea are balanced by other chemicals found within in the brewed leaves. I am likewise very pro-wine, pro-beer and do not find fault with hard liquor in moderation.

Here is an interesting fact. In the US the current drinking age is 21. University presidents just went to Washington DC to argue that this limit promotes (yes promotes) binge drinking among those between the ages of 18 and 21 on college campuses. They want it returned to the age of 18 again. Laws that simply cover something under the rug or out of sight can, especially in the case of addictive products causes worse behavior than when they are in the public sight where efforts of moderation can be also public and highly visible.

The drug issue is so much a personal and socio-economical issue that no WA resolution can cover all the possible angles. For this reason I believe that only a resolution regulating international affairs relating to drugs should be passed. I think that R359 is much closer to being a bill for a sovereign state than a resolution for the WA.

And just in case one was wondering, Xaipete Benn judges it's citizens on their actions, not the potential causes. Too many variables exist for that.

Xai

Wow, I didn't know this many drug addicts played this game.

Getting your knickers in a knot and insulting other ambassadors because they don't like your proposal is truly a waste of time. You may want to actually consider the objections they are raising instead of simply dismissing anyone who disagrees with you. That might help your proposal become something that isn't, well, crap.

Others have already sliced and diced your proposal, but we'll take a stab at it also, in the event that you might actually listen.

REALIZING that recreational drug use is growing rapidly in popularity,

You neither provide evidence for this wildly speculative statement nor give me a reason to care that this is happening, if it even is. It certainly isn't happening in the Altan Steppes.

DEFINES recreational drug usage as the use of psychoactive drugs for recreational purposes rather than for work or medical purposes.

Basic and workable enough definition, although limited.

Further DEFINES by giving examples of recreational drugs as caffeine, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, opium, stimulants, indole alkaloids, inhalants, and many others.

Caffeine? Alcohol? Are you kidding me? You will never, ever get this even close to passing with those in your list. Nor will the catch-all "many others" line impress anyone either. And "stimulants"? There are so many things that can be considered a "stimulant". Entirely too broad.

LABELS the substances mentioned above as illegal contraband with the exclusion of caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco.

So caffeine, alcohol and tobacco are worthy of being lumped in with other drugs in your definition, but not worthy of being banned? The politest thing I can think to say in response to that is "wtf".

ACKNOWLEDGING that these drugs are damaging to the human body and alters consciousness.

Alters consciousness, maybe. The "damaging" bit is quite a bit harder to prove, considering the kitchen-sink list you're throwing at everyone. Also, not everyone in the WA is human.

CONCERNED that drug use leads to domestic violence, an increase in murders, and ever growing crime rates.

Your broad brush is painting a surprisingly narrow picture here. Your claim may not be true in every nation (and probably isn't), and in the nations where it is true, they can pass their own laws to deal with it.

Further ACKNOWLEDGING that a ban on caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco would never work,

This is most likely the only truly and completely correct thing you've said in this entire proposal.

1.) AUTHORIZES the closure of all caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol manufacturing plants and that they are taken over by the national government.

So, are the companies and investors that built those plants going to be recompensated? Are individual nations supposed to pay for that, not to mention the maintenance of a bunch of factories that they most likely didn't even want? Or are we to just disenfranchise those companies and investors with no compensation at all? Either way, this is utterly unacceptable to my government.

2.) ENABLES the national governments to continue to produce caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco in the plants mentioned above, provided that those nations wish to continue to produce the mentioned substances.

So, caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are bad enough for international legislation to "authorize" and "enable" us to do things we can already do. But if we want to keep making caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco, it's just fine and dandy? What exactly in the seven hells would we be going through all of this for then, other than unfairly appropriating and nationalizing entire industries? It certainly won't benefit our people at all. Also, the last thing my government wants to do is get into the booze, cigarette or caffeinated beverage business, especially if it's not necessary.

3.) ENCOURAGES national governments to heavily tax all alcohol and tobacco substances produced in their manufacturing plants.

So we're supposed to "heavily tax" the very things we're now manufacturing in our new booze and tobacco plants, which we didn't even want in the first place? We're supposed to, in effect, tax ourselves as a government - and to accomplish nothing in return, if those substances are STILL AVAILABLE in our nation? No, no, not a freaking chance.

4.) REQUIRES that the above mentioned substances (with the exclusion of caffeine) are banned from all public areas and that they are only allowed in private areas (including bars).

That is such an intrusion into the affairs of individual nations that it frankly irritates me to no end. Also never going to happen. Individual municipalities in the Altan Steppes can just keep on deciding whether or not they want to ban the substances in question, as they have been all this time without our nation utterly collapsing in a drug-induced haze as you seem to expect.

5.) MANDATORY that an age restriction of 19 years is placed on all alcohol and tobacco products and that said products will not be sold to a minor of a lesser age.

You're not taking into account the fact that many cultures would consider the age of 19 ridiculously high for such a limit, while others would consider it incredibly low. (The age of majority in the Altan Steppes is 17, for example.) You're also not taking into account that not all of the WA is human. Thus, 19 is hardly a universal age of majority for both of those reasons.

1.) AUTHORIZES the destruction of all illegal contraband and all places in which illegal contraband is made (with the exclusion of houses which will be sold to a bank).

Why do houses get a free pass and other places (say, a factory or a warehouse) still get destroyed? And why do we need to start selling houses to banks? Now we need to get into the real estate business too?

2.) MANDATORY that all persons found with any illegal contraband are arrested and that the contraband is immediately filed as evidence for that person’s trial.

This is basic policing; do you really think that you need to make it mandatory for nations to arrest people who have something illegal on them and keep those things as evidence? Even with what I've seen during my time at the WA and its predecessor, I would hope that most nations' police services aren't run by leaders with brains the size of dust mites and thus would be able to grasp such basic practices without the need of Big Daddy WA telling them to do so. Another minor nitpick: you really should say "MANDATES" here and not "MANDATORY", as it would flow better with everything else.

3.) ENTITLES all persons found with illegal contraband to a fair trial in the nation from which they are a citizen and are innocent until proven guilty.

4.) REQUIRES that all consequences/punishments for the shall be determined by that nation’s Federal Court with the evidence provided by the national authorities, should the accused be found guilty in said court.

Now you're getting into legal practices and jurisprudence, which we frankly think is going beyond the purview of this proposal. Also, you're not taking into account that nations have different legal systems. I am sure there are a lot of confused ambassadors right now scratching their heads and asking "what the heck is a Federal Court"?

5.) Further REQUIRES that all illegal contraband be destroyed immediately following the trial, even if person mentioned above were found innocent.

If they're innocent, how was the item in question illegal and thus worthy of being destroyed (again, we're assuming, without compensating the owner)?

6.) OFFICIALLY bans all illegal contraband and use of such.

We do not need to be told "officially" that it's illegal to have or use something illegal. See my response to #2 as to why.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Wow, I didn't know this many drug addicts played this game.

If I wasn't already against your proposal due to it's blatent disregard of National Sovereignty, you'd have lost it due to your insulting those people who disapprove of your idea.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I think what all of you fail to realize is: It doesn't matter what the proposal says. I could make it say "PIE!!!" if I wanted to and it would do the exact same thing. The main thin you are failing to see is Decision: Outlaw. Thus, if it did say "PIE!!!" it would still outlaw drugs. I don't see why all of you have to be so literal on every, single, little part of this proposal. If you all used your brains, you would see that tobacco and alcohol aren't going to be taxed because that has nothing to do with outlawing drugs.

Good luck with passage. Let's see if you get more than the standard 25 approvals that even the worst proposals can get just by appearing on the list.
And I have received 25 approvals. I would also like to add that there is still 2 more days for me to get just 1 more little approval.

I think what all of you fail to realize is: It doesn't matter what the proposal says. I could make it say "PIE!!!" if I wanted to and it would do the exact same thing. The main thin you are failing to see is Decision: Outlaw. Thus, if it did say "PIE!!!" it would still outlaw drugs. I don't see why all of you have to be so literal on every, single, little part of this proposal. If you all used your brains, you would see that tobacco and alcohol aren't going to be taxed because that has nothing to do with outlawing drugs.




You're very right, yet at the same time, so very very wrong.

It's all about what it says on the paper. If it says it taxes the alcohol industry, then to us, it does. If it says "PIE!" then to us it does nothing. That's why we don't accept proposals which don't do anything on paper but have an affect on the game either way.

It's ALL about what it says. A proposal on the rights of nomads is NOT the same as a proposal stating the rights of prisoners.

You're not quite grasping the way we go to work here.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
21st of August, 17:07

And I have received 25 approvals. I would also like to add that there is still 2 more days for me to get just 1 more little approval.

Not quite: Not even close.

As the WA currently has 1,595 Regional Delegates, a proposal needs 96 approvals to achieve quorum

Status: Lacking Support (requires 71 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Aug 22 2008

You know, I was actually going to be nice, point out the general problems of trying to create a reasonable solution for a proposal on "psychoactive drugs" but you are a stat wanker who doesn't give a shit about what the resolution says, so it's clear you don't equally give a shit about what we think.

You know a proposal can be yanked off of the queue for not having the text match the category. Text really does matter. Believe it or not.

I think what all of you fail to realize is: It doesn't matter what the proposal says.

That is your first mistake.

I could make it say "PIE!!!" if I wanted to and it would do the exact same thing. The main thin you are failing to see is Decision: Outlaw. Thus, if it did say "PIE!!!" it would still outlaw drugs.

Actually, it wouldn't, because if it said "PIE!!!" it wouldn't do a damn thing at all because it would never pass. That being said, you'll probably have about as much luck getting "PIE!!!" to pass as you would the proposal you have here, so maybe you should just go with "PIE!!!" instead.

If you all used your brains, you would see that tobacco and alcohol aren't going to be taxed because that has nothing to do with outlawing drugs.

Really? Forgot about section I, clause 3 of your own proposal, did you?

3.) ENCOURAGES national governments to heavily tax all alcohol and tobacco substances produced in their manufacturing plants.


It's not mandatory, true, but my experience is that governments typically need little encouraging to tax you blind if they get the chance. It's thus quite likely that if this thing were to be enacted, many governments would take the "encouragement" you're giving them, and tax alcohol and tobacco consumers blind. Perhaps before insulting us by claiming we're not thinking about this proposal, you may actually want to think about it a little bit yourself.

And I have received 25 approvals. I would also like to add that there is still 2 more days for me to get just 1 more little approval.

As someone already pointed out, you need a lot more than your 25 or so approvals to get to quorum. Once you get to quorum, assuming you do, you need even more votes to actually pass something. A lot more. And whether you think so or not, what you submit does matter, because frankly, even if this thing did make it to quorum, once it came up for an actual vote, most of those voting would look at the appalling lack of logic and bad construction, and would laugh, cry or shout in anger. Then, they would vote against it and go on with their day. But hey, if you enjoy writing proposals that have no chance of ever accomplishing more than mildly amusing the people who read them, more power to you.

Jaris K. etc...

Criminalizing drugs creates a black market for a desired good that becomes dominated by organized criminal groups. Carthippostan looked at mistakes made in the US--the rise of the Mafia from Prohibition, the current daily gang violence over drug distribution territory--and realised that prohibition subverts the State's authority by creating large criminal organizations, and it robs the State of valuable tax income from these goods.

A person can only be held accountable for his actions therefore, while possession and mere use is legal and regulated, illegal acts are punished severely. Drunk driving and disorderly conduct from intoxication are punished by public display in the local village's stocks and extensive community service, non-violent crimes are punished with anything from floggings to labor camps, and violent crimes (including vehicular manslaughter from drunk driving) face a choice of Public Execution, Imprisonment in one of our State High-Security Camps for Industrial Safety/Medical Testing (fairly comfortable accomodations until the rash starts again), or enlisting in the Carthippostan Penal Gladiator League (very comfortable imprisonment--as long as you continue coming in first in the weekly, televised "matches".)

Of course, any "problems" stemming from abuse/addiction (like lung cancer, liver failure and homelessness/hunger) render you ineligible for the State's medical care and social welfare programs and may cause revocation of any Reproduction Permits issued to you...

Freedom+Accountability.