NationStates Jolt Archive

NSRDA
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Farenz

Description: Negative Substances Restrictions and Distributions Agreement

ACKNOWLEDGING that the use of Tobacco, Alcohol, and Recreational Drugs can cause serious physical and mental harm to not only users, but those in the general vicinity of users.

DEFINING “In the general vicinity of users” as being located in the same city, town, village, or rural community as a user of the substances listed above.

UNDERSTANDING that those in the general vicinity of a user are often unaware of the use of the substance in question and thus have little to no say in whether they are are affected by the users decisions.

RECOGNIZING that the negative effects of these substances have the full potential to, and often do, endanger the basic human rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” of both the user and those in the general vicinity of a user by endangering human lives.

OBSERVING that an increasing percentage of crimes are preformed under the influence of, or to the ultimate end of obtaining, Tobacco, Alcohol, and Recreational Drugs.

REQUIRES that the right to distribute these substances be restricted to the government of the member state.

RESTRICTS the use of Tobacco, Alcohol, and Recreational Drugs to the home, a medical facility, or a medical vehicle. Those found using, or under the influence of, these substances, outside of these places will be arrested on the charge of “Endangering the Well-Being of Others”. This is to be enforced by all levels of the police force in the member state.
I have now redrafted my proposal to take into account the constructive criticism and policies of the nations who have commented prior to the revision. Please show your support for it. If you do not approve, I kindly request that you provide some constructive criticism on how it can be further improved.

The intent of this law is utterly and completely abhorent in every possible way, thankfully it does exactly nothing and would be completely un-enforceable.

A tax on medicines ? and what of the poor ? Are they to die of treatable diseases because of the absurd scruples of Farenz ?

We condemn the authors of this ridiculous law for their folly,


Yours,

We've found that education is a much better deterrent than banning any kind of addictive substance. Otherwise, chocolate might as well be banned. I mean, it's addictive. It can be argued that it's harmful in large quantities. Calories and all. It's also very beneficial in small quantities. So, should we have prescriptions for chocolate?

Absurd.

We could not even think of supporting any proposal which attempts to regulate any kind of drug or addictive substance.

And that tax? I believe my fellow ambassador from Urgench said it best. Are the poor to die from treatable illnesses due to this tax? That's ridiculous. Furthering his comments, what of the countries who have no such tax because they have no monetary system? What are they to do? They certainly can't tax the people.

Once again, the Ambassador from Urgench pointed out the fatal flaw. Exactly how is this to be enforced? All you say is strong laws be put into place and local law enforcement is to enforce it. Umm. Okay. I think Rutianas could comply. No alcohol or tobacco consuption between 12:00 midnight and 12:01am. Hey, it's the first banning of drugs law we'd have. It's strong to us.

Paula Jenner

I'm thinking this is in the wrong category, it should be under Recreational Drug Use, Outlaw.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I'm glad that I'm back at my job, and now free from any concerns about having to not offend my colleagues here in the esteemed General Assembly. Because there's quite a bit I have to say about this proposal.

Description: ACKNOWLEDGING that Tobacco, Alcohol, and Recreational Drugs can ruin the lives on not only the user, but also those around him/her.

Many things can do that. What makes tobacco, alcohol or drugs special?

OBSERVING that those who are in the vicinity of users of such substances have no say in whether they are affected.

Yes they do. It's called "leaving the area where this is happening". Unless someone is holding a gun to your head while smoking, drinking or drugging it up, and not letting you leave, you always have a choice. Your argument here is often used by advocates of prohibition, but is nevertheless absurd, no matter how often it's repeated.

OBSERVING that many crimes are committed under the influence of these substances or for the purpose of obtaining these substances.

Crimes are committed while "under the influence of", or "for the purpose of obtaining", many things. Everything from "anger due to being stuck in traffic" to "an intense desire for a ham sandwich" could potentially qualify. Are we supposed to ban anything and everything that could influence someone to commit a crime, or that someone might want badly enough to break the law to get? We'd be left with precious little if that was the case. And if it isn't, what makes tobacco, alcohol or recreational drugs somehow more special?

UNDERSTANDING that use of a small quantity of these substances can result in an addiction which can ruin lives.

More absurdity. The use of "a small quantity" of many things can ruin lives. If I drink "a small quantity" of pesticide or antifreeze, my life is probably going to be adversely affected. Does that mean we have to ban everything that can ruin your life, and again, if not, why is your government's opposition to drugs or alcohol somehow more worthy of consideration?

RECOGNIZING that these substances can cause a wide range of deadly or permanently damaging medical conditions including Lung Cancer and Alcohol Poisoning.

Again, there are many substances that can cause adverse medical effects. Are we to ban them all, and if not, why are the ones you personally dislike somehow more worthy of scrutiny?

DEMANDS that strong laws be put in place and enforced by national police in the member state to eliminate these substances.

We've got one word for your demand: no. I am sure we can think of an adequate way to get around this patently weak clause without stretching our Office of Loophole Management (OLM) too much.

REQUIRES a prescription from one's primary doctor to treat a serious medical condition in order to be allowed to posses such substances.

This may well be the only part of your proposal we don't find objectionable.

IMPOSES a tax on medical products to lessen the risk of them being used for recreational purposes and to fund the enforcement of this act.

This clause is the perfect topper to sit atop the cake of self-righteousness and moralistic interference that you've baked here with this proposal. You want to tax all medical products? As my colleagues have mentioned, what about the poor or those who could end up deprived of medical supplies or medicines that they need because of this tax? I guess their well-being isn't important, because it doesn't suit your plan to deprive everyone in a WA state of things you personally find objectionable.

The Altani Federation has allowed recreational drug, alcohol and tobacco use and sale for decades. It has hardly destroyed our nation; we are, in fact, one of the strongest economies, and most well-ordered and safe nations, in our entire region. We believe that by not wasting our time and money by punishing our citizens for simply choosing to consume certain substances or beverages, and by instead pursuing real crime, we've built a safer and saner society. We will be damned if we will see that success destroyed for a morality that is not even our own. We are unalterably opposed to this proposal and will fight it every step of the way.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I will not for any resoulution that will put a tax on any medicine, I move that you strike that language out

Que Thomas
WA Ambassador

My government objects to the general tone of this proposal, because it ignores the fact that most consumers of alcohol (for example) are NOT hopeless addicts, and are perfectly capable of still behaving normally after having a drink or three.
And because it totally ignores the fact that some such drugs have legitimate religious uses as well as recreational ones.
And because it would require us to create a 'national police' organisation for its enforcement, which would actually be against our constitution: Policing power is reserved to the jurisdiction of the separate Clans and other Bodys.
And because it would require our national government to collect a tax on medicines, applicable right across our nation, which -- again -- would be against our constitution: The right of taxation is (except in the sole context of international trade) also reserved to the jurisdiction of the separate Clans and other Bodys...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.


________________________________________________________

OOC: Incidentally, the clause about taxation says that it is the WA that would impose this charge, not the national governments, so this would presumably mean that setting the level for the tax should be done by the WA too... and, the way that things work, this proposal itself is the only place where that could actually be done...

You all have brought up excellent points I have overlooked in my proposal. It will take your comments into account and attempt to rewrite it in a more appealing manner. Thank you all for your valuable input.

Sincerely,
The Technocracy of Farenz

I am afraid I must bring into question the observational skills of the representative from Farenz. What exactly made you think that an organization that owns its own Bar would allow the banning of its contents to pass?

Additionally, your lowercase-challenged final statement is perfectly redundant due to the fact that you are already submitting your proposal for approval simply by presenting it to the WA in the first place.

Thirdly, since when has a price increase ever resulted in 'black market deterrence'? All they have to do is increase their own already exorbitant prices to match, and that's assuming the tax even marginally cuts into their profits, which it very well may not.

Finally, you're assuming a specific structure of medical care in nations where the concept of a "primary doctor" may not even exist. This would force those nations to either change their medical infrastructure or outsource patient care in order to meet the demands of your proposition. Granted, the phrase "licensed medical personnel" is somewhat broader, but even that would be pushing it.

For some reason, perhaps because I am feeling uncharacteristically generous, I feel the need to uncover a loophole for you. All Intellect and the Arts's President would have to do in order to circumvent this proposal, should it pass, is declare boredom to be a "serious medical condition", declare a national "boredom epidemic" due to the fact that there are always several people who experience boredom at any given moment in time, invent the Infinitely Refillable Prescription, mail one out to every citizen on behalf of their National Medical Board, call it a National Health Rescue Plan so she doesn't have to muck about with assigning everyone a specific doctor, declare that everyone shall receive an IRP at the time of their birth that becomes valid upon reaching the age of majority, relabel Neighborhood Watch programs as "National Police Watch" programs, impose a tax of one symbolic coin per one hundred thousand tonnes of pharmaceuticals purchased annually by each citizen, declare that all makers of alcohol be called "silly persons" with the notion that this is a strong deterrent law, and thumb her nose in the proposal's general direction.

I do believe a few definitions would serve you well, Ambassador, and on that note, I am off to the Bar. Cheerio!

Please support my proposal.

No.

I have re-drafted this proposal. As of the time of posting, it is on the third page of the list of proposals, titled "NSRDA". The redrafted version is now in the first post. The old version can be viewed in the above post by The Atlan Steppes. I thank you all in aiding me in the revision.

This is Sick! My Nations poor can not Afford To Eat! let alone pay tax on Medicine!

I Say Free Health Care for all!

Once again you prove to have issues with observation. It was also pointed out that you have the wrong category. This should be under Recreational Drug Use.

Additionally, calling on governmental bodies themselves to be the sole distributors will get this proposal laughed out of the WA, as well as the absurd need to define "general vicinity", as this was perhaps the only undefined term that was not in need of clarification.

ACKNOWLEDGING that the use of Tobacco, Alcohol, and Recreational Drugs can cause serious physical and mental harm to not only users, but those in the general vicinity of users.

This is false, the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench ( for instance ) made the negative physical side effects of use of alcohol and tobacco a thing of the past centuries ago with the introduction of Dew drugs. Billions of our citizens use recreational drugs with no physical or mental harm being caused, indeed the substances which they use are life enhancing and in many cases positively good for their bodies.


DEFINING “In the general vicinity of users” as being located in the same city, town, village, or rural community as a user of the substances listed above.

This is one of the most preposterous definitions ever written in to a resolution and presumes that those who will read and interpret it are imbeciles.

UNDERSTANDING that those in the general vicinity of a user are often unaware of the use of the substance in question and thus have little to no say in whether they are are affected by the users decisions.

One may have little or no awareness of an infinite number of factors which will determine the behaviour of those around one, and one has no right to know such things because one has no right to control the behaviour of those around one for one's own benefit. To make such a right exist would be monstrous, where would this rights effects end ?

RECOGNIZING that the negative effects of these substances have the full potential to, and often do, endanger the basic human rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” of both the user and those in the general vicinity of a user by endangering human lives.

Putting aside that no such human rights as described have been recognised in law by this organisation, we must point out that once again the presumptions of this section are false. And even were they true they would not be sufficient to countenance the gross intrusion upon the rights of personal autonomy which a right to "liberty" would presumably protect.

OBSERVING that an increasing percentage of crimes are preformed under the influence of, or to the ultimate end of obtaining, Tobacco, Alcohol, and Recreational Drugs.

This is so unsubstantiated as to be tantamount to an untruth, you have no way of establishing that this statement is true, and even if it were it would suggest that states should provide these substances free of charge to those who desired them in order that they need not bother to commit crimes to obtain them. Prohibition would merely exacerbate the problem.

REQUIRES that the right to distribute these substances be restricted to the government of the member state.

This is monstrous in the extreme, The Yorta Corporation ( our nation's largest pharmaceuticals manufacturer ) alone employs hundreds of thousands of our people in sales and distribution of any number of substances, there are 40 major employers in the same sector who also employ thousands you would have them put out on the street for lawfully pursuing life, liberty and happiness would you honoured Ambassador ?

RESTRICTS the use of Tobacco, Alcohol, and Recreational Drugs to the home, a medical facility, or a medical vehicle. Those found using, or under the influence of, these substances, outside of these places will be arrested on the charge of “Endangering the Well-Being of Others”. This is to be enforced by all levels of the police force in the member state.

This is so unbelievably offensive as to elicit rage from certain members of our delegation, and indeed it is utterly appalling in intent.

You would have law abiding citizens of Urgench arrested in the street and charged with some spurious crime and subjected to the accompanying obloquy of such a process for doing something which has been their perfectly lawful right for more than 1500 years !

If one puts aside the flagrant insult to the custom of the w.a. inherent in a submitting a resolution twice before it has been subjected to proper drafting here and then begging the support of those whom the delegation of Farenz presumably thinks so little of that they do not care for their input, one is left with the outrage which this statute commits on the personal liberties of billions upon billions upon billions of the citizens of numerous member states of this organisation.

For this outrage alone we once again condemn the folly of the authors of this resolution.


Yours,

If ye be thinking Blasted Pirates will be supporting a resolution that restricts so many of our favorite things, you've got another thing coming.

NSRDA
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Farenz

I believe people have mentioned this already, but this is not Moral Decency.

Description: Negative Substances Restrictions and Distributions Agreement

ACKNOWLEDGING that the use of Tobacco, Alcohol, and Recreational Drugs can cause serious physical and mental harm to not only users, but those in the general vicinity of users.

Does it? Some nations, like Urgench and Rutianas, have negated the harmful effects. That statement doesn't ring true with us.

DEFINING “In the general vicinity of users” as being located in the same city, town, village, or rural community as a user of the substances listed above.

Even if there were harm caused, if a person were to live on the opposite edge of the city from a drug user, I doubt they'd be feeling any ill effects.

UNDERSTANDING that those in the general vicinity of a user are often unaware of the use of the substance in question and thus have little to no say in whether they are are affected by the users decisions.

Yep. Unaware of it. When they become aware, then they can either report them if there are already drug laws in place, or move if there aren't. In the Republic, there aren't, because we've negated the harmful nature of these drugs. So, there is no harm being done to others.

RECOGNIZING that the negative effects of these substances have the full potential to, and often do, endanger the basic human rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” of both the user and those in the general vicinity of a user by endangering human lives.[/quote]

Hmm. What exactly does "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", a quote from this mythical RL place I presume, have to do with it. Basic human rights, you say? Maybe where you come from. In the Republic, people have just as much right to use these drugs as they have not to. We haven't had any complaints.

OBSERVING that an increasing percentage of crimes are preformed under the influence of, or to the ultimate end of obtaining, Tobacco, Alcohol, and Recreational Drugs.

Not according to our data. It's only if those drugs are outlawed that it becomes a potential problem. It's not going to stop because the government or the WA says it's bad and shouldn't be allowed. It'll likely increase.

REQUIRES that the right to distribute these substances be restricted to the government of the member state.

Really?? Well, forget everything I've just said. Any government can just pass a law that says everyone can have access.

RESTRICTS the use of Tobacco, Alcohol, and Recreational Drugs to the home, a medical facility, or a medical vehicle. Those found using, or under the influence of, these substances, outside of these places will be arrested on the charge of “Endangering the Well-Being of Others”. This is to be enforced by all levels of the police force in the member state.

Woah, wait a minute. This is a major contradiction. You tell governments that they have the right to distribute them how they see fit, then state that they can't do it except in certain situations or places. All the government has to do to get around this is state that all forms of transportation are now medical vehicles. Socialist countries can get around this by saying that because the land is state owned, it's home to everyone, thus allowing drugs to be used on any part of the land. Hey, it's home.

You know, for once, I'm really glad that the Republic is not a part of the WA and I'm here as an observer. I'd really hate to see our Emperor's reaction to this one.

Paula Jenner

Firstly, I thank you for pointing out my follies, but it would be more helpful if you would tell me how these things can be changed.

Secondly, I am relatively new to the WA and don't know how everything works.

Thirdly, I felt that term needed to be defined based on this part of The Atlan Steppes' post:
OBSERVING that those who are in the vicinity of users of such substances have no say in whether they are affected.Yes they do. It's called "leaving the area where this is happening". Unless someone is holding a gun to your head while smoking, drinking or drugging it up, and not letting you leave, you always have a choice. Your argument here is often used by advocates of prohibition, but is nevertheless absurd, no matter how often it's repeated.

Fourthly, Urgench, you could easily get around the "Right to Distribute" clause by putting that company under minor government control but let them continue running as usual, thus making them part of the government and giving them the right to distribute.

Fifthly, the restricted use clause can be gotten around if, say, you were to declare various bars and smoking areas "Medical Facilities" intended for the treatment of "Addictions", "Depression", and "Boredom". So, except for on the streets, your people would basically be allowed to go about their lives as they normally would.

Finally, I have not thought little of, or attempted to insult, anyone Urgench. These are only your assumptions of the situation at hand. In fact, I am doing all in my power to do just the opposite and be polite, but the repeated unkind and unhelpful remarks are making it increasingly difficult.

Sincerely,
The Technocracy of Farenz

Secondly, I am relatively new to the WA and don't know how everything works.

Everyone starts somewhere. You may want to listen to those who have been here longer and those who have written resolutions that have been passed.

Fifthly, the restricted use clause can be gotten around if, say, you were to declare various bars and smoking areas "Medical Facilities" intended for the treatment of "Addictions", "Depression", and "Boredom". So, except for on the streets, your people would basically be allowed to go about their lives as they normally would.

Well, since everything in Rutianas is state owned and declared to be 'home' to the people, then there's no need for us to state that bars and smoking areas are 'Medical Facilites'. The land was declared to be home to every citizen quite some time ago. Your proposal has absolutely no teeth. If you're intentionally creating loopholes in it for people to get around it, then what use is it?

Furthermore, the Republic would not even dream of voting to ban all drugs. Fortunately, this is one resolution that the Republic would not voluntarily follow if it were to be passed. That's also a mighty big if.

Paula Jenner

Firstly, I thank you for pointing out my follies, but it would be more helpful if you would tell me how these things can be changed.

We have no interest in assisting your delegation in depriving the empire's citizens of their lawful rights, and will oppose any attempts to do so. Surely you can understand that it would be contrary to our national interests to do so honoured Ambassador ?

Secondly, I am relatively new to the WA and don't know how everything works.

This we may excuse, but the intention to criminalise large sections of our legitimate economy and to deprive our citizens of their rights is less palatable.

Thirdly, I felt that term needed to be defined based on this part of The Atlan Steppes' post:

We fear you may have misunderstood the import of the honoured and respected Ambassador for the Altani Federation's comments.


Fourthly, Urgench, you could easily get around the "Right to Distribute" clause by putting that company under minor government control but let them continue running as usual, thus making them part of the government and giving them the right to distribute.

Why should we be forced to undergo the indignity of this pantomime of hypocrisy and why should we place the Yorta Corporation in an illegal status under our own national law honoured Ambassador ? To make a private company ( one of the biggest and most successful in the empire ) in to a semi state owned creature would undoubtedly have very grave legal ramifications and would endanger confidence in the entire economy of Urgench. To nationalise this company would create widespread panic on our stock exchange and would likely precipitate a significant recession.

Fifthly, the restricted use clause can be gotten around if, say, you were to declare various bars and smoking areas "Medical Facilities" intended for the treatment of "Addictions", "Depression", and "Boredom". So, except for on the streets, your people would basically be allowed to go about their lives as they normally would.

So the transdermal patches worn by 98% of our population almost all of the time which are the primary means by which they absorb any amount of medical and recreational substances would be illegal if worn on the street or in a public place ? This would create intense crisis in our health care system and would definitely harm the economy of the empire.

And besides we are left wondering again, why should we submit to this deceitful and hypocritical charade ? Our people are free to use whatever substances they wish where ever they wish so long as such use does not cause direct harm to others who have not consented to this harm being inflicted upon them. Why would we support changing this eminently sensible situation honoured Ambassador ?

Finally, I have not thought little of, or attempted to insult, anyone Urgench. These are only your assumptions of the situation at hand. In fact, I am doing all in my power to do just the opposite and be polite, but the repeated unkind and unhelpful remarks are making it increasingly difficult.

It may be that your delegation never intended to insult anyone, and we presume that is true, but it is the presumptions you have made which ultimately do have an highly insulting result. We apologise if you have interpreted our justifiable outrage as unkind but you must see things from our point of view honoured Ambassador, our entire culture is based on the presumption that humans are capable of running their own lives for themselves and that their bodies are their own to do with as they wish and that any intrusion on this autonomy is unconscionable.

Surely you cannot have expected that a prohibition of recreational drug use would be completely uncontroversial


Yours sincerely, Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

After careful consideration of your words, Urgench, I see now that such policies are better left to the governments and people of the individual nations that are being affected, and that the WA should not be involved. Seeing how this proposal has no support, I am giving up in my futile attempts at passing it.

Sincerely,
Scott Robertson
Grand Duke of Farenz
Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Grand Duchy of Farenz

After careful consideration of your words, Urgench, I see now that such policies are better left to the governments and people of the individual nations that are being affected, and that the WA should not be involved. Seeing how this proposal has no support, I am giving up in my futile attempts at passing it.

Sincerely,
Scott Robertson
Grand Duke of Farenz
Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Grand Duchy of Farenz
Hoorah! :D