NationStates Jolt Archive

PROMOTION OF RECREATIONAL DRUG TRADE ACT

Category: Recreational Drug Usage (Allow)
Effect: Significant
Writer: Stash Kroh

UNDERSTANDING that recreational drugs can have a terrible effect on users,

CONVERSELY UNDERSTANDING in nations where recreational drugs are prohibited their illegal nature is what spearheads many impressionable minds to use them in the first place,

REMINDING that under current WA law, pirates are routinely suppressed by member states, therefore straining local governments and fuelling an underground economy that is neither taxed nor supporting a nation's gross domestic product,

RECOGNIZING that trade has been scarce between nations lately. Many governments have been forced to radically change their import policies and subsequently the assembly has become a breeding ground for war declarations and economic stalemates,

CONCLUDING that these problems can be solved with a simple, logical compromise,

HEREBY

DEFINES a recreational drug as anything consumable that is used nonmedically for personal enjoyment and alters the body or mind, without the intent of mortality or nourishment.

DECLARES that the prohibiting of exportation or importation of recreational drugs shall cease to exist in member states.

THEREFORE making recreational drugs legal in the international market for trade, including the international transportation and marketing of the goods under WA jurisdiction.

PROMOTES the taxation of imported recreational drugs to further government profit from this plentiful resource of consumption that had been previous left untapped by many nations.

RECOMMENDS that member nations utilize this golden opportunity for trade.

We will always oppose the legalisation of euthanasia by the World Assembly.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador

Okay, I've edited the definition.

Our nation already doesn't have the right "to prohibit the usage, selling, purchasing, trading or manufacturing of recreational drugs"... because that right, like many others, is constitutionally reserved to the separate jurisdictions of each of this Confederation's constituent Clans and other Bodys instead... ;)

Borrin o Redwood.

This is one of the Stupidest laws I have ever read. What a Libertarian you are. You reasoning is faulty. Let people be stupid and use all the mind blowing drugs they want so we can tax them. How Inane can you be?
So glad we left the assembly

This is one of the Stupidest laws I have ever read. What a Libertarian you are. You reasoning is faulty. Let people be stupid and use all the mind blowing drugs they want so we can tax them. How Inane can you be?
So glad we left the assembly


What is stupid is a non-member nation sending an unrecognised Ambassador to the w.a. to waste their time in telling a recognised delegation of an actual member state that they think their ideas are "the stupidest laws [they] have ever read".

Indeed it is inexplicably stupid.


Yours,

Our nation already doesn't have the right "to prohibit the usage, selling, purchasing, trading or manufacturing of recreational drugs"... because that right, like many others, is constitutionally reserved to the separate jurisdictions of each of this Confederation's constituent Clans and other Bodys instead...

I think I've cleaned that section up now.

What is stupid is a non-member nation sending an unrecognised Ambassador to the w.a. to waste their time in telling a recognised delegation of an actual member state that they think their ideas are "the stupidest laws [they] have ever read".

Indeed it is inexplicably stupid.

Thanks for backing me up......I think? :p

Yours in the WA
Eduard Heir

Thanks for backing me up......I think? :p

Yours in the WA
Eduard Heir


Make no mistake honoured Ambassador, we do not particularly like this law or see any need for it, but the comments of the representative of Luxem and Leon were supremely facile and pointless.


Yours sincerely,

we do not particularly like this law or see any need for it

OOC: That makes two of us, eh? :p

O.O.C. Oh it's either an antidote or a Vaccine, I see, very interesting.

For once, I don't even have to contact my boss on this one. The entire region will back this 100%, but I do see a minor issue of definition:
DEFINES a recreational drug as any pharmaceutical that alters the body or mind, without the intent of mortality or nurishment.So psychiatric drugs, sobriety pills, birth-control hormones, pain relievers, decongestants, cough suppressants, diuretics, and stool softeners are recreational, or is "mortality" a wider umbrella than it appears?

Also, you misspelled "nourishment".

OOC: Yes, I know I call my adderall "prescription speed", and it's frequently stolen from and/or sold by people who legally use it because that's basically what it is, not to mention all the people getting drunk off Nyquil, but still... definitions can trip you up if you're not careful.

UNDERSTANDING that recreational drugs can have a terrible effect on users, however it's illegal nature is what spearheads many impressionable minds to use them in the first place.
May we urge a little consistency in number here?

ALSO UNDERSTANDING that trade has been scarce between nations lately. Many governments have been forced to radically change their import policies and subsequently, the assembly has become a breeding ground for war declarations.
The honoured ambassador is trying quite hard to avoid our support, isn't he?

DEFINES a recreational drug as any pharmaceutical that alters the body or mind, without the intent of mortality or nurishment.
The Lady Renae has comprehensively observed the problems with this definition.

DECLARES that the prohibiting of using, selling, purchasing, trading or manufacturing recreational drugs shall cease to exist in member states. Therefore making recreational drugs legal in all shape and form under WA jurisdiction.
We think this adequately confusing to avoid opposition by the anti-drugs lobby. Sadly, it is also adequately confusing to gain opposition from the pro-drugs lobby. We must also express a desire that the second sentence in fact be a sentence, rather than a subordinate clause bereft of any sign of a main clause. Beyond these points and the difficulties arising from the inadequte definition, we are happy with the intent of this mandate.

RECOMMENDS that member nations utilize this golden opportunity for trade, and further the intensity of addiction for their products to ensure solid trade, and desperate consumers.
We can only assume that the honoured ambassador is attempting humour once more. We would strongly urge him to cease.

Wouldn't a phrase that confuses the anti-drugs lobby enough to avoid opposition be beneficial even if it also confused the pro-drugs lobby, considering the pro-drugs lobby is sadly far smaller than the anti-drugs lobby?

This makes sense in a way. We do need to Bring more trade among nations, but I am not sure this is the way to go about it.

Our nation already doesn't have the right "to prohibit the usage, selling, purchasing, trading or manufacturing of recreational drugs"... because that right, like many others, is constitutionally reserved to the separate jurisdictions of each of this Confederation's constituent Clans and other Bodys instead...I think I've cleaned that section up now.
Well, no: Our national government not having the jurisdiction to legislate on the subject itself means that it doesn't have the jurisdiction to endorse & enforce international legislation on the subject either, so any proposal with a mandatory clause about drug laws within nations would be legally impossible for Bears Armed to accept... and thus would form yet another barrier to the possibility of Bears Armed actually re-joining this organisation itself, rather than just having my Mission speak for it here as a nominally separate 'nation'...


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.

As Captain Dawson took a long draw from his Hooka, he slowly raised himself to address the floor. As he exhailed, he felt slightly chipper. Even his burst of outrage was subdued by his enduced state of hapiness.

To say this simply, you'll have to pry this pipe from my cold, dead hands.

Well, no: Our national government not having the jurisdiction to legislate on the subject itself means that it doesn't have the jurisdiction to endorse & enforce international legislation on the subject either, so any proposal with a mandatory clause about drug laws within nations would be legally impossible for Bears Armed to accept

If you don't mind me being a tad thick. What the hell do you want me to do about this? It's a pro-drug law...do you want me to put it under Economic Stability?

"As the Shazbotdom Empire has very little problems with 'recreational', ie illicit, drugs; we feel that the UN mandating that we legalize them does not sit well with the Imperial Parliament. They feel that the passage of laws relating to the use, sale and legalization of illicit drugs is not something that the World Assembly should be concerning itself with."

Mr. Gregory Anerson
Senior Ambassador to the UN

If you don't mind me being a tad thick. What the hell do you want me to do about this? It's a pro-drug law...do you want me to put it under Economic Stability?No, I just want the WA to leave the whole subject basically alone. The international trade in drugs they can regulate, fine (as long as the proposal[s] concerned are sensible & well-written), but I don't see any need at all for them to interfere in how nations handle such matters within their own borders.

The only drug related proposal I'll support is a resurrection of the old UN Drug Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12131355&postcount=192).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Bump ?


- Question : Because this proposal no longer legalizes the "usage" of recreational drugs merely promoting the international drug market - is this proposal still a recreational drug proposal?

UNDERSTANDING that recreational drugs can have a terrible effect on users, however their illegal nature is what spearheads many impressionable minds to use them in the first place.Recreational drugs are not illegal in and of themselves in all countries; you might want to alter this sentence.

-Raymond Gardner,
Plutonian delegate

Oh good call! :)

Edited.

:) "Nation's" should actually have the apostrophe after the S. Also, the introductory phrases ("Understanding..." "Conversely understanding..." etc) should probably end in semicolons, not periods.

Again, Good Call.


Thank You Ambassador.

I ask that fluoridation be ended on the water supply of the WAHQ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

Maybe that would restore a modicum of sanity to the W.A.

Oh, now you're just playing hardball throwing in my only true love - Dr. Strangelove.

How would you like it if I grabbed um... um... who ever your hero is, and urinated on him.

Huh? Huh? :)

Commies....

I ask that fluoridation be ended on the water supply of the WAHQ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

Maybe that would restore a modicum of sanity to the W.A.

We don't fluoridate the water. I'm not saying the water here isn't fluoridated, it just comes to us that way. And no, we're not interested in trying to figure out some way to get the flouride out of the water.

Ken Scott
Building Maintence VP
WA Building Management

We don't fluoridate the water. I'm not saying the water here isn't fluoridated, it just comes to us that way. And no, we're not interested in trying to figure out some way to get the flouride out of the water.


*Picks the leftover dinner stuck in his glow-in-the-dark teeth*

bump

We don't fluoridate the water. [...] it just comes to us that way.

I wonder what else we've been drinking... that would explain the voices in my head!

Bump ?


- Question : Because this proposal no longer legalizes the "usage" of recreational drugs merely promoting the international drug market - is this proposal still in the recreational drug catgeory?

- Question : Because this proposal no longer legalizes the "usage" of recreational drugs merely promoting the international drug market - is this proposal still in the recreational drug catgeory?

My take: caffeine might be - in some contexts - be regarded as recreational, and if this draft dealt with caffeine (only), it might fall in the "free trade".

My take: caffeine might be - in some contexts - be regarded as recreational, and if this draft dealt with caffeine (only), it might fall in the "free trade".

We here's my problem.

This proposal does not legalize recreational drugs in a nation, merely on the international market - so it doesn't increase many social or civil freedoms, its does however deal with economic freedoms but promotes taxation which is against free market ideals.

Advancement of Industry ?
Free Trade ?
Recreational Drugs (Allow) ?