NationStates Jolt Archive

After having two people support this proposal before it was deleted for being in the wrong category, my drive to pass it has been renewed. I have revised it to include several key points that were left out of the previous two versions. Here is the new, updated version.
NSRDA
Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Outlaw

The Negative Substances Restrictions and Distributions Agreement

DEFINING a recreational drug as any medical substance that, when inhaled, injected, or ingested, alters the state of mind of the user and holds no medical purpose at the time of use. Common examples include cocaine, methamphetamines, marijuana, peyote, and heroine.

DEFINING alcohol as any fruit or grain extract which has been fermented for any duration of time. Common examples include beer, whiskey, rum, champagne, and wine.

DEFINING “General Vicinity” as any location in the same city, town, village, or rural community in which a person resides.

ACKNOWLEDGING that under these conditions, recreational drugs and alcohol can cause serious physical and mental damage to both the user and those in the general vicinity of the user.

UNDERSTANDING that those in the general vicinity of a user are often unaware of the use of these substances and thus have little to no say in whether they are affected by the user's decisions.

OBSERVING that an increasing percentage of crimes are preformed under the influence of, or to the ultimate end of obtaining, recreational drugs and alcohol.

RECOGNIZING that alcohol and recreational drugs can cause life-ruining addictions as well as permanently damaging or even deadly medical conditions.

REQUIRES that alcohol and recreational dugs be only obtainable through the recommendation or prescription of a medical authority who is recognized by the government of the member state in which he or she resides for the purpose of treating a medical condition recognized as legitimate by the majority of the medical community in the member state or through a religious authority for the purpose of preforming a religious ceremony.

REQUIRES companies to obtain the written consent of the government of the member state in which they reside in order to be allowed to distribute alcohol or recreational drugs.

RESTRICTS the use of alcohol and recreational drugs to the home, a government facility, a medical facility, a medical vehicle, or a religious facility. Those found using such substances or under the influence of these substances outside of these places will be arrested on the charge of “Endangering the Well-Being of Others”. Anyone who is under the influence of these substances outside of these places, but is being escorted by someone who is not will not be arrested. The jail time associated with this charge is to be decided by the government of the member state. The minimum is 6 months. This law is to be enforced by all levels of the police force and judicial system in the member state.

Some important changes: new definitions have been added, tobacco is no longer included, companies can now distribute, but need government consent, a prescription is now required to obtain the substances unless you are using them as part of a religion, unreasonable arguments have been removed, and certain other points have been elaborated on. I hope this proposal is more to your liking.

Sincerely,
Scott Robertson.
WA Ambassador for the Grand Duchy of Farenz.

We should preface what we are about to contribute to this debate by impressing upon the honoured Ambassador for Farenz exactly how vital this issue is to the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench. If this statute or anything like it were ever to come in to force we would be compelled to immediately resign from this organisation and would not be able to rejoin it until this law was repealed.

We will oppose this law or anything like it absolutely. Such a statute would not only represent the very gravest insult to the freedom and dignity of our people it would also radically imperil our economy.


The Negative Substances Restrictions and Distributions Agreement

This statement makes the false assertion that any substance may be " negative " this is patently illogical, substances are completely neutral, it is their uses or effects which may perhaps be subjectively described as "negative" but even this is a logical stretch.

DEFINING a recreational drug as any medical substance that, when inhaled, injected, or ingested, alters the state of mind of the user and holds no medical purpose at the time of use. Common examples include cocaine, methamphetamines, marijuana, peyote, and heroine.

A substance is strictly speaking neither medical nor recreational, a substance has an effect, some effects are beneficial to the organism which consumes them, some effects are less beneficial, and some are not beneficial at all. All of this is dependent upon dosage, method of absorption, state of health of the organism in question, purity of the substance, and a host of other factors.

All of the substances you name have both beneficial uses and non-beneficial uses, and most have uses which are non-beneficial but which may be subjectively described as "enjoyable". Therefore the list of substances and the definition of what they are is deeply flawed both logically and morally.


DEFINING “General Vicinity” as any location in the same city, town, village, or rural community in which a person resides.

This definition is ludicrous.

ACKNOWLEDGING that under these conditions, recreational drugs and alcohol can cause serious physical and mental damage to both the user and those in the general vicinity of the user.

Again, this acknowledgement is a fallacy. The conditions which may cause substances to have such socially and personally un-desirable effects may pertain in your nation , honoured Ambassador, but this by no means indicates that this is the case in all member states of this organisation. That these circumstances exist in Farenz is an indictment of its government, we would be willing to assist them in changing this situation, but we would absolutely oppose them using the terrible outcomes to substance use common to their country to deprive billions of citizens of w.a. member states of their lawful rights.

UNDERSTANDING that those in the general vicinity of a user are often unaware of the use of these substances and thus have little to no say in whether they are affected by the user's decisions.

Once again, this is an absolute absurdity, we may not be aware that members of the delegation sitting next to us here in this room suffer from a mental illness which will drive them to be erratic and aggressive if under medicated, do we ban mentally ill people from leaving the confines of a cell on this basis honoured Ambassador ?

OBSERVING that an increasing percentage of crimes are preformed under the influence of, or to the ultimate end of obtaining, recreational drugs and alcohol.

As we pointed out before this is not an argument for prohibition of substance use, this is an argument for member states to provide all substances free of charge to their citizens in order to obviate the need for such criminality.

RECOGNIZING that alcohol and recreational drugs can cause life-ruining addictions as well as permanently damaging or even deadly medical conditions.

In states without the ability to avert such outcomes maybe, but that is by no means all member states of this organisation.

REQUIRES that alcohol and recreational drugs be only obtainable through the recommendation or prescription of a medical authority who is recognized by the government of the member state in which he or she resides for the purpose of treating a medical condition recognized as legitimate by the majority of the medical community in the member state or through a religious authority for the purpose of preforming a religious ceremony.

So you think that superstitious mumbo jumbo is of the same value as scientifically arrived at opinion do you honoured Ambassador ? What an appalling equation to have made.

You will not trust the sensible judgement of informed adults to do with their own bodies as they will, but you will take the word of Witch Doctors and Charlatan Priests will you ?

REQUIRES companies to obtain the written consent of the government of the member state in which they reside in order to be allowed to distribute alcohol or recreational drugs.

Why ? This is needless elaboration of bureaucracy, what good does it serve ?


RESTRICTS the use of alcohol and recreational drugs to the home, a government facility, a medical facility, a medical vehicle, or a religious facility. Those found using such substances or under the influence of these substances outside of these places will be arrested on the charge of “Endangering the Well-Being of Others”. Anyone who is under the influence of these substances outside of these places, but is being escorted by someone who is not will not be arrested. The jail time associated with this charge is to be decided by the government of the member state. The minimum is 6 months. This law is to be enforced by all levels of the police force and judicial system in the member state.


This is the most offensive piece of legislation we have seen in some time.

Not only does it invent some spurious crime for which a law abiding person may be swooped up from the streets for committing, it instructs the members of this organisation in how their courts must punish this ridiculous crime, at the minimum cost of six months of a person's life !

Why should a person harming no one else in fact, be charged with doing so merely for having walked out of their home under the influence of even the tiniest amount of a substance, suffer the awful insult of arrest, trial, sentencing and the minimum loss of six whole months of their liberty ?

Can you possibly logically justify this outrageous requirement honoured Ambassador ?

Yours,

Firstly, "Negative Substances" refers to the fact that the substances covered in this proposal often have more negative effects than beneficial.

Secondly, "Medical Substances" refers to a substance which has been manufactured for medical purposes. I recognize that this definition is flawed and will promptly revise it. I recognize that these products have beneficial effects in the correct circumstances, which is why I have not proposed to ban them completely.

Thirdly, it is by no means a problem in our country. The primary purpose of this resolution is to protect human health in countries where the use of drugs is a problem.

Fourthly, witch doctors? I fail to see how that paragraph can be translated into witch doctors outside of tribal nations and outdated medical systems. As for the priests, that was put into place to protect religious freedoms.

Fifthly, that cause serves to ensure that governments know who is distributing these substances. That way, if something goes wrong, it can be traced back to certain companies.

Sincerely,
Scott Robertson
Farenzian WA Ambassador.

Firstly, "Negative Substances" refers to the fact that the substances covered in this proposal often have more negative effects than beneficial.

This does not change the fact that these substances are neutral in nature, calling them "negative" is intentionally pejorative and an attempt to impose a completely subjective definition upon something which does not need one.

Secondly, "Medical Substances" refers to a substance which has been manufactured for medical purposes. I recognize that this definition is flawed and will promptly revise it. I recognize that these products have beneficial effects in the correct circumstances, which is why I have not proposed to ban them completely.

Please do not trouble yourself honoured Ambassador, instead make the far more sensible decision to abandon this awful law altogether.

Thirdly, it is by no means a problem in our country. The primary purpose of this resolution is to protect human health in countries where the use of drugs is a problem.

So why are you, honoured Ambassador, busydodying about interfering in the laws on these matters of countries who's practice you have no ability to evaluate and where you can have no idea whether the problems you describe actually exist ?

How does your delegation know that every other member nation is a least as sensible as your own if not more so ? Why does your delegation see it as their business ? What is the justification for this gross intrusion ?

Fourthly, witch doctors? I fail to see how that paragraph can be translated into witch doctors outside of tribal nations and outdated medical systems. As for the priests, that was put into place to protect religious freedoms.

Indeed Witch Doctors and Charlatan Priests are charged by this statute with having better judgement in who should be allowed to use what substances than legislators. This is absurd in the extreme.

We notice your Excellency has found no argument to excuse this statute's appalling and unjust attempt to overturn the sentencing systems of member states by instructing them to sentence innocent persons to a minimum of six months in prison. Presumably this is because your Excellency cannot find a reasonable excuse for such a violation of justice.


Yours,

Wow, you mean two people actually supported this? Surely they must have been stoned.

[OOC:I did not address the last part because I had a headache at the time and needed to get off the computer. So here is my response to that]
First of all, I feel this charge is reasonably justified. Lets use the example of drunk driving. In his/her altered state of mind, caused by the alcohol, the driver can easily lose control and crash into another driver, thus endangering their well-being. Do you get my point? This is basically crime prevention. As for the minimum sentence, I suppose six months is a little much. In my revision, I'll go ahead and lower it to two. That is sufficient.

As for why I am "busybodying"? I feel that as a member of the World Assembly, it is Farenz's sworn duty to improve the lives of people worldwide. Is that not the purpose for which the World Assembly was created? Is that not the duty of all members of the WA? We are simply doing our part to fulfill our obligation to make this world a better place.

First of all, I feel this charge is reasonably justified. Lets use the example of drunk driving. In his/her altered state of mind, caused by the alcohol, the driver can easily lose control and crash into another driver, thus endangering their well-being. Do you get my point? This is basically crime prevention. As for the minimum sentence, I suppose six months is a little much. In my revision, I'll go ahead and lower it to two. That is sufficient.

Is the honoured Ambassador quite serious ? Do they truly imagine that the half baked tomfoolery they have presented to this organisation is a crime prevention measure ?

It creates a new crime for god's sake, otherwise innocent people will suddenly find themselves criminals, more crimes will therefore be committed.


Your arrogance is supreme honoured Ambassador, what possible authority does your Excellency have to instruct the courts of other nations what sentences they should pass down ? Indeed the deficit of logic evident in this statute would suggest to reasonable Lawgivers that no such authority exists.

As for why I am "busybodying"? I feel that as a member of the World Assembly, it is Farenz's sworn duty to improve the lives of people worldwide. Is that not the purpose for which the World Assembly was created? Is that not the duty of all members of the WA? We are simply doing our part to fulfill our obligation to make this world a better place.

And what if your actions are not an improvement to the lives of the citizens of this organisation honoured Ambassador ? Your statute would represent a drastic diminishment to the quality of billions upon billions of people.

And in fact this organisation has no expressed purpose for its existence, it was created in order that it might exist that is all.

You are not "doing your part to fulfill your obligation to make this world a better place " honoured Ambassador, in fact your delegation will qualitatively make it a worse place, your delegation's utterly unwelcome and completely foolish notions about substance control will have quantitively meretricious effects on the member states of this organisation.

Thankfully we have confidence in the good sense of the members of this organisation not to indulge your national self righteousness, we are certain that this law will die a quite and unmourned death long before it ever becomes a real threat to human liberty and freedom.


Yours

You are right in the sense that "Crime Prevention" is not what I wanted to say and in the reasons why. A more appropriate term would be "Ensuring Security" and "Promoting Health".

Also, if that is how you see the WA, then I pity you for your ignorance. Nothing exists for the sole purpose of existing. The numerous resolutions passed throughout the years all have one thing in common, one unified purpose, to make people's lives better, that is what the WA exists for.

Sincerely,
Scott Robertson
Farenzian WA Ambassador

RESTRICTS the use of alcohol and recreational drugs to the home, a government facility, a medical facility, a medical vehicle, or a religious facility.

We have to close down all our pubs, restaurants and nightclubs? Are you mad? How the hell do you justify six months for smoking a joint or having a pint? And how come you can take drugs if you believe in fairies, but not otherwise?

The only drug related legislation that The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites can support would be a new version of the old UN Drug Act.

Wow, you mean two people actually supported this? Surely they must have been stoned.

Which is stupid since if they want to continue to be able to get stoned they would have to oppose this.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Which is stupid since if they want to continue to be able to get stoned they would have to oppose this.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

It was meant to be sort of an oxymoron.

Also, if that is how you see the WA, then I pity you for your ignorance. Nothing exists for the sole purpose of existing. The numerous resolutions passed throughout the years all have one thing in common, one unified purpose, to make people's lives better, that is what the WA exists for.



"Nothing exists for the sole purpose of existing" really honoured Ambassador are you completely sure you want to hang your national colours on this ridiculous statement ? Or are you convinced of some religious purpose for everything in creation ? Perhaps the all seeing all knowing creator has a purpose for every speck of dust in the universe in your conception, but logically and in a world of reason it is perfectly reasonable and logical that an infinite number of things may have the sole purpose of existing, indeed the entire universe may have this " purpose ".

The fact that many of this organisation's laws might have a socially useful outcome does not mean that its purpose is to make its member states better places, indeed the w.a. might just as easily be used to make them worse places, there are no rules to prevent such an eventuality.

Indeed a perfect example of a law which would make the w.a.'s member states a worse place to live in is this one. It has no socially positive outcomes, is based on fatuous presumptions, and a thoroughly ill informed conception of the issue it pretends to deal with.


Yours,

Religious views have nothing to do with that statement. In fact, if the WA had no purpose, then nothing would be accomplished there. If its purpose is to exist, then it would only achieve existence, but it clearly achieves far more.

Well, since we are no longer discussing any points covered in the proposal, I am going the go make the necessary changes and submit my proposal.

Sincerely,
Scott Robertson
Farenzian WA Ambassador

Religious views have nothing to do with that statement. In fact, if the WA had no purpose, then nothing would be accomplished there. If its purpose is to exist, then it would only achieve existence, but it clearly achieves far more.

Well, since we are no longer discussing any points covered in the proposal, I am going the go make the necessary changes and submit my proposal.

Sincerely,
Scott Robertson
Farenzian WA Ambassador


The purpose of a thing may have absolutely nothing to do with its uses. The fact that a thing may be put to good uses does not mean that it was created with those uses in mind.

We are glad to hear that you have decided to submit this tissue of banality, the sooner to realise its worthlessness.


Yours,

Well, since we are no longer discussing any points covered in the proposal, I am going the go make the necessary changes and submit my proposal.

Uh, no. I'm waiting for you to explain how closing down every pub, bar, restaurant, nightclub, café, winery, and basically running a moralistic prohibition regime with idiotic mandatory sentencing is supposed to "improve the lives of people", because I think that sounds like a dessicated hellscape to most people.

Uh, no. I'm waiting for you to explain how closing down every pub, bar, restaurant, nightclub, café, winery, and basically running a moralistic prohibition regime with idiotic mandatory sentencing is supposed to "improve the lives of people", because I think that sounds like a dessicated hellscape to most people.

Not to mention, that closing every pub, bar, restaurant, nightclub, café and winery (or barring them from serving alcohol or other substances) would be heavily damaging to many national economies, including that of the Altani Federation.

Just as we were opposed to the first Farenzian crusade, so we are opposed to the second.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

What about resurrecting some version of Rehochipe/Enn's proposal about drug trafficking? That might distract attention long enough for everyone to get bored of talking about legalising/banning hemp. I'd be willing to have a crack at a draft on narcoterrorism or somesuch; tackling a genuinely international drug-related issue could be a useful diversion.

What about resurrecting some version of Rehochipe/Enn's proposal about drug trafficking? That might distract attention long enough for everyone to get bored of talking about legalising/banning hemp. I'd be willing to have a crack at a draft on narcoterrorism or somesuch; tackling a genuinely international drug-related issue could be a useful diversion.

O.O.C. Urgench would be delighted to help, closing down black market sources of substances they could provide legitimately and would not have to compete with anymore would be right up their alley.

Some important changes: new definitions have been added, tobacco is no longer included, [...]
It's a medicinal substance that is inhaled and alters the mental state of the consumer. In exactly what way is it not included? In what way is alcohol not included twice over, for that matter?

This proposal remains ludicrous, not to mention wrong in almost every assumption it makes, and will receive no support from us.

After having two people support this proposal ...I am sorry to inform you, Farenz, that most likely the two people who supported your proposal were members of the small collective of delegates who simply go through the proposal list approving everything. Unless your approval count goes over ten, being able to say "but there were people who approved before the deletion!" should not indicate to you that your proposal actually has a chance at meeting quorum, even with significant revisions. If you could please inform us as to the names of your apparent benefactors, it would allow us to determine whether they were actual votes of approval or merely the result of lax legislative practices. If you do not have their names, then I suggest to you that the next time you submit your proposal you keep for yourself a document listing those who gave your proposal their aye if for no other reason than it will allow you to contact them and request their approval again should you have to once again begin anew.

Additionally, this proposal has little chance of passing with the inclusion of alcohol for reasons that have been mentioned in abundance in this thread. It really is too great of a source of income for too many people, and finding an appropriate loophole for them to execute would be annoying at best.

I admit that the passing of this would force some changes in various national economies. A few things I need to point out though. First of all, tobacco is not included because it does not alter the state of mind, it only creates minor feelings of pleasure and the person can think clearly while under its influence. Second of all, cafes would not be affected as they serve caffeine which is not covered by the proposal. Third, the proposal would only take away their ability to serve alcohol and drugs, alternative substances that are more beneficial could be produced in their place and keep the economies on track, while creating new jobs at the same time. Farenz will be more than happy to contribute to this endeavor. If this proposal does not pass, or does and is repealed, I will rewrite it to provide for these things.

Sincerely,
Scott Robertson
Farenzian WA Delegate

[OOC: If you look at the second page of proposals, you will see that NSRDA now has six approvals.)

I admit that the passing of this would force some changes in various national economies. A few things I need to point out though. First of all, tobacco is not included because it does not alter the state of mind, it only creates minor feelings of pleasure and the person can think clearly while under its influence.

The depths of the Ambassador's lack of knowledge are at last made plain. Nicotine, one of tobacco's most active constituent chemicals, is one of the most potently psychoactive chemicals known to science. This is the source of its extremely addictive nature, indeed even relatively low doses of nicotine are highly toxic. Therefore scientifically speaking your statute clearly does include prohibitions of cigarettes.



Second of all, cafes would not be affected as they serve caffeine which is not covered by the proposal.

Perhaps cafes serve only beverages which include caffeine ( which is also a highly potent substance with medical uses by the way ) in Farenz. This does not make this the case everywhere else in the world.



Third, the proposal would only take away their ability to serve alcohol and drugs, alternative substances that are more beneficial could be produced in their place and keep the economies on track, while creating new jobs at the same time.

And why should cafes not serve alcohol and other substances ? And why should whole economies suddenly be forced to completely alter their output simply because your delegation is ignorant of science, common sense, the basics of legal best practice ?

Does the Ambassador imagine that such economies will be able to achieve this radical re-adjustment over night ? Is their government prepared to foot the truly massive bill for this crackpot scheme ?


We are shocked at the level of insult done to this organisation by the delegation of farenz which seems to think it is acceptable to submit laws on matters which they show absolutely no understanding of, and for which they have undertaken absolutely no research, and which they admit they have no practical experience of.


For shame.

1. The underlying premises of this proposal are blatanly fallacious and tyrranical. We oppose the attempt to internationalize laws concerning recreational drugs and alcohol. Thus, no matter how this proposal is phrased we shall oppose it.

2. Along the same lines, the bizarre definitions and broad language of this measure use a sledgehammer to solve imagined problems where a scapel (if anything) would be more appropriate. The author of this proposal, the Farenzian Ambassador, has pointed to "the example of drunk driving" as a problem allegedly addressed by this proposal. That is an excellent example of a problem that is (1) better addressed by other means--such as laws against drunk driving itself, rehabilitation for those with substance abuse problems, and active law enforcement; and (2) isn't going to be solved by this proposal at all -- those willing to flout the law to drive under the influence won't be deterred by a law against being under the influence in the first place.

3. Although I think no rewording of this proposal can save it, I join those critiques made by more patient Ambassadors, especially those of Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench.

Second of all, cafes would not be affected as they serve caffeine which is not covered by the proposal.

Cafés serve alcohol as well. Not all of them, but many of them, although I suppose it does depend on the jurisdiction.

Third, the proposal would only take away their ability to serve alcohol and drugs, alternative substances that are more beneficial could be produced in their place and keep the economies on track, while creating new jobs at the same time.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can replace the centuries of tradition and culture in our beers, wines, and liquors with root beer and sugar-free grape juice? And what alternative substances did you have in mind for drugs like cocaine and heroin that aren't also banned by your proposal?

Furthermore, I submit that assertions of a net gain in jobs are pure speculation on your part.

I am currently in the process of redrafting this proposal with the following points:
1. Alcohol is no longer included
2. Setting up international factories to create a new type of patch drug which, when used correctly, creates feelings of happiness without fully altering the state of perception. It also has many positive side effects including the strengthening of the immune system and circulatory system. Thus making people healthier when they use it.
3. Sets up rehabilitation centers internationally for users of previous drugs and for those who had to use them medically but they don't need it any more.
4. Requires anyone who wishes to distribute the old drugs for medical or religious purposes to obtain a license which must be renewed monthly. The price is set by the government. 50% goes to the WA to fund the resolution. Since this is not a tax, its a fee, the WA can collect it, right?

Is this any better so far?

I am currently in the process of redrafting this proposal with the following points:
1. Alcohol is no longer included

Why would you exempt alcohol from your crusade Ambassador ? You either want to impose your pointless and silly puritanism on the w.a. or you don't.

2. Setting up international factories to create a new type of patch drug which, when used correctly, creates feelings of happiness without fully altering the state of perception. It also has many positive side effects including the strengthening of the immune system and circulatory system. Thus making people healthier when they use it.

This sounds suspiciously like infringement of several of Urgench's corporation's intellectual property rights, we would take the dimmest possible view of such an action. All the more so since it seems that now the delegation of Farenz not only wishes to undermine our domestic pharmaceuticals industry but now seems to want to destroy its international trade also. Besides we are nearly certain that this measure would fall foul of the rules regarding w.a. resolutions.

3. Sets up rehabilitation centers internationally for users of previous drugs and for those who had to use them medically but they don't need it any more.

Why not allow member governments to deal with this themselves, must your government insist on interposing its imbecilic ideas into sensible national provision for this sort of thing ?

4. Requires anyone who wishes to distribute the old drugs for medical or religious purposes to obtain a license which must be renewed monthly. The price is set by the government. 50% goes to the WA to fund the resolution. Since this is not a tax, its a fee, the WA can collect it, right?

This is absolutely against w.a. rules.

Is this any better so far?

No not in any way. We strongly urge you to desist in humiliating your nation any further and leave this matter alone. Your delegation has shown no ability to understand the issue it has made it its bizarre mission to needlessly complicate, it has shown no ability to address the actual concerns of the other ambassadors who have contributed to this debate, and each revision it produces sounds more nightmarish and preposterous than the last.

We are almost driven to the opinion that the delegation of Farenz is deliberately mocking this organisation for its own amusement.

We strongly recommend that the Ambassador for Farenz actually read the other contributions to this debate, many of which are made by experienced and seasoned delegations, and then give up this lunatical crusade which they seem obsessed with.

Yours,

Yes, please let this matter go. This is absolutely wrong from front to finish.

OOC: At least here in the US, Caffiene is listed as one of the most addictive drugs falling into the amphetimine category. Although none harmful, largely peaceful and non-destructive.

IC: To ban some is to ban all, and I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY MORNING COFFEE for some ultra-conservative who wants no form of drug period. It isnt worth it, and besides it would be counteractive to your campaign to lower crime. Ever heard of Prohibition and the rise of the Mafia and crime in the 30's as relates to ban on one substance???

Please just do us a favor and quit while you are ahead Ambassador.

First of all, I am not trying to mock the WA for my amusement, I am honestly attempting to create a proposal on the subject and get it passed. The only reason its getting worse is that no one is doing much beyond pointing out the negatives and expecting me to either come up with a solution on my own or give up.

I have a good definition that will result in only the recreational drugs, as commonly thought of, being affected. I have created the recipe for a substitute drug in the form of a patch.

I know none of you wish to help, but hear me out. I can't do this alone, my many attempts prove that. If anyone could create the basic outline for a version of this proposal that they find acceptable which restricts drugs to medical and religious purposes and utilizes my new drug, I will be more than happy to write it and I will be eternally grateful. Also, you would be mentioned as a co-author in the proposal.

First of all, I am not trying to mock the WA for my amusement, I am honestly attempting to create a proposal on the subject and get it passed. The only reason its getting worse is that no one is doing much beyond pointing out the negatives and expecting me to either come up with a solution on my own or give up.

I have a good definition that will result in only the recreational drugs, as commonly thought of, being affected. I have created the recipe for a substitute drug in the form of a patch.

I know none of you wish to help, but hear me out. I can't do this alone, my many attempts prove that. If anyone could create the basic outline for a version of this proposal that they find acceptable which restricts drugs to medical and religious purposes and utilizes my new drug, I will be more than happy to write it and I will be eternally grateful. Also, you would be mentioned as a co-author in the proposal.

With all due respect, Ambassador, this is a BAD IDEA and you should just drop it.

Please.

Aye, and we'll not be giving up any of our recreational anythings. If ye be wanting to push this forward, ye'll be slapped readily with a fish.

Aye, and we'll not be giving up any of our recreational anythings. If ye be wanting to push this forward, ye'll be slapped readily with a fish.

*Bob pulls out his trusty 13 pound trout*
And you wouldn't be the first person I've slapped with a fish either.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

*Bob pulls out his trusty 13 pound trout*
And you wouldn't be the first person I've slapped with a fish either.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
Does that mean you are on his side or mine?

Scott Robertson
Farenzian WA Ambassador

First of all, I am not trying to mock the WA for my amusement, I am honestly attempting to create a proposal on the subject and get it passed. The only reason its getting worse is that no one is doing much beyond pointing out the negatives and expecting me to either come up with a solution on my own or give up.
With respect, honoured ambassador, most of us here do not believe that a solution is possible, and are therefore most devoutly hoping that you will give up. Not a few of us are of the opinion that banning a substance serves only to increase its mystique, and is therefore a recipe for governments losing control of the situation.

I have a good definition that will result in only the recreational drugs, as commonly thought of, being affected.
You will we hope understand if we take this statement with a pinch of salt. This is not the first occasion on which you have made this claim, and prior examples comprehensively failed to achieve the goal.

I have created the recipe for a substitute drug in the form of a patch.
Whilst we are frankly skeptical of the universal applicability of such a substance, even a limited replacement could be of considerable use medically. The Gobbannaen Health Service has asked if the Farenzian government would be prepared to open discussions regarding this new drug.

Honored Farenzenian Ambassador, I am going to try to make something clear to you. It is obvious that your intention is to remove from society an object that you see as a source of criminal and amoral acts of violence, thievery, vandalism, and so on. There is one factor, though, that you are placing entirely out of mind simply by writing this resolution in the first place.

You. Can. NOT. Control. People.

The fact of the matter is, no matter how you legislate it, no matter how hard you crack down on your nation's populace, no matter what sort of standards you try to put in place, you can and will never stop people from doing whatever they have to in order to acquire whatever they want. You can make it as illegal and difficult as you like, but people will do it anyway. You will simply increase the number of criminals and make life harder on your law enforcement officials. Additionally, you run the risk of crippling your pharmaceutical industries and the pace of scientific advancement depending on what chemical compounds are required to be introduced into various experiments, not to mention the discoveries that occur by happy accident, some of which may be while under the influence of one or more of the many compounds you have worked so hard to fail to eradicate from your nation.

The proper solution to the problem you perceive is to legalize and regulate it and work towards scientific advances that eliminate the negative effects, or at least minimize them. The steps you propose will only result in an increase in violent crime, theft, and vandalism as well as a number of other offenses. You are fighting a war that cannot be won. Stop trying.

Prohibition fails. It always does. This law will cause every country within the World Assembly to face gangsters and other criminals distributing alcohol and recreational drugs under our noses. Unless we plan to arrest a good percentage of our population, this law can't pass. My government is all for banning recreational drugs, but we only ban certain drugs. We don't use the broad sweeping definition you have written. Chaos is not, however, willing to vote for banning alcohol. It just isn't feasible, because we would wind up arresting 10% of our population due to an addiction they had before the law was passed. I recommend splitting this proposal into two, one for the banning of recreational drugs, and one for a age limit and amount of drinks limit for alcohol. I think trying to ban recreational drugs would come under a lot less resistance, and many countries already have an age cap on alcohol. Not many ambassadors should see it as a problem to limit the amount of drinks someone can have per day.

I acknowledge the above ambassador's point, but what we can do to stop drug dealing is taking it out at the source. Here is an opportunity for another proposal. After the banning of recreational drugs passes, another proposal could be drafted to allow member nations to invade any nation lawfully if that nation was facilitating the production of recreational drugs and distributing them to the population of your country. That way we can actually cut it off at the source. Of course, you would only kill the drug lords in the invaded nation, not soldiers, etc.

Oops, I meant to put that the newer proposal would no longer includes alcohol, I was wondering why no one was responding to that change. Honest mistake. It sounds like you have great ideas, - Chaos -. Could you put them together into the outline like I asked on page 2 when you have the time?

I recommend splitting this proposal into two, one for the banning of recreational drugs, and one for a age limit and amount of drinks limit for alcohol.

This is an extreme level of micromanagement. Kelssek's federal government, of which I am a representative, does not impose such laws, they are devolved to the provincial governments, i.e., to the sub-national level, and this is the case in many other federal states. The fact that we don't even consider it a national issue should already clue you in to the fact that we don't believe this is worthy of the WA's concern.

And I haven't even gotten into the non-humans issue yet.

Not many ambassadors should see it as a problem to limit the amount of drinks someone can have per day.

Actually, I do. Not because I'm a social libertarian or anything like that, but because making this a subject of international law is downright stupid.

After the banning of recreational drugs passes, another proposal could be drafted to allow member nations to invade any nation lawfully

You're not serious, are you?

if that nation was facilitating the production of recreational drugs and distributing them to the population of your country. That way we can actually cut it off at the source. Of course, you would only kill the drug lords in the invaded nation, not soldiers, etc.

All recreational drugs are legal in Kelssek. They are regulated and taxed (heavily) in a manner similar to the more commonly legal recreational drugs like caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine in most other nations. You are therefore advocating that the WA make the invasion of this and many other nations legal purely for our approach towards mitigating the social ills of recreational substances.

Prohibition fails. It always does. This law will cause every country within the World Assembly to face gangsters and other criminals distributing alcohol and recreational drugs under our noses. Unless we plan to arrest a good percentage of our population, this law can't pass.

You're right, and all of that is a good reason not to push this forward.

I recommend splitting this proposal into two, one for the banning of recreational drugs, and one for a age limit and amount of drinks limit for alcohol.

As the honorable Kelsekkian ambassador has pointed out, this is horribly micromanaging and intrusive.

I think trying to ban recreational drugs would come under a lot less resistance, and many countries already have an age cap on alcohol. Not many ambassadors should see it as a problem to limit the amount of drinks someone can have per day.

I think you're wrong about how much resistance you can expect if you try to ban recreational drugs. I also think you're wrong about how many ambassadors would object to a limit on how much one can drink per day (looks around to see if the Palentine ambassador is present)

After the banning of recreational drugs passes, another proposal could be drafted to allow member nations to invade any nation lawfully if that nation was facilitating the production of recreational drugs and distributing them to the population of your country. That way we can actually cut it off at the source. Of course, you would only kill the drug lords in the invaded nation, not soldiers, etc.

The Altani Federation legalized recreational drug use, production and sales decades ago. This means we produce recreational drugs. This means if you, or any other puritanical do-gooders, ever tried to "invade", you wouldn't be so lucky as to just face the people making the drugs. I can assure your nation that you'd be dealing with our soldiers, and I suspect, soldiers from every other nation that allows and produces recreational drugs. Somehow, I don't think you'd like that experience one bit. In other words, the idea of "invading" nations simply because they allow recreational drugs is an incredibly stupid one.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

The Altani Federation legalized recreational drug use, production and sales decades ago. This means we produce recreational drugs. This means if you, or any other puritanical do-gooders, ever tried to "invade", you wouldn't be so lucky as to just face the people making the drugs. I can assure your nation that you'd be dealing with our soldiers, and I suspect, soldiers from every other nation that allows and produces recreational drugs. Somehow, I don't think you'd like that experience one bit. In other words, the idea of "invading" nations simply because they allow recreational drugs is an incredibly stupid one.


Yes, we concur with the esteemed ambassador here. We have legalized drugs in our nation, with strict gov't oversight and all works out fine. On occasion, we sell to other national gov'ts where drugs are legal.

Originally Posted by - Chaos -
After the banning of recreational drugs passes, another proposal could be drafted to allow member nations to invade any nation lawfully if that nation was facilitating the production of recreational drugs and distributing them to the population of your country. That way we can actually cut it off at the source. Of course, you would only kill the drug lords in the invaded nation, not soldiers, etc.

In short, as the Altani Ambassador stated above, if you or anyone thinks you can invade the Sacred soil of our Nation, you and your purtanical, do-gooder allies will meet the full military might/repsonse and resource at our disposal to send you back to where you came from, and we wont quit until a complete, unconditional, and absolute military Victory is won over your evil invading forces.

Does that mean you are on his side or mine?

Scott Robertson
Farenzian WA Ambassador

I'm a Sovereigntist, I believe that drug laws are best determined at the national level. You do the math.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Oh, let's do go into the non-human issue here. Let's go into it full force. You want to put an internationally declared age minimum on the ability to purchase and consume alcohol? What about species that don't live long enough to reach it? What about species that live far, far longer and therefore would still be children at that age? What about species whose physiological development so differs from yours that they are able to properly digest and filter alcoholic compounds from birth, or species whose biochemistry is cyclical rather than linear and thus has no bearing on age? What about species whose physical makeup requires them to consume alcohol at a young age and makes them allergic to it above your chosen 'age of majority'? Are you going to tell them they don't matter? Are you going to tell them they don't count? You can't say "this resolution applies only to humans", because not only is that blatant discrimination it goes directly against World Assembly law which clearly states that all proposals and resolutions must apply to all member nations without exception. How exactly do you plan to handle that, or do you plan to handle it at all?

And how about that drink limit, hm? Declaring international law to limit the number of drinks an individual can have is absurd! It would render useless one of the most profitable exports in my region (Sobriety Pills), and it doesn't take into account the varying metabolisms and technology levels of member nations' citizens! What may be too much for some may be too little for another, not to mention the non-human species who need to consume a certain amount or more just to survive and the countless other technologies comparable to and surpassing the chemical devices employed in my region. Plus it completely flies in the face of religious freedoms, and that's on top of the economic fallout. If you put a cap on how many drinks a person can have, you've also put a cap on how many drinks a business can sell. There are nations whose economies are primarily structured around the alcohol industry. You are telling these nations that you don't care if they go bankrupt so long as they adhere to your strict moral code, because that's exactly what this is.

There is no real legislative purpose here. There is no desire to reduce crime, no concern for national and international welfare, no impetus towards public health and well-being, not even a footnote of anxiety on behalf of some poor waif somewhere whose sob story really got your attention. You're not even doing this to gain some amount of political power or prestige, which, while unacceptable, would at least be understandable. This is entirely about morality. Specifically YOUR morality and that little angry twitch in your head that happens every time you see someone who doesn't adhere to it, because by the Librarian if they're not going to do what's right (and your version is the ONLY valid one), then you're going to make them do it "for their own good", which almost NEVER actually makes anyone's life better but surely makes you feel better about yourself.

So how about we cut the charade, fellas? Let's get down to the bedrock and just admit it. You want us to be like you because you think your conscience is louder and more morally educated than ours. You want to play Daddy and tell people what toys to play with and who their real friends are and make them finish their vegetables for the sake of starving Chechnyan children? Fine. You can do that all you like in your own country, but keep your wondrous morality the SKEIN`T out of mine!

*excuses herself from the debate and storms off in search of other, less infuriating legislative measures to consider*

All right, since when did non-human species have anything to do with this? What nation is not controlled and inhabited by humans?

Anyway, I have come to a decision. If my proposal does not meet the 53-approval requirement by the end of tomorrow, thereby disposing of it, I will cease my attempts to pass it.

Sincerely,
Scott Robertson
Farenzian WA Ambassador

All right, since when did non-human species have anything to do with this? What nation is not controlled and inhabited by humans?

Anyway, I have come to a decision. If my proposal does not meet the 53-approval requirement by the end of tomorrow, thereby disposing of it, I will cease my attempts to pass it.

Sincerely,
Scott Robertson
Farenzian WA Ambassador


There are literally scores of member states of this organisation which are peopled with non-human sapients, but the fact that the Ambassador for Farenz did not know this before deciding to inflict their foolish legal experiments upon the w.a. is hardly a surprise.

Indeed this is further evidence of the delegation of Farenz's vast dearth of basic knowledge and common sense.


We should say though that the delegation of Farenz does not seem irredeemably beyond reason, their announcement that this will be their last attempt to force the w.a. in to their crazy prohibition regime is perhaps evidence of a glimmer of nascent perspicacity.

Yours,

All right, since when did non-human species have anything to do with this? What nation is not controlled and inhabited by humans?

Hallo ^_^

7 billion of us little ones can't be wrong ^_^

SQUEE!

All right, since when did non-human species have anything to do with this? What nation is not controlled and inhabited by humans?

Anyway, I have come to a decision. If my proposal does not meet the 53-approval requirement by the end of tomorrow, thereby disposing of it, I will cease my attempts to pass it.

Sincerely,
Scott Robertson
Farenzian WA Ambassador

And we'll be having an orgy should this fail. Even though we have one every night, that's beside the point.

All right, since when did non-human species have anything to do with this? What nation is not controlled and inhabited by humans?

Anyway, I have come to a decision. If my proposal does not meet the 53-approval requirement by the end of tomorrow, thereby disposing of it, I will cease my attempts to pass it.

Sincerely,
Scott Robertson
Farenzian WA Ambassador


I hope for your sake, Ambassador Robertson, that this proposal does not pass. Otherwise numerous very angry and sober delegates, myself included, will be quick to congratulate you should the WA Stranger's Bar close.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

I hope for your sake, Ambassador Robertson, that this proposal does not pass. Otherwise numerous very angry and sober delegates, myself included, will be quick to congratulate you should the WA Stranger's Bar close.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

The Stranger's Bar wouldn't be affected by this, it's not a nation let alone a member of the WA.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Stranger's Bar wouldn't be affected by this, it's not a nation let alone a member of the WA.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Really? So is the WA Building itself exempt from its own rules? I'll have to ask the management.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

Regardless of whether the Strangers' Bar is a WA member nation or not, what's the point of diplomatic immunity if you can't use it to get a bloody drink?

Regardless of whether the Strangers' Bar is a WA member nation or not, what's the point of diplomatic immunity if you can't use it to get a bloody drink?

so if i declare my entire population to be diplomats, this proposed legislation would become useless?

Well, that's not really how diplomatic immunity works, but you could simply make up a religion, certify all bartenders and waiters as authorities of said religion, define your entire nation as a place of worship of that religion, and make "consumption of drugs and alcohol" that religion's sole ceremony. Problem solved, and you would have created the most kickass religion ever.