At Vote:Recreational Drug Legalization [Complete]

Honeysheep

Honeysheep

TNPer
Recreational Drug Legalization
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.


Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: Jey

Description: The UN,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many citizens of UN states wish to consume recreational drugs for many purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use harms only the individual user,

BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs is an ineffective and unjust deterrent,

RECOGNIZING that responsible cultivation and preparation of certain plant-based drugs for personal consumption does not create public health hazards,

SEEKING to legalize consumption of these plant-based drugs where it does not involve direct physical harm to others,

1.DEFINES as recreational drugs for the purpose of this resolution: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, Ergot, Kava, Mescaline-containing cacti, Psilocin- and psilocybin-containing fungi, Qat, Salvia divinorum, Tea, Tobacco,

2.LEGALIZES in UN states the possession, cultivation, and preparation of said drugs, given these activities do not directly and physically harm others,

3.LEGALIZES in UN states the consumption of said drugs on private property, with the owner's consent, and public property, with the appropriate authorities' consent,

4.STRONGLY URGES states to illegalize the practice of deceiving or coercing others into using said drugs, except when administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual,

5.PERMITS member states to:

I)Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the national age of majority,

II)Restrict individuals under the influence of said drugs from operating vehicles and heavy/dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, physically harm others,

III)Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain - at their discretion but subject to other applicable laws and with the utmost respect for individual freedom of expression and conscience - any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:

a)Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, or severe distress to others,

b)Put others at significant risk of physical injury,

6.ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission to:

I)Monitor the medical safety of said drugs,

II)Advise on further issues concerning recreational drug laws,

III)Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7.AFFIRMS that this resolution affords intoxicated persons who physically harm others no protection from prosecution and sentencing under applicable laws,

8.NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of said drugs for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9.URGES all states to further relax their drug laws, by expanding the definition of recreational drugs to other substances, and creating a legal framework under which they may be legally procured,

10.REQUESTS that states support organizations and initiatives for voluntary rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, education on responsible drug use, and prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11.URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the effects of drug use, and that suppliers of said drugs are not allowed to make false claims about them.

Co-Authored by: _Myopia_
 
This resolution is currently up for vote in the UN.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below. Note, however, that you must have a UN nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.
 
First off, it's about time this came to a vote. I've seen versions of this in the UN proposal listing since I first started playing. FOR
 
My problem with this is that it's already addressed in the daily issues. It's also odd that they put caffiene-containing liquids in but not alcohol-based ones.

Anywho, Unterwasserseestaat votes AGAINST this resolution.
 
This resolution is problematic -- not only do they bafflingly define tea and coffee as a recreational drug (and scientifically its not in the same category as other, "standard" recreational drugs), but it also seems to add more bureaucracy on drug issues.

For me, it is ironic that a de-regulation of these drugs would result in a proposal so filled with regulations on what to do AFTER it's de-regulated. If the central tenet in this argument is that recreational drug use doesn't really hurt anyone but the user (itself a fallacy in some cases), then all the regulations in this proposal argue against that.

I need not add that harming oneself results in harming MORE than oneself, unless we assume that each person has no family, friends, etc. I would also note that harming oneself also harms society at large -- especially with regards to health care costs.

Any kind of deregulation in this area should be placed firmly in the hands of professionals, ie. doctors. Putting it in the hands of law-enforcement and a UN world body is ludicrous.

AGAINST.
 
wizardofoz01:
This resolution is problematic -- not only do they bafflingly define tea and coffee as a recreational drug (and scientifically its not in the same category as other, "standard" recreational drugs), but it also seems to add more bureaucracy on drug issues.

For me, it is ironic that a de-regulation of these drugs would result in a proposal so filled with regulations on what to do AFTER it's de-regulated. If the central tenet in this argument is that recreational drug use doesn't really hurt anyone but the user (itself a fallacy in some cases), then all the regulations in this proposal argue against that.

I need not add that harming oneself results in harming MORE than oneself, unless we assume that each person has no family, friends, etc. I would also note that harming oneself also harms society at large -- especially with regards to health care costs.

Any kind of deregulation in this area should be placed firmly in the hands of professionals, ie. doctors. Putting it in the hands of law-enforcement and a UN world body is ludicrous.

AGAINST.
Click to expand...
I find that the regulation and controls it calls for is monumentally fewer considering the unbelievable amounts of resources that already go toward prohibiting drugs.

From respective task forces from up to three levels of government, the bureaucracy in place to monitor prescription drugs, overfilled jails stuffed with non-violent criminals, partnerships to futiley stop the international trade, production, and distribution of drugs, the societal cancer is giving organized crime a monopoly over the drug trade, and the list goes on.

As for your last paragraph, fear of police action is what keeps addicts from seeking medical help with the stigma from years of hypocritical and misleading propaganda has further isolated those who need help. This act will allow those who need help to get it without being taken away from their families and loved ones.
 
mr_sniffles:
the societal cancer is giving organized crime a monopoly over the drug trade, and the list goes on.

As for your last paragraph, fear of police action is what keeps addicts from seeking medical help with the stigma from years of hypocritical and misleading propaganda has further isolated those who need help. This act will allow those who need help to get it without being taken away from their families and loved ones.
Click to expand...
I personally do not believe decriminalization will prevent organized crime from KEEPING and even enlarging their hold on the drug trade. Just because drugs are suddenly legal does not mean the crime bosses will give up their business.

Secondly, I agree with your point that law enforcement has no place in attempting to "fix" addicts. Given this, I find it odd that the resolution MENTIONS a law enforcement role. I would prefer the follownig instead of decriminalization: any addicts that are found need to be released to treatment centers and other programs, whilst law enforcement should concentrate on going after those who mass-distribute these drugs with the SOLE interest of ruining lives through addiction and turning that pain into pocket change. The problem is that law enforcement often do not differentiate between the addict and the distributor -- the addict is not a criminal in a strict sense; any crimes he commits is in order to get his/her "fix". They are not even biologically in control of themselves and I would argue it is a mental state akin to insanity in that way. However, I do not believe the solution is deregulating these drugs, ESPECIALLY not when the author does not put this entire operation in the hands of medical professionals.
 
I can't believe it. A proposal where I actually AGREE with the National Sovereignty argument...

*Hersfold votes against and then passes out.
 
If the issue is that the bill doesn't go far enough but attacking supply alone is continuing to fight the war in the wrong way. Addiction is a disease, it strikes arbitrarily and despite pigeonholed media representation; is not a matter of personal failure or regulated to the ghettos and the scum of society. Everyone is in danger of becoming addicted to drugs, we see addicts from the homeless on the street to suburban disillusionment to famous celebrities.

No decriminalization won't end the stranglehold the mob has on the drug trade but legalization will, as to this bill; it legalizes cultivation. In RL, the cocoa and poppy plant is a more lucrative cash crop to Colombians because Western governments subsidize thier farmers for votes to such a stupendous level that the price of things like (in Canada) grain are artificially low, and farmers without government bribes simply cannot compete. Canada produces enough grain to feed all of Africa and with the Green revolution the ability to feed the world is something we've had the power to do for decades, it's only the economics that forces them to starve.

My point is this, organized crime controls the distribution and the industrial side of production (refining opium to heroin and cocoa plants to fine grade cocaine) but without the farmers and the incentive to grow these plants; your attack on the suppliers will only embolden rebel groups who depend on drug money to continue their tactics of vicious violence and harm the farmers who only want to make a living. Not to mention the herbicides used to kill these plants poison the air, water, and land; ruining the biodiversity and the ability to grow anything else afterwards.

If it is legalized then government distribution or even corporate distribution will effectively crush the illegal competitors. Illicit drugs are a multi-billion dollar industry strictly because supplies are under constant danger. A common method to increase money is to "step" on drugs, a 100% pure kilo of cocaine is then diluted and diluted as it passes through each dealer to increase the mass. In Canada, it is damn near impossible to get 100% pure cocaine, the normal street coke is around 55% with that the dealer who bought a kilo has almost diluted it to double its size, making double the profit by selling it. Morphine in Canada is $4 per 10 milligram, for heroin (illegally) it's $8 to $16 depending on alleged purity.

It's not that the mob will simply give up, when the trade is legitimized they simply can't compete with corporations known for their ruthless cost cutting and price wars or governments notoriously known for monopolizing and regulating industries for their benefit (prostitution and gambling).
 
I fail to see how the fact that addiction can strike anyone is an argument against an anti-supply stance.

If economics is the base on which this issue can be resolved, the simple economics of drugs is the same as that of any other good: supply and demand. The only reason farmers farm these drugs is because of demand in modernized countries. Once the addicts are actually treated instead of being put in jail, and once the wholesale suppliers are REALLY cracked down on, then the people on the supply end of the chain have neither the will nor the ability to grow their previous cash crop.

Government bribes or subsidies are another thing altogether. That part of the equation is secondary compared to thep ublic health portion of it.
 
FOR There's a good balance struck here between personal freedom (i.e. that of the individual) and state sovereignty issues.

I also agree with the establishment of the UN Drug Commission, as, due to drug use and supply being an international issue, there should therefore be an international body to act in its adminstration.
 
Does anyone know what would happen if the right hand (or left, if you're left-handed) were removed from a car thief? I suspect that the rates of auto theft would decline to an extremely low number.

Apply the same to drug dealers -- a fun, just thought. :)
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the UN Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top