[GA - Failed] Drug Abuse Amelioration Act

Status
Not open for further replies.

bowloftoast

Not Just For Breakfast
Discord
bowloftoast

ga.jpg

Drug Abuse Amelioration Act
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Maowi Co-Author: Holly United | Onsite Topic
Aware of the addictive nature of most recreational drugs;

Cognizant that the use or possession of recreational drugs is banned in many member nations;

Believing that criminalizing the use or possession of recreational drugs does little to help those who are addicted to said drugs; and

Eager to improve the situation for drug addicts through effective social policies;

The World Assembly:

  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
    1. 'recreational drugs' as substances taken recreationally for their physical or psychoactive effects;

    2. 'rehabilitation' as the elimination of a person's physical or psychological dependence on recreational drugs based on scientific methods, and harming or distressing the person only as much as is necessary for the treatment. Rehabilitation may take place within a secure environment provided that this aids the treatment in some way;

  2. Reserves to all member nations the right to decide which recreational drugs to ban and which to legalise;


    1. Mandates that member nations in which the use of recreational drugs is illegal may not punish or give a criminal record to a person for using or possessing with the sole intent of using recreational drugs the first time they are caught, although the illegal drugs may be confiscated from the user; instead, an addicted user must be provided with rehabilitation;

    2. Encourages member nations to mandate the return to rehabilitation by a former user of drugs if, after a period of time wherein the immediate effects of withdrawal have passed and normal life has been mostly resumed, restarting of recreational drug use begins;

  3. Clarifies that:
    1. light fines may be given to those found using recreational drugs in member nations in which the possession and use of recreational drugs is illegal, not exceeding the fines given for a civil offence, the first time they are caught;

    2. member nations may keep records on the identities of those found, for the first time, illegally possessing or using recreational drugs, not to be disclosed to any non-government individual and to be used solely to check whether a person illegally possessing or using recreational drugs is doing so for the first time;

    3. member nations may punish people for crimes, other than the possession and use of recreational drugs, committed strictly as a result of their use of recreational drugs;

    4. member nations may punish people trying to make other people take recreational drugs without both their knowledge and consent;

    1. Orders people, groups and organisations legally selling recreational drugs to clearly state the ingredients of their products on the packaging of said products, in the principal language(s) spoken by people in the place of sale. The list of ingredients must be easily legible to the naked eye;

    2. Clarifies that in the case in which recreational drugs are being sold without packaging, the entity selling the drugs must communicate the ingredients of the drugs to the buyer upon being asked, and must provide an accessible method for the buyer to enquire about the ingredients.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
Information for Voters:

This resolution suffers from a lack of clarity in its mandates, and a certain naivety about drugs and addiction, in general. The stated definition of drugs is incredibly broad, with no differentiation between the most harmful and the most benign. The resolution suggests decriminalizing first time possession of drugs in jurisdictions where they are illegal but makes no clear statement about quantities possessed. The concern is that an individual caught with a significant quantity of drugs, suitable for distribution, would also be absolved of criminal responsibility on a first offense, increasing the potential for illegal trafficking. Further, the resolution wrongly conflates first-time possession of drugs for recreational purposes and drugs being possessed as part of an individual’s addiction. The reality is that many recreational drugs aren’t addictive. No clear distinction is made between addictive and non-addictive drugs, or between addicted and non-addicted users caught in possession, yet mandatory rehabilitation is universally suggested as the alternative to criminal charges. Even in a case where a person is addicted to the drug they may possess, most research suggests that forced rehabilitation is an ineffective way to deal with the problem, with the vast majority of addicted persons relapsing or re-offending. Well intended as it may be, the proposal doesn’t reflect a comprehensive understanding of the complex subject matter and could well do more harm than good.
For these reasons The Ministry or World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against this resolution.
 
Last edited:
Against
Author seems way out of their element on this one, and this resolution is quite naive and mightily uninformed. A great many recreational drugs aren't the least bit addictive, and mandatory rehab for a simple first possession is an absurd waste of everyone's time and resources.
At no point do I see any mention of quantities, which always determines the line between that which is deemed for personal use and that which is determined to be for trafficking. This needs to be clarified on a drug by drug basis, given that every drug has a different level of effect on the individual.
Also, not the role of the WA to be telling nations how to enforce their drug laws, especially when it's clear that the WA doesn't really understand the drugs or users, in question.
 
Typo in ghost clause 3. 2a is extremely problematic as drug dealers and cartels effectively go free their first time. The definition of recreational drugs is flimsy at best.

Leaning against.
 
1.1 - Defines 'recreational drug' to be all drugs. What drug is not taken for its physical or psychoactive effects?

Thus, 3.1 states that persons found with any illegal drug be rehabilitated and essentially let go, albeit after a 'light fine.' This is highly problematic, as it means that drug dealers and cartels basically get set free, whereas individuals carrying nonaddictive drugs could be forced into an unnecessary rehabilitation process.

Against.

WA: El Fiji Grande
 
I don't want to argue here or start a long debate - that's what the onsite forums are for - but I would like to correct some misreadings of the text. It might not change your minds, but I'd rather make sure you're actually voting on what you think you're voting on.

A great many recreational drugs aren't the least bit addictive, and mandatory rehab for a simple first possession is an absurd waste of everyone's time and resources.

Rehabilitation is only mandated for addicted users.

At no point do I see any mention of quantities, which always determines the line between that which is deemed for personal use and that which is determined to be for trafficking. This needs to be clarified on a drug by drug basis, given that every drug has a different level of effect on the individual.

The variety of drugs is even wider given the diversity of WA member nations, so it would have been useless to specify threshold quantities of drugs. There is also a wide variety of species within the WA, upon whom different drugs have different effects. So I think it best to leave it to individual nations to decide how to determine whether the defendant was possessing drugs for the purpose of using them or for trafficking.

2a is extremely problematic as drug dealers and cartels effectively go free their first time. The definition of recreational drugs is flimsy at best.

Leaning against.

Do you mean clause 3a? It mandates that drug dealers can't be punished for using the drugs. They can still be punished for possessing them or selling them, as long as they're not possessing them with the sole intention of using them.

1.1 - Defines 'recreational drug' to be all drugs. What drug is not taken for its physical or psychoactive effects?
Thus, 3.1 states that persons found with any illegal drug be rehabilitated and essentially let go, albeit after a 'light fine.' This is highly problematic, as it means that drug dealers and cartels basically get set free, whereas individuals carrying nonaddictive drugs could be forced into an unnecessary rehabilitation process.

Against.

WA: El Fiji Grande

Again, only addicted users must be provided with rehabilitation, and drug dealers and cartels do not get off free for possession or sale.
 
Rehabilitation is only mandated for addicted users.
And how, exactly, is that to be determined, and where, in this ambiguous clause is that made clear? As the clause reads, a person caught with a recreational drug is automatically assumed to be an addict and subject to mandatory rehab. So, if someone is caught with a gram of mushrooms, for personal use, they don't get criminally charged, but they are treated like an addict, and sent to rehab, even though mushrooms aren't addictive
Simultaneously, it is possible for someone to develop a psychological dependence on a non-addictive substance, like marijuana, and there's no clarity here to parse out people in that sort of situation.
You put this all in the same clause, and in doing so, you've lumped everyone into a single category, which assumes all drug users are automatically addicts. Some folks just like to do drugs for recreation - that's why they're referred to as 'recreational drugs'. I'm all for decriminalization, but the way this is laid out is weird. It strikes me as you trying to provide what you think is the compromise between hard-line nations and your suggestions - no criminality, but the rehab piece makes up for it - but you don't really understand the subject.
In all cases, forcing someone into a rehab program is likely not going to help them. There needs to be some willingness to commit to kicking on the part of the addicted person. Simply cutting them off from supply by force can do more harm than good, and the potential for relapse is tremendous. It's a bad approach.

The variety of drugs is even wider given the diversity of WA member nations, so it would have been useless to specify threshold quantities of drugs.
Simple solution would have been to included a statement that referenced individual national limits on a given substance, between personal and for-distribution purposes, and cite those, which you didn't do. Without that, you are making no clear differentiation between someone caught with an ounce of weed and a pound of weed. While someone with a pound is likely dealing, the lack of clarity in your resolution gives them the ability to claim that that pound is for personal use. Again, you're downloading WA ambiguity onto nations, creating more problems than you're solving.

There is also a wide variety of species within the WA, upon whom different drugs have different effects. So I think it best to leave it to individual nations to decide how to determine whether the defendant was possessing drugs for the purpose of using them or for trafficking.
You have included no statement to that effect in your resolution.

Do you mean clause 3a? It mandates that drug dealers can't be punished for using the drugs. They can still be punished for possessing them or selling them, as long as they're not possessing them with the sole intention of using them.
Again, how is that determined?

Again, only addicted users must be provided with rehabilitation, and drug dealers and cartels do not get off free for possession or sale.
Nothing in the language of this proposal makes that clear. Bottom line is this: If the resolution requires the Rosetta stone to bridge the gap between what is written and what was intended, then there's a clarity problem. Clarity problems in WA law leave them open to quick repeal, which we are trying to avoid.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top