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.
