[GA - Discarded] Ban On The Involuntary Administration Of Drugs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fregerson

Fregerson

Secretly here
-
-
TNP Nation
PotatoFarmers
Discord
Freg#0420

ga.jpg

Ban On The Involuntary Administration Of Drugs
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Safety
Proposed by: Morover | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly,

Believing that forcing another person to consume drugs for one's own personal gain is unethical and immoral,

Aware, however, that in certain circumstances, the required intake of drugs is useful or necessary,

Believing that these bizarre circumstances result in a need for restrictions on the topic of forced drug use,

Hereby,

Article One

  1. Defines a hallucinogen as a drug which is intended to have a hallucinogenic effect on an individual,

  2. Prohibits the enforcement or coercion of any individual to consume, intake, or otherwise use hallucinogens against their will,

  3. Further prohibits the intentional release of hallucinogens in aerosol form in order to cause any individual to have a hallucinogenic reaction, unless all those who will be exposed have given express consent.

Article Two

  1. Defines a sedative as any drug in which the main effect gives a tranquilizing, sleep-inducing, or any other effect which may invoke drowsiness,

  2. Prohibits the intentional sedation of any individual, except with the express consent of the individual who is being sedated, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin,

  3. Clarifies that should an individual pose a physical threat to themselves or any other individual, non-lethal doses of sedative drugs are permitted to be used on said individual by relevant law enforcement, military, or medical personnel,

  4. Further clarifies that during medical operation which is being performed with the consent of the patient or the patient's next-of-kin, or where the medical operation is deemed necessary for the overall health of the patient and neither the patient or the patient's next-of-kin are able to be reached to acquire consent, a surgeon may apply a sedative, so long as it is deemed either medically necessary for the health and wellbeing of the patient, or for the operation to proceed in a safe manner,

  5. Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated,

  6. Requires the World Health Authority to create a standard of sedatives that will minimize potential injury of sedatives, assuming the sedative is used or administered by a reasonable person,

  7. Demands that the aforementioned standard of sedatives be adhered to in all applicable circumstances.
Co-Authored by United Massachusetts
Click to expand...
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!
 
IFV
This proposal is intended to ban the use of sedatives and hallucinogens against the will of the individual which they are being used on, which it accomplishes adequately. In proposals like "Ban on the Involuntary Administration of Drugs," the main issue is often a lack of sufficient definitions - an issue that the proposal at-vote avoids rather well. The proposal addresses a wide variety of circumstances but is clearly-written and not overbearing.
For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the proposal.
 
Last edited:
For, obviously. I won't give an in-depth analysis for this, due to my apparent bias on the subject, but I'll answer any questions y'all may have.
 
Please explain why law enforcement or military should have access (Article 2, Paragraph 3).
Additionally, Article 2, Paragraph 5 is vague and unclear to me. The reasoning is rather sketchy and leaves room for unintended consequences.
 
Last edited:
Roost1513:
Please explain why law enforcement or military should have access (Article 2, Paragraph 3).
Additionally, Article 2, Paragraph 5 is vague and unclear to me. The reasoning is rather sketchy and leaves room for unintended consequences.
Click to expand...
1. Law enforcement and military personnel only have access to it in order to apply it when an individual poses a credible threat. In other circumstances, they cannot apply it to anybody.
2. 2-5 is fairly clear, in my eyes. If, for example, there's a flower that has the properties of putting members of the population to sleep, and there is a reasonable threat for this flower to do so against the will of the population, the government must, to the best of their ability, suppress the flower (or at least the characteristic that causes the sedation).
 
Morover:
1. Law enforcement and military personnel only have access to it in order to apply it when an individual poses a credible threat. In other circumstances, they cannot apply it to anybody.
2. 2-5 is fairly clear, in my eyes. If, for example, there's a flower that has the properties of putting members of the population to sleep, and there is a reasonable threat for this flower to do so against the will of the population, the government must, to the best of their ability, suppress the flower (or at least the characteristic that causes the sedation).
Click to expand...

1) And who determines that the individual poses a credible threat? Who determines that it's these drugs that should be used instead of other (better) de-escalation measures?
2) And if that flower is a keystone species of the ecosystem? You'd have just significantly destroyed the environment. Unintended consequence right there - and that's just one example. It lacks nuance and forethought.
 
Present.

I am unsure as to how article one, clause 1 will operate in relation to drugs that have multiple effects. It seems to me there is an issue in that, where a drug has multiple effects, there is some unhelpful ambiguity around whether it would be prohibited if the hallucinogenic effect is one that the drug is manufactured and intended to have even if it was not the purpose of administration in a particular case or whether it is only when the (or, at least, a) purpose of the administration is the hallucinogenic effect.

I am also somewhat concerned as to the use of next-of-kin in article two. I may be reading too much into it, but it would seem to me that it has problematic results in cases where a person lacks someone to be their next-of-kin, as I would think it could result in incompetent persons only being able to be sedated under one of the other clauses, even where sedation may be in their best interests. I am also somewhat concerned that it could result in circumstances where a person who was making decisions clearly not in the best interests of the person would be kept in the position of making such decisions, by virtue of being next-of-kin, though I suppose deeming them not to be the legal next-of-kin in such scenarios may avoid that while maintaining compliance with the resolution.
 
As per this post, I will be changing my vote to against. I know it's not strictly how things work here, but I urge the delegate to change their vote to "against" in order to more adequately address the issues at-hand.
 
Morover:
As per this post, I will be changing my vote to against. I know it's not strictly how things work here, but I urge the delegate to change their vote to "against" in order to more adequately address the issues at-hand.
Click to expand...
Didn't you... uh... write it?

For. Let's give Morover another badge! \o/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top