[GA - Failed] On Marijuana

The World Assembly,

NOTES Section 9 of the General Assembly Resolution number 90, "Drug Trafficking Act",

• "Recognises the right of nations to deny entry to vessels transporting recreational drugs."

HEREBY DEFINES,

• Marijuana:: cannabis, a psychoactive plant used medically and recreationally,
  
• Marijuana related paraphernalia:: any equipment, product, or accessory that is intended or modified for making, using, or concealing cannabis,

MANDATES a full pardon shall be issued to individuals incriminated or incarcerated for marijuana and marijuana related paraphernalia;

ENSURES reparations shall be paid towards individuals incarcerated for marijuana and marijuana related paraphernalia in the form of a percentage of the prosecuting nations GDP per capita per year of incarceration;

DENOTES an individual may possess and have on their person marijuana buds, concentrate marijuana, and edible marijuana, in an amount denoted by the individual's national governments and their municipalities with a minimum amount of two ounces, one half-ounce, and one-thousand milligrams, respectively;

ENACTS national governments and their municipalities to set in place programs for licensure for the national growing, buying, selling, storing, and otherwise trading of marijuana;

RECOGNISING a significant proportion of agreement from the population,

UNDERSTANDING this recognition does in fact warrant action,

DICTATES that the aforementioned shall be henceforth effective into law.
~
Co-Author: Fdryden

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!

For

Against. The phrase "incriminated or incarcerated for marijuana and marijuana related paraphernalia" used twice in important sections of the proposal doesn't really make sense, since you have to be incarcerated for a crime relating to the drug, which isn't mentioned at all. If we are to interpret this as all crimes relating to marijuana, then that's very problematic because some of these crimes will be violent crimes.

The preamble is also a bit weird, since it just notes a previous resolution and says nothing else.

Against.

We support the volitional use of recreational marijuana in my nation, however, it should be noted that all intoxicants including marijuana do have health risks that member nations may feel the need to address or limit. While I personally feel it is a better policy to allow citizens to use marijuana and try to educate them to the risks, due to the likelihood that banning marijuana will simply lead to a black market and higher crime rates, I do not believe it is the place of the General Assembly to dictate this policy to its member nations.

Against.

I have opposition to any legislation which handles one specific kind of drug (especially with the definition of marijuana being so restraining). I draw confusion as to why they define marijuana, instead of just using "cannabis" as the term throughout the proposal, which isn't necessarily grounds for opposition in itself, but it is a peculiarity.

Now, let's get into the meat of the proposal. Perhaps the most important clause here is the MANDATES clause, but that has some significant issues. First of all, "incarcerated for marijuana and marijuana related paraphernalia" is different from "incarcerated for charges related to marijuana and marijuana related paraphernalia." Nobody gets arrested for marijuana and marijuana-related paraphernalia, but that can probably be safely ignored under the good-faith clause of GAR#2. It's presumably referring to these charges related to marijuana and its paraphernalia, which, personally, I have no opposition towards. However, I note that there's a fairly substantial difference between charges relating the possession of marijuana and charges relating the dealing of marijuana - the first of which is undeniably a victimless crime, and the second of which (arguably) has victims. I feel it's an overstep to require a pardon for illegal dealers of marijuana - especially considering that legalization of marijuana is what allows safety protocols to be brought into effect, which cannot be had while marijuana is illegalized.

Furthermore (and this was pointed out to me by Bormiar), the phrasing of the clause makes it so that people who were picked up for charges relating to marijuana possession, but also had a more significant crime (such as unlawful homicide) would need to be pardoned as well, due to the terminology saying "a full pardon shall be issued" (emphasis mine) to people who have been charged with these marijuana-related charges.

The percentage of reparation paid could very well amount to 0.0000000000000001%, as it's left up to the individual nation, thus essentially nullifying the ENSURES clause.

I don't know why the preambulatory clauses are at the end, and I disagree with many of them.

I do actually agree with the ENACTS clause, but, once again, it seems futile to narrow it down to just Marijuana.

Against.

ICly, we (as a conservative state) would never vote for such a proposal, so it is an against from me.
But really, are we going to pass a single resolution on one specific thing known as Marijuana? I don't see how there is a point to set an assembly-wide regulation to legalise Marijuana to this extent. Something which should be based on the decision of individual nations suddenly becomes a topic of international concern.
Furthermore, as pointed out by Morover, the clauses are also very unclear and there are lots of problems with the proposal as a whole (which I shall not repeat).

For.

Because, it sometimes helps people with medical problems get Maurijuana to become more relaxed with their medical pains and not be so sore, but recreational drug use (maybe). Its very controversial, but I say for relaxation and regulations put into place, it will be a great thing to have possibly if other nations agree with this proposal possibly with my opinions in the air.

Against

Against.

Voting against

Against

Against

*~AGAINST~* X Infinity

Against.

I believe Morover summed up, very nicely, the problems with the proposed legislation.

Against

Against

Against

Against

Against.

Against.

Against.