[GA - FAILED] Recreational Drugs Compact

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hulldom

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Boston Castle
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

Recreational Drugs Compact
Category: Social Justice | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic​

The General Assembly hereby:
  1. reserves to its member states whether to legalise, decriminalise, or forbid the possession, distribution, growing, use, sale and purchase of drugs for recreational purposes within their jurisdiction,
  2. suggests that members treat paraphernalia used with a certain recreational drug as having the same legal status as that drug, and
  3. urges members to fund or provide addiction recovery services for intensive drug users who sincerely desire them, without fear of punishment for using such services.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
31302
"Recreational Drugs Compact" has failed 1,936 votes (13.0%) to 13,004 votes (87.0%).
 
Last edited:
IFV
Overview
This resolution seeks to guarantee the ability of member states to set internal policy regarding the "possession, distribution, growing, use, sale and purchase of drugs for recreational purposes". It also "suggests" that member states impose the same legal status upon paraphernalia pertaining to a particular recreational drug as said drug. Lastly, the resolution "urges" member states to "fund or provide addiction recovery services for intensive drug users who sincerely desire them, without fear of punishment for using such services".

Recommendation
We are thoroughly disappointed with this resolution in its entirety. At a time where the General Assembly is in the process of tackling reactionary policies and infringements against human dignity, the author of this resolution wishes to set up procedural hurdles for any attempt to soften drug policy on an international level. This fact is in fact acknowledged by the author themselves, who referred to their work as a "blocker". It does not do anything except guarantee the wasting of the General Assembly's time should it be passed. Furthermore, the resolution encourages member states to treat, among other things; burnt pieces of tinfoil, empty plastic pouches, and glass pipes with the same legal status as recreational drugs. Such a classification is absurd, and must not be enshrined by the General Assembly into international law. Lastly, the resolution fails to even make its sole positive suggestion binding in even the slightest sense. There is absolutely no justification for not barring member states from retaliating against those suffering from substance abuse that attempt to seek aid for their troubles. For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly Resolution at vote, "Recreational Drugs Compact".
Our Voting Recommendation Dispatch--Please Upvote!
 
Last edited:
Against (non-WA)

Subclause a accomplishes nothing. Subclause b isn't in the World Assembly's jurisdiction imo. Subclause c? Ehh. I don't think I want 2/3s of a resolution to be useless.
 
walrus:
Subclause a accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Article a would reserve to member states whether to legalise, decriminalise, or forbid the use (etc.) of any recreational drug, and forbid WA interference in these matters.

walrus:
Subclause b isn't in the World Assembly's jurisdiction imo.
Click to expand...
Article b is non-binding.

walrus:
Subclause c? Ehh. I don't think I want 2/3s of a resolution to be useless.
Click to expand...
No comment.
 
Tinhampton:
Wrong. Article a would reserve to member states whether to legalise, decriminalise, or forbid the use (etc.) of any recreational drug, and forbid WA interference in these matters.
Click to expand...
Not quite sure whether it is the same the WA voting against any resolutions that attempt to intervene against the situation.

Will believe that there is more things that could be written in a resolution about drugs, so am voting against the compact version.
 
Tinhampton:
Wrong. Article a would reserve to member states whether to legalise, decriminalise, or forbid the use (etc.) of any recreational drug, and forbid WA interference in these matters.


Article b is non-binding.


No comment.
Click to expand...
It was already reserved to member states without any legislation like this. The "it's non-binding" argument is also invalid in a mild resolution. All of this is non-binding, really.
 
This proposal has achieved the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn or marked illegal, it will proceed to a vote at Sunday’s Major Update.

Also, ooh new voting template!

Against
 
Last edited:
Veltvalen:
This proposal has achieved the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn or marked illegal, it will proceed to a vote at Sunday’s Major Update.

Also, ooh new voting template!

Against
Click to expand...
It’s not exactly new, just the change of one word. See the ping in the staff channel in the Executive Server for an explanation.
 
"Recreational Drugs Compact" has failed 1,936 votes (13.0%) to 13,004 votes (87.0%).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top