[GA - Passed] World Psychoactive Drugs Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

World Psychoactive Drugs Act
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5, Co-authored by: Greater Cesnica | Onsite Topic​

Believing that drug criminalisation, as previously declared by this chamber, has been an ineffective policy, which, instead of actually reducing drug addiction and use, punishes victims and causes harm to society writ large,

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to past World Assembly law still in force.
  1. In this resolution, a "psychoactive drug" is a substance consumed recreationally in order to induce psychoactive effects.

  2. No member nation may prosecute, punish, or penalise any individual for their possession of a psychoactive drug, except where
    1. said drug is used, and can be successfully used, to incapacitate another individual as to facilitate the commission of violence against that individual, and the individual possessing said drug is demonstrably aware that they are possessing said drug; or

    2. that member nation can provide clear and convincing evidence that the possession of said drug is for the purpose of providing or otherwise distributing said drug to another individual or entity.

  3. No member nation may prosecute, punish, or penalise any individual for their consumption of a psychoactive drug, so long as such consumption occurs in private and does not pose a clear, specific, and imminent danger to the health or safety of other individuals.

  4. The confiscation of a psychoactive drug from an individual shall not be prohibited under this resolution. Any conviction, punishment, or sentence which violates the terms of this resolution must be immediately rescinded; and no member nation may commence, continue, or resume enforcement of any such conviction, punishment, or sentence. Political and administrative subdivisions of member nations must comply with this resolution as member nations.
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
10402
 
Last edited:
Overview
The proposal serves as a replacement to the repealed GA #577, "Drug Decriminalization Act", which decriminalized recreational drugs but was repealed for its exclusion of drugs with "recognized medical purposes" as being defined as drugs (still criminalizing the use of medical recreational drugs) and its vague statement of "monetary or other forms of material gain" (which may unintentionally cause governments to punish simple drug use). This proposal seeks to fully decriminalize drugs used recreationally consumed in private. Members nations are still allowed to prosecute individuals using or distributing a recreational drug to incapacitate and harm an individual, and if the drug poses a serious harm to the safety or health of others. It is also stated that current punishments for recreational drug uses that violate the resolution must be instantly rescinded.

Recommendation
The proposal serves the purpose of decreasing negative effects related with drug abuse, as criminalizing drug use does not reduce addiction but punishes the victims of drug abuse and prevents them from adequately seeking rehabilitation. It also prevents governments from using illegal drug possession charges to imprison political opponents, to oppress minorities, and to justify violence against victims of drug abuse.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the at-vote General Assembly resolution, "World Psychoactive Drugs Act".
 
Last edited:
I am against this proposal. Now that I am a TNP WA nation, I can finally vote for real; hurrah. I really would like to be in favour of this, because the proposal accomplishes its legislative goals excellently. However, I disagree with those goals. Policies of criminalisation with respect to drugs have a deservedly poor reputation in the real world. They are often used to oppress minoritarian groups, with few goals apart from policing for the sake of policing. However, the General Assembly contains many nations, some of which might have been so fortunate so as to not have this poor record on criminalising drugs.

Drugs, by their nature, hurt people. The purpose of governments is to prevent harm to their citizens. There are factors layered on top of that, such as stability and democracy, but the fundamental nature of the state is to provide an umbrella of protection from which those under the umbrella can benefit. In reality, policies on drugs with a criminal bent often feature nothing more than trying to push those unmeritedly considered undesirable out from this metaphorical shield of protection. However, in the world of the General Assembly, it is conceivable and likely that such policies could serve the more benevolent aims of protecting people from addiction. It is those people who are the most vulnerable in society who most often suffer from drugs, and addiction thereto.

I recognise that this is something of a text-wall, but this is a topic about which strong feelings are legitimately manifest. On this particular instance, I do not feel as though pursuing decriminalisation is a worthy or even benevolent aim for the General Assembly, and I did wish to thoroughly explain why.
 
Last edited:
Kenmoria:
I am against this proposal. Now that I am a TNP WA nation, I can finally vote for real; hurrah. I really would like to be in favour of this, because the proposal accomplishes its legislative goals excellently. However, I disagree with those goals. Policies of criminalisation with respect to drugs have a deservedly poor reputation in the real world. They are often used to oppress minoritarian groups, with few goals apart from policing for the sake of policing. However, the General Assembly contains many nations, some of which might have been so fortunate so as to not have this poor record on criminalising drugs.

Drugs, by their nature, hurt people. The purpose of governments is to prevent harm to their citizens. There are factors layered on top of that, such as stability and democracy, but the fundamental nature of the state is to provide an umbrella of protection from which those under the umbrella can benefit. In reality, policies on drugs with a criminal bent often feature nothing more than trying to push those unmeritedly considered undesirable out from this metaphorical shield of protection. However, in the world of the General Assembly, it is conceivable and likely that such policies could serve the more benevolent aims of protecting people from addiction. It is those people who are the most vulnerable in society who most often suffer from drugs, and addiction thereto.

I recognise that this is something of a text-wall, but this is a topic about which strong feelings are legitimately manifest. On this particular instance, I do not feel as though pursuing decriminalisation is a worthy or even benevolent aim for the General Assembly, and I did wish to thoroughly explain why.
Click to expand...
If drug criminalisation policies targeted only sellers and distributors of drugs -- which this resolution is specifically designed not to prevent -- sure. As said in the preamble, as soon as someone is targeted for using drugs, that is necessarily a "punishing victims" approach, even if the justification is a (in my opinion rather flimsy) "for your own good". If someone is addicted to meth, why is that an offense which merits being tossed in jail for? How does it "protect" a heroin addict to be placed in a prison cell for years, regardless of the state of their addiction? The answer is that it plainly doesn't, and thus should be prohibited.

As stated in the preamble, besides the flaws as to how drug criminalisation is implemented in real life, and regardless of how it is imposed, "drug criminalisation...has been an ineffective policy, which, instead of actually reducing drug addiction and use, punishes victims and causes harm to society writ large".
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
If drug criminalisation policies targeted only sellers and distributors of drugs -- which this resolution is specifically designed not to prevent -- sure. As said in the preamble, as soon as someone is targeted for using drugs, that is necessarily a "punishing victims" approach, even if the justification is a (in my opinion rather flimsy) "for your own good". If someone is addicted to meth, why is that an offense which merits being tossed in jail for? How does it "protect" a heroin addict to be placed in a prison cell for years, regardless of the state of their addiction? The answer is that it plainly doesn't, and thus should be prohibited.

As stated in the preamble, besides the flaws as to how drug criminalisation is implemented in real life, and regardless of how it is imposed, "drug criminalisation...has been an ineffective policy, which, instead of actually reducing drug addiction and use, punishes victims and causes harm to society writ large".
Click to expand...
Greatest Cesnica, in his unwavering benevolence, has singlehandedly ushered GA#643 "Reducing Addiction" through these mostly-esteemed chambers, which requires member states to create and advertise drug addiction services and ensure that addicts can access them. This applies whether those member states legalise, decriminalise or outlaw the use or possession of any or all drugs, or whether they are in non-compliance with other GA resolutions in doing so. It is possible to be non-compliant with every other resolution and still comply with GA#643.
 
Present. As mentioned on discord I plan to pass on voting on this resolution given that I don't have a good appreciation of drug related issues in the US (or Canada), not living in the US myself.
 
For. A vague hypothetical scenario is hardly a convincing argument against all the actual evidence that exists.
 
For. Though the topic itself I have some doubts on, especially considering the highly addictive potencies of some psychoactive drugs (like crack cocaine), it is a well-written and worded proposal and does have, in total, many benefits that adequately overweigh the negatives.
 
I do think there is one problem with s2(b). "Clear and convincing evidence" is actually a standard that is lower than the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" usually required for criminal convictions. The result is that people punished for possessing drugs with intent to sell for a lower burden of proof than is required for criminal punishment.
 
Comfed:
I do think there is one problem with s2(b). "Clear and convincing evidence" is actually a standard that is lower than the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" usually required for criminal convictions. The result is that people punished for possessing drugs with intent to sell for a lower burden of proof than is required for criminal punishment.
Click to expand...
That was a deliberate choice, so that it is not entirely prohibited to presume intent to distribute in case of eg large amounts of a drug (for example, why else would someone possess a 50kg container of heroin?) while expecting such presumptions to be reasonable (for example you couldn't just assert 3 grams of cocaine or 2 grams of heroin to be "clear and convincing evidence", cf GA #577).
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
That was a deliberate choice, so that it is not entirely prohibited to presume intent to distribute in case of eg large amounts of a drug (for example, why else would someone possess a 50kg container of heroin?) while expecting such presumptions to be reasonable (for example you couldn't just assert 3 grams of cocaine or 2 grams of heroin to be "clear and convincing evidence").
Click to expand...
That just means that people can be prosecuted for simple possession for a lower burden of proof than other crimes. Inherent in it is the presumption that possessing drugs is basically still a crime, because otherwise you wouldn't treat possession with intent to sell as an offence included inside it with a lower burden of proof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top