The General Assembly,
Confident in the ability of members to determine their own policies regarding recreational drugs in accordance with their cultural, social, and political frameworks, provided they do not contravene other established international norms or treaties,
Bewildered that GA 90 not only fails to support members in their exercise of the above or otherwise contribute meaningfully to international drug policy, but instead manages to foster an environment of unnecessary diplomatic tension and compromise the ability of members to act in the interests of their own people, and
Adamant that such warped priorities are utterly inconsistent with any reasonable understanding of international diplomacy or the basic functioning of government,
Finds as follows:
- The target resolution outright compromises the ability of governments to operate in its overzealous goal to respect members' domestic recreational drug policies, even beyond what members themselves may want. A large portion of its mandates are misguided, incoherent, or downright bizarre, along with conveying a strange sense of WA-enforced isolationism.
- Section 2 of the target bans members from "pressuring [other] nations to adopt changes in their recreational drugs policy." Even if interpreted narrowly to only apply in the context of "taking action to suppress illegal drug trafficking," this hamstrings the ability of members to conduct diplomacy in this oddly specific area for no apparent gain, especially considering that domestic drug policies are inherently tied to drug trafficking. Additionally, banning members from "violating international borders… without consent" or "using domestic recreational drugs policy as justification for any breach of human rights or international law" is downright redundant.
- Section 3 blocks members from taking action "by biological, chemical or biochemical methods" against disease-carrying, invasive, or otherwise problematic crops that happen to be used for recreational drug production if it "may be judged likely to affect the production of nations wherein said crops are legal," even if said nations actively request it, and even it's their own nation. Setting aside the dangerous public health and environmental implications, it's nonsensical for a resolution to espouse "the right of nations to legalise, illegalise, restrict or tax recreational drugs as they see fit" while hacking apart the ability of nations to manage recreational drug and agricultural policy.
- Section 6 bafflingly allows smugglers and other actors engaged in illegal activities "to use international territory without threat of impediment or harassment from other nations" so long as those vessels happen to be "engaged in the transport of recreational drugs legal in both exporting and importing countries." The target's reaffirmation of "the right of nations to monitor vessels using international territory in order to prevent illicit activity" doesn't prevent section 6 from being a powerful shot in the arm for bad actors.
Incensed that GA 90 is irredeemably problematic for the above reasons to the point where it spits in the face of not just the sovereignty of nations, but their ability to conduct policy at a fundamental level,
Believing that resources spent on preventing members from conducting diplomacy with each other, protecting their environments, or safeguarding public health would be better spent on nearly anything else,
Utterly convinced that resources spent on promoting piracy and smuggling would be better spent on nearly anything else, and
Feeling that hamstringing diplomacy, butchering public health and environmental measures, and empowering piracy and smuggling are not very good things regardless of a given nation's stance on recreational drugs,
The General Assembly earnestly repeals GA 90 "Drug Trafficking Act."
