NSG Senate Coffee Shop [NSG Senate]

[Lemanrussland]

m stands for metre.

mi is mile.

That is quite efficient then. Thank you for that correction

In any case, broken families, lost productivity, and of coarse the health costs negate any money we will make off this system.

Which leaves you with the moral issue: is it better to have choice, or is it better to not deprive kids of parents or future oppurtunities. The choice between cheap high and life?
Its obvious really what the right choice here is. No to hard drugs

Families will be broken, and productivity will decrease even when the drugs are illegal, if the patterns of alcohol prohibition apply to other types of drugs, use does not decrease appreciably with tighter controls. More productive people will be lost to the prison system and vastly higher crime rates than to drug use itself. Medical costs from drug abuse amount to $16 billion a year in America, drug cartels make something like 23 billion in revenue. We will not be able to cover the total medical costs completely in this situation, but they can be reduced quite a bit (we also need to remember, medical costs are quite inflated in America, for a number of factors). The savings in enforcement costs will more than make up the difference. We're not going to be spending more money in my proposed system.

Also, to be clear, I am not advocating for drug use, but only for legalization and regulation, for the interests of the general public.

[Byzantium Imperial]

That is quite efficient then. Thank you for that correction

In any case, broken families, lost productivity, and of coarse the health costs negate any money we will make off this system.

Which leaves you with the moral issue: is it better to have choice, or is it better to not deprive kids of parents or future oppurtunities. The choice between cheap high and life?
Its obvious really what the right choice here is. No to hard drugs

Families will be broken, and productivity will decrease even when the drugs are illegal, if the patterns of alcohol prohibition apply to other types of drugs, use does not decrease appreciably with tighter controls. More productive people will be lost to the prison system and vastly higher crime rates than to drug use itself. Medical costs from drug abuse amount to $16 billion a year in America, drug cartels make something like 23 billion in revenue. We will not be able to cover the total medical costs completely in this situation, but they can be reduced quite a bit (we also need to remember, medical costs are quite inflated in America, for a number of factors). The savings in enforcement costs will more than make up the difference. We're not going to be spending more money in my proposed system.

Also, to be clear, I am not advocating for drug use, but only for legalization and regulation, for the interests of the general public.

Prohibition was a joke and we all know it. Besides alcohol was widely consumed and a cultural staple

Cocaine and hard drugs are only used by a small part of the population. In the past we either ignored this group, enabled them, or imprisones them. By mandating rehab early on, we prevent addiction, and we get people off these drugs. Instead of having them in a reccuring cycle, we break the cycle with drug rehab. With proper enforcement, which in a rich island nation is certainly possible, we can end hard drug use in our country this way.
Surely thats better then enabling harmfull addiction?

[Geilinor]

Families will be broken, and productivity will decrease even when the drugs are illegal, if the patterns of alcohol prohibition apply to other types of drugs, use does not decrease appreciably with tighter controls. More productive people will be lost to the prison system and vastly higher crime rates than to drug use itself. Medical costs from drug abuse amount to $16 billion a year in America, drug cartels make something like 23 billion in revenue. We will not be able to cover the total medical costs completely in this situation, but they can be reduced quite a bit (we also need to remember, medical costs are quite inflated in America, for a number of factors). The savings in enforcement costs will more than make up the difference. We're not going to be spending more money in my proposed system.

Also, to be clear, I am not advocating for drug use, but only for legalization and regulation, for the interests of the general public.

Prohibition was a joke and we all know it. Besides alcohol was widely consumed and a cultural staple

Cocaine and hard drugs are only used by a small part of the population. In the past we either ignored this group, enabled them, or imprisones them. By mandating rehab early on, we prevent addiction, and we get people off these drugs. Instead of having them in a reccuring cycle, we break the cycle with drug rehab. With proper enforcement, which in a rich island nation is certainly possible, we can end hard drug use in our country this way.
Surely thats better then enabling harmfull addiction?

I agree with you on hard drugs. Marijuana, alcohol, and nicotine can stay legal, because we don't want a prohibition-like situation or the current US "War on Drugs", which has caused the US to have the highest incarceration rate on the planet.

[Free South Califas]

Opposed on the grounds that the bill will legalise marijuana, and this is nothing but an attempt of the hippie bourgeoisie to castrate the proud proletarian people of organising against their oppressors.

Absolute nonsense, as expected. Cannabis regulates symptoms of my ASD and PTSD so that I can function in society, let alone organize. It made it possible for me to work as an industrial union and workers' co-op organizer, in fact.

Forced physical locations including boarding schools are categorically unacceptable.

so you deny them the chance of using a building!!!

Apologies, Senator, I must have been unclear. I do not at all wish to offer them a smaller set of options than we offer the rest of the children.

Then help the addicts, don't ban the substance.

Consequences? Major sections of the economies of Ecuador, much of Colombia and other countries have been criminalized for no good reason. Coca is used there in plant form to help them survive the altitude, not much stronger than coffee, and countries like the US end up penalizing them for merely existing, in a way which has been sustaining itself without harming anyone for centuries.

We need to categorically reject the attitude that the state can possibly know what is better for the individual's body than that individual working in concert with some portion of the medical community.

Oh the poor drug barons!!

Um...what? I think you know I want greater income equality and a more decentralized economy, Senator...

These drugs should be banned because of the huge negative externalities.

Disagree fundamentally, sorry:

1. Personal consumption is not the state's business. (Philosophical)
2. Bans don't work and often make things worse. (Practical)

Guys, should I add system where an independent organisation is created to inspect school's curriculum so as to ensure it is factual and appropriate for year group while complying with Educational Framework Establishment Act?
I mean, I am kinda torn on this. On one had it opens possibility of political indoctrination on another it ensures better education if it is used in manner it is supposed to.

I appreciate your efforts to set out a framework that incorporates the different kinds of schools that Senators from different parties may ideally envision. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to offer my sponsorship because of a general suspicion of rigid standardized testing.

I'm open to anything that increases the flexibility of the test standards, especially having the questions examined by diverse panels of relevant experts (descriptive linguists, mathematical theorists, historians etc.); while maintaining them at a certain minimum level of quality in the sum. I'm not asking you to consider my sponsorship as a high priority because I don't know if we'll ever find a good meeting point on that. But, greater flexibility may force me to warm up to this bill.

I'd rather any legislation regarding drugs be focused not on restricting their use but on establishing programs to help people who suffer from addiction. Addiction needs to be treated as a public health problem rather than a criminal problem.

This, very much this. Also, there's a drug regulation bill which has already been accepted into the queue; let's not all waste our voters' time regulating drugs, but instead increase healthcare and other treatment support to attack addiction and other disease vectors.

Disease prevention, control and treatment need to be our top priorities here. I hope our business-friendly Senators like Mr. Nihl can at least agree with me that this will help with the externalities thing.

This, this, this, this, this!

Only for the hard drugs though. Use of drugs like marijuana, LSD, and magic mushrooms shouldn't be treated as a problem at all.

There should be major, draconian punishments though for those who produce or distribute hard drugs, especially those that maintain meth labs.

You fail to take into account that science evolves and grows our understanding of which drugs can help with what. For example, MDMA - derived from methamphetamine, I might remind you - is now starting to be understood as a useful drug in PTSD treatment, but draconian punishments for production and distribution of the substance make it difficult to study. Do you want that regime to rule the day here? If so, I must ask on a personal note, how can you justify extending my suffering in this way?

Seriously we need to think beyond the "its my body and ill do what I want with it" argument

Legalized marijuana and nothing more!

Very mild punishments for hallucinogens (50$ fine), mandatory rehab/prison for hard drugs and minimum ten year sentence for distribution of hard drugs.

There's no evidence for making drugs illegal reducing their use in any meaningful way. Furthermore, making them illegal only increases their cost, and directs profits from their sale to criminal organizations, which increases the negative effects of drug use and increases crime.

The real answer to this problem, the problem of people becoming dependent on drugs, becoming broke, and then resorting to criminal activity to fund their habits, is to levy taxes on these drugs.

The money can be used to put more police on the streets, who can actually reduce the crime rate in a real way, and to set up programs in order to rehabilitate drug users. Simply making them illegal and cracking down on their use exacerbates the problem, and costs loads of money.

Focus on punishing actual criminal activity, not the drug use itself. The medical problems can be alleviated with government assistance programs, paid for by taxes on drugs.

Characteristically, the Senator sums up the argument well.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Yea, i dont have the time or patience to respond to that (read my previous posts for my arguments).
In any case we can postpone this debate untill it comes up for a vote right?

[Lemanrussland]

Yea, i dont have the time or patience to respond to that (read my previous posts for my arguments).
In any case we can postpone this debate untill it comes up for a vote right?

Yes, you aren't obligated to debate. Part of the reason I ended debate by not responding any further was that it was going to be mostly a revolving door, we had covered all of our relevant points, and still disagreed fundamentally.

[Byzantium Imperial]

Yea, i dont have the time or patience to respond to that (read my previous posts for my arguments).
In any case we can postpone this debate untill it comes up for a vote right?

Yes, you aren't obligated to debate. Part of the reason I ended debate by not responding any further was that it was going to be mostly a revolving door, we had covered all of our relative points, and still disagreed fundamentally.

So we agree to disagree to each others valid points. Works for me.

Next order of business?

[The Nihilistic view]

Opposed on the grounds that the bill will legalise marijuana, and this is nothing but an attempt of the hippie bourgeoisie to castrate the proud proletarian people of organising against their oppressors.

Absolute nonsense, as expected. Cannabis regulates symptoms of my ASD and PTSD so that I can function in society, let alone organize. It made it possible for me to work as an industrial union and workers' co-op organizer, in fact.

so you deny them the chance of using a building!!!

Apologies, Senator, I must have been unclear. I do not at all wish to offer them a smaller set of options than we offer the rest of the children.

Oh the poor drug barons!!

Um...what? I think you know I want greater income equality and a more decentralized economy, Senator...

These drugs should be banned because of the huge negative externalities.

Disagree fundamentally, sorry:

1. Personal consumption is not the state's business. (Philosophical)
2. Bans don't work and often make things worse. (Practical)

Guys, should I add system where an independent organisation is created to inspect school's curriculum so as to ensure it is factual and appropriate for year group while complying with Educational Framework Establishment Act?
I mean, I am kinda torn on this. On one had it opens possibility of political indoctrination on another it ensures better education if it is used in manner it is supposed to.

I appreciate your efforts to set out a framework that incorporates the different kinds of schools that Senators from different parties may ideally envision. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to offer my sponsorship because of a general suspicion of rigid standardized testing.

I'm open to anything that increases the flexibility of the test standards, especially having the questions examined by diverse panels of relevant experts (descriptive linguists, mathematical theorists, historians etc.); while maintaining them at a certain minimum level of quality in the sum. I'm not asking you to consider my sponsorship as a high priority because I don't know if we'll ever find a good meeting point on that. But, greater flexibility may force me to warm up to this bill.

I'd rather any legislation regarding drugs be focused not on restricting their use but on establishing programs to help people who suffer from addiction. Addiction needs to be treated as a public health problem rather than a criminal problem.

This, very much this. Also, there's a drug regulation bill which has already been accepted into the queue; let's not all waste our voters' time regulating drugs, but instead increase healthcare and other treatment support to attack addiction and other disease vectors.

Disease prevention, control and treatment need to be our top priorities here. I hope our business-friendly Senators like Mr. Nihl can at least agree with me that this will help with the externalities thing.

There should be major, draconian punishments though for those who produce or distribute hard drugs, especially those that maintain meth labs.

You fail to take into account that science evolves and grows our understanding of which drugs can help with what. For example, MDMA - derived from methamphetamine, I might remind you - is now starting to be understood as a useful drug in PTSD treatment, but draconian punishments for production and distribution of the substance make it difficult to study. Do you want that regime to rule the day here? If so, I must ask on a personal note, how can you justify extending my suffering in this way?

There's no evidence for making drugs illegal reducing their use in any meaningful way. Furthermore, making them illegal only increases their cost, and directs profits from their sale to criminal organizations, which increases the negative effects of drug use and increases crime.

The real answer to this problem, the problem of people becoming dependent on drugs, becoming broke, and then resorting to criminal activity to fund their habits, is to levy taxes on these drugs.

The money can be used to put more police on the streets, who can actually reduce the crime rate in a real way, and to set up programs in order to rehabilitate drug users. Simply making them illegal and cracking down on their use exacerbates the problem, and costs loads of money.

Focus on punishing actual criminal activity, not the drug use itself. The medical problems can be alleviated with government assistance programs, paid for by taxes on drugs.

Characteristically, the Senator sums up the argument well.

OK, that makes sense now. I was a bit like "what no buildings for autistics ?"


I don't think you understand the meaning of negative externalities.

"Negative Externality

A negative externality occurs when an individual or firm making a decision does not have to pay the full cost of the decision. If a good has a negative externality, then the cost to society is greater than the cost consumer is paying for it. Since consumers make a decision based on where their marginal cost equals their marginal benefit, and since they don't take into account the cost of the negative externality, negative externalities result in market inefficiencies unless proper action is taken.

When a negative externality exists in an unregulated market, producers don't take responsibility for external costs that exist--these are passed on to society. Thus producers have lower marginal costs than they would otherwise have and the supply curve is effectively shifted down (to the right) of the supply curve that society faces. Because the supply curve is increased, more of the product is bought than the efficient amount--that is, too much of the product is produced and sold. Since marginal benefit is not equal to marginal cost, a deadweight welfare loss results."

[Lemanrussland]

Absolute nonsense, as expected. Cannabis regulates symptoms of my ASD and PTSD so that I can function in society, let alone organize. It made it possible for me to work as an industrial union and workers' co-op organizer, in fact.


Apologies, Senator, I must have been unclear. I do not at all wish to offer them a smaller set of options than we offer the rest of the children.


Um...what? I think you know I want greater income equality and a more decentralized economy, Senator...


Disagree fundamentally, sorry:

1. Personal consumption is not the state's business. (Philosophical)
2. Bans don't work and often make things worse. (Practical)


I appreciate your efforts to set out a framework that incorporates the different kinds of schools that Senators from different parties may ideally envision. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to offer my sponsorship because of a general suspicion of rigid standardized testing.

I'm open to anything that increases the flexibility of the test standards, especially having the questions examined by diverse panels of relevant experts (descriptive linguists, mathematical theorists, historians etc.); while maintaining them at a certain minimum level of quality in the sum. I'm not asking you to consider my sponsorship as a high priority because I don't know if we'll ever find a good meeting point on that. But, greater flexibility may force me to warm up to this bill.


This, very much this. Also, there's a drug regulation bill which has already been accepted into the queue; let's not all waste our voters' time regulating drugs, but instead increase healthcare and other treatment support to attack addiction and other disease vectors.

Disease prevention, control and treatment need to be our top priorities here. I hope our business-friendly Senators like Mr. Nihl can at least agree with me that this will help with the externalities thing.


You fail to take into account that science evolves and grows our understanding of which drugs can help with what. For example, MDMA - derived from methamphetamine, I might remind you - is now starting to be understood as a useful drug in PTSD treatment, but draconian punishments for production and distribution of the substance make it difficult to study. Do you want that regime to rule the day here? If so, I must ask on a personal note, how can you justify extending my suffering in this way?

Characteristically, the Senator sums up the argument well.

OK, that makes sense now. I was a bit like "what no buildings for autistics ?"


I don't think you understand the meaning of negative externalities.

"Negative Externality

A negative externality occurs when an individual or firm making a decision does not have to pay the full cost of the decision. If a good has a negative externality, then the cost to society is greater than the cost consumer is paying for it. Since consumers make a decision based on where their marginal cost equals their marginal benefit, and since they don't take into account the cost of the negative externality, negative externalities result in market inefficiencies unless proper action is taken.

When a negative externality exists in an unregulated market, producers don't take responsibility for external costs that exist--these are passed on to society. Thus producers have lower marginal costs than they would otherwise have and the supply curve is effectively shifted down (to the right) of the supply curve that society faces. Because the supply curve is increased, more of the product is bought than the efficient amount--that is, too much of the product is produced and sold. Since marginal benefit is not equal to marginal cost, a deadweight welfare loss results."

He's talking about issues drug control supporters bring up very often, lower productivity, public health costs, etc.

Those are negative externalities, in a sense, for example, because by lowering your own productivity or becoming poorer because of drug use, you're making the local economy slightly weaker. If there is public provision for healthcare, you're passing on increased healthcare costs onto others.

"Shared costs of declining health and vitality caused by smoking and/or alcohol drug abuse. Here, the "cost" is that of providing minimum social welfare. Economists more frequently attribute this problem to the category of moral hazards, the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way they would if they were fully exposed to the risk. For example, an individual with insurance against automobile theft may be less vigilant about locking his car, because the negative consequences of automobile theft are (partially) borne by the insurance company."

[The Nihilistic view]

OK, that makes sense now. I was a bit like "what no buildings for autistics ?"


I don't think you understand the meaning of negative externalities.

"Negative Externality

A negative externality occurs when an individual or firm making a decision does not have to pay the full cost of the decision. If a good has a negative externality, then the cost to society is greater than the cost consumer is paying for it. Since consumers make a decision based on where their marginal cost equals their marginal benefit, and since they don't take into account the cost of the negative externality, negative externalities result in market inefficiencies unless proper action is taken.

When a negative externality exists in an unregulated market, producers don't take responsibility for external costs that exist--these are passed on to society. Thus producers have lower marginal costs than they would otherwise have and the supply curve is effectively shifted down (to the right) of the supply curve that society faces. Because the supply curve is increased, more of the product is bought than the efficient amount--that is, too much of the product is produced and sold. Since marginal benefit is not equal to marginal cost, a deadweight welfare loss results."

He's talking about issues drug control supporters bring up very often, lower productivity, public health costs, etc.

Those are negative externalities, in a sense, for example, because by lowering your own productivity or becoming poorer because of drug use, you're making the local economy slightly weaker. If there is public provision for healthcare, you're passing on increased healthcare costs onto others.

"Shared costs of declining health and vitality caused by smoking and/or alcohol drug abuse. Here, the "cost" is that of providing minimum social welfare. Economists more frequently attribute this problem to the category of moral hazards, the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way they would if they were fully exposed to the risk. For example, an individual with insurance against automobile theft may be less vigilant about locking his car, because the negative consequences of automobile theft are (partially) borne by the insurance company."

Thats what I am talking about, he only give this(below) as his reasons for opposition. He does not mention an of the things you mentioned as far as I can see. Also does not address my point.

"1. Personal consumption is not the state's business. (Philosophical)
2. Bans don't work and often make things worse. (Practical)"

[Free South Califas]

You blatantly misrepresent me, Senator. I've presented pages of arguments against drug criminalization both here and for public display at my Drafting Office. (OOC: Click my name in my sig next to "Senate" and "Communist") I was just boiling it down for you because the debate was going in circles. Those two points summarize my categorical opposition to certain elements of the bill, although I've had lots to say about it here in general. I'm not just going to go round and round with a right-winger until everyone gets dizzy and forgets all the bills we are debating. Speaking of which, there are a number of them. (OOC: If anyone wants to know my stance on any of them, click my name in the sig.)

Again, Senators, there is already a better drugs bill in the queue. No sense in wasting our voters' time on this stuff, penalties and so forth. At this point, we know what the state of law and politics is on these issues. If we care about our voters, we'll help the addicts, not ban the substances, full stop.

[Threlizdun]

National Drug Safety Act
Urgency: Very High | Drafted by: Byzantium Imperial | Co-sponsors: The Zeonic States, Eliasonia, Liberated counties, The Orson Empire, Geilinor

NOTING that our nation has no formal drugs laws or regulations in place to protect the population from potentially hazardous substances

RECOGNIZING that there are many different drugs, many of which have medicinal proprieties, and that it would be illogical to ban most of them


THE Senate hereby creates a 3 part classification system for the regulation and control of drugs and other similar substances

Class 1 substances: Hard drugs, and other similar substances, which pose a great risk to society. These substances are banned
Class 2 substances: Medical and pharmaceutical substances, which a proven health benefit. The distribution of these shall be controlled
Class 3 substances: Soft drugs, alcohol, nicotine, and other similar substances that may have negative effects. These shall be subject to regulation

Section 1: Class 1 substances
1a: Class 1 substances include heroin, cocaine, non medical methanphedimenses, and other hard drugs.
1b: By the passing of this law, class 1 substances are now banned from Aurentinia for any uses other then scientific or authorized medical uses.
1c: The trafficking of class 1 substances, the production of class 1 substances, and the selling of class 1 substances is illegal, and punishable with a recommended minimum of 5 years, and a maximum of 15 years.
1d: The consumption of class 1 substances for any reason is illegal, and punishable with a maximum $5000 fine and a recommended minimum of 6 months in drug rehabilitation.
1e: Class 1 substances shall still be permitted to be sold to organizations, however, that show they are utilizing it for medical or scientific purposes, and acquire a Class 1 substance purchasing permit.

Section 2: Class 2 substances
2a: Class 2 substances shall be defined as any medical or pharmaceutical drug administered to patients.
2b: All Class 2 substances must be approved by the Ministry of Health before it is allowed to be sold or administered.
2c: Class 2 substances are only to be administered or distributed by licensed physicians, medical professionals, or pharmacists if given specific permission to do so by a medical professional. All certified medical professionals and licensed professionals may apply for a permit to administer or distribute Class 2 substances by prescription, and must be renewed every 5 years.
2d: Since all class 2 substances are controlled substances, any and all transactions involving class 2 substances must be recorded and inserted into a national substance database, which shall track and monitor all class 2 substance transactions. This ensures no class 2 substances are misplaced or stolen, and that only licensed professionals have access to them.
2e: Substances that are not Class 2 substances yet are medical or pharmaceutical drugs include: ibuprophen, Tylenol, topical ointments, and other similarly minor medical treatments that do not require prescription and can be sold over the counter.
2f: Breaking any rules, laws, or regulations pertaining to class 2 substances is punishable by a fine with a maximum of $5,000, and a prison sentence with a recommended minimum of 1 year, and a maximum of 10 years.
2g: Patients or individuals who partake in class 2 substances without a prescription shall be subject to a recommended minimum 6 months in drug rehabilitation.

Section 3: Class 3 substances
3a: Class 3 substances include marijuana, alcohol, nicotine, and other soft drugs.
3b: These substances are available to all citizens for recreational use starting at age 18.
3c: These substances may only be produced, distributed, and sold by authorized organizations or individuals who have obtained a permit. All groups that wish to obtain a permit for any of the above actions for class 3 substances must acquire a permit, with accompanying background checks, and are subject to inspections at will for violations. These permits shall be renewed every 10 years.
3d: Driving or operating machinery while under the influence of class 3 substances is punishable by fines of up to $1000, and on a second offense a revocation of driving or similar privileges. It shall be left to the ministry of health to determine the limits for driving or operating machinery under the influence.
3e: The illegal distribution, production, or selling of class 3 substances is punishable with a maximum $1000 fine and a recommended minimum 2 year prison sentence, with a maximum of 10 years.
3f: Alcohol may be consumed by minors, with parental consent, starting at age 14. Minors caught consuming class 3 substances other then alcohol, or consuming alcohol without parental consent or underage consumption, is punishable with a maximum 3 months in drug rehabilitation, and a recommended 12 hours of community service. Parents of minors caught in violation of these laws may be subject to a fine of up to $500, or if the parents assisted in the violations of these laws is subject to a recommended minimum 6 months of parenting classes, or a maximum of 6 months in prison.

Section 4: Ministry oversight
1. All matters relating to class 1 or class 2 substances are the responsibility of the Ministry of health, who may change, remove, or add substances and rules listed above at their digression. Which substances classify as class 3 substances shall also fall under the ministry of health.
2. All other matters pertaining to class 3 substances are to be managed by the Ministry of commerce, who may change rules and restrictions at their digression.
3. All fines and penalties fall under the responsibility of the ministry of justice, which may change these at their digression.

This is supposed to be a bill to implement basic substance restrictions, without limiting personal freedoms too much.

Well then it failed quite miserably didn't it. There is nothing in this bill that had anything to do with safety. What you are proposing is the denial of bodily sovereignty, ostracization of those who wish to seek help for recovery, strengthening of the black market, increase in violence between cartels, and the total inability to regulate these drugsto ensure that when the users inevitably do get them they at least adhere to some safety, trade, and labor regulations. This is without question one of the single most disastrous proposals I have heared here.

[The Nihilistic view]

You blatantly misrepresent me, Senator. I've presented pages of arguments against drug criminalization both here and for public display at my Drafting Office. (OOC: Click my name in my sig next to "Senate" and "Communist") I was just boiling it down for you because the debate was going in circles. Those two points summarize my categorical opposition to certain elements of the bill, although I've had lots to say about it here in general. I'm not just going to go round and round with a right-winger until everyone gets dizzy and forgets all the bills we are debating. Speaking of which, there are a number of them. (OOC: If anyone wants to know my stance on any of them, click my name in the sig.)

Again, Senators, there is already a better drugs bill in the queue. No sense in wasting our voters' time on this stuff, penalties and so forth. At this point, we know what the state of law and politics is on these issues. If we care about our voters, we'll help the addicts, not ban the substances, full stop.

So you disagree that negative externalities exist?

[The Nihilistic view]

National Drug Safety Act
Urgency: Very High | Drafted by: Byzantium Imperial | Co-sponsors: The Zeonic States, Eliasonia, Liberated counties, The Orson Empire, Geilinor

NOTING that our nation has no formal drugs laws or regulations in place to protect the population from potentially hazardous substances

RECOGNIZING that there are many different drugs, many of which have medicinal proprieties, and that it would be illogical to ban most of them


THE Senate hereby creates a 3 part classification system for the regulation and control of drugs and other similar substances

Class 1 substances: Hard drugs, and other similar substances, which pose a great risk to society. These substances are banned
Class 2 substances: Medical and pharmaceutical substances, which a proven health benefit. The distribution of these shall be controlled
Class 3 substances: Soft drugs, alcohol, nicotine, and other similar substances that may have negative effects. These shall be subject to regulation

Section 1: Class 1 substances
1a: Class 1 substances include heroin, cocaine, non medical methanphedimenses, and other hard drugs.
1b: By the passing of this law, class 1 substances are now banned from Aurentinia for any uses other then scientific or authorized medical uses.
1c: The trafficking of class 1 substances, the production of class 1 substances, and the selling of class 1 substances is illegal, and punishable with a recommended minimum of 5 years, and a maximum of 15 years.
1d: The consumption of class 1 substances for any reason is illegal, and punishable with a maximum $5000 fine and a recommended minimum of 6 months in drug rehabilitation.
1e: Class 1 substances shall still be permitted to be sold to organizations, however, that show they are utilizing it for medical or scientific purposes, and acquire a Class 1 substance purchasing permit.

Section 2: Class 2 substances
2a: Class 2 substances shall be defined as any medical or pharmaceutical drug administered to patients.
2b: All Class 2 substances must be approved by the Ministry of Health before it is allowed to be sold or administered.
2c: Class 2 substances are only to be administered or distributed by licensed physicians, medical professionals, or pharmacists if given specific permission to do so by a medical professional. All certified medical professionals and licensed professionals may apply for a permit to administer or distribute Class 2 substances by prescription, and must be renewed every 5 years.
2d: Since all class 2 substances are controlled substances, any and all transactions involving class 2 substances must be recorded and inserted into a national substance database, which shall track and monitor all class 2 substance transactions. This ensures no class 2 substances are misplaced or stolen, and that only licensed professionals have access to them.
2e: Substances that are not Class 2 substances yet are medical or pharmaceutical drugs include: ibuprophen, Tylenol, topical ointments, and other similarly minor medical treatments that do not require prescription and can be sold over the counter.
2f: Breaking any rules, laws, or regulations pertaining to class 2 substances is punishable by a fine with a maximum of $5,000, and a prison sentence with a recommended minimum of 1 year, and a maximum of 10 years.
2g: Patients or individuals who partake in class 2 substances without a prescription shall be subject to a recommended minimum 6 months in drug rehabilitation.

Section 3: Class 3 substances
3a: Class 3 substances include marijuana, alcohol, nicotine, and other soft drugs.
3b: These substances are available to all citizens for recreational use starting at age 18.
3c: These substances may only be produced, distributed, and sold by authorized organizations or individuals who have obtained a permit. All groups that wish to obtain a permit for any of the above actions for class 3 substances must acquire a permit, with accompanying background checks, and are subject to inspections at will for violations. These permits shall be renewed every 10 years.
3d: Driving or operating machinery while under the influence of class 3 substances is punishable by fines of up to $1000, and on a second offense a revocation of driving or similar privileges. It shall be left to the ministry of health to determine the limits for driving or operating machinery under the influence.
3e: The illegal distribution, production, or selling of class 3 substances is punishable with a maximum $1000 fine and a recommended minimum 2 year prison sentence, with a maximum of 10 years.
3f: Alcohol may be consumed by minors, with parental consent, starting at age 14. Minors caught consuming class 3 substances other then alcohol, or consuming alcohol without parental consent or underage consumption, is punishable with a maximum 3 months in drug rehabilitation, and a recommended 12 hours of community service. Parents of minors caught in violation of these laws may be subject to a fine of up to $500, or if the parents assisted in the violations of these laws is subject to a recommended minimum 6 months of parenting classes, or a maximum of 6 months in prison.

Section 4: Ministry oversight
1. All matters relating to class 1 or class 2 substances are the responsibility of the Ministry of health, who may change, remove, or add substances and rules listed above at their digression. Which substances classify as class 3 substances shall also fall under the ministry of health.
2. All other matters pertaining to class 3 substances are to be managed by the Ministry of commerce, who may change rules and restrictions at their digression.
3. All fines and penalties fall under the responsibility of the ministry of justice, which may change these at their digression.

This is supposed to be a bill to implement basic substance restrictions, without limiting personal freedoms too much.

Well then it failed quite miserably didn't it. There is nothing in this bill that had anything to do with safety. What you are proposing is the denial of bodily sovereignty, ostracization of those who wish to seek help for recovery, strengthening of the black market, increase in violence between cartels, and the total inability to regulate these drugsto ensure that when the users inevitably do get them they at least adhere to some safety, trade, and labor regulations. This is without question one of the single most disastrous proposals I have heared here.

There is nothing against the BSA in his bill.

[Great Nepal]

Educational Framework Establishment Act
Urgency: High| Drafted by: Great Nepal| Sponsors: Byzantium Imperial, Ainin, Mishmahig

Section 1 - Pre-primary Education
a) Pre-primary education shall refer to non-mandatory education, starting when child reaches age of three and lasting for three years.
b) Pre-primary education shall be for three consecutive years which shall be: Nursery, LKG, UKG.
c) Pre-primary education shall require following subjects to be taught in school. Any additional subjects may be taught at discretion of school governors.

i) Mathematics
ii) Science
iii) English
iv) Information Communication Technology
v) Arts

d) School day and week shall be decided at discretion of school governors ensuring appropriate time at home for healthy child development is ensured.

Section 2 - Primary Education
a) Primary education shall refer to mandatory education, starting when child reaches age of six and lasting for five years.
b) Primary education shall be for five consecutive years which shall be: year one, year two, year three, year four and year five.
c) Primary education shall require following subjects to be taught in school. Any additional subjects may be taught at discretion of school governors.

i) English
ii) Mathematics
iii) Physics
iv) Biology
v) Chemistry
vi) Computing (software development), or ICT (practical)
vii) History and Social Studies
viii) Arts
ix) One or more languages (Standardised Chinese, Mandarin, Latin, Aurentine, German, Spanish, schools may provide additional language)
x) Music (optional)
xi) Additional Mathematics (optional)
xii) Physical Education

d) There shall be Province Level Examination (PLE), which shall be held at every province as established by government subdivision act.

Section 3 - Secondary Education
a) Secondary education shall refer to mandatory education, starting when child gets enough percentage in Provence Level Examination to be accepted by secondary school and lasting for five years.
b) Secondary education shall be for five consecutive years which shall be: year six, year seven, year eight, year nine and year ten.
c) Secondary education shall require following subjects to be taught in school. Any additional subjects may be taught at discretion of school governors.

i) English
ii) Mathematics
iii) Physics, or Additional sciences
iv) Biology, or Additional sciences
v) Chemistry, or Additional sciences
vi) Computing (software development), or ICT (practical)
vii) History
viii) Geography
ix) One or more languages (Standardised Chinese, Mandarin, Latin, Aurentine, German, Spanish, schools may provide additional language)
x) Music (optional)
xi) Arts (optional)
xii) Additional Mathematics (optional)
xiii) Physical Education (optional)
xiv) Design And Technology (optional)
- Food Technology or,
- Product Design or,
- Electronics or,
- Graphics Design
xv) Social Studies (optional)

d) At end of the secondary education, there shall be School Leaving Certificate Examination (SLC), which shall be held at nationally.

Section 3 - College
a) College shall refer to non-mandatory academics, starting when child gets enough percentage in School Leaving Certificate Examination to be accepted by college and lasting for two years.
b) Secondary education shall be for two consecutive or non-consecutive years which shall be: year eleven and year twelve.
c) College shall have final authority in regards to subjects they offer. Students are encouraged to choose four subjects.
d) Colleges are encouraged to work with universities while formulating their curriculum.
e) At end of college, there shall be University Entrance Examination (UEE), which shall be administered by group of top ten universities.

Section 4 - Business Education
a) Business Education shall refer to alternative to college as described in section 3.
b) Business shall manage this education to gain hands on experience and drive straight into working while gaining a qualification.
c) This shall provide qualification known as BETC, which shall be equivalent to associated UEE certificate.
d) Universities are not required to recognise BETC as qualification, neither are employers.

Section 5 - University
a) University shall refer to academic route after college, which shall be non-mandatory.
b) University shall have final authority in regards to the curriculum offered.
c) This shall provide qualification known as degree, provided university is accredited in acceding order of importance shall be:

i) Doctorate
ii) Masters
iii) Bachelors

Section 6 - Funding
a) In regards to primary and secondary school, government shall fund this entirely either through vouchers or public schooling.
b) In regards to college, those who achieve top 2.5% in SLC receive 100% government funded scholarship, those who achieve top 5% in SLC receive 75% government funded scholarship, those who achieve top 10% in SLC receive 50% government funded scholarship, those who achieve top 15% in SLC receive 25% government funded scholarship.
c) In regards to university, those who achieve top 2.5% in UEE receive 100% government funded scholarship, those who achieve top 5% in UEE receive 75% government funded scholarship, those who achieve top 10% in UEE receive 50% government funded scholarship, those who achieve top 15% in UEE receive 25% government funded scholarship.
d) Universities shall not charge students more than £4784 for tuition fees, unless they are ranked in top ten universities in which case they are exempt from this cap.

Section 7 - Examination
a) This senate establishes school examination board, under ministry of education who shall produce, mark and evaluate School Leaving Certificate and Province Level examinations.
b) This senate establishes UEE examination board, which shall be administered by representative of top ten universities within the nation who shall produce, mark and evaluate UEE examinations.
c) Examination shall be marked to produce percentage by the respective examination board stated above.

Section 8 - Miscellaneous
a) Nothing in this act shall prevent creation of free schools, colleges or universities funded by charities or public schools funded by government.
b) School year shall start in January and end in December.
c) Creates Education and Training Inspectorate, modelled on Ofsted (England) to oversee curriculum and subject matter to ensure they are fit for purpose with similar responsibilities and authorities as Ofsted (England).

There, I added inspector and hopefully ensured it it politically independent. We need one more sponsor guys...

[Free South Califas]

Well then it failed quite miserably didn't it. There is nothing in this bill that had anything to do with safety. What you are proposing is the denial of bodily sovereignty, ostracization of those who wish to seek help for recovery, strengthening of the black market, increase in violence between cartels, and the total inability to regulate these drugsto ensure that when the users inevitably do get them they at least adhere to some safety, trade, and labor regulations. This is without question one of the single most disastrous proposals I have heared here.

There is nothing against the BSA in his bill.

If that's what you seriously got out of that argument, read it again and notice the lack of capitals or the word "Act". If not, quit trolling.

[The Nihilistic view]

There is nothing against the BSA in his bill.

If that's what you seriously got out of that argument, read it again and notice the lack of capitals or the word "Act". If not, quit trolling.

What part of "What you are proposing is the denial of bodily sovereignty" does not relate to the BSA

We have defined what bodily sovereignty is in our nation and the drugs bill does not break that.

[Great Nepal]

If that's what you seriously got out of that argument, read it again and notice the lack of capitals or the word "Act". If not, quit trolling.

What part of "What you are proposing is the denial of bodily sovereignty" does not relate to the BSA

We have defined what bodily sovereignty is in our nation and the drugs bill does not break that.

BSA does not cover entirety of bodily sovereignty, merely part of it. Drugs exception had to be included for political reasons.

[CTALNH]

Prohibition was a joke and we all know it. Besides alcohol was widely consumed and a cultural staple

Cocaine and hard drugs are only used by a small part of the population. In the past we either ignored this group, enabled them, or imprisones them. By mandating rehab early on, we prevent addiction, and we get people off these drugs. Instead of having them in a reccuring cycle, we break the cycle with drug rehab. With proper enforcement, which in a rich island nation is certainly possible, we can end hard drug use in our country this way.
Surely thats better then enabling harmfull addiction?

I agree with you on hard drugs. Marijuana, alcohol, and nicotine can stay legal, because we don't want a prohibition-like situation or the current US "War on Drugs", which has caused the US to have the highest incarceration rate on the planet.

Nah NK has that.

99.99 %

[The Nihilistic view]

Prohibition was a joke and we all know it. Besides alcohol was widely consumed and a cultural staple

Cocaine and hard drugs are only used by a small part of the population. In the past we either ignored this group, enabled them, or imprisones them. By mandating rehab early on, we prevent addiction, and we get people off these drugs. Instead of having them in a reccuring cycle, we break the cycle with drug rehab. With proper enforcement, which in a rich island nation is certainly possible, we can end hard drug use in our country this way.
Surely thats better then enabling harmfull addiction?

I agree with you on hard drugs. Marijuana, alcohol, and nicotine can stay legal, because we don't want a prohibition-like situation or the current US "War on Drugs", which has caused the US to have the highest incarceration rate on the planet.

Incarceration rate is irrelevant, if they commit a crime they should be put away.

[Costa Alegria]

Educational Framework Establishment Act
Urgency: High| Drafted by: Great Nepal| Sponsors: Byzantium Imperial, Ainin, Mishmahig

Section 1 - Pre-primary Education
a) Pre-primary education shall refer to non-mandatory education, starting when child reaches age of three and lasting for three years.
b) Pre-primary education shall be for three consecutive years which shall be: Nursery, LKG, UKG.
c) Pre-primary education shall require following subjects to be taught in school. Any additional subjects may be taught at discretion of school governors.

i) Mathematics
ii) Science
iii) English
iv) Information Communication Technology
v) Arts

d) School day and week shall be decided at discretion of school governors ensuring appropriate time at home for healthy child development is ensured.

Section 2 - Primary Education
a) Primary education shall refer to mandatory education, starting when child reaches age of six and lasting for five years.
b) Primary education shall be for five consecutive years which shall be: year one, year two, year three, year four and year five.
c) Primary education shall require following subjects to be taught in school. Any additional subjects may be taught at discretion of school governors.

i) English
ii) Mathematics
iii) Physics
iv) Biology
v) Chemistry
vi) Computing (software development), or ICT (practical)
vii) History and Social Studies
viii) Arts
ix) One or more languages (Standardised Chinese, Mandarin, Latin, Aurentine, German, Spanish, schools may provide additional language)
x) Music (optional)
xi) Additional Mathematics (optional)
xii) Physical Education

d) There shall be Province Level Examination (PLE), which shall be held at every province as established by government subdivision act.

Section 3 - Secondary Education
a) Secondary education shall refer to mandatory education, starting when child gets enough percentage in Provence Level Examination to be accepted by secondary school and lasting for five years.
b) Secondary education shall be for five consecutive years which shall be: year six, year seven, year eight, year nine and year ten.
c) Secondary education shall require following subjects to be taught in school. Any additional subjects may be taught at discretion of school governors.

i) English
ii) Mathematics
iii) Physics, or Additional sciences
iv) Biology, or Additional sciences
v) Chemistry, or Additional sciences
vi) Computing (software development), or ICT (practical)
vii) History
viii) Geography
ix) One or more languages (Standardised Chinese, Mandarin, Latin, Aurentine, German, Spanish, schools may provide additional language)
x) Music (optional)
xi) Arts (optional)
xii) Additional Mathematics (optional)
xiii) Physical Education (optional)
xiv) Design And Technology (optional)
- Food Technology or,
- Product Design or,
- Electronics or,
- Graphics Design
xv) Social Studies (optional)

d) At end of the secondary education, there shall be School Leaving Certificate Examination (SLC), which shall be held at nationally.

Section 3 - College
a) College shall refer to non-mandatory academics, starting when child gets enough percentage in School Leaving Certificate Examination to be accepted by college and lasting for two years.
b) Secondary education shall be for two consecutive or non-consecutive years which shall be: year eleven and year twelve.
c) College shall have final authority in regards to subjects they offer. Students are encouraged to choose four subjects.
d) Colleges are encouraged to work with universities while formulating their curriculum.
e) At end of college, there shall be University Entrance Examination (UEE), which shall be administered by group of top ten universities.

Section 4 - Business Education
a) Business Education shall refer to alternative to college as described in section 3.
b) Business shall manage this education to gain hands on experience and drive straight into working while gaining a qualification.
c) This shall provide qualification known as BETC, which shall be equivalent to associated UEE certificate.
d) Universities are not required to recognise BETC as qualification, neither are employers.

Section 5 - University
a) University shall refer to academic route after college, which shall be non-mandatory.
b) University shall have final authority in regards to the curriculum offered.
c) This shall provide qualification known as degree, provided university is accredited in acceding order of importance shall be:

i) Doctorate
ii) Masters
iii) Bachelors

Section 6 - Funding
a) In regards to primary and secondary school, government shall fund this entirely either through vouchers or public schooling.
b) In regards to college, those who achieve top 2.5% in SLC receive 100% government funded scholarship, those who achieve top 5% in SLC receive 75% government funded scholarship, those who achieve top 10% in SLC receive 50% government funded scholarship, those who achieve top 15% in SLC receive 25% government funded scholarship.
c) In regards to university, those who achieve top 2.5% in UEE receive 100% government funded scholarship, those who achieve top 5% in UEE receive 75% government funded scholarship, those who achieve top 10% in UEE receive 50% government funded scholarship, those who achieve top 15% in UEE receive 25% government funded scholarship.
d) Universities shall not charge students more than £4784 for tuition fees, unless they are ranked in top ten universities in which case they are exempt from this cap.

Section 7 - Examination
a) This senate establishes school examination board, under ministry of education who shall produce, mark and evaluate School Leaving Certificate and Province Level examinations.
b) This senate establishes UEE examination board, which shall be administered by representative of top ten universities within the nation who shall produce, mark and evaluate UEE examinations.
c) Examination shall be marked to produce percentage by the respective examination board stated above.

Section 8 - Miscellaneous
a) Nothing in this act shall prevent creation of free schools, colleges or universities funded by charities or public schools funded by government.
b) School year shall start in January and end in December.
c) Creates Education and Training Inspectorate, modelled on Ofsted (England) to oversee curriculum and subject matter to ensure they are fit for purpose with similar responsibilities and authorities as Ofsted (England).

There, I added inspector and hopefully ensured it it politically independent. We need one more sponsor guys...

You should change some of the standard languages to make it more compatible with our neighbours. Replace Chinese, Mandarin and Latin with Arabic, French and Italian. Also, Social Studies should be compulsory for at least the first two to three years of secondary school and optional afterwards. Our children shouldn't be ignorant to the outside world. As for the optional subjects within the social sciences, we should have History, Classical Studies and Social Studies as options instead of having Social Studies in general as an option.

[Great Nepal]

You should change some of the standard languages to make it more compatible with our neighbours. Replace Chinese, Mandarin and Latin with Arabic, French and Italian.

Chinese and Mandarin is one of the largest languages in the world, it is in interest of students to be fluent in such language. As for Latin, I would replace it but I think Wolf wanted it there although since he has created alternate proposal, sure. How about this: Chinese, Mandarin, Spanish, Standard Arabic, French, German, Aurentine?

Also, Social Studies should be compulsory for at least the first two to three years of secondary school and optional afterwards. Our children shouldn't be ignorant to the outside world.

That would be 8 years of social studies though. Students already know contents about it in primary school so if they want to pursue it, they can in secondary school.

As for the optional subjects within the social sciences, we should have History, Classical Studies and Social Studies as options instead of having Social Studies in general as an option.

We have history, what do you mean by Classical Studies? I mean, what's main difference between hat and history...

[Costa Alegria]

Chinese and Mandarin is one of the largest languages in the world, it is in interest of students to be fluent in such language.

Only if we have a large population of Chinese living in Aurentina or if we have a deeper relationship with China beyond simple diplomatic ties. Then it would make sense. As neither of those is the current reality (not to mention Chinese is one of the hardest languages to learn for most people), it doesn't make sense to have Chinese as part of a standard alternate language.

That would be 8 years of social studies though. Students already know contents about it in primary school so if they want to pursue it, they can in secondary school.

And? That means students will actually learn something about the wider world. We don't want to end up like the United States where people can't even point out Canada or Mexico on a map.

We have history, what do you mean by Classical Studies? I mean, what's main difference between hat and history...

History is a broad term covering everything since the first civilisation appeared to everything that happened until this very minute. Classical Studies narrows this down to Ancient Greece and Rome and focuses on aspects of everyday life, history, religion, literature etc. Which is relevant given our proximity and colonisation by Rome and Greece.

[Lemanrussland]

I agree with you on hard drugs. Marijuana, alcohol, and nicotine can stay legal, because we don't want a prohibition-like situation or the current US "War on Drugs", which has caused the US to have the highest incarceration rate on the planet.

Incarceration rate is irrelevant, if they commit a crime they should be put away.

Controlling the crime rate is the important aspect we should be focused on when talking about the justice system, and obviously, the War on Drugs hasn't reduced the crime rate, even if we dismiss drug related offenses from the equation... parts of Northern Mexico are literally engulfed in civil war-type conditions due to US policy decisions.

[Great Nepal]

Chinese and Mandarin is one of the largest languages in the world, it is in interest of students to be fluent in such language.

Only if we have a large population of Chinese living in Aurentina or if we have a deeper relationship with China beyond simple diplomatic ties. Then it would make sense. As neither of those is the current reality (not to mention Chinese is one of the hardest languages to learn for most people), it doesn't make sense to have Chinese as part of a standard alternate language.

China is growing economy and becoming an economic superpower, thus it is quite likely that in future during their work, students will need to interact with Chinese people and possibly in china itself. It is invaluable if they can speak in Chinese, especially since as you said it is one of the hardest language to learn so unless taught in young age, it is unlikely that students can learn it in future.

And? That means students will actually learn something about the wider world. We don't want to end up like the United States where people can't even point out Canada or Mexico on a map.

How about I do same thing as in primary school and add it with History for first two years and make it optional for last three years?

History is a broad term covering everything since the first civilisation appeared to everything that happened until this very minute. Classical Studies narrows this down to Ancient Greece and Rome and focuses on aspects of everyday life, history, religion, literature etc. Which is relevant given our proximity and colonisation by Rome and Greece.

Sounds fair enough, I will add it in as option.