PASSED: Essential Medication Act

[Linux and the X]

Given that this is about medical marijuana, I don't know that it belongs in the category of recreational drug use.

This is an issue for the Libertarian Party.

The what?

[Conopolis]

Given that this is about medical marijuana, I don't know that it belongs in the category of recreational drug use.

This is an issue for the Libertarian Party.

The what?

True. The Libertariam Party is an American party that supports all drug use...thats the joke. Look 'em up they are odd.

[Eireann Fae WA Mission]

Given that this is about medical marijuana, I don't know that it belongs in the category of recreational drug use.


The what?

True. The Libertariam Party is an American party that supports all drug use...thats the joke. Look 'em up they are odd.

"American? What the hell is American?"

(OOC: Real world references are bad, mm'kay.)

[Flibbleites]

Given that this is about medical marijuana, I don't know that it belongs in the category of recreational drug use.

It was ruled back in the Jolt days that since marijuana is primarily used for recreational purposes, medical marijuana proposals must be in the Recreational Drug Use category.

[Mousebumples]

Given that this is about medical marijuana, I don't know that it belongs in the category of recreational drug use.

It was ruled back in the Jolt days that since marijuana is primarily used for recreational purposes, medical marijuana proposals must be in the Recreational Drug Use category.

Thanks for the quick clarification, Flib. That's what I was thinking, and your confirmation is greatly appreciated.

[Conopolis]

True. The Libertariam Party is an American party that supports all drug use...thats the joke. Look 'em up they are odd.

"American? What the hell is American?"

(OOC: Real world references are bad, mm'kay.)

You, sir, are a hypocrite, "mm'kay" is a real world reference fron South Park.

[Eireann Fae WA Mission]

"American? What the hell is American?"

(OOC: Real world references are bad, mm'kay.)

You, sir, are a hypocrite, "mm'kay" is a real world reference fron South Park.

(OOC: <=- Stands for "Out of Character". My Characters would never say "mm'kay" :-)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The category looks fine from Harper's point of view. She is also thinking about what to call the committee: what about The Board for the Administration of Drugs (BAD) or is it a bit too harsh?

[Eireann Fae WA Mission]

The category looks fine from Harper's point of view. She is also thinking about what to call the committee: what about The Board for the Administration of Drugs (BAD) or is it a bit too harsh? :unsure:

"How about the Group Releasing Endorphin-Enabling Natural Tinctures and Heavier Unnatural Medicine to Bring Solace. GREENTHUMBS?" Alexandra smiles, but Melöʃina doesn't seem to get the joke. She's apparently not familiar with Human idioms. Honestly, I don't know how Alexandra got to hear the Cypress Hill song...

(OOC: The girl was, of course, thinking of Cypress Hill - Dr. Greenthumb, a song about a marijuana grower/dealer :-)

[Mousebumples]

Version III

Medical Marijuana Act
Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize

Description:
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

UNDERSTANDS that each nation within this august body has it’s own individualized laws regarding recreational drug use inside its borders.

RESPECTS the right of each nation to make such laws due to the lack of international law on the subject.

REALIZES that some patients receive inadequate and/or substandard treatment due to the limitations of pharmacology and dispensary restrictions within their nation of residence.

BELIEVES that medical professionals should be able to prescribe evidence-based treatments for their patients’ use when standard courses of therapy prove to be ineffective or insufficient, with specific stipulations.

DEFINES “medically essential drug” (MED) as a medication or treatment that is necessary to improve management and treatment of a patient’s medical condition but is specially regulated and/or restricted within a given nation per national and/or regional laws.

REQUIRES, at minimum, for member nations to allow their citizens medicinal access and medicinal use of MEDs.

PERMITS member nations to place any/all of the following restrictions on the medicinal access and use of MEDs within their sovereign borders:

• Patients may be required to try the standard of therapy for a sufficient duration to allow for adequate symptom control to be obtained. Patient-specific waivers must be available, in the event that such a trial would result in untenable adverse harm.
• Practitioners who prescribe MEDs may be required to obtain a special certification, in order to ensure that all MEDs are being used solely for medicinal purposes. The certification must have reasonable and attainable standards.
• Member nations may require MED dispensaries to institute reasonable security measures to prevent theft and/or unauthorized possession of MEDs.

CLARIFIES that nothing in this proposal limits a member state's ability to outlaw or legalize recreational use of MEDs or other drugs.

ALLOWS for further WA legislation on this subject, provided that patient access to MEDs are respected, as laid out in this text.

I mostly rearranged things - and removed the committee, as suggested by Quelesh. (Thanks!) I also changed MND --> MED, as previously mentioned.

I'm open to further suggestions, and debate on this subject. I see no need to rush the draft to submission.

Cheers!
Ambassador Nikolas Eberhart
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Eireann Fae WA Mission]

"I worked hard on GREENTHUMBS, too..." Alexandra clears her throat, and turns to address the Ambassador making the proposal. "Would this not be better suited to the category of Social Justice, Ambassador? Believe me, I'm all for legalizing recreational use of drugs (and I happen to have a blunt rolled with the paper of another resolution, waiting to be smoked), but this resolution doesn't seem to do that. At all."

[Linux and the X]

"I worked hard on GREENTHUMBS, too..." Alexandra clears her throat, and turns to address the Ambassador making the proposal. "Would this not be better suited to the category of Social Justice, Ambassador? Believe me, I'm all for legalizing recreational use of drugs (and I happen to have a blunt rolled with the paper of another resolution, waiting to be smoked), but this resolution doesn't seem to do that. At all."

I pointed this out earlier, and

It was ruled back in the Jolt days that since marijuana is primarily used for recreational purposes, medical marijuana proposals must be in the Recreational Drug Use category.

[Eireann Fae WA Mission]

"I worked hard on GREENTHUMBS, too..." Alexandra clears her throat, and turns to address the Ambassador making the proposal. "Would this not be better suited to the category of Social Justice, Ambassador? Believe me, I'm all for legalizing recreational use of drugs (and I happen to have a blunt rolled with the paper of another resolution, waiting to be smoked), but this resolution doesn't seem to do that. At all."

I pointed this out earlier, and

It was ruled back in the Jolt days that since marijuana is primarily used for recreational purposes, medical marijuana proposals must be in the Recreational Drug Use category.

(OOC: Puh. It doesn't count unless I can see it. Show me the archive, Flib! That's a bad rule and whoever made it should feel bad!)

[Flibbleites]

I pointed this out earlier, and

(OOC: Puh. It doesn't count unless I can see it. Show me the archive, Flib! That's a bad rule and whoever made it should feel bad!)

I can't, the ruling was made back in the Jolt days. But if I remember correctly the ruling was made by Hack so take your complaints to him.

[Eireann Fae WA Mission]

(OOC: Puh. It doesn't count unless I can see it. Show me the archive, Flib! That's a bad rule and whoever made it should feel bad!)

I can't, the ruling was made back in the Jolt days. But if I remember correctly the ruling was made by Hack so take your complaints to him.

(OOC: Puh! He's a Hack! It's right there in his name!! -.-)

[Mousebumples]

"I worked hard on GREENTHUMBS, too..." Alexandra clears her throat, and turns to address the Ambassador making the proposal. "Would this not be better suited to the category of Social Justice, Ambassador? Believe me, I'm all for legalizing recreational use of drugs (and I happen to have a blunt rolled with the paper of another resolution, waiting to be smoked), but this resolution doesn't seem to do that. At all."

I'm a fan of GREENTHUMBS myself, but I am a fan of removing committees entirely, as well. (But, uh, maybe this carefully cultivated plant - courtesy of our national horticulturist - would help smooth things over?)

So far as the category, Flib already mentioned it - sorta - but I believe that one way of looking at it is that this proposal would involve making a recreational drug (i.e. marijuana) available to an increased number of individuals - granted, solely for medicinal use. However, it does involve expansion of use of recreational drugs - even if they are not, technically, to be used for recreational purposes.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper has to admit that this proposal is better in terms of the scope than the Muscular Impairment Medication Act draft by One Cross.

Dry-run question now: will this draft allow member states to reduce the prescription of medical marijuana provided that there are reliable or better alternatives to such issue?

[One cross]

Ms. Harper has to admit that this proposal is better in terms of the scope than the Muscular Impairment Medication Act draft by One Cross.

Dry-run question now: will this draft allow member states to reduce the prescription of medical marijuana provided that there are reliable or better alternatives to such issue?

An opinion is an opinion but at the end of the day both acts have roughly the same goals in mind

[Bears Armed]

Dry-run question now: will this draft allow member states to reduce the prescription of medical marijuana provided that there are reliable or better alternatives to such issue?

Good question.

[Unibot]

I pointed this out earlier, and

(OOC: Puh. It doesn't count unless I can see it. Show me the archive, Flib! That's a bad rule and whoever made it should feel bad!)

OOC: I'm not Hack (I'm not near cranky enough ), but it probably has to do with some game-side issue, the resolution passing will mean more marijuana, and the Recreational Drug Use category probably has a result that illustrates an increase in marijuana more so than the Social Justice category can (which isn't a health category anyway). For example, I suspect the census reports for "Laxest Drug Laws" will have more of a WA presence follow the passage of a Recreational Drug Use resolution, whereas they wouldn't have with just a Social Justice resolution. *shrugs*

[Amphetameroin]

ON MARIJUANA AS A PSYCHOACTIVE DRUG, IT'S BENEFITS AND PAST TREATMENT BY GOVERNMENTS:

WARNING: The ambassador from the Nation of Amphetameroin has always been a poor role-player, and will not use real life references and points. Do not fret, for all you nitpickers, purists, RPers, and sadists, I will also transform what the following text means for use in Nation States as a game, and not an extension of real life.

As each year more and more children are prosecuted in the West, (Canada and the United States) for minor penalties such as holding marijuana. All this system does is prosecute those children and treat them like a criminals. What this does, is create a cycle. By treating these children as drug addicts and drug dealers, they are processed in a system that is bursting and unable to harbor them (There are more than two million people in the prison system in the US - http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censussta ... sonpop.htm) which exposes them to an actual black market for hard drugs and introduces them to other criminals. Following their inability to travel and find jobs because of their prosecution, they become a part of the actual drug trade in order to compensate for their lack of "legal" means to actual participate in a functioning society.

"More teenagers are being arrested for drug crimes. According to the FBI, 11.7% of all people arrested for drug-related crimes are juveniles, and since 1994, over two million juveniles have been arrested. More than eighty percent, however, were arrested for possession of drugs, rather than the making or distribution of them. Also, the FBI found that arrests relating to drugs such as cocaine and opium have declined, while arrests relating to marijuana have increased about 60.5%. Also, as was expected, the age of teenagers with the highest percent of arrests were 17-year-olds, and the age with the lowest percent of arrests were in the age 12-and-under category" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_crime - you will find references to studies and credible websites at the bottom of this page as well)

Now I refer to the proposed plan for the government to "create safer communities" (http://www.nationalantidrugstrategy.gc.ca/plan.html).How many times did they mention marijuana as a dangerous drug, disregarding its' potentency for anti-carcinogenic properties, cancer treating properties? A drug that can treat nausea and cancers as efficiently as many chemotherapy options, without alopecia (hair loss), nausea and vomiting, cardiac stress, etc? Please note, many chemotherapy options can kill patients before the actual cancer was, I urge you to to find any marijuana related deaths and post a link to a source.( http://www.chemocare.com/bio/carboplatin.asp - Notice how they state low blood count, neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity. Also as a point of understanding, toxicity means it kills cells or causes cell death. Chemotherapy options are non-selective - They kill all cells, not just cancer cells. They kill kidney cells, liver cells, and brain cells, because the drug is processed by all these organs.

I urge you all to educate yourselves. Time and time again, our own "civilized" governments have shown that they are just as capable of tyranny, destruction, and "black ops" acts. (My Lai - USA sanctioned Genocide in Vietnam. Prosecution of cancer patients in the US under Federal Law for using marijuana (legal under their state law).

Not even Jesus advocated blindly following the government. For people who try to find a spiritual parallel between their own lives and the lives of the people in the time of the scripture need to look no further than the society that persecuted Jesus, and the government that prosecuted him. Governments are NOT representative of society.

So what are the reasons that the government advocates such a tough drug policy? Lets look at the lies ourselves with a critical eye

1. MARIJUANA is ADDICTIVE!

Fact: Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild. (United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. <span>DASIS Report Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral</span>. 2002. June 24 200)

People state the facts that more children are in Marijuana Rehabilitation Programs than for any other drug. This in itself, is true. However, you look at the number of children in there voluntary, and the number of children who are in (STATE SPONSORED DRUG PROGRAMS!) them involuntary - As in, because they were prosecuted for having marijuana. As in, they are in a program the government built for kids the government forces kids to go into. The government states their own "facts" they they themselves have helped legitimize. THERE IS NO REAL LEGITIMACY TO THIS CLAIM!

MARIJUANA CAUSES MENTAL ILLNESS!

Fact: There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior (Iverson, Leslie. “Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis.” <span>Current Opinion in Pharmacology</span> 5(2005): 69-72) (Weiser and Noy. “Interpreting the association between cannabis use and increased risk of schizophrenia.” <span>Dialogues in Clincal Neuroscience</span> 1(2005): 81-85)

MARIJUANA OFFENSES ARE SMALL! CHILDREN WILL GO TO PROGRAMS! PEOPLE WON'T BE JAILED

Fact: Marijuana arrests in the United States doubled between 1991 and 1995. In 1995, more than one-half-million people were arrested for marijuana offenses. Eighty-six percent of them were arrested for marijuana possession. Tens of thousands of people are now in prison for marijuana offenses. An even greater number are punished with probation, fines, and civil sanctions, including having their property seized, their driver's license revoked, and their employment terminated. Despite these civil and criminal sanctions, marijuana continues to be readily available and widely used (United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation. <span>Uniform Crime Reports for the United States. 1996.</span> Washington: U. S. Dept. of Justice, 1997)

MARIJUANA IS BAD FOR YOUR LUNGS! YOU WILL GET CANCER! IF NOT CANCER, YOU WILL HAVE TROUBLE BREATHING!

Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana (Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. “Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box.” New York.) Marijuana can also be consumed in foods, or vaporized using easily home-made objects, or purchased vaporizers.

REAL FACTS - Marijuana is actually helpful for a number of breathing conditions!

The New England Journal of Medicine, a peer-reviewed medical journal, published a 1973 study titled "Single-Dose Effect of Marihuana Smoke. Bronchial Dynamics and Respiratory-Center Sensitivity in Normal Subjects," by L. Vachon et al., that stated: "Marihuana smoke, unlike cigarette smoke, causes bronchodilatation [expansion of the air passages] rather than bronchoconstriction [narrowing of the air passages] and, unlike opiates, does not cause central respiratory depression.

REAL FACTS - Marijuana is a drug that can suppress and reduce tumor size in patients with lung cancer. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 193338.htm)

REAL FACTS - Marijuana is useful in treating nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients. (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... /marijuana)

REAL FACTS - Marijuana is useful in treating Anorexia Nervosa and Anorexia caused by Parkinson's (http://www.cannabismd.net/anorexia/)

REAL FACTS - Marijuana, whilst could be a precursor to schizophrenia in children under the age of 18, could also be a treatment for patients with Bi Polar Disorder and Adult Schizophrenia, with it's euphoriant effect relieving depressive phases, and it's sedative effect relieving manic phases. (Ringen, PA; A. Vaskinn, K. Sundet, JA Engh, H. Jónsdóttir, C. Simonsen, S. Friis, S. Opjordsmoen, I. Melle, OA Andreassen (November 6, 2009). "Opposite relationships between cannabis use and neurocognitive functioning in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia". Psychological Medicine 40 (8): 1–11. doi:10.1017/S0033291709991620. PMID 19891810)

REAL FACTS - Marijuana can help reduce the need for psychiatric medicine when used under the supervision of a medical doctor (Frank Lucido, MD, a private practice physician, stated in his article "Implementation of the Compassionate Use Act in a Family Medical Practice: Seven Years Clinical Experience," available on his website (accessed June 2, 2006): With appropriate use of medical cannabis, many of these patients have been able to reduce or eliminate the use of opiates and other pain pills, ritalin, tranquilizers, sleeping pills, anti-depressants and other psychiatric medicines...)'

REAL FACTS - Marijuana is emerging as a new and effective treatment for many side effects of the condition Multiple Sclerosis ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18496477)

As a point of interest, (and if you've ever had a post-secondary education you may know this) be sure to note a few things when you look at pro or anti marijuana studies.

Who - Who is sponsoring the study? Remember, the state does NOT have your best interests at heart. Remember than the Nixon administration funded a study that concluded evidence contrary to the results they wanted in order to start a war on drugs."...it implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance.". Nixon ignored this report, stating "You're enough of a pro to know that for you to come out with something that would run counter to what the Congress feels and what the country feels, and what we're planning to do, would make your commission just look bad as hell." Later, the war on drugs was commissioned. This causes many experimenter biases to be called into account. Researchers can be dismissed or have pressure on them to conform to what the sponsor wants.

Why - Why does the sponsor of the study having it happen? Ulterior motives are in EVERY study. Why is the Big Tobacco Company Inc. funding a study done that says tobacco does not cause lung cancer? Use your BRAIN.

Analyze - What are the studies flaws? An example - Marijuana causes depression. Have studies been done on this? Have double-blind experimental studies been concluded? Remember, you CANNOT say (X caused Y) Unless an EXPERIMENTAL study has been done. Correlational studies will state a large number of depressive patients use marijuana. This does NOT MEAN IT CAUSES DEPRESSION. What you have bought into, is yellow journalism and sensationalism, as well as misrepresenting facts as conclusive evidence (as well as taking things out of context and using fear tactics to persuade others).

Since the beginning of time, the scientific community has stated that people who have depression are at risk for opiate abuse. Why? Because of the desire to self-medicate. Wow. Good job readers, you just learned something. Depressive people self-medicate. And how many do that with marijuana, the easiest to find drug on the market? (Thanks to drug prohibition and prosecution) Alot. So does this mean marijuana causes depression, or depressed people use it? What studies have been done? Use your brain.

Spiritual Consideration: http://www.equalrights4all.org/religious/bible.htm
Legal Consideration: http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THAT!:

I posted sources for many of the facts. If it is not a credible source or a .gov website, I guarantee you it is a peer-edited journal or magazine (or their website), or contain links to a credible source.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME AS A NATION STATES NATION?

There is almost no reason for you to continue to support marijuana prohibition, and you should do all you can to critique this study and support it. Not only has marijuana consistently be shown to exhibit almost none of the side effects you may have propagated in your nation (it causes lung-cancer was once hailed as the number one reason for scheduling marijuana), it has shown an established efficacy in treating a number of cognitive/psychological disorders, as well as physical ones such as cancer and multiple-sclerosis. Not only does it exhibit pain killing properties (looking for an addiction free alternative to opiates, that also has a slower tolerance rise than something like oxycodone or morphine? Look no further) equipotent to other more dangerous drugs, it can treat cancer and exhibits relatively few side effects in comparison to any drug that is used to treat something like cancer or multiple sclerosis or depression.

If you want to see an argument about legalizing and decriminalizing drugs, please refer two BOLD HEADLINES down to my other rant about all other drugs. Consider many of the benefits - economic, crime reducing, employment improving, reduced stress on police and increased funding for healthcare or other areas your government wishes to fund.

It's been shown to help many disorders, without addiction or side effects. All the bad effects touted about it have been proven false in many studies. So what are you waiting for? Voice your opinion, help out with this act, or support it best you can. That is, only if you want to improve civil liberties, personal freedoms, your healthcare system, your police force, your economy, and your employment rate.

I can see why you wouldn't want to though, it is a drug and we all know that all drugs are bad. Consequently, I urge you to educate yourself and try not to be a moron and bring moralistic arguments into this - They have no place in determining the law such as this. Saying it's bad because you think that your God might have disapproved of it, by your own reasoning, is simply a way to say "I don't to argue this, and I don't have to because it is bad." That is simply lazy, it makes you look like a massive dipshit, and it quite honestly may actually cause miscarriages in pregnant women, so please, take it elsewhere.

ON ANALYZING DRUG PROHIBITION AND LEGALIZING ALL RECREATIONAL DRUGS

WARNING: The Ambassador from the Nation of Amphetameroin has always been a poor role-player, and will use real life references and points. Do not fret, for all you nitpickers, purists, RPers, and sadists, I will also transform what this means for Nation States as a game, and not an extension of real life.

As we all know, the 'War on Drugs' is an initiative that was first implemented by U.S. President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971. Drug policies were implemented in response to drug use in the United States, and ranged from social programs to law enforcement. The DEA, or Drug Enforcement Agency, was established by Richard Nixon in 1973 to enforce drug laws(1), and currently has a budget of 2.6 million. (2) Despite these social programs and law enforcement, crime associated with drug use has increased, prices for illicit drugs have decreased, consumption of illicit drugs has increased, and deadly diseases such as Hepatitus and HIV have been further spread in response to the United States drug policy. The drug policies that have been implemented by the United States have failed to deliver on their promise to reduce the dangers associated with the drug trade; the social programs have failed in their ability to discourage personal consumption; prohibition have increased the dangers and diseases associated with drug use; and law enforcement has been rampantly counter-productive in stemming the tide of drug crime and illegal drug trafficking business.

One of the main facets of the Drug Prohibition that is being enforced in the United States aims to reduce personal consumption of illicit drugs. One way this is being pursued, is reducing use in childhood and adolescence, and increasing education on drug use and drug policy. One of these programs is called the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE), which aims to provide information and subsequently, reduce drug use among young individuals, often in grades 6-8. This program represents a major investment of police manpower, and class time. These programs have been widely pursued across the United States, and many teachers, and politicians are in favour of this comprehensive drug awareness program. A study done over three years (1989, 1990, 1991), however, question the effectiveness of such social programs(3). The study did show a statistically significant increase in the self-reported attitudes toward drug use (with an increase in score reflecting a negative attitude to illicit drugs), the program was unsuccessful in producing a statistically significant reduction of actual illicit use. Hallucinogens was the only illicit drug that reported a small reduction of use, along with cigarettes (which are legally controlled). However, use for beer, wine, and coolers increased, along with the illicit drugs cocaine, and downers (Heroin, Benzodiazepines, opiates). Other illicit drugs remained roughly the same. Another study done in 1994 by Ennet et al that studied the effectiveness of DARE programs, showed that there were no long-term positive effects in drug consumption reduction(4).

While these social programs have been shown ineffective by many studies, police manpower and government funding continues to be diverted to such programs. Alternative programs exist in other countries, however, instead of drug use reduction, they seek to reduce the harm associated with illicit drug use. One example of an alternative program is syringe exchanges; which offer to dispose of dirty syringes and provide sanitary ones for intravenous drug users (IDUs). Pilot programs in European countries such as the Netherlands, and the UK showed positive results in stemming Hepatitis and HIV infections(5). However, as of 2004, the US Government did not allocate any funds to any needle exchange programs. While the money and police efforts that go to ineffective programs could be diverted to programs with established efficiency, or other causes (healthcare, criminal investigations such as murder) political ignorance and an unwillingness to support liberal or non-prohibitionist options is still prevalent.

Prohibitionist policies are viewed as stable political opinions. Even though the efficacy of aforementioned programs has been often called into question, politicians are unwilling to support existing alternative options. While drug prevention programs are favoured over harm reduction, public opinion has shifted to be more favourable to decriminalization of illicit drugs. In North America alone, more than 50% of Canadian citizens polled supported marijuana legalization, although these findings are limited by being a 'readers poll'(6). In America, similar public opinion has surfaced, and one of the most popular online topics' during Obama's election was ending marijuana prohibition(7). It can be said that the social programs that have been implemented in response to the United States 'War on Drugs' have failed in their promise to reduce personal consumption, and have failed to reduce the number of new drug users. Despite successful alternative programs and a general shift in public opinion, the US Government continues to pursue a policy of drug prohibition, incurring costly budget effects and increased police efforts.

What has the drug policy in the United States actually accomplished? As social programs implemented have been shown to be unproductive, it begs the question: what impact does the 'drug-free' policy have on actual drug users? In effect, the drug policy implemented in the United States has actually increased personal dangers, negative health consequences that have damaged society much more than it has done to protect it. In response to such punitive drug policies in the United States, many other countries have been developing alternative policies and alternative laws and programs that have been shown to be a cheaper, more effective way of dealing with drug use. Americas' 'War on Drugs' seeks to create a drug-free America, however, this view is extremely difficult to accomplish. Unfortunately, this policy has increased the risk of disease and death that many Americans, many of them drug users, face. This cost mounts in Drug Enforcement Agencies' budget and the reduction of funding for the Healthcare system. Although this cost could easily be mitigated by harm reduction strategies, the U.S Government still enforces its' current policy.

Harm reduction policies include syringe exchange, the ability for doctors to prescribe methadone for opiate (commonly heroin) addiction, provide sterile and pharmaceutical grade drugs to users, and analyzing drugs such as MDMA for dangerous constituents before consumption in clubs(8). Syringe exchange has been extensively used in countries abroad, such as the Netherlands and Germany, in an effort to reduce the risk of HIV and AIDs. Although conservative politicians criticized such policies as condoning drug use, slowing the spread of deadly infectious diseases such as AIDs was deemed more important. More importantly, needle exchange programs are often cheap and effective when compared to treating people who have been infected with HIV. However in the US, such opinion has not prevailed, and AIDs was the number 2 killer of people aged 22 to 40. US Government has refused to fund these programs for political reasons, despite positive scientific studies that have shown that it has decreased infectious diseases, inform drug users of treatment programs and increase availability, and have NOT increased illegal drug use(9). Methadone, another purported solution to drug risks, was also pioneered in other countries such as Europe and Australia. Methadone delays withdrawal and is used similar to insulin in diabetic patients, and reduces drug cravings significantly. In England, common doctors are allowed to prescribe medical heroin to addicts. In Switzerland, a study done on heroin addicts treated with heroin or methadone had shown that criminal activity decreased by 60%, illegal offenses decreased from 69% to 10%, employment increased 18%, and illegal use of heroin AND cocaine declined dramatically. This study was shown to have an economic benefit of 30$ a day per patient in reduced healthcare and criminal justice costs(9). However, politicians in the United States are uneasy about methods that don't leave the user drug free, and many programs have been ignored, despite growing public support in such European countries with these harm reduction programs. Although extensive studies and evidence has been shown for harm reduction governmental policies increasing personal health and benefiting society, they continue to be ignored in the US, where the only option are the few methadone clinics that are strictly and heavily regulated.

Perhaps the biggest failure of the United States drug policy has been it's proven ineffectiveness of it's law enforcement. The policy also creates a profitable black market for those who supply illegal drugs, and increases crime associated with the trade. In reality, this policy has been counter productive in every single one of it's aims. Domestic law enforcement spending has been increasing with every year the 'War on Drugs' is in effect, however, drug distribution does not seem to have been impacted by the increased spending. Cocaine and Heroin prices have roughly remained stable, actually decreasing slightly in the 1980s, showing the ineffectiveness of drug enforcement on reducing the illegal drug trafficking trade(10).

Studies done on the availability of cocaine have shown that with increased domestic law enforcement expenditure, availability has consequently increased as well. Law enforcement on some of the biggest drugs that plague America today has been shown to be ineffective and in fact, counter productive in stemming the drug trade whatsoever. With domestic availability of drugs remaining the same, the US aimed to reduce the influx of illegal drugs from other countries such as Asia and Colombia.

Plan Colombia was an initiative involving United States military and anti-narcotics personnel fighting left wing insurgents who were involved in the drug trade(11). Although they destroyed many coca crops, in 2005, production of cocaine seemed to be unchanged in Colombia(12). The DEA, another government wing that was created in response to the drug trade, reported seizing 1.4 billion dollars and 470 million in drug assets and drug seizures (respectively). However, despite this, the drug trade in America alone is an estimated 64 billion dollar trade, which makes the DEA roughly around 1% effective(13).

Due to the failures domestically and abroad, the US Government sought to discourage users by imposing heavy and punitive drug laws. Around 1 million arrests are made each year, and about 1/4th of those are simple marijuana possession. Around 2 million Americans are currently incarcerated in the prison system. With harsh penalties (often preventing Americans from getting jobs or regular income) doing nothing to stem the tide of drug use and abuse, the United States drug policy and enforcement efforts have been shown to be ineffective across the board. With foreign and domestic drugs availability continuing to be unchanged in the face of increased law enforcement, and punitive laws punishing only drug users and not drug traffickers (and being ineffective in reducing crime in doing so), one has to wonder if the United States should perhaps pursue a different drug policy. Drug prohibition has increased profit for drug traffickers significantly, while reducing costs for users dramatically as well, also exposing users to dangerous adulterants in such illegal drugs. While other drug policies would reduce the crime associated with drug trade (as illegal traffickers could not compete with governmental drug distribution, effectively reducing crime and health effects (as drugs sold would be 100% pure)) and reduce the burden on taxpayers, the United States has decided to, again, choose the ineffective, costly, and dangerous option of enforcing drug prohibition. (14)

Illicit drug use continues to be an important issue that plagues the United States, and many other countries, to this day. Costs to society, healthcare, and individuals are great, and crime associated with the drug trade is indeed troubling. However, the United States has continued to pursue a drug policy following it's declaration of 'War on Drugs', that has time and time again, been proven ineffective, and has continually ignored alternative harm reduction options that have been proven to solve many problems that the United States continues to face, including diseases (reduced burden on healthcare) and crime (reduced burden on law enforcement). The costs of drug prohibition are broad and often more detrimental to the United States than illegal drugs originally were. While the United States is often a leader in world politics and sets the standard for many other countries, it continues to be a mystery why they wouldn't pursue proven-effective alternative options, instead of spending money policing not only it's domestic population, but the population and drug laws of other countries as well.

A SUMMARY OF THE ABOVE TEXT, INCLUDING REAL WORLD FACTS:

Western Europe: Needle exchange, Heroin morphine and methadone prescriptions, 'soft' drug decriminalization. Millions of dollars saved, reduction in crime, deaths and HIV lowered, dropped criminal charges. North America: Mandatory minimum sentences (Bush & Harper Gov't), criminal charges and jail time. HIV now leading ...killer, crime increased, billions on police force with no change in drug price or supply.

Needle Sharing Programs Net Economic Asset: +30$/d, +900$/mo
Increased employment of drug users from 10% to 39%
Healthcare Cost of Treating HIV: -350$ to -2000$/mo
Police and Government Anti-Drug Enforcement: -14,100,000,000/Year
Effectiveness:... 477 million actual drugs of 64 billion actual trafficking.
Less than 1% seized
2 Million Americans in private prisons (Money goes to corporations)
1.8 Million for simple possession.
Benefits of just decriminalizing in 11 American States: 700million/yr, not including reduced government spending in police and DEA forces.
450$ per minute being spent on drug prohibition

WESTERN EUROPE:
Only 6.7% of children 7-12 use marijuana (In The Netherlands) (13% in the USA)
Increase in employment rate among users and decrease in crime (Crime increased in USA, employment rates drop, increased criminal sentences)
One months worth of clean syringes - 12 dollars. One months worth of HIV drugs from unclean syringes (Often over 1000 dollars)
Who is to blame? People with an uncontrollable addiction? Or politicians who mandate clean syringes require prescriptions, and cannot be sold to anyone?

SWITZERLAND: Study of 1000 heroin addicts, given clean syringes, shooting rooms, and prescribed heroin. RESULTS: 60% REDUCTION IN CRIME! 40% of people managing to deciding to taper or quit using.

Drug Prohibition: Billions of taxpayers dollars to police who will brutalize and send your children (the people who voted for these politicians) into a system with *real* criminals. Healthcare sees millions of dollars in cuts that go to Police and Drug Enforcement policies. Prohibition also sends estimated billions of dollars in tax revenues (the Healthcare system could use) into actual crime syndicates. Prohibition saw over 10,000 people diagnosed with HIV from unclean syringe use. People with HIV now can live for over 20 years with our drugs, which cost an estimated 1000-2000$ dollars a month, with JUST the prescription cost, not actual total cost. This can be remedied with a 30$ clean syringes per person. HIV, or clean syringes? Which has more cost on health system? I'll let you do the math.

Worst and most successful drug lords in history began from alcohol prohibition. Nobody is killed by drug lords over alcohol anymore and the government makes millions. Increasing number of cops and medical professionals support these practices rather than criminal punishment. Nixons commission: "Marihuana is 'harmless' and jail time is 'unnecessary and tragic'". Three days later he began war on drugs. Ever single successful research and drug policies show that treatment should be increased while eliminating mandatory minimum sentences. Not one politician or any person who has advocated prison sentences has been a medical doctor. All research by medical doctors has been blacklisted by the government if it does not support the war on drugs.

Drug legalization in the Netherlands has reduced crime, reduced debt, freed up police to catch actual criminals and rapists, reduced underage use of illicit drugs, reduced criminal charges without increasing crime, highest success rate of treating addicts.

I DON'T BELIEVE A WORD OF ANY OF THAT!

Please take a gander at my sources, of which, 90% are peer reviewed journals and excerpts from University texts.

Sources Cited:
1 - DEA: Drug Abuse Prevention Service Award, Learning For Life
2http://www.justice.gov/dea/agency/staffing.htm
3Johnston, L.D. O'Malley, P.M. and Bachman, J.C. (1986) Drug Use Among American High School Students, College Students, and Other Young Addicts; National Trends through 1985. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office
4Sigler, R.T. Talley, G.B. (1995). Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program Effectiveness. American Journal of Police, Vol XIV, No 3/4, 1995.
5Ennet S. Tobler, N Ringwalt C, Flewelling R. How Effective Is Drug Resistance Education? A meta analysis of project DARE, outcome evaluations. American Journal of Public Health, 1994;84:1394-1401
6http://www.visioncritical.com/blog/category/arpo/
7http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004lrP
8Don C Des Jarlais, Zili Sloboda, Samuel R Friedman, Barbara Tempalski, et al. "Diffusion of DARE and Syringe Exchange Programs" American Journal of Public Health, Aug 2006, 96, 8.
9Nadelmann, E.A. Commonsense Drug Policy.Foreign Affairs; Jan/Feb 1998, 77, 1, BI/INFORM Global pg. 111
10Jacobsson A, Naranjo A. Counter Productive Law Enforcement in US. Econ Gov (2009), 9 July 2009.
11http://web.archive.org/web/20060909005024/http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press06/041406.html
12http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr122805.html
13http://web.archive.org/web/20070312034207/http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/drugfact/american_users_spend/index.html
14Mathea, F. US Drug Policy: Addicted to Failure. Foreign Policy; Spring 1996, 102, ABI/INFORM Global, pg 120-133

I'M A MORON/I DIDN'T READ THAT/I DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ. HOW DO I TRANSLATE THIS TO NATION STATES, OR THIS MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT?

The prohibition of drugs has been shown, time and time again, to only increase dangers to society. Not only are drug lords and corrupt dictators fueled by the money from the drug trade, the potential billions they make are severely felt in the lack of funding for many of our nations military, healthcare, transportation, social welfare, and many other costs that could go to society.

Prohibition of drugs has also exposed many citizens to the black market which they would have not been exposed to if drugs were legal. Drugs are historically, very impure. Heroin cut with tylenol can cause liver failure, or much worse should it be injected (costs to healthcare: endocarditis, talcosis, pulmonary edema). MDMA is often replaced with piperazines, causing very life-threatening dangers. Impure needles or conditions of drug users (Due to prohibition: Drug use in some nations will get you fired. Should it have been legal: you would see an at least 80% improvement in employment where otherwise people would be homeless) are very dirty. HIV/AIDS, toxiplasmosis, endocarditis, etc. This will cost you much more in the long run with treatment of diseases. Should you not wish to legalize all drugs, legalizing harm reduction programs and decriminalizing only PERSONAL use of drugs will improve your nation across the board.

More benefits to the economy are involved in legalizing all drugs. Not only have you opened yourself to a multi-billion dollar trade, drugs can be regulated by the government in public or private sectors and still maintain huge profits. By legalizing drugs and harm reduction programs, not only does homelessness decrease, but employment often dramatically increases = every area of the private sector improves. Crime is reduced as recreational users, drug abusers, and addicts are no longer forced to use guns to protect themselves, or buy from criminals (that 40 dollars will now go to your economy), as instead they can buy it legally. This will cause major drug traffickers and cartels to disappear completely. The Mafia (Or the Mob, or the Yakuza, or whatever gang operates in your city) will take a huge hit as surplus money is drained from their hands. Not only does reducing funding for organized crime protect your citizens, jobs in your private or public sector now seem much more enviable, as profits from illegal activities decrease and safe alternatives, sometimes coupled with health benefits, seem more desirable to many. And, as stated before, the common drug user is no longer funding or involved with any illegal activities, or drug traffickers. Crime will fall (This is another third boost to the economy, as law enforcement will see a huge break, not to mention, improve efficiency.)

Even if only 5% goes to your healthcare, your healthcare system will see a million dollar funding boost. Not only will legalization and harm reduction fund hospitals, doctors, and new research, but additional thousands and millions will be saved in the costs of treating drug users in your country for infectious diseases, which will be eliminated with legalisation. (creating new jobs for the economy as needle sharing clinics and methadone clinics open, pathetically easy to fund and very profitable in the long run) HIV/AIDS drugs are extremely expensive, even in nations with formidable pharmaceutical industries (and as demand lowers, as do prices for your patients). This is not to mention the thousands upon thousands of drug overdoses experienced every year. Those who are not put through the health care system will often die (This is a blow to many things. If you can't see it: human rights, the economy, multiple people related and associated with that person (Try to estimate the costs for disability leave in your country, when multiple people claim anxiety, depression, insomnia: real disease that can realistically rise out of death, not to mention traumatic deaths like overdoses).

If your social programs and prohibition work moderately well in your country, that is fantastic. Allowing nations to opt to legalize all drugs will not harm you as a nation. They can opt TO, or NOT TO legalize (at least, that is my suggestion for an amendment to any clause allowing drug use), and WILL NOT INTERFERE OR MICROMANAGE YOUR NATION!!! If edits are to be made, no useless committees should be added. This just regulates world law regarding drug use, allowing nations the options to legalize any drug they wish. Drug Law Scheduling and distribution (through your own governmental agency; or healthcare; or industry), should and likely will be entirely up to you. If you do not wish to, you do not have to. But don't be close-minded and ruin a different nations attempt at a freer, enriched, and open and economically powerful land. Like I said, this law will effectively, by world law, diminish illegality of psychoactive drugs. Your own nation can do whatever it wants with it. I suggest, and like I said (again), it is likely there will be NO micromanagement, NO useless committees, and NO economic downturn whatsoever. I aim to skip the bureaucratic entanglement in possibly collaborating with this Medical Marijuana Act, or with other nations with similar goals as mine to improve quality of life for many in multiple nations.

MILLIONS IN MY NATION WILL GET ADDICTED! DRUGS ARE BAD! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!

I urge ambassadors of many nations to take courses regarding psychoactive drugs. There are ways to market drugs without them being overtly abuseable. And like I said, this should give your nation THE OPTION of legalization. So you can decriminalize, legalize, or completely outlaw drugs. Whatever would work for your people.

Prescribing pharmaceutical grade heroin, methamphetamine/dextroamphetamine, or cocaine to addicts is shown to reduce drug consumption much more than social programs, or prohibition alone. Even if you do not legalize for your entire nation, millions will still be made from in-patient programs, and prescription of these drugs to addicts. (And, from most nations, this method has been shown to: reduce the number of addicts as more choose to quit, and can with medical assistance. Reduce crime. Increase employment and decrease homelessness. Boost for economy. Reduced strain on healthcare, criminal justice, jails, police, and the military.)

And, if you know anything about psychoactive drugs, you can easily mandate that private sectors produce versions of illicit drugs with low dependence viability, or produce them yourselves. How is that possible, you ask?

Take opiates, for example, one of the hardest addictions to quit. Take any commonly abused opiate/opioid, such as morphine, heroin, oxycodone, hydrocodone, or hydromorphone. All of them can cause severe addictions, but often are aided by ROA methods. Intravenous, nasal, etc. You can formulate pills of heroin or oxycodone in an sealed tablet. One section has the desired drug, and the other section can include a drug such as buprenorphine, naloxone, or naltrexone. Those three drugs are competitive for opiate receptors in the brain, to which the drug (morphine, for example) binds to and exerts its' psychoactive effects. Of the three drugs, we will take naloxone. It is highly competitive for the same receptors as morphine - yet it exerts different effects. In laymans terms, in rushes into the brain, beats the shit out of the morphine on the receptor, and binds to the receptor itself - it completely blocks all euphoric, and henceforth, enjoyable effects. It also causes withdrawal in those who have opiates in their system, by flushing out every single one and binding to receptors itself.

If such a pill was broken, both chambers of the pill - morphine, and naloxone - would split and mix their drug with eachother. This will effectively render it unusable. In this way, you can manufacture pills for oral consumption. Not only do you control dosages, you effectively reduce major abuse, while still providing very pleasurable effects for users. Because it is used orally, addiction and tolerance will rise extremely slowly.

This can be done for multiple other drugs, and it is not limited to simply this method. Any common person can use these drugs and feel great with a low liability for abuse and addiction, and those with previous addictions to street drugs or intravenous heroin can get prescriptions from any doctor to receive an equivalent dosage of their drug of choice, and is also 100% pure. (If your nation is worried they will give it to other people, you can mandate that they have to take it in the presence of a doctor, or only give them dosages for three days if travel to doctors is difficult. If you know drug abusers, they will not share that stash with anybody but use it themselves for their addiction).

I'm rambling. But I hope all nations see the economic benefit in legalizing drugs, not to mention the strides taken forward in civil liberties and personal freedoms. And a boost to employment, healthcare, and reduction in crime and disease. There are millions of benefits.

[Amphetameroin]

Also, I'll just leave this here. If the Ambassador of Mousebumples wishes to collaborate on any future acts or legislation, or wishes critique on this current one, I would be very happy to offer my assistance in the matter. I'm pretty experienced in dealing with these matters. Drugs have been legal in my nation since it's inception and it has only strengthened my Nation as a whole.

I've also graduated from our esteemed medical university with a doctorate in psychiatric medicine.

[OOC] No but seriously, I am a pre-med student with an undergraduate major in Psychology, with specialization in addiction, psychoactive drugs, and mood disorders. And a healthy dose of pharmacology as well. I'm not saying this to flaunt my massive ego, because I'm not a doctor whatsoever and have years to go and it's not like I'm at the top of my class. But I have extensive knowledge in this area including the laws surrounding it. So please, if you need my assistance I can offer you alot of my time and my knowledge in the area of psychoactive drugs. [/OOC]

[Mousebumples]

Dry-run question now: will this draft allow member states to reduce the prescription of medical marijuana provided that there are reliable or better alternatives to such issue?

I'm happy to consider changes to the title of the proposal - Medical Marijuana just seems like the best title to get the attention of the sheep in the WA that don't read the proposal/forums - despite the Read the Resolution Act. I'd have to check character length, but Medically Essential Drug Act maybe an option? Certainly, I'm open to other suggestions as well.

Further, I believe that the following allowance clause would cover your questions: Patients may be required to try the standard of therapy for a sufficient duration to allow for adequate symptom control to be obtained. Patient-specific waivers must be available, in the event that such a trial would result in untenable adverse harm.

Beyond that, marijuana - particularly - is not the only aim of this proposal. Given the varying drug laws in WA member nations, any number of things could be illegal. (i.e. Oxycodone [strong narcotic], Pregabalin [controlled drug, in the US, that is often effective for nerve pain], Codeine, Capsicum [as previously mentioned, topical applications may help with arthritis and similar pain issues and inhalation may aid in relieving nasal congestion], etc.) I intentionally do not list or limit drugs within this proposal's text.

I hope that helps to answer your question. Certainly, if you need further clarification, please let me know.

Also, I'll just leave this here. If the Ambassador of Mousebumples wishes to collaborate on any future acts or legislation, or wishes critique on this current one, I would be very happy to offer my assistance in the matter. I'm pretty experienced in dealing with these matters. Drugs have been legal in my nation since it's inception and it has only strengthened my Nation as a whole.

[OOC] No but seriously, I am a pre-med student with an undergraduate major in Psychology, with specialization in addiction, psychoactive drugs, and mood disorders. And a healthy dose of pharmacology as well. I'm not saying this to flaunt my massive ego, because I'm not a doctor whatsoever and have years to go and it's not like I'm at the top of my class. But I have extensive knowledge in this area including the laws surrounding it. So please, if you need my assistance I can offer you alot of my time and my knowledge in the area of psychoactive drugs. [/OOC]

I'm certainly open to any suggestions you may have, but I am not looking to legalize recreational drug use on a WA-wide scale. Having been around these parts for over 7 years, I know that a straight-up legalization proposal is unlikely to pass. (The only proposal - in the WA or its predecessor - to ever pass in any sort of Recreational Drug Use category is the UN Drug Act.) Still, I'm open to further suggestions, along the lines and scope of the current text, if you have any to offer.

OOC: I'm a pharmacist in RL, FWIW, so I basically have pharmacology covered. Of course, if you noticed something that I've overlooked ... let me know. [/OOC]

Further, Re: Why is this proposal under Recreational Drug Use?, this clause is in the GA Rules ...

Category
Category violations are pretty simple things, and often happens with 'Social Justice'. If your Social Justice proposal doesn't deal with "reduc[ing] income inequality and increas[ing] basic welfare", you've got the wrong category. This also includes proposals to ban guns forever being labeled as "Gun Control: Relax". This also includes Medical Marijuana Proposals under Human Rights, by the way.

[Amphetameroin]

That's probably likely. I overestimate my persuasive writing sometimes.

I think this act is the best step forward (it's my goal to give nations the ability to decriminalize/legalize recreational drugs, but that's much down the line) in realizing the potential for "recreational" drugs to actually be utilized in a medical setting. Especially a drug like Marijuana - With an extremely well established efficacy, one of the widest therapeutic indexes, very low toxicity and low possibility for addiction.

I read over the Act and it's pretty extensive and well written. I'm not a veteran in writing Acts by any means, so what I say might not apply whatsoever... But I'd include a few more reasons why medical marijuana should be used and the benefits for patients and alleviating suffering in people with deadly diseases. I think the best way to go about legalizing medicinal marijuana (and other drugs down the line), is to gradually introduce "conservative" liberal acts one by one, and by convincing the nay-sayers that (A) Legalization is a positive thing and (B) Making the act sound like, if you don't elect to legalize, you're depriving your citizens of an almost necessary addition to medicine.

Just something about the established efficacy of medicinal marijuana in treatment for a wide array of debilitating diseases, such as alleviating suffering in those with the fatal neurodegenerative disorder Amyotropic Lateral Sclerosis (AML) and Parkinson's Disease?

And/or asserting that many myths surrounding marijuana use are untrue, as study trials have found it does not cause lung disorders or lung cancers, and may actually play a role in treating patients with Lung and Breast cancer, as a safer and more tolerated alternative to chemotherapy drugs (Which in some cancer patients, actually kill the patient before the cancer does).

Or maybe (I just keep on going, just bear with it haha) something about it's analgesic properties, as an alternative, to (legal opiates) drugs such as Oxycodone or Morphine, for those suffering from acute, chronic, or malignant pain, as a method to prevent debilitating addiction and tolerance, and for it's reduce side effects (relative to opiates which cause chronic constipation, nausea, and malaise)

I'd word it in a way that would emphasize on medicinal marijuana's ability to alleviate suffering in dying AIDS or Cancer patients, and it's ability to treat many diseases without forming addictions or subjecting the patient to debilitating side effects (chemo drugs), compared relative to legal methods. Something that would imply a negative vote would seem illogical (without saying that, of course) or making people who vote against it seem unethical/uncaring.

Of course, also emphasizing that this law doesn't make "pot" legal for everyone in the WA, and mentioning that medicinal marijuana can be implemented as a second, third, or fourth line treatment where the patient does not get relief from first line treatment options would probably go a long way to getting some of the more conservative nations to agree with it. I mean, if it seems logical, compassionate, and smart, while not creating any bureaucracies or "agencies", and is liberal without being TOO liberal, I think it'd have a good chance of passing.

Just some suggestions, hope you don't think I'm ripping apart your act or anything It's still very good as is. Also, when you choose to submit it, I'm more than willing to help telegram/join regional forums/e-mail delegates to get support. (Of course, I won't bore them with the long rant I posted above )

[Bears Armed]

I think this act is the best step forward (it's my goal to give nations the ability to decriminalize/legalize recreational drugs, but that's much down the line)

Nations already have that ability, given that the WA hasn't passed any resolution to restrict them in this respect.