[DEFEATED] Entheogens Legalization Act

[Christian Democrats]

Individuals (by themselves) using drugs for spiritual purposes is not permitted by this proposal. Someone must be a member of a religious group. Furthermore, such a religious group must have a history of drug use in its rituals. Also, such a group must be organized; it must have a doctrine. A "religious order" created "solely to allow for the legal use of" otherwise illegal drugs would not be allowed because such use actually would be recreational, not spiritual. Such a group would have to have a doctrine and a history of drug use in its rites -- a history that couldn't easily be established by a new religious group. Overconsumption of drugs by religious groups also would not be allowed by this proposal because such consumption would exceed the scope of the religious rite and, therefore, would cease to be religious; instead, such consumption would be recreational (e.g., the Catholic Church can provide Eucharistic wine to minors, but it cannot allow minors to become drunk on such wine; that is a crime).

Additionally, nations still would be free to punish people for committing crimes while under the influence of drugs even if such drugs were consumed during a religious rite.

Article 3 §2 was written to ensure that nations could prevent "drug-seeking individuals" from "subvert[ing] laws already in place."

----------------

I am willing to replace the Committee of Religious Practice and the Court of Religious Practice if a better alternative for ensuring compliance is suggested.

The problem that is raised by that is the fact that you discriminate against developing religions. What is a "history"? Many groups in my nation have existed for thousands of years, while a few are still developing. They are all treated the same.

All member states shall make good faith efforts to abide by the provisions of this resolution. Because there is a potential for abuse, member states may enact domestic legislation to ensure that people do not exploit this resolution in attempts to circumvent domestic laws concerning the recreational consumption of intoxicants.

Your nation may either allow or disallow developing religions to use drugs in their rites. The determination of what constitutes a history should be interpreted by competent authorities in each nation; however, if such authorities abuse their powers to prevent legitimate new religions from being practiced, then such a religion's adherents can petition the Court of Religious Practice and will be allowed to use drugs in their rituals if they can prove that such drugs are integral to the practice of their religion and have been used from the religion's beginnings (i.e., drugs are historically used by the group). If a new religious group can prove that its use of drugs is spiritual and not recreational, then the Court of Religious Practice will allow them to use such drugs. This also is a reason for the Committee of Religious Practice, which is:

tasked with compiling a database which shall contain a list of organized religious groups that have histories of using intoxicants in religious practices and the specific intoxicants used by such religious groups. This database also should contain descriptions of the manners in which such intoxicants are used by specific religious groups.

[Christian Democrats]

[W]e raise objection to the clauses allowing a committee to create inferior committees. I'm unaware of any precedent, but it may be illegal.

Forum Moderator Flibbleites and Game Moderator Ardchoille seem to have ruled that it is legal:

In a proposal, can a committee be allowed to establish subcommittees, inferior bodies, et cetera?

If necessary, the Committee of Religious Practice may establish inferior courts with powers similar to those of the Court of Religious Practice

Well, resolutions have created subcommittees for committees create by other resolutions, so I don't see why a resolution couldn't create a subcommittee for a committee that it creates (heck, it might have be that it's already happened and I can't think of it).

Subcommittees that really are sub, yes -- for example, you might have a committee for making displays of military rank uniform, and suibcommittees to deal with each of the services.

You can't have a subcommittee that has more power than its originating committee.
You can't have a subcommittee that has more power than the WA.
You can't have a subcommittee that goes beyond the scope of its original committee, or the originating proposal. You'd need a separate proposal for that.

[Sionis Prioratus]

However, we raise objection to the clauses allowing a committee to create inferior committees. I'm unaware of any precedent, but it may be illegal.

Erm, hello.

#41 Access to Life-Saving Drugs

4) The WHA shall, through statistical analysis, identify diseases that affect mainly the poorest populations, diseases for which there have not been as yet serious attempts at a research for a cure or a vaccine.

a) A Health Research & Development Division is hereby created within the WHA, with the aim to research and develop cures and vaccines for said diseases. All breakthroughs arising therewith shall be put into public domain. Products arising from such breakthroughs shall be produced according to standards set by the WHA and its divisions, and distributed when and where necessary.

[Kelssek]

While we have no concern with permitting the use of recreational/narcotic/intoxicating etc. substances, since we have a well-established drug legalisation and control regime in Kelssek, we are absolutely against the granting of special privileges to religions, which is all this proposal actually is. We are of the opinion that no person should have any additional rights due to their religious beliefs.

[Moronist Decisions]

What we would like to see is for there to only be a Committee for Religious Freedom, and for the court's responsibilities to be part of the committee. To be frank, I don't see much difference in their remits, thus making it redundant.

[Embolalia]

Overconsumption of drugs by religious groups also would not be allowed by this proposal because such consumption would exceed the scope of the religious rite and, therefore, would cease to be religious; instead, such consumption would be recreational (e.g., the Catholic Church can provide Eucharistic wine to minors, but it cannot allow minors to become drunk on such wine; that is a crime).

And where is that said? Where does it say that the religious use can't include "overconsumption"? How is "overconsumption" defined? There are drugs for which the only safe dosage is zero; do you mean to say those drugs may be outlawed under this? Not a single one of those questions is answered in your proposal.
My point was not that a religion would be created for the purpose of creating a loophole. My point was that our (and I don't just mean Embolalia's here) drug laws are enacted for a specific public health purpose. My point was that your proposal has absolutely no comment on public health. My point was that a religion, which may already be established, may believe in the use of narcotics that are dangerous to public health. My point was that subverting those public health laws, regardless of the religion's history, is to subvert the systems our nations have established for the protection of our people.

Additionally, nations still would be free to punish people for committing crimes while under the influence of drugs even if such drugs were consumed during a religious rite.

Tell Dorothy and the cowardly lion I said hi.

Article 3 §2 was written to ensure that nations could prevent "drug-seeking individuals" from "subvert[ing] laws already in place."

And how are we expected to do that, exactly? The only way I can think of to do so would be to have every religion that wishes to use narcotics in its practices keep and report a registry of its members, and cross-check it with a registry of known drug-seekers. Of course, that doesn't help with the drug-seekers we don't yet know are drug-seekers. I mean, I've never touched cocaine in my life, and I have no history of drug use of any kind. Hell, I'm even on the record as not being particularly fond of caffeine. But if, for some terrible reason, I suddenly decided I wanted to start using cocaine, and there were a religion that used cocaine in its practices (even if on the limited basis you wrongly claim your proposal provides for), how exactly is anyone supposed to know? Or if I'd been using cocaine for quite a while and hadn't gotten caught?

What's happening here is that you're assuming your proposal does what you want it to do. You want to be sure your little church can keep giving a specific, relatively (though not completely) harmless drug to people. Instead, you're allowing groups that can prove prior drug use to have unrestricted access to that drug in perpetuity, regardless of any danger involved. I see this as a running trend with you, ambassador. You seem to think the world consists entirely of good, honest little Catholic altar boys. But there are more things in heaven and earth, m'colleague, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

-E. Rory Hywel

[Jankenjin]

No, no, no. We simply cannot vote for any proposal that would establish a secular "Court of Religious Practice" with the power to adjudicate whether any given religion's "practices" are consistent with WA resolutions, no matter how well-intentioned the WA may be here.

The Jankenjin are divided religiously among many churches tracing their roots back to the Great Prophet Zaakuwan. Over the centuries, our people fought many long and bloody wars between each other in the name of the GPZ, much to our discredit and the GPZ's eternal dismay. They only ended in relatively recent times, when religious tolerance was decreed, and the followers of the different Zaakuwando churches were permitted to practice their faith as they saw best, unfettered by allegiance to a temporal state. We have no interest in going back to the days when a worldly ruler, even the WA, can sit in judgment over divine affairs.

Yasushipa Toruhayashipa,
Ambassador Plenepotentiary,
Triune Republic of Jankenjin

[Christian Democrats]

No, no, no. We simply cannot vote for any proposal that would establish a secular "Court of Religious Practice" with the power to adjudicate whether any given religion's "practices" are consistent with WA resolutions, no matter how well-intentioned the WA may be here.

The Court of Religious Practice would have jurisdiction only in cases involving drug use by religious groups as part of their rituals. The court would not "adjudicate whether any given religion's 'practices' are consistent with WA resolutions"; rather, the court would rule whether the actions of member states choosing to suppress certain groups' use of drugs are legal. The court would have jurisdiction only in cases arising under this proposal.

[Brutland and Norden]

Your nation may either allow or disallow developing religions to use drugs in their rites. The determination of what constitutes a history should be interpreted by competent authorities in each nation; however, if such authorities abuse their powers to prevent legitimate new religions from being practiced, then such a religion's adherents can petition the Court of Religious Practice and will be allowed to use drugs in their rituals if they can prove that such drugs are integral to the practice of their religion and have been used from the religion's beginnings (i.e., drugs are historically used by the group). If a new religious group can prove that its use of drugs is spiritual and not recreational, then the Court of Religious Practice will allow them to use such drugs. This also is a reason for the Committee of Religious Practice, which is:

tasked with compiling a database which shall contain a list of organized religious groups that have histories of using intoxicants in religious practices and the specific intoxicants used by such religious groups. This database also should contain descriptions of the manners in which such intoxicants are used by specific religious groups.

"Oh, hi," a tall blond-haired man spoke softly on the microphone. "I presume you haven't seen us in a while. My wife's out breastfeeding our babies... I'm Dr. Knut Spicolli, husband of the Royal Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the World Assembly. She forced, er, commanded, er, told me to represent our country here and bring these plants."

Dr. Spicolli brought out a young potted sapling of a tree. "This, is the rapetree. Scientific name Psychopetalum stuprorum, native to the islands of Mordogudoro and the neighboring grant of Scilia in the Norden mainland. Its flowers and leaves are aphrodisiac in small doses. In larger doses, it can produce florid delusions of increased sexual prowess, a heightened feeling of sexual desirability, and sustained erections. Hence its name. The rapetree, or stupràrbo as we call it in Nord-Brutlandese."

"Reportedly, there is a secret religious cult in the islands of Mordogudoro who practices secret rituals using the rapetree. It involves consuming excessive amounts of rapetree flower tea and going on a rampage deflowering young virgins. Incidents has been recorded throughout the history of the islands. Most recently, in autumn 2010, three men were arrested in the hamlet of Scorgagliana after gang-raping a fourteen-year-old girl while high on rapetree tea. Which, of course, caused panic in the island."

"In 2007, the organization Chierco Nassia Mordogudorense, a 'religious' neopagan group purportedly going back to before the Nordic colonization of Brutland and Norden, applied for recognition from the Biure per Alfari Chierca (Bureau for Church Affairs) of the Royal Nord-Brutlandese Ministry of the Interior. Interior Minister Paul di Borgòcchiese promptly denied them recognition under the Lagge per Religioni Eclenta e Cultu (Law for Extraordinary Religions and Cults) of 1940; they have, in their doctrine, regular use of rapetree as a sacrament.The Ministry of the Interior justified their decision as:

...the rapetree has been proven to be sufficiently dangerous to be allowed even for ritualistic purposes and that such recognition de facto legalizes the use of a dangerous drug by some members of the society. Until the Chierco Nassia Mordogudorense prohibits the use of the rapetree, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden will deny this church registration and consequently, the enjoyment of the rights of churches as provided in Nord-Brutlandese law.

"Under this resolution, the Chierco Nassia Mordogudorense could go to this "Court of Religious Practice" and could probably get themselves legalized, or their consumption of the rapetree legalized." Dr. Spicolli paused, and then thundered, "Which, by the way, is another intrusion by the World Assembly into the sovereignty of nations. Moreover, despite the separation of the church and the state in Brutland and Norden, church and state cannot ignore each other and cannot hold themselves supreme over another. This resolution attempts to impose the privileges of churches and its members to engage in potentially dangerous behavior to the detriment of other members of society, or to the practitioners themselves."

"Secondly, there is this very attractive plant," Dr. Spicolli said, bringing out a small potted shrub. "The joyflower. Scientific name Argyreia felix, it grows in the islands of the Union Territories. Again true to its name, ingesting the flowers produces psychedelic and relaxant effects. It was adopted by Norse neopagans of the island of Piscierettu in rituals. Now, whether how long would these neopagans have to use joyflowers so that they can qualify as having "histories of using intoxicants" is still a question. That is not our concern, but that different jurisdictions within our country have different laws regarding the use of the joyflower. The province of Brutland, known for its tough anti-drug policies, bans the use of the joyflower. Piscierettu, on the other hand, with a quarter of its population being neopagans, allows unrestricted use of the joyflower. It depends on the availability of the plant, capability of the emergency services to recognize and treat intoxications, and public opinion with regards to use of the plant. Uniformly allowing it across Brutland and Norden - and heck, throughout the multiverse - is plain craziness."

"And last, we have the daydreamer." Dr. Spicolli brought out a large potted plant with attractive showy red-violet flowers. "Scientific name Calycanthus phantasoneirus, it is known to induce unreal fantasies and bizarre dreams in people who smoke the flowers. In the 1960s, medical literature reported dozens of cases in Norden pertaining to deaths caused by smoking the daydreamer. Complications arising from smoking daydreamers also cost the Norden health system dearly: complications included temporal leukomalacia, epilepsy, hippocampal necrosis, strokes, and other neurologic sequelae that required long term care and hefty hospital bills. In an effort to curb the epidemic, the Nordener legislature banned the use and possession of the daydreamer. The daydreamer was rooted out and disposed of in the entire province of Norden except in the island of San Trinitario and parts of the grant of Seltina, where it grows natively. Still, locals are not allowed to use the daydreamer."

"Imagine if some religious sect managed to prove that they used the daydreamer in rituals. Is your nation capable of handling the long-term health effects of the plant's use and abuse? For us, we would rather prohibit some wacky religious sect to consume intoxicating and even fatal things rather than spend society's resources to treat the fools who were using dangerous substances "for their religion". Because for all we know, those psychedelic plants may be the ones inducing the belief in a god that commands them to consume some more. That, of course, in Brutland and Norden can be classified as addiction."

"The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden stands STRONGLY AGAINST this resolution. We will vote against it, and campaign in our region against it, if it ever comes to a vote. Thank you."

[Christian Democrats]

"Oh, hi," a tall blond-haired man spoke softly on the microphone. "I presume you haven't seen us in a while. My wife's out breastfeeding our babies... I'm Dr. Knut Spicolli, husband of the Royal Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the World Assembly. She forced, er, commanded, er, told me to represent our country here and bring these plants."

Dr. Spicolli brought out a young potted sapling of a tree. "This, is the rapetree. Scientific name Psychopetalum stuprorum, native to the islands of Mordogudoro and the neighboring grant of Scilia in the Norden mainland. Its flowers and leaves are aphrodisiac in small doses. In larger doses, it can produce florid delusions of increased sexual prowess, a heightened feeling of sexual desirability, and sustained erections. Hence its name. The rapetree, or stupràrbo as we call it in Nord-Brutlandese."

"Reportedly, there is a secret religious cult in the islands of Mordogudoro who practices secret rituals using the rapetree. It involves consuming excessive amounts of rapetree flower tea and going on a rampage deflowering young virgins. Incidents has been recorded throughout the history of the islands. Most recently, in autumn 2010, three men were arrested in the hamlet of Scorgagliana after gang-raping a fourteen-year-old girl while high on rapetree tea. Which, of course, caused panic in the island."

"In 2007, the organization Chierco Nassia Mordogudorense, a 'religious' neopagan group purportedly going back to before the Nordic colonization of Brutland and Norden, applied for recognition from the Biure per Alfari Chierca (Bureau for Church Affairs) of the Royal Nord-Brutlandese Ministry of the Interior. Interior Minister Paul di Borgòcchiese promptly denied them recognition under the Lagge per Religioni Eclenta e Cultu (Law for Extraordinary Religions and Cults) of 1940; they have, in their doctrine, regular use of rapetree as a sacrament.The Ministry of the Interior justified their decision as:

...the rapetree has been proven to be sufficiently dangerous to be allowed even for ritualistic purposes and that such recognition de facto legalizes the use of a dangerous drug by some members of the society. Until the Chierco Nassia Mordogudorense prohibits the use of the rapetree, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden will deny this church registration and consequently, the enjoyment of the rights of churches as provided in Nord-Brutlandese law.

"Under this resolution, the Chierco Nassia Mordogudorense could go to this "Court of Religious Practice" and could probably get themselves legalized, or their consumption of the rapetree legalized." Dr. Spicolli paused, and then thundered, "Which, by the way, is another intrusion by the World Assembly into the sovereignty of nations. Moreover, despite the separation of the church and the state in Brutland and Norden, church and state cannot ignore each other and cannot hold themselves supreme over another. This resolution attempts to impose the privileges of churches and its members to engage in potentially dangerous behavior to the detriment of other members of society, or to the practitioners themselves."

"Secondly, there is this very attractive plant," Dr. Spicolli said, bringing out a small potted shrub. "The joyflower. Scientific name Argyreia felix, it grows in the islands of the Union Territories. Again true to its name, ingesting the flowers produces psychedelic and relaxant effects. It was adopted by Norse neopagans of the island of Piscierettu in rituals. Now, whether how long would these neopagans have to use joyflowers so that they can qualify as having "histories of using intoxicants" is still a question. That is not our concern, but that different jurisdictions within our country have different laws regarding the use of the joyflower. The province of Brutland, known for its tough anti-drug policies, bans the use of the joyflower. Piscierettu, on the other hand, with a quarter of its population being neopagans, allows unrestricted use of the joyflower. It depends on the availability of the plant, capability of the emergency services to recognize and treat intoxications, and public opinion with regards to use of the plant. Uniformly allowing it across Brutland and Norden - and heck, throughout the multiverse - is plain craziness."

"And last, we have the daydreamer." Dr. Spicolli brought out a large potted plant with attractive showy red-violet flowers. "Scientific name Calycanthus phantasoneirus, it is known to induce unreal fantasies and bizarre dreams in people who smoke the flowers. In the 1960s, medical literature reported dozens of cases in Norden pertaining to deaths caused by smoking the daydreamer. Complications arising from smoking daydreamers also cost the Norden health system dearly: complications included temporal leukomalacia, epilepsy, hippocampal necrosis, strokes, and other neurologic sequelae that required long term care and hefty hospital bills. In an effort to curb the epidemic, the Nordener legislature banned the use and possession of the daydreamer. The daydreamer was rooted out and disposed of in the entire province of Norden except in the island of San Trinitario and parts of the grant of Seltina, where it grows natively. Still, locals are not allowed to use the daydreamer."

"Imagine if some religious sect managed to prove that they used the daydreamer in rituals. Is your nation capable of handling the long-term health effects of the plant's use and abuse? For us, we would rather prohibit some wacky religious sect to consume intoxicating and even fatal things rather than spend society's resources to treat the fools who were using dangerous substances "for their religion". Because for all we know, those psychedelic plants may be the ones inducing the belief in a god that commands them to consume some more. That, of course, in Brutland and Norden can be classified as addiction."

"The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden stands STRONGLY AGAINST this resolution. We will vote against it, and campaign in our region against it, if it ever comes to a vote. Thank you."

The Christian Democratic ambassador steps forward to the microphone and begins speaking.

"Under this proposal, the Chierco Nassia Mordogudorense probably would be allowed to consume Psychopetalum stuprorum; however, this does not legalize illegal acts committed under the influence of the drug nor does it prevent the Nord-Brutlandese government from monitoring consumption of the drug. Furthermore, sufficient evidence has not been provided to prove that crimes committed under the influence of Psychopetalum stuprorum are prevalent; in fact, you stated that it has been about half of a year since the last major crime was reported. This leads me to believe that abuse of Psychopetalum stuprorum in the Chierco Nassia Mordogudorense religious community is isolated, and, therefore, I do not believe this justifies outlawing the drug for the entire community. Your nation is penalizing an entire cult based on the actions of a few of its members, which is both unfair and discriminatory. Also, is Chierco Nassia Mordogudorense an organized religious group? If not, then this resolution does not protect their ability to consume Psychopetalum stuprorum.

"Users of Argyreia felix do not seem to pose any danger to public safety; therefore, I do not see any problem with allowing Norse neopagans to use the plant in their religious ceremonies. If users of this flower negatively affect their own health, then that is their problem. If your nation truly worries about this group, then I suggest implementing an awareness or reeducation program to teach Norse neopagans the dangers of consuming Argyreia felix.

"If use of Calycanthus phantasoneirus begins recreationally, then it would be almost impossible for any group to prove that said plant's consumption was religious and not recreational. Such a group would have to organize, develop a doctrine, and establish a history of using Calycanthus phantasoneirus in its religious rites to be protected by this proposal.

"If a religious group becomes addicted to psychedelics and comes to believe that its deity or deities are commanding them to consume more drugs, then that group, under this proposal, ceases to be a religion and, hence, ceases to be protected by this proposal. Someone addicted to a substance is not acting under free will. Article 1 §2 requires worship to be free in order for a set of teachings to be considered a religion.

"In conclusion, while concerns for public health are legitimate, I do not believe they justify infringement on the rights of legitimate religious communities freely and openly to practice their faiths."

[Sionis Prioratus]

Article 1 §2 requires worship to be free in order for a set of teachings to be considered a religion.

Will religions that perform child baptisms not be considered religions anymore?

Yours in dismay over possible iconoclasm,

[Brutland and Norden]

"Under this proposal, the Chierco Nassia Mordogudorense probably would be allowed to consume Psychopetalum stuprorum; however, this does not legalize illegal acts committed under the influence of the drug nor does it prevent the Nord-Brutlandese government from monitoring consumption of the drug. Furthermore, sufficient evidence has not been provided to prove that crimes committed under the influence of Psychopetalum stuprorum are prevalent; in fact, you stated that it has been about half of a year since the last major crime was reported. This leads me to believe that abuse of Psychopetalum stuprorum in the Chierco Nassia Mordogudorense religious community is isolated, and, therefore, I do not believe this justifies outlawing the drug for the entire community.

Dr. Spicolli begins crushing rapetree leaves in his hand. "Do we need to wait for crimes to be committed before enacting proactive legislation to prevent such crimes from occurring?" He said, throwing the macerated leaves in a cup. "If so, you are arguing that the grant of Pannondrio should legalize murder, since the last murder occurred there more than a year ago. We need have proactive legislation also, not just reactive legislation. Imagine if you were the one being gang-raped by individuals high on rapetree. Then government tells you, "nope, sorry, we're not going to outlaw eating rapetree because there's not enough of you being raped." For shame."

Your nation is penalizing an entire cult based on the actions of a few of its members, which is both unfair and discriminatory. Also, is Chierco Nassia Mordogudorense an organized religious group? If not, then this resolution does not protect their ability to consume Psychopetalum stuprorum.

Dr. Spicolli poured hot water into the cup. "You know what is more discriminatory and unfair? Giving special rights of consuming dangerous substances to certain people just because their religion allows them to! I'm sure that you know that in many countries these days, people can change their religion as fast as they can change their underwear. "Religion" can used, horribly, as a justification in consumption of dangerous drugs and substances and They. Will. Get. Away. With. It. You think God will be happy?"

"Users of Argyreia felix do not seem to pose any danger to public safety; therefore, I do not see any problem with allowing Norse neopagans to use the plant in their religious ceremonies. If users of this flower negatively affect their own health, then that is their problem. If your nation truly worries about this group, then I suggest implementing an awareness or reeducation program to teach Norse neopagans the dangers of consuming Argyreia felix.

"No, it is everyone's problem. Brutland and Norden, like many nations, has a universal health care system. If we can prevent people from damaging their health and incurring costs to the society, from medical bills to lost productivity, then the better."

"If use of Calycanthus phantasoneirus begins recreationally, then it would be almost impossible for any group to prove that said plant's consumption was religious and not recreational. Such a group would have to organize, develop a doctrine, and establish a history of using Calycanthus phantasoneirus in its religious rites to be protected by this proposal.

Dr. Spicolli held up the steaming cup of rapetree tea and laughed. "See! This is where it will go to! Addicts would say, 'hey, since we're all addicted, let's go and make a religion that revolves around the daydreamer and let's have it legalized for us! History, what history? Bah, we can say that the natives of Brutland and Norden were using the daydreamer before our ancestors even arrived, and we are just 'rediscovering' it! Yippee!" Dr. Spicolli put down the cup. "And, this cup of tea has a long history of use. But you will never see Brutland and Norden legalize it."

"If a religious group becomes addicted to psychedelics and comes to believe that its deity or deities are commanding them to consume more drugs, then that group, under this proposal, ceases to be a religion and, hence, ceases to be protected by this proposal. Someone addicted to a substance is not acting under free will. Article 1 §2 requires worship to be free in order for a set of teachings to be considered a religion.

"Really?" Dr. Spicolli wiped his glasses with a piece of tissue. "I'm not sure it reads that way. If that is your interpretation we can construe the entire thing as banning psychedelics altogether as to be useless; by simply broadening the definition of "addiction". It's funny, though, that this reminds me of a quote from the fictional Karl Marx, paraphrased: 'Religion is the opiate of the masses'."

"In conclusion, while concerns for public health are legitimate, I do not believe they justify infringement on the rights of legitimate religious communities freely and openly to practice their faiths."

"Freedom of religious practice is not absolute. In a multicultural and multireligious society, one has to take into consideration other things with regards to respecting freedom of religious practice. I bet this cup of rapetree tea that once I find a religion that dictates that the first pregnancy of a woman has to be aborted because their god says so and that the elderly must be euthanized to be closer to their god earlier, your ardent defense of freedom of religious practice would fly out of the window like dandelions blown in the wind."

[Meekinos]

Just because something is a religious expression does not mean it is inviolable. Fringe groups recently discovered in Mallorea and Riva have been know to torture a specific species of Narwhal. Why they do this I do not know, but our courts banned the practice, just as they outlawed the use of specific drugs.

I suppose I should have been more specific, but when a religious practice violates another being's bodily sovereignty, then it shouldn't be protected. As use of intoxicants is a personal, religious choice and expression - incidentally, not directly causing harm to another individual - it deserves to be protected as a legitimate, civilized means of religious expression.

Saludos,

Your arguments are well-thought out and indicate a great passion for the subject, but we must respectfully disagree with your opinion on this matter. Well, just a little. We agree with you that intoxicants should be reserved for the right to use as means of personal choice and expression; not religious. Much can be derived from personal experience with such substances. But the experience can only be appreciated when the person make the choice to do so.

Strictly limiting it to religious context outright discriminates against spiritual individuals who are areligious, agnostic, atheist, or some variation thereof. There is no compelling, nor practical reason to limit the experience associated with certain hallucinogenic intoxicants to select religious organizations. Recreational use extends beyond 'fun', recreational use also includes pursuing the experience for personal reasons.

Our nation has limited relations with other nations, but one of the nations we have relations with has a very spiritual indigenous population. They are however, not at all religious. However, as part of the spiritual journey, they use intoxicants to enhance the spiritual experience and journey. Again, why is religion continued to given such privilege when is obvious discrimination?

[Moronist Decisions]

FTR, I do have my misgivings about a "Court of Religious Practice" - the title doesn't match what it does. And I frown upon adding committees "because we can".

1. It shall be legal in all member states and international territory for members of organized religious groups that have histories of using intoxicants in religious practices to consume such intoxicants in the context of practicing the rituals of such religions.

What if the religion calls for the consumption of a gallon of everclear per head, or the election of priests takes the form of the method described for electing honorary members of SEPTIC? I believe that a health exception should be provided.

That said, we don't feel strongly either way for this particular proposal.

[Christian Democrats]

Article 1 §2 requires worship to be free in order for a set of teachings to be considered a religion.

Will religions that perform child baptisms not be considered religions anymore?

Yours in dismay over possible iconoclasm,

Good point. I need to revise the current draft and make clarifications. To do so, however, I'll need to reduce Article 3 to comply with character limit. (Do not expect a new draft anytime soon; I'm quite busy. A second draft should be published in the next few days.)

[Ardchoille]

CD, I'm relieved to hear you're contemplating a rewrite. Note my first "you can't have a ...". A court deciding on religious matters and apparently enforcing its decisions goes well beyond a committee researching a religion's historic usages. I suspect that its implementation would also go beyond the WA's remit.

A court is not the same as a committee, though the mechanism for establishing one is the same within (the game of) NationStates, and trying to fit it in as a subcommittee looks disingenuous. If you want the WA -- an international legislature -- to create a new part of an international judiciary you'll need a separate proposal, in a different category, and you''l have to dodge around the Ideology violation and fight it out separately on the Assembly floor. Such a function is very far from merely relaxing member states' laws on recreational drug use.

That was the legality angle. What follows are suggestions to do with the re-draft.

Drop S3, Clause 5. It's totally unnecessary. No resolution need state that, it's a given. Dropping S4,2 would also save space.
In my opinion all but clauses 1 and 2 of your Section 3 are also unnecessary.

You don't need an enforcement body because you have already charged the civil authority with dealing with questions raised by new religions:

Because there is a potential for abuse, member states may enact domestic legislation to ensure that people do not exploit this resolution in attempts to circumvent domestic laws concerning the recreational consumption of intoxicants.

Your original committee is apparently an advisory body for such situations. You could also task that body with "resolving disputes" without specifying how it is to do so, leaving implementation of such solutions up to national governments. That way, because of the nature of NS committees, the committee would never recommend an illegal way of resolving a dispute.

You could avoid extra words on enforcement by arguing in debate that since, under #GA35, WA member governments are already committed to preventing discrimination on any grounds, including religion, they must already have procedures to deal with discrimination cases. A new religion could use these if its congregation thought that preventing them from using intoxicants was discrimination.

When rewriting, it might help to consider what cases you're trying to protect. That could make it easier to target specific problems. As far as I can see, there'd be:

• Already established religions that have been using an intoxicant that has now been declared an illegal drug;
• Already established religions that have received a message from their deity that they must now begin using a drug that is already illegal;
• Already established religions that have long used intoxicants and also wish to use a new drug that has been declared illegal;
• Religions new to a nation that have a history of using an intoxicant that is not illegal in their nation, but is in a nation where they're gaining converts;
• Religions that have not previously existed in any nation that have received a number of commandments from their deity, among which is the obligation to use a forbidden intoxicant.

You also seem to be trying to distinguish between the latter and a group of people who falsely declare themselves a religion in order to use a forbidden intoxicant.

It seems to me that's not a concern of the WA's -- it's a problem for individual nations -- and so, in the earlier section, you've rightly left it to the national governments. The focus of legislation in this category isn't the motives of the people concerned, it's the civil authority's laws on how and when which drugs may be used. It would seriously confuse the issue to put the WA in any position where it would have to determine whether @@deity@@ exists and, if so, whether it/he/she/they really said that.

(I should point out that I can only see one really international issue here: if an intoxicant-drug-using theocracy is evangelising for its national religion in other states, then it's a matter involving more than one nation. But in my personal opinion the solution to that is diplomacy, perhaps involving a condemnation in the Other Place, not GA legislation.)

[Glen-Rhodes]

A court is not the same as a committee, though the mechanism for establishing one is the same within (the game of) NationStates, and trying to fit it in as a subcommittee looks disingenuous.

While I agree that semantically a court and a committee are different things, the World Assembly rules only let us create committees, not courts. :\ So, if the mods are going to distinguish between them, we might want to clarify the committee rules.

If you want the WA -- an international legislature -- to create a new part of an international judiciary you'll need a separate proposal, in a different category, and you''l have to dodge around the Ideology violation and fight it out separately on the Assembly floor. Such a function is very far from merely relaxing member states' laws on recreational drug use.

Why can't CD create a court in this proposal? The court's function is to determine if a drug law applies to a religious group. That falls well within relaxing drug restrictions, doesn't it? We don't need separate proposals to create arbitration courts in Free Trade proposals, for example.

Now on to my opinions of your non-mod opinions.

You don't need an enforcement body because you have already charged the civil authority with dealing with questions raised by new religions...

I disagree personally that an enforcement body is not needed. Given the nature of the proposal -- it's targeting those nation who don't already allow religions to legitimately use intoxicants -- I think it would be irresponsible to not include an international enforcement body. Some nations will inevitably go far beyond the intent of the clause quoted.

It seems to me that's not a concern of the WA's -- it's a problem for individual nations -- and so, in the earlier section, you've rightly left it to the national governments. The focus of legislation in this category isn't the motives of the people concerned, it's the civil authority's laws on how and when which drugs may be used. It would seriously confuse the issue to put the WA in any position where it would have to determine whether @@deity@@ exists and, if so, whether it/he/she/they really said that.

I disagree with this, as well. I don't see any reason why an international court could not determine whether or not a supposed religious group is legitimate. When courts decide if something is a religion, it is never based on proof that a deity exists or that a deity said something. Courts are atheist. There are no deities; there are only people who believe in religious conviction.

One practical reason to have an international court is because religion itself is usually international. Take the real-world Scientology, for example. Imagine a pseudo-religion -- sorry to offend any Scientologists out there -- that claims to legitimately use drugs setting up some kind of drug cartel. Some nations might find them a real religion and some might not. The effect would be a patchwork quilt of that religion's legal use of and trade of drugs. Now, imagine you're the United States and Mexico found the religion to be legitimate. You now have a serious drug issue that cannot be stopped at its source. An international court would easily solve this by deciding on an international bases if the religion was legitimate.

[Bears Armed]

While we have no concern with permitting the use of recreational/narcotic/intoxicating etc. substances, since we have a well-established drug legalisation and control regime in Kelssek, we are absolutely against the granting of special privileges to religions, which is all this proposal actually is. We are of the opinion that no person should have any additional rights due to their religious beliefs.

OOC: So a Muslim-run country could effectively ban the practice of [most forms of] Christianity within its jurisdiction, even if those were historically well-established amongst the people[s] of that land, despite the CoCR, by extending its own religion's ban on the consumption of alcohol by Muslims into a general nation-wide prohibition that would effectively prevent the Christians' use of it for 'communion' as well. Would you actually support such an action?


(The USA's historical experiment with Prohibition did include an exemption for communion wine, by the way...)

My point was not that a religion would be created for the purpose of creating a loophole. My point was that our (and I don't just mean Embolalia's here) drug laws are enacted for a specific public health purpose.

Please remember that not all WA member nations have governments as benevolent as that of Embolalia, and that in some of the others drug laws might in fact be enacted in order to suppress the practices of religions whether due to prejudice against those faiths in particular or as part of a general policy of "fundamentalist" Atheism...

[Vocatus]

It should be noted that religious expression isn't typically considered a sufficient excuse to excuse breaking laws that were implemented for secular reasons. Vocatus's laws ban torture, public nudity, and drug use, and none of these have exceptions due to religious practice. There seems no reason why holding a particular belief should allow an individual to subvert existing laws.

We are furthermore concerned that any amount of production or import of intoxicants would interfere with our enormously successful policy of wiping them off the face of our nation, jeopardizing decades of work and dishonoring thousands of lives lost in the initial stages of the effort.

[Philimbesi]

The USP has a constitutionally protected separation of church and state, however we do not allow Philimbesians to harm themselves and potentially those around them for any reason. We would not allow a religion that condoned animal or human cruelty, and a religion condoning the use of addicting substances that has the potential of causing harm to its user, their families, and other citizens, is no different in our eyes.

Therefore if a religion in the USP is using any substance restricted by the state or federal government that process will be stopped and will continue to be stopped regardless of WA decision.

Further we renew and extend our objection to any “court” established by this body, and our refusal to acknowledge its validity.

[Kelssek]

OOC: So a Muslim-run country could effectively ban the practice of [most forms of] Christianity within its jurisdiction, even if those were historically well-established amongst the people[s] of that land, despite the CoCR, by extending its own religion's ban on the consumption of alcohol by Muslims into a general nation-wide prohibition that would effectively prevent the Christians' use of it for 'communion' as well. Would you actually support such an action?


(The USA's historical experiment with Prohibition did include an exemption for communion wine, by the way...)

Firstly, the context is completely different. At the basis we object to unequal treatment on the basis of religious belief. We object to people having special rights to circumvent laws that apply to the entire population of a secular state by claiming their religious belief gives them the right to special treatment. Your scenario posits the deliberate attempt to prohibit religious practice on the grounds of imposing a different religion - in other words, to treat people unequally on the basis of religious belief. Special exemptions on religious grounds are entirely arbitrary and a form of unequal treatment privileging the religious believers; if you want to say you get to ignore certain laws because you're a Christian, why shouldn't a non-believer get to ignore the same laws?

[Glen-Rhodes]

... Special exemptions on religious grounds are entirely arbitrary and a form of unequal treatment privileging the religious believers.

However, if it is the policy of a government to afford the freedom to practice a religion, prohibiting certain aspects from being practiced seems counterintuitive to that stated goal. Non-believers have no religious imperitive to act in a certain way, so prohibiting an act does not prevent them from practicing their religious beliefs or lackthereof. However, prohibiting an act does prevent the practicing of legitimate religious beliefs. It is not actually granting special privileges to religious persons. Remember that the government first considered prohibiting them from practicing.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: So a Muslim-run country could effectively ban the practice of [most forms of] Christianity within its jurisdiction, even if those were historically well-established amongst the people[s] of that land, despite the CoCR, by extending its own religion's ban on the consumption of alcohol by Muslims into a general nation-wide prohibition that would effectively prevent the Christians' use of it for 'communion' as well. Would you actually support such an action?


(The USA's historical experiment with Prohibition did include an exemption for communion wine, by the way...)

Firstly, the context is completely different. At the basis we object to unequal treatment on the basis of religious belief. We object to people having special rights to circumvent laws that apply to the entire population of a secular state by claiming their religious belief gives them the right to special treatment. Your scenario posits the deliberate attempt to prohibit religious practice on the grounds of imposing a different religion - in other words, to treat people unequally on the basis of religious belief.

Except that, in applying one faith's ban on the use of a substance to the members of that other faith as well, it would technically be treating them identically rather than "unequally"...

Special exemptions on religious grounds are entirely arbitrary and a form of unequal treatment privileging the religious believers; if you want to say you get to ignore certain laws because you're a Christian, why shouldn't a non-believer get to ignore the same laws?

A resolution granting such an exemption to ALL religions, to the extent that their own traditions justify it, would not be discriminating on religious grounds. Their members would be allowed those drugs specifically for uses that they considered spiritually important, maybe even essential for their soul's eventual fates, not just for entertainment... Could your hypothetical "non-believer" who wants to use the same drugs honestly make the same claim?

And in my opinion (OOC: and that's as a "non-believer" myself in RL), honestly, the level of anti-religious bigotry that has been demonstrated by some of the diplomats who have already spoken in this debate makes it perfectly clear why legal protection for matters so closely related to 'Freedom of Worship' -- not just against pressure from religious majorities against minority faiths, but also and perhaps even more so against pressure by self-proclaimed "secular" regimes against religion in general -- is definitely required.

[Embolalia]

I'm sorry if we've been coming off as anti-religious. We are, or at least I am, most certainly not. However, as I mentioned before, the argument in favor here seems to be predicated on one specific drug: alcohol. That is simply not what's in the text. The text allows everything from relatively harmless drugs like marijuana to deadly drugs like crack cocaine. There may be malevolent governments that prohibit certain things for malicious purposes. That doesn't mean that the legitimate concerns of benevolent governments are automatically unfounded. The proposal as stated poses a distinct and real public health risk that can not be, and yet somehow seems to be getting, ignored.

-E. Rory Hywel

[Bears Armed]

I'm sorry if we've been coming off as anti-religious.

You, no. One or two of the others, yes.