NationStates

Youssath wrote:

Morover wrote:"Ambassador, I'll admit that I'm not an expert on hallucinogens from a medical perspective - but please enlighten me on a use of hallucinogens (as defined by this proposal) which will be directly beneficial to an already incapacitated patient. If you can come up with a legitimate gripe, I'll change it."

(OOC: I'm still not convinced of your ketamine argument - it just doesn't fall under the classification of hallucinogen as defined by this proposal.)

"Here's the thing, ambassador. The terminology "hallucinogens" is used to classify, on your own terms, a drug (medical or not) that induces a hallucinogenic effect on the individual. It does not state the purpose of why the hallucinogen is used. Any drugs that can induce any hallucinogenic-like symptoms is considered a hallucinogen based on your own interpretations, regardless of the purpose of why that drug is used in the first place. Ketamine is considered as a hallucinogen because it is used for recreational purposes to get "high" after clubbing (which is true), and its symptoms of double vision, irregular heartbeat, hallucinations, nausea and vomiting all fit the criteria of the consumption of hallucinogens in general. Even though it is also used extensively in medical procedures, it is still classified as a hallucinogen because there are people who still use it recreationally to get some "high" like other hallucinogens out there. Hence, ketamine produces the same outcome as that other hallucinogens and can be classified as a hallucinogen, although used similarly for medical purposes."

"Furthermore, as I have stated before, the lack thereof of consent by an already incapacitated patient does not imply affirmative response at all (no response doesn't mean you have their consent). Combined with the fact that ketamine is a hallucinogen, which is expressly classified under Article One of your proposal (even though you do not recognize ketamine to be a hallucinogen, but your resolution states so), and it will be difficult to administer proper medical procedures towards the patient without violating this resolution here."

"I would like to remind you that there is a difference between the literal interpretation of hallucinogens and the actual usage of them. It seems to me that you hold a negative view on the word of "hallucinogens", thinking that they are all used to get high and for recreational purposes when clearly, it can also be used to describe beneficial drugs that produce hallucinogenic-like effects as a side effect of the drug."

Kenmoria wrote:“I believe a rather key aspect of the definition is going unnoticed here: ‘intended to’. The requirement is that a substance must have an intended effect of a hallucinogenic nature, for example in recreational usage. When ketamine is used in a medical setting, the intent is most likely not for the doctors to cause sensory hallucinations, rather it is to provide anaesthesia and relief from pain.

Perhaps it could be clarified in the proposal by putting in ‘primarily intended to’ or possibly ‘exclusively intended to’, but I don’t think there is truly a need for this. In addition, even with the assumption that both of our interpretations are correct, a member nation would most likely still opt to legislate in line with mine, as it is less burdensome. Where there are two equally valid ways of interpreting a resolution, member states normally choose the one requiring the least legislation.”

Youssath wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:but I don’t think there is truly a need for this.

"I'm in agreement with the Kenmorian Ambassador here.

Araraukar wrote:

Youssath wrote:"I'm in agreement with the Kenmorian Ambassador here.

OOC: So you agree that there's no need for a better definition and are using that as the reason to vote against?

Youssath wrote:The statement before that, ambassador.

Araraukar wrote:

Youssath wrote:The statement before that, ambassador.

OOC: The one where he agrees with the draft's definition being correct and your reading of it to be incorrect by pointing out you're failing to read the "intended to"?

Youssath wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: The one where he agrees with the draft's definition being correct and your reading of it to be incorrect by pointing out you're failing to read the "intended to"?

"Perhaps it could be clarified in the proposal by putting in ‘primarily intended to’ or possibly ‘exclusively intended to’". I don't have to agree with the entire sentence, ambassador.

Morover wrote:

Youssath wrote:"Perhaps it could be clarified in the proposal by putting in ‘primarily intended to’ or possibly ‘exclusively intended to’". I don't have to agree with the entire sentence, ambassador.

"Yes, I most certainly could clarify it. Will I? No, I don't think I will. I feel that changing a definition which currently has no legitimate complaints to it other than 'it's too brief!' to be redundant, especially when that change may open more issues than it would solve."

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Article 2 is problematic. Possible scenario: patient under local anaesthetic has some sort of reaction or takes some sort of a bad turn during surgery while under local anaesthetic. Surgeons etc shouldn't have to run around a hospital or otherwise leave surgery in such an emergency situation to seek consent to sedate a patient when it may be necessary for the either the survival of the patient, pain relief, or comfort.

Re natural substances. I'm not sure that it's good policy to have member states going around eradicating such natural substances as chamomile on the off chance that someone might ingest it unintentionally.

Morover wrote:On another note, a hurricane is heading my way, so I'll probably send this out tomorrow afternoon so I can get a campaign before my electricity goes out (which may happen, unfortunately).

Article Two
1. Defines a sedative as any drug in which the main effect gives a tranquilizing, sleep-inducing, or any other effect which may invoke drowsiness,
2. Prohibits all member-states from allowing the intentional sedation of its residents, except with the consent of a medical patient, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin,

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
I hadn't looked at this for a while.

Wouldn't

Article Two
1. Defines a sedative as any drug in which the main effect gives a tranquilizing, sleep-inducing, or any other effect which may invoke drowsiness,
2. Prohibits all member-states from allowing the intentional sedation of its residents, except with the consent of a medical patient, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin,

effectively bar everybody except medical patients from consuming alcohol?

United States of Americanas wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
I hadn't looked at this for a while.

Wouldn't

Article Two
1. Defines a sedative as any drug in which the main effect gives a tranquilizing, sleep-inducing, or any other effect which may invoke drowsiness,
2. Prohibits all member-states from allowing the intentional sedation of its residents, except with the consent of a medical patient, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin,

effectively bar everybody except medical patients from consuming alcohol?

I don’t think this bill has anything to do with drugs that a person self administers recreationally on their own accord. This bill is to protect people from being drugged by the government which I approve however I disapprove of the undue restrictions it places on surgeons and physicians who require ability to sedate patients.

United States of Americanas wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
I hadn't looked at this for a while.

Wouldn't

Article Two
1. Defines a sedative as any drug in which the main effect gives a tranquilizing, sleep-inducing, or any other effect which may invoke drowsiness,
2. Prohibits all member-states from allowing the intentional sedation of its residents, except with the consent of a medical patient, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin,

effectively bar everybody except medical patients from consuming alcohol?

I don’t think this bill has anything to do with drugs that a person self administers recreationally on their own accord. This bill is to protect people from being drugged by the government which I approve however I disapprove of the undue restrictions it places on surgeons and physicians who require ability to sedate patients.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Self-administered intentional sedation is still intentional sedation...

Araraukar wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Self-administered intentional sedation is still intentional sedation...

OOC: Well, if you get properly nitpicky, all you need is the permission of a medical patient, any will do.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
I hadn't looked at this for a while.

Wouldn't

Article Two
1. Defines a sedative as any drug in which the main effect gives a tranquilizing, sleep-inducing, or any other effect which may invoke drowsiness,
2. Prohibits all member-states from allowing the intentional sedation of its residents, except with the consent of a medical patient, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin,

effectively bar everybody except medical patients from consuming alcohol?

Youssath wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
I hadn't looked at this for a while.

Wouldn't

Article Two
1. Defines a sedative as any drug in which the main effect gives a tranquilizing, sleep-inducing, or any other effect which may invoke drowsiness,
2. Prohibits all member-states from allowing the intentional sedation of its residents, except with the consent of a medical patient, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin,

effectively bar everybody except medical patients from consuming alcohol?

I will disagree with you on that one, bud. Sedatives are defined where the main effects gives sleep-inducing or tranquilizing effects that is related to drowsiness. Drinking alcohol moderately (and responsibly) does not give the main effect of drowsiness (if so, why the hell would anyone want to drink alcohol in a bar just to get sleepy??), and that the proper main effect of alcohol is to alleviate their negative feelings and block out stress receptors in the brain. Drinking too much alcohol, however, will induce drowsiness but it is rather a side effect, not the main effect of the consumption of alcohol. You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of "the main effect" and "side effects" of alcohol in general, and people don't drink alcohol just to feel sleepy (and if they do, I would recommend sleeping pills instead, that would be a sedative).

Just like flu medicine, which often come along with drowsiness effects, saying that flu medicine will be illegal because "drowsiness" happens to be a side-effect upon consumption is preposterous at best, especially when its main effects are to relieve its symptoms and to cure the flu. Flu medicine and alcohol are not sedatives.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I agree with you on the case of alcohol. However, this still bans sleep medication, in which the primary effect is certainly drowsiness, from being used by non-patients. Even going by the most permissible definition, quite a few sleep medications are available over the counter without prescription, so wouldn’t be allowed. A simple fix would be to require the consent of the taker of the substance, rather than a medical patient.)