NationStates

Category: Regulation - Safety

The World Assembly,

Believing that forcing another person to consume drugs for one's own personal gain is unethical and immoral,

Aware, however, that in certain circumstances, the required intake of drugs is useful or necessary,

Believing that these bizarre circumstances result in a need for restrictions on the topic of forced drug use,

Hereby,


Article One

1. Defines a hallucinogen as a drug which is intended to have a hallucinogenic effect on an individual,
   
   
2. Prohibits the enforcement or coercion of any individual to consume, intake, or otherwise use hallucinogens against their will,
   
   
3. Further prohibits the intentional release of hallucinogens in aerosol form in order to cause any individual to have a hallucinogenic reaction, unless all those who will be exposed have given express consent.

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 the intentional sedation of any individual, except with the express consent of the individual who is being sedated, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin,
   
   
3. Clarifies that should an individual pose a physical threat to themselves or any other individual, non-lethal doses of sedative drugs are permitted to be used on said individual by relevant law enforcement, military, or medical personnel,
   
   
4. Further clarifies that during medical operation which is being performed with the consent of the patient or the patient's next-of-kin, or where the medical operation is deemed necessary for the overall health of the patient and neither the patient or the patient's next-of-kin are able to be reached to acquire consent, a surgeon may apply a sedative, so long as it is deemed either medically necessary for the health and wellbeing of the patient, or for the operation to proceed in a safe manner,
   
   
5. Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated,
   
   
6. Requires the World Health Authority to create a standard of sedatives that will minimize potential injury of sedatives, assuming the sedative is used or administered by a reasonable person,
   
   
7. Demands that the aforementioned standard of sedatives be adhered to in all applicable circumstances.

Co-Authored by United Massachusetts

This is obviously a very early draft, but I figured it was better to get the idea out there sooner rather than later.

This is also a relatively old draft I had, but I do believe it doesn't have any contradictions/duplications of other resolutions. Please correct me if I overlooked something, though.

DRAFTS:

“How is section three supposed to work with the Assisted Suicide Act, GA #285?”

Kenmoria wrote:“How is section three supposed to work with the Assisted Suicide Act, GA #285?”

"The only real issue I can see would be with Clause 5 of GAR#285:"

Mandates that member states that allow assisted suicide or euthanasia enact and enforce laws ensuring that all assisted suicides and euthanasia procedures are safe and consensual;

"However, the way I see it, the conditions given in the proposal that are considered 'significant reason' show that the person would be either brain-dead, or unable to give consent to the operation being performed. For the purposes of the General Assembly, they are already essentially dead, for all intents and purposes. Therefore, I do not believe that GAR#285 would affect it."

OOC: link for the lazy

Hey, there -- I'm really glad you're approaching this issue, and would be happy to work on it with you. I do have a few comments.

Prohibits a government from intentionally injecting hallucinogens into any resident of their nation.
Prohibits member-nations from forcing any individual to consume, intake, or otherwise use hallucinogens against their will,

This, at present, prohibits a government from giving a citizen hallucinogens even with their consent. This could, presumably, disrupt Safe Injection sites that have proved tremendously effective in places like Switzerland. It also would have no effect on hallucinogens that are not injected. We would amend this to the text in red.

Restricts any government from intentionally sedating its residents, for either political or personal gain.
Prohibits any member nation from intentionally sedating its residents, except with the consent of the patient, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-in-kin, or when sedation is required to perform an emergency medical operation,

The sedation of terminally-ill individuals, with their consent, is an entirely valid end-of-life option, and a preferred alternative to euthanasia in United Massachusetts. Furthermore, this would presumably stop all surgeries that require anesthesia. We suggest the textual change in red.

Outlaws the use of sedatives on unwilling participants.

If the Delegation from Morover were to accept my edits above, this clause should be struck.

Article III...

Cut this. It is largely a duplicated of Assisted Suicide Act.

Allows nations to bypass any of these restrictions if it is voted for by at least 75% of all residents.

United Massachusetts will not support any resolution that allows fundamental human rights to be struck down by majority vote. Cut this clause, or there will be no support.

Clarifies that mandatory vaccines continue to be allowed, as well as any other medicine shown to be essential for the public health.

Cut this clause. Vaccines are neither hallucinogens nor sedatives, and there is no reason to believe they would be banned under this.

This resolution is promising, but needs some work. We will be happy to work with the author on a resolution if they so desire, AMDG.

OOC: No support as long as euthanasia isn't available at the request of the individual to be euthanized. Too many RL patients suffer needlessly because their pain isn't believed by the decision-makers to be great enough to want it to end permanently. Or who think that just because you're able to stay alive, despite looking forwards to withering away slowly even with the best care, you should stay alive, rather than be allowed to choose your own time of death. "Debilitating" is also way too vague.

Other issues I notice at a quick reading:

I notice that it's perfectly fine to force-feed hallucinogens to people. Also, clauses 2 and 3 on that section seem to totally ban any research done on hallucinogens on willing participants. And the definition has "edible or airborn", no mention of injectible, so clause 2 is unconnected from the definition anyway.

Sedatives definition should probably have "medication" instead of "drug" (and so should the proposal title, for that matter, as this isn't about recreational drugs), and even then you'll have to understand that RL humans naturally produce melatonin, which is the hormone that makes you feel sleepy (aka drowsy). That is also available as a medication (better than sleeping pill as you can't get addicted), so clause 3 currently requires everyone's pineal gland to be removed (and subsequently them going crazy and dying from sleep deprivation).

Clause 4 on sedatives currently bans sedating a violent patient, which sometimes has to be done for the medical staff to be able to treat their injuries. And the clause 5 talks of tranquilizers for some weird reason.

Exception 1 requires children to vote too?

Exception 3 shouldn't be in the exceptions. And also it seems to refer to the gameside stat, since to my knowledge there's no "international standard" set by any WA resolution.

And finally, Health category does not have strengths.

EDIT:

United Massachusetts wrote:We will be happy to work with the author on a resolution if they so desire, AMDG.

Taking you as a coauthor has the same hazard as taking me or IA as a coauthor - some people will vote against just because of that.

No support as long as euthanasia isn't available at the request of the individual to be euthanized. Too many RL patients suffer needlessly because their pain isn't believed by the decision-makers to be great enough to want it to end permanently.

Assisted Suicide Act. All the other issues you point out are valid.

Taking you as a coauthor has the same hazard as taking me or IA as a coauthor - some people will vote against just because of that.

Morover wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“How is section three supposed to work with the Assisted Suicide Act, GA #285?”

"The only real issue I can see would be with Clause 5 of GAR#285:"

"Ambassador, is it possible that this proposal may contradict Clause 1 of GAR#285 as well, which reserves for member nations the right to determine the legal status of euthanasia? This clause could be read to defend the right of member nations to legislate when euthanasia may be held legal, a freedom that your Article 3(2) appears to contravene. Aside from this legal concern, we would like to echo a previous concern (Ara's OOC) that under this current iteration of the resolution even willing individuals who make a request to die may not do so unless they fall within the prescribed categories. This could be of some concern to nations who regard the unqualified right to both live or die as important.

"We would also like to address your exemption clause by supermajority vote under Article 4. Setting aside the concerns of immutable human rights espoused by the ambassador from United Massachusetts, this clause seems to me to be of practical concern as well. For instance, though we personally do not draw such a distinction, it is my understanding that residents may include non-citizens, who are widely regarded as not having access to voting rights in democratic societies. Furthermore, the requirement that it be voted for by 75% may be an undue burden on democratic systems that do not require or prohibit compulsory voting; under this requirement, even an overwhelming approval of a vote may be struck down if just over a quarter of the population remains apathetic. Finally, this structure may also be restrictive on non-democratic nations, who may not have the infrastructure or resources to conduct a nationwide vote.

"However, in response to the UM ambassador, I would like to request that the vaccine clause be retained. Not all species in the WA possess the same physiology, after all, and it is possible that some species may experience mildly sedative or short-term hallucinogenic effects from their vaccines or equivalents. It is crucial that a general exception be made from the prohibitions when, as the clause says, the medicine is essential for public health.

"Finally, I am unsure as to whether outlawing the use of sedatives on all unwilling participants is practical. What if sedatives are, for instance, used as a means to disable a hostile individual (as with tranquilisers)? On a greyer note, what if legal consent cannot be obtained from the participant, such as if the patient is mentally unsound? How would this proposal address such issues?

"Thank you for your time, Ambassador. We would like to reiterate the point made by the UM ambassador in regards to changing clauses 1(2) and 2(2)."

United Massachusetts wrote:Hey, there -- I'm really glad you're approaching this issue, and would be happy to work on it with you. I do have a few comments.

Prohibits a government from intentionally injecting hallucinogens into any resident of their nation.
Prohibits member-nations from forcing any individual to consume, intake, or otherwise use hallucinogens against their will,

This, at present, prohibits a government from giving a citizen hallucinogens even with their consent. This could, presumably, disrupt Safe Injection sites that have proved tremendously effective in places like Switzerland. It also would have no effect on hallucinogens that are not injected. We would amend this to the text in red.

Restricts any government from intentionally sedating its residents, for either political or personal gain.
Prohibits any member nation from intentionally sedating its residents, except with the consent of the patient, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-in-kin, or when sedation is required to perform an emergency medical operation,

The sedation of terminally-ill individuals, with their consent, is an entirely valid end-of-life option, and a preferred alternative to euthanasia in United Massachusetts. Furthermore, this would presumably stop all surgeries that require anesthesia. We suggest the textual change in red.

Outlaws the use of sedatives on unwilling participants.

If the Delegation from Morover were to accept my edits above, this clause should be struck.

Article III...

Cut this. It is largely a duplicated of Assisted Suicide Act.

Allows nations to bypass any of these restrictions if it is voted for by at least 75% of all residents.

United Massachusetts will not support any resolution that allows fundamental human rights to be struck down by majority vote. Cut this clause, or there will be no support.

Clarifies that mandatory vaccines continue to be allowed, as well as any other medicine shown to be essential for the public health.

Cut this clause. Vaccines are neither hallucinogens nor sedatives, and there is no reason to believe they would be banned under this.

This resolution is promising, but needs some work. We will be happy to work with the author on a resolution if they so desire, AMDG.

"Firstly, we would be happy to take you on as a coauthor. Regardless of whether or not this influences the voting of some is up to them, but it is my personal belief that votes should be made solely on the merit of the proposal, not necessarily that of the authors."

"I will change clauses 1(2) and 2(2) to your liking, as it is put much better than I could have put it. However, in regards to the Iciaros delegation (and I will elaborate more on this later), I will edit the clauses slightly in order to assure that those that are a direct threat also have the ability to be sedated. I will also strike out the (current) clause 2(4), as it is no longer needed with the edits made by the delegation in United Massachusetts."

"I will also cut out the entirety of Article III, and will likely tackle it in a later proposal. While I do believe laws of Euthanasia need editing, I do see that this is not necessarily the place to do so."

"I will strike out the clause allowing for a vote to render this legislation relatively pointless. However, I will not be striking out the clause maintaining that mandatory vaccines will be allowed, but rather change the operative clause. This is more of a reassurance, in order to prevent future legislation from disallowing nations to create mandatory vaccines. I will also change the wording a bit, in order to prevent duplication of GAR#412, Public Health and Vaccinations Act."

Araraukar wrote:OOC: No support as long as euthanasia isn't available at the request of the individual to be euthanized. Too many RL patients suffer needlessly because their pain isn't believed by the decision-makers to be great enough to want it to end permanently. Or who think that just because you're able to stay alive, despite looking forwards to withering away slowly even with the best care, you should stay alive, rather than be allowed to choose your own time of death. "Debilitating" is also way too vague.

Other issues I notice at a quick reading:

I notice that it's perfectly fine to force-feed hallucinogens to people. Also, clauses 2 and 3 on that section seem to totally ban any research done on hallucinogens on willing participants. And the definition has "edible or airborn", no mention of injectible, so clause 2 is unconnected from the definition anyway.

Sedatives definition should probably have "medication" instead of "drug" (and so should the proposal title, for that matter, as this isn't about recreational drugs), and even then you'll have to understand that RL humans naturally produce melatonin, which is the hormone that makes you feel sleepy (aka drowsy). That is also available as a medication (better than sleeping pill as you can't get addicted), so clause 3 currently requires everyone's pineal gland to be removed (and subsequently them going crazy and dying from sleep deprivation).

Clause 4 on sedatives currently bans sedating a violent patient, which sometimes has to be done for the medical staff to be able to treat their injuries. And the clause 5 talks of tranquilizers for some weird reason.

Exception 1 requires children to vote too?

Exception 3 shouldn't be in the exceptions. And also it seems to refer to the gameside stat, since to my knowledge there's no "international standard" set by any WA resolution.

And finally, Health category does not have strengths.

EDIT:

United Massachusetts wrote:We will be happy to work with the author on a resolution if they so desire, AMDG.

Taking you as a coauthor has the same hazard as taking me or IA as a coauthor - some people will vote against just because of that.

OOC: I will change the wording so that it makes more sense.

I don't necessarily understand why "medication" is more clear than "drug" -- aren't they essentially the same thing? "Drug" can be used for more broad definitions, though, which is why I chose to use it, as opposed to "medication." However, if the sentiment is widespread that I should change it, I will do so.

Tranquilizers are essentially a tamer version of sedatives. I felt it necessary to mention it as well.

I was referring to a purely roleplay-wise "international standard." I will rewrite that clause, though.

I could've sworn I edited out the strength, but I must've copied the proposal onto the forum before I changed it. Thanks for pointing it out.

Iciaros wrote:

Morover wrote:"The only real issue I can see would be with Clause 5 of GAR#285:"

"Ambassador, is it possible that this proposal may contradict Clause 1 of GAR#285 as well, which reserves for member nations the right to determine the legal status of euthanasia? This clause could be read to defend the right of member nations to legislate when euthanasia may be held legal, a freedom that your Article 3(2) appears to contravene. Aside from this legal concern, we would like to echo a previous concern (Ara's OOC) that under this current iteration of the resolution even willing individuals who make a request to die may not do so unless they fall within the prescribed categories. This could be of some concern to nations who regard the unqualified right to both live or die as important.

"We would also like to address your exemption clause by supermajority vote under Article 4. Setting aside the concerns of immutable human rights espoused by the ambassador from United Massachusetts, this clause seems to me to be of practical concern as well. For instance, though we personally do not draw such a distinction, it is my understanding that residents may include non-citizens, who are widely regarded as not having access to voting rights in democratic societies. Furthermore, the requirement that it be voted for by 75% may be an undue burden on democratic systems that do not require or prohibit compulsory voting; under this requirement, even an overwhelming approval of a vote may be struck down if just over a quarter of the population remains apathetic. Finally, this structure may also be restrictive on non-democratic nations, who may not have the infrastructure or resources to conduct a nationwide vote.

"However, in response to the UM ambassador, I would like to request that the vaccine clause be retained. Not all species in the WA possess the same physiology, after all, and it is possible that some species may experience mildly sedative or short-term hallucinogenic effects from their vaccines or equivalents. It is crucial that a general exception be made from the prohibitions when, as the clause says, the medicine is essential for public health.

"Finally, I am unsure as to whether outlawing the use of sedatives on all unwilling participants is practical. What if sedatives are, for instance, used as a means to disable a hostile individual (as with tranquilisers)? On a greyer note, what if legal consent cannot be obtained from the participant, such as if the patient is mentally unsound? How would this proposal address such issues?

"Thank you for your time, Ambassador. We would like to reiterate the point made by the UM ambassador in regards to changing clauses 1(2) and 2(2)."

I will first respond to your concerns about the "voting" process (Which I am taking out, but still feel necessary to respond to this). The number was originally to create a near-unattainable goal that would only be reached if a true majority of people wanted for it to happen. I chose the word "resident" as opposed to "citizen" because, supposedly, it would affect every resident of a nation, as opposed to just the citizens. But that is my personal opinion, which should have been kept out of the proposal."

"UM's changes answer the rest of your questions."

--

"Thank you all for your early responses, and I apologize for the delay in my response back."

Morover wrote:I don't necessarily understand why "medication" is more clear than "drug" -- aren't they essentially the same thing?

OOC: This may be an Atlantic division in English, but "drug" generally means "illegal substance" while "medication" is "legal substance, at least with prescription". The majority of your clauses refer to authorities using medications (such as sedatives) rather than illegal drugs.

Tranquilizers are essentially a tamer version of sedatives. I felt it necessary to mention it as well.

You have that completely wrong side around. Tranquilizers sedate you near-instantaneously (think of how the police might tranquilize a bear that's wandered into urban neighbourhood, to take it back to the forest), while sedatives calm you down and sometimes, but not always, made you drowsy. I take a medication daily that has a sedative effect (anti-anxiety meds generally fall into this category), but they definitely don't put me to sleep (they make me drowsy and help me get sleep, but I can fight the effect if necessary) or knock me out the way tranquilizers do to animals in nature shows.

Araraukar wrote:

Morover wrote:I don't necessarily understand why "medication" is more clear than "drug" -- aren't they essentially the same thing?

OOC: This may be an Atlantic division in English, but "drug" generally means "illegal substance" while "medication" is "legal substance, at least with prescription". The majority of your clauses refer to authorities using medications (such as sedatives) rather than illegal drugs.

OOC: I would err towards siding with the author here. A drug in more medical or official contexts almost always refers to simply a non-food substance with an effect on the body, and although I would agree that colloquially it is often taken for an illegal substance, an official definition is more important here.

Morover wrote:Article Three

1. Allows for drugs shown to be essential for the public health to be mandated by a government.
   
2. Encourages nations to do everything within their ability to increase the national health to whatever is feasibly possible.

The use of "essential to public health" is a little vague. A nation attempting to forcibly drug a population could certainly claim it was essential for public health; there is a conflict of interest for an extreme case. Additionally, I have a feeling this line was meant to ensure that mandatory vaccination was still legal, but (although I personally would disagree) it can be argued that vaccines, while overwhelmingly positive, may not be essential.

Heliseum wrote:OOC: I would air towards siding with the author here.

OOC: And which side of the Atlantic Ocean do you hail from? Psst, it's "err", not "air".

Araraukar wrote:

Heliseum wrote:OOC: I would air towards siding with the author here.

OOC: And which side of the Atlantic Ocean do you hail from? Psst, it's "err", not "air".

OOC: I have fixed the mistake; you're right. I don't know where my head was there haha.

Heliseum wrote:The use of "essential to public health" is a little vague. A nation attempting to forcibly drug a population could certainly claim it was essential for public health; there is a conflict of interest for an extreme case. Additionally, I have a feeling this line was meant to ensure that mandatory vaccination was still legal, but (although I personally would disagree) it can be argued that vaccines, while overwhelmingly positive, may not be essential.

United Massachusetts has also seen several anti-feminist delegations argue that mandatory contraceptive use would be crucial to public health, as it stabilizes populations. Several forms of contraception take the form of drugs, chief among them the pill. This concern should and will be addressed.

(OOC: I believe the term is 'next of kin, which a Google search seems to support, but maybe next-in-kin is an uncommon variant?)

“Article one clause 3 would prohibit this even with the consent of the subject. Although this could be in the form of a referendum, it could also occur in an enclosed room if, for whatever reason, that is the most convenient way to deliver medication.”

OOC: Sorry for the delay in responses, I'm not in any rush to get this passed, though.

Araraukar wrote:

Tranquilizers are essentially a tamer version of sedatives. I felt it necessary to mention it as well.

You have that completely wrong side around. Tranquilizers sedate you near-instantaneously (think of how the police might tranquilize a bear that's wandered into urban neighbourhood, to take it back to the forest), while sedatives calm you down and sometimes, but not always, made you drowsy. I take a medication daily that has a sedative effect (anti-anxiety meds generally fall into this category), but they definitely don't put me to sleep (they make me drowsy and help me get sleep, but I can fight the effect if necessary) or knock me out the way tranquilizers do to animals in nature shows.

The clause is still relevant, regardless. Whether or not they are a slightly stronger version or slightly weaker version of sedatives is mostly irrelevant, they should have the safety of them guaranteed either way. In fact, I'd argue that the fact that they are a stronger version of sedatives is more reason to ensure the safety of them. However, I do see that the mention of tranquilizers seems out of place, and it would likely fall under the first part of that clause, so I will get rid of it.

Heliseum wrote:

Morover wrote:Article Three

1. Allows for drugs shown to be essential for the public health to be mandated by a government.
   
2. Encourages nations to do everything within their ability to increase the national health to whatever is feasibly possible.

The use of "essential to public health" is a little vague. A nation attempting to forcibly drug a population could certainly claim it was essential for public health; there is a conflict of interest for an extreme case. Additionally, I have a feeling this line was meant to ensure that mandatory vaccination was still legal, but (although I personally would disagree) it can be argued that vaccines, while overwhelmingly positive, may not be essential.

"It is a bit vague, and that is somewhat intentional. While vaccines are the origin-point of this clause, as it is the most relevant example in my nation, we do not believe that it is possible to accurately sum up all possible necessities in legislation. I believe that nations would have to follow 'essential to the public health' in good faith, and not use it as a loophole, and feign ignorance. If a vaccine is not an essential drug, then it will not be required. However, in most cases, relevant vaccines are necessary in order to prevent outbreaks of disease."

United Massachusetts wrote:

Heliseum wrote:The use of "essential to public health" is a little vague. A nation attempting to forcibly drug a population could certainly claim it was essential for public health; there is a conflict of interest for an extreme case. Additionally, I have a feeling this line was meant to ensure that mandatory vaccination was still legal, but (although I personally would disagree) it can be argued that vaccines, while overwhelmingly positive, may not be essential.

United Massachusetts has also seen several anti-feminist delegations argue that mandatory contraceptive use would be crucial to public health, as it stabilizes populations. Several forms of contraception take the form of drugs, chief among them the pill. This concern should and will be addressed.

"Though my esteemed co-author does mean well in their intentions, I must remind them that this is not legislation on reproductive rights."

Iciaros wrote:(OOC: I believe the term is 'next of kin, which a Google search seems to support, but maybe next-in-kin is an uncommon variant?)

"You are correct. This has been fixed."

Kenmoria wrote:“Article one clause 3 would prohibit this even with the consent of the subject. Although this could be in the form of a referendum, it could also occur in an enclosed room if, for whatever reason, that is the most convenient way to deliver medication.”

"This has been fixed."

Morover wrote:Distressed by the notable lack of legislation on the topic of forced drug use.

Believing that the use of drugs against one's will is an unethical and immoral stance.

Disgusted at nations which intentionally sedate their populace against their will.

Concerned that any sapient creature intentionally exposed to drugs may be harmed, despite any good intentions of the government imposing the forced drug use onto the individual.

OOC: This needs some work. For example, you can't say "using drugs on someone without their consent is bad" when you have to allow for situations like sedating a violent person, without it coming off as hypocritical votebait. And when has it ever actually happened (I know NS =/= RL, but let's be honest, the majority of the voters-to-be likely won't give the RP aspect much thought) that a nation has "sedated its populace", with or without their consent? And the exposure to drugs is... urr, irrelevant?

Suggested rewrite:

Aware that sometimes it may be necessary to sedate an individual against their will for their own good,

Concerned, however, that this justification might be used as an excuse for indiscriminately forcing unnecessary medications on unconsenting people simply to make them easier to handle,

Disgusted at anyone doing so for their own gain,

Wishing to set some guidelines for member states to follow,

If you intend to make this a Healthcare fit, just changing the preamble won't actually cut it - if you're just saying "you can't drug people at will", that's not a healthcare resolution.

Hereby enacts the following:

The word "hereby" contains the rest of that as is, you don't need extra words to spell it out.

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a hallucinogen as a drug, either edible or airborn, which has a hallucinogenic effect on an individual.

I think this should be tightened as "a drug ... with the intended effect of causing hallucinations in an individual", because I'm sure some chemical weapons can also cause hallucinations (if for no other reason than that you tend to hallucinate when brains are deprived of oxygen), and using them defensively is explicitly allowed. Something meant to just cause hallucinations (rather than maim/kill) wouldn't fit the chemical weapon definition.

Prohibits member-nations from forcing any individual to consume, intake, or otherwise use hallucinogens against their will.

Why member nations specifically? Why isn't this a common commandment for anyone, rather than just nations? Barring just states from doing it creates the loophole of them turning a blind eye to some official of theirs "on their free time" doing any of this, in essence making all of this moot. Or paying a private company to do it for them.

Further Prohibits any governments from intentionally releasing hallucinogens in aerosol form, in order to cause residents to have a hallucinogenic reaction, unless all those who will be exposed have given express consent.

Again the strange limitation. Why is it okay for a privately owned business to do that, if you don't want a national government doing it? Also, why the shift from nation to government? If you mean the collective authorities, use "state".

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a sedative as any drug that has a tranquilizing, sleep-inducing, or drowsy effect.

Again, I suggest changing this to "which has the main effect of", because a lot of medications make you tired, including several antibiotics and most stronger painkillers.

Prohibits any member nation from intentionally sedating its residents, except with the consent of the patient, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin, or when sedation is required to perform an emergency medical operation.

And again the strange national level restriction. Nations rarely do anything like sedating people; it tends to be individuals working for the state. All over this proposal your target varies between different levels of national organization, and for some reason keep making it okay for private businesses to do all of if, not to mention private citizens. Why? It doesn't make sense, if your main aim is to protect people.

Also in this your protected target goes from "a nation's residents" to "the patient". It's too big a shift, and you need to either narrow down the first or broaden the latter category, and most likely both.

Requests that governments attempt to, to the best of their ability, stop any natural substances that may lead to their residents being involuntarily sedated.

This still requires the removal of pineal glands. And for the love of little green dragons, don't use "requests". You wouldn't believe the fights that word can cause.

Clarifies that, should one be an immediate threat to either an individual or the general populace, the government does have permission to sedate or tranquilize them temporarily, in order to get them to calm down.

This should be in with the other exception. Also, what if they threaten multiple individuals but not the population in general? Maybe just make it "those in their immediate vicinity".

Requires the World Health Authority to ensure the safety of all sedatives.

Why? How? It's not the business of the RL WHO to make sure the quietapin sold in Uzbekistan is safe (and is it safe as the medication's effect or safe as a clean product or safe as in people who shouldn't get their hands on it, aren't getting their hands on it? there's a difference between all those), it's up to the Uzbekistanian government and whoever manufactures the meds.

Allows for drugs shown to be essential for the public health to be mandated by a government.

And this till creates the loophole big enough to drive an oil tanker through. Maybe change it to "...proven to be essential for the health of its citizens..." because "public health" is much more nebulous a concept than "health of the citizens". Though I don't quite understand why this is here at all, since you've specifically specified sedatives and hallucinogens and regulated the use of those. Why should anyone think that you were trying to restrict anything else?

Encourages nations to do everything within their ability to increase the national health to whatever is feasibly possible.

This wins the Vague Clause Of The Year award. If it's meant as the means to shoehorn this into the Healthcare AoE, then it's not working.

After looking at the categories in the rules, I think your best bet would be Regulation with the AoE of Safety. I mean, the AoE's description is "Enforce stringent regulations to keep the average bystander from physical harm" - that describes the majority of your clauses perfectly!

Co-Authored by United Massachusetts

Is it really? I'm not seeing any traces of their usual quality.

OOC: I like this proposal, and I think you should definitely continue with it. That said, I agree with Ara's last post - it does need some work.

Morover wrote:Requests that governments attempt to, to the best of their ability, stop any natural substances that may lead to their residents being involuntarily sedated.

Just a tiny thing; it might just be me but I think it would nicer as 'attempt, to the best of their ability, to ...'. Also, as Ara said, change 'Requests' to a stronger mandate and also governments to member states or something like that. And I think it doesn't really make much sense for someone to 'stop' a natural substance; maybe 'suppress' or something along those lines?

Clarifies that, should one be an immediate threat to either an individual or the general populace, the government does have permission to sedate or tranquilize them temporarily, in order to get them to calm down.

For the sake of clarify, I'd personally change 'should one be...' to 'should a person be...' or 'should an individual be...'. Also, I think this could be taken advantage of by certain nations; a "dangerous heretic" spreading anti-government ideas could be claimed to be causing a threat to the general populace; I think 'immediate threat' is still too vague to overcome this. Maybe change it to something like 'should a person be causing an immediate physical threat...'? And 'in order to get them to calm down' seems oddly informal. Something like 'in order to calm them down' would already be better, I think.

"Article 2, Clause 2 really should lose the word 'emergency.'"

Araraukar wrote:

Morover wrote:Distressed by the notable lack of legislation on the topic of forced drug use.

Believing that the use of drugs against one's will is an unethical and immoral stance.

Disgusted at nations which intentionally sedate their populace against their will.

Concerned that any sapient creature intentionally exposed to drugs may be harmed, despite any good intentions of the government imposing the forced drug use onto the individual.

OOC: This needs some work. For example, you can't say "using drugs on someone without their consent is bad" when you have to allow for situations like sedating a violent person, without it coming off as hypocritical votebait. And when has it ever actually happened (I know NS =/= RL, but let's be honest, the majority of the voters-to-be likely won't give the RP aspect much thought) that a nation has "sedated its populace", with or without their consent? And the exposure to drugs is... urr, irrelevant?

Suggested rewrite:

Aware that sometimes it may be necessary to sedate an individual against their will for their own good,

Concerned, however, that this justification might be used as an excuse for indiscriminately forcing unnecessary medications on unconsenting people simply to make them easier to handle,

Disgusted at anyone doing so for their own gain,

Wishing to set some guidelines for member states to follow,

If you intend to make this a Healthcare fit, just changing the preamble won't actually cut it - if you're just saying "you can't drug people at will", that's not a healthcare resolution.

OOC: I'll change the category to Regulation - Safety, as I mention later on in this post.

On the topic of the preamble, though, I will change it to something more fitting.

Araraukar wrote:

Hereby enacts the following:

The word "hereby" contains the rest of that as is, you don't need extra words to spell it out.

Yes, you are correct. I keep doing that, for some reason.
EDIT: When editing the proposal, I found that it flowed badly with only "Hereby," so I switched which part I took out. I don't think it's a huge deal, but let me know if it's still too much.

Araraukar wrote:

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a hallucinogen as a drug, either edible or airborn, which has a hallucinogenic effect on an individual.

I think this should be tightened as "a drug ... with the intended effect of causing hallucinations in an individual", because I'm sure some chemical weapons can also cause hallucinations (if for no other reason than that you tend to hallucinate when brains are deprived of oxygen), and using them defensively is explicitly allowed. Something meant to just cause hallucinations (rather than maim/kill) wouldn't fit the chemical weapon definition.

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from, there. I'll tighten the wording on that.

Araraukar wrote:

Prohibits member-nations from forcing any individual to consume, intake, or otherwise use hallucinogens against their will.

Why member nations specifically? Why isn't this a common commandment for anyone, rather than just nations? Barring just states from doing it creates the loophole of them turning a blind eye to some official of theirs "on their free time" doing any of this, in essence making all of this moot. Or paying a private company to do it for them.

I'll include an additional clause that expands the restrictions. Don't know how I overlooked that.

Araraukar wrote:

Further Prohibits any governments from intentionally releasing hallucinogens in aerosol form, in order to cause residents to have a hallucinogenic reaction, unless all those who will be exposed have given express consent.

Again the strange limitation. Why is it okay for a privately owned business to do that, if you don't want a national government doing it? Also, why the shift from nation to government? If you mean the collective authorities, use "state".

I'll fix the wording, and also make it a more broad statement.

Araraukar wrote:

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, a sedative as any drug that has a tranquilizing, sleep-inducing, or drowsy effect.

Again, I suggest changing this to "which has the main effect of", because a lot of medications make you tired, including several antibiotics and most stronger painkillers.

Yep, gotcha.

Araraukar wrote:And again the strange national level restriction. Nations rarely do anything like sedating people; it tends to be individuals working for the state. All over this proposal your target varies between different levels of national organization, and for some reason keep making it okay for private businesses to do all of if, not to mention private citizens. Why? It doesn't make sense, if your main aim is to protect people.

Also in this your protected target goes from "a nation's residents" to "the patient". It's too big a shift, and you need to either narrow down the first or broaden the latter category, and most likely both.

It was a mere oversight (albeit a large one), and I'll fix it.

Also, I believe that changing the wording from "the patient" to "a patient" or "a medical patient" would clarify it without adding anything overly unnecessary.

Araraukar wrote:This still requires the removal of pineal glands. And for the love of little green dragons, don't use "requests". You wouldn't believe the fights that word can cause.

I'll change the operative clause, and I'll also change the phrasing to be external natural sedatives (which sounds a bit weird to me, but it's the best way I can think of putting it).

Araraukar wrote:This should be in with the other exception. Also, what if they threaten multiple individuals but not the population in general? Maybe just make it "those in their immediate vicinity".

Yeah, I can agree with that. I'll change it.

Araraukar wrote:Why? How? It's not the business of the RL WHO to make sure the quietapin sold in Uzbekistan is safe (and is it safe as the medication's effect or safe as a clean product or safe as in people who shouldn't get their hands on it, aren't getting their hands on it? there's a difference between all those), it's up to the Uzbekistanian government and whoever manufactures the meds.

This isn't real life.

Araraukar wrote:And this till creates the loophole big enough to drive an oil tanker through. Maybe change it to "...proven to be essential for the health of its citizens..." because "public health" is much more nebulous a concept than "health of the citizens". Though I don't quite understand why this is here at all, since you've specifically specified sedatives and hallucinogens and regulated the use of those. Why should anyone think that you were trying to restrict anything else?

Honestly, this is very much a blocker clause (though a legal one, if I am correct). I will make the suggested changes, though.

Araraukar wrote:This wins the Vague Clause Of The Year award. If it's meant as the means to shoehorn this into the Healthcare AoE, then it's not working.

After looking at the categories in the rules, I think your best bet would be Regulation with the AoE of Safety. I mean, the AoE's description is "Enforce stringent regulations to keep the average bystander from physical harm" - that describes the majority of your clauses perfectly!

Honestly, I don't know what I was going for with this clause. I know it wasn't to get it into the Healthcare AoE, but I'll remove it.

And yeah, I agree with your assessment of what the category should be. Don't know how that wasn't the original category I put it in.

Araraukar wrote:Is it really? I'm not seeing any traces of their usual quality.

You know as well as I do that this is an early draft. It's not fantastic yet, but it's not done.

Maowi wrote:OOC: I like this proposal, and I think you should definitely continue with it. That said, I agree with Ara's last post - it does need some work.



Just a tiny thing; it might just be me but I think it would nicer as 'attempt, to the best of their ability, to ...'. Also, as Ara said, change 'Requests' to a stronger mandate and also governments to member states or something like that. And I think it doesn't really make much sense for someone to 'stop' a natural substance; maybe 'suppress' or something along those lines?

Yeah, suppress is a better way to put it.

Maowi wrote:
For the sake of clarify, I'd personally change 'should one be...' to 'should a person be...' or 'should an individual be...'. Also, I think this could be taken advantage of by certain nations; a "dangerous heretic" spreading anti-government ideas could be claimed to be causing a threat to the general populace; I think 'immediate threat' is still too vague to overcome this. Maybe change it to something like 'should a person be causing an immediate physical threat...'? And 'in order to get them to calm down' seems oddly informal. Something like 'in order to calm them down' would already be better, I think.

In my mind, the way I put it is the same as the two examples you gave, but I will change it, since it doesn't seem like a huge change.

And yeah, I noticed the same thing when rereading the proposal myself today. The clause will be rewritten.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Article 2, Clause 2 really should lose the word 'emergency.'"

IC: "Done."

“In your active clauses you use a combination of ‘member nations’ and just ‘nations’ and ‘states’. Having both terms reads as though you are trying to draw a contrast, and affect non-members as well as members, which is blatantly impossible. I suggest sticking to ‘member nations’ and ‘member states’ throughout the proposal.”

Article One: This wording means that medications which [sometimes] have hallucinations as a side effect, but whose main effects (the ones actually intended) are valuable enough to outweigh this fact, would still be legal... Yes?

Article Two: Does the "main effect" wording mean that this doesn't cover alcoholic beverages, for whose use their potentially sedative properties usually isn't (but sometimes might be) the primary reason?

Article Three, part 1: see GAR #124 'Essential Medication Act'.

Kenmoria wrote:“In your active clauses you use a combination of ‘member nations’ and just ‘nations’ and ‘states’. Having both terms reads as though you are trying to draw a contrast, and affect non-members as well as members, which is blatantly impossible. I suggest sticking to ‘member nations’ and ‘member states’ throughout the proposal.”

"Yes, this is an oversight. In the many changes I made yesterday, I changed the ones directly mentioned, but failed to make them consistent, which I am doing now."

Bears Armed wrote:Article One: This wording means that medications which [sometimes] have hallucinations as a side effect, but whose main effects (the ones actually intended) are valuable enough to outweigh this fact, would still be legal... Yes?

Article Two: Does the "main effect" wording mean that this doesn't cover alcoholic beverages, for whose use their potentially sedative properties usually isn't (but sometimes might be) the primary reason?

Article Three, part 1: see GAR #124 'Essential Medication Act'.

"Article One: Essentially, yes. As long as there is no intent to give the individual a hallucination, it is legal."

"Article Two: If you're forcefeeding your population alcoholic beverages, you may have a different problem with your government, but I'd say that so long as you are not giving them the alcohol for the sedative effect, you are in the clear."

"Article Three: Perhaps I misunderstand, but GAR#124 covers the topic of access to medically essential drugs, while part one of this proposal would cover the mandatory use of medically essential drugs."

OOC:

Bump.

It's been a while, but I don't feel like this is necessarily done yet, and would like to continue discussions on it.

“Based on article 1, clause 1, are you deliberately excluding drugs that are not airborn or edible? The use of ‘either’ suggests you are. There can also be intravenous consumption, possibly via injection, and taking the drug into the system through the skin or eyes.”