[DEFEATED] On Marijuana (by Vhaovamer)

[Tinhampton]

Defeated on 28th April 2020: FOR 5,973 (25.5%) --- AGAINST 17,462 (74.5%)

At current rates, this one is set to beat both Access to Abortion and MG's Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms" to make the voting floor (immediately after Maowi's Prevention Of Forced Sterilisation) between minor update on Friday 24th April and minor update on Tuesday 28th April - although I hasten to remind you that none of the aforementioned proposals have actually hit the magic 6% mark yet.

AS OF 1100 BST ON WEDNESDAY: Approvals: 63 out of 71 needed (St Saratoga, Aiyyocheta, Varmistan, Laissez-faire Federated States, Skie Flon, Diplomatic Territories, Some People on Planet Arcadia, Nekomimea, Ex Patrian SSR, Nghymru, Melenavenia, The Flyin, Kingdom of totalitarianism, Spartakoi, Potato-Nation, The Proudhonnian Isles, Trinibad1, Yodle, God Junopia, SiegFreeden, Port States of Niemcy, Dabberwocky, Chanhu-Daro, Soracana Islands, Papa Fetter, Comackia, United Calanworie, The Eastern Pacific Islands, New Luciannova, Glatonia, Awesomeland012345, Sulavia, Eleuthernia, Smiley Bob, The Civitas Islands, Cancerous Memeboys, Sihx, Lead Keion, Prelet, Chosen Caliphate, Ashaie, The Newest of Virginia, ChinchWayuq, Corsoaua, Nikitan, San Lumen, Mikeswill, Gremenia, Otaku Stratus, Omniabstracta, Liversteed, People of Phoenix, Koevorden, Gran Serenissima, Alatoma, SFR Philippines, Libertarian Democracy, Mezi Mori, Sapientiaa, Helperness, Xianon, Baophenx Dynasty, Tanou)

On Marijuana
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Vhaovamer

---

The World Assembly,

NOTES Section 9 of the General Assembly Resolution number 90, "Drug Trafficking Act",

• "Recognises the right of nations to deny entry to vessels transporting recreational drugs."

HEREBY DEFINES,

• Marijuana:: cannabis, a psychoactive plant used medically and recreationally,
• Marijuana related paraphernalia:: any equipment, product, or accessory that is intended or modified for making, using, or concealing cannabis,

MANDATES a full pardon shall be issued to individuals incriminated or incarcerated for marijuana and marijuana related paraphernalia;

ENSURES reparations shall be paid towards individuals incarcerated for marijuana and marijuana related paraphernalia in the form of a percentage of the prosecuting nations GDP per capita per year of incarceration;

DENOTES an individual may possess and have on their person marijuana buds, concentrate marijuana, and edible marijuana, in an amount denoted by the individual's national governments and their municipalities with a minimum amount of two ounces, one half-ounce, and one-thousand milligrams, respectively;

ENACTS national governments and their municipalities to set in place programs for licensure for the national growing, buying, selling, storing, and otherwise trading of marijuana;

RECOGNISING a significant proportion of agreement from the population,

UNDERSTANDING this recognition does in fact warrant action,

DICTATES that the aforementioned shall be henceforth effective into law.
~
Co-Author: Fdryden

[South Reinkalistan]

Turnov: "As it stands, I have nothing but rejection for this bill. It's badly-written, poorly-formatted, was not sent for feedback, and overall is a terrible premise. South Reinkalistan is opposed."

[Agarntrop 2]

"Opposed."

[BlackLight Covenant]

"A'ight, so how's this an internatio-...interversa-...interdimen-...intersomethin' issue? I'm all for the Assembly stickin' its nose in the business of member states, considerin' how that's its main function 'n all that, but this just seems like micromanagement taken to the extreme. Besides, the WA has no damn business interferin' in whether member-states want to make some substance legal or not for as far as I'm concerned; we can support something related to...I dunno, bannin' the summary execution of drug addicts or somethin', although that probably already exists considerin' the sheer volume of the Assembly's book of intersomethin' law , but this one's just goin' too far. I s'ppose there's somethin' about bein' poorly written as well, but I doubt I've the right to judge that one."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Earlier this week, to the campaign telegram, I recommended that the author post this on the forum and also voiced some concern as to the legality of the then-proposals' inclusion of a clause legalising trade of recreational marijuana across member nation borders. I'm happy that portion was removed, as the Assembly '"recognises the right of nations to deny entry to vessels transporting recreational drugs". GA 90 "Drug Trafficking Act" s 9.

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: I gave the proposal but a light read-through the first time round. So on second glance, I find myself unclear as to how one can be "incriminated or incarcerated for marijuana and marijuana related paraphernalia". One could be convicted for an activity related to those nouns, but I don't see how one can be convicted for those nouns themselves.

[Youssath]

"A'ight, so how's this an internatio-...interversa-...interdimen-...intersomethin' issue? I'm all for the Assembly stickin' its nose in the business of member states, considerin' how that's its main function 'n all that, but this just seems like micromanagement taken to the extreme. Besides, the WA has no damn business interferin' in whether member-states want to make some substance legal or not for as far as I'm concerned; we can support something related to...I dunno, bannin' the summary execution of drug addicts or somethin', although that probably already exists considerin' the sheer volume of the Assembly's book of intersomethin' law , but this one's just goin' too far. I s'ppose there's somethin' about bein' poorly written as well, but I doubt I've the right to judge that one."

"Indeed, and such damning legislation has no place here in the international community. Strictly opposed. I will be seeing this one right into the bin itself."

Government stance on On Marijuana: Youssath

[Morover]

Opinion given in TNP and TRR:

Against.

I have opposition to any legislation which handles one specific kind of drug (especially with the definition of marijuana being so restraining). I draw confusion as to why they define marijuana, instead of just using "cannabis" as the term throughout the proposal, which isn't necessarily grounds for opposition in itself, but it is a peculiarity.

Now, let's get into the meat of the proposal. Perhaps the most important clause here is the MANDATES clause, but that has some significant issues. First of all, "incarcerated for marijuana and marijuana related paraphernalia" is different from "incarcerated for charges related to marijuana and marijuana related paraphernalia." Nobody gets arrested for marijuana and marijuana-related paraphernalia, but that can probably be safely ignored under the good-faith clause of GAR#2. It's presumably referring to these charges related to marijuana and its paraphernalia, which, personally, I have no opposition towards. However, I note that there's a fairly substantial difference between charges relating the possession of marijuana and charges relating the dealing of marijuana - the first of which is undeniably a victimless crime, and the second of which (arguably) has victims. I feel it's an overstep to require a pardon for illegal dealers of marijuana - especially considering that legalization of marijuana is what allows safety protocols to be brought into effect, which cannot be had while marijuana is illegalized.

Furthermore (and this was pointed out to me by Bormiar), the phrasing of the clause makes it so that people who were picked up for charges relating to marijuana possession, but also had a more significant crime (such as unlawful homicide) would need to be pardoned as well, due to the terminology saying "a full pardon shall be issued" (emphasis mine) to people who have been charged with these marijuana-related charges.

The percentage of reparation paid could very well amount to 0.0000000000000001%, as it's left up to the individual nation, thus essentially nullifying the ENSURES clause.

I don't know why the preambulatory clauses are at the end, and I disagree with many of them.

I do actually agree with the ENACTS clause, but, once again, it seems futile to narrow it down to just Marijuana.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The proposal is quorate.

[Richonne]

Marijuana users should be barred from society in tiny little rooms and never allowed out.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The percentage of reparation paid could very well amount to 0.0000000000000001%, as it's left up to the individual nation, thus essentially nullifying the ENSURES clause.

The statement 'a percentage' to me seems also interpretable as '1 per cent'.

[Araraukar]

The statement 'a percentage' to me seems also interpretable as '1 per cent'.

OOC: Maybe, or just 0%, which is going to be my reading.

Also, individuals may be allowed to have marijuana on them, but not use it unless being above an age limit that nations are free to set (Araraukar has currently an age limit of 150 on all recreational drugs, including alcohol), as well as not being allowed to bring it into the nation in the first place.

EDIT: Oh and "denotes" has "convey as a meaning" as a meaning, so "the WA conveys as a meaning (that) a person may have stuff on them" does not a binding mandate make.

Marijuana users should be barred from society in tiny little rooms and never allowed out.

IC: "Agreed."

[Wallenburg]

Apart from everything else, this had no draft, so I will not support it.

[Denathor]

IC: "Opposed."

OOC:

NOTES Section 9 of the General Assembly Resolution number 90, "Drug Trafficking Act",
"Recognises the right of nations to deny entry to vessels transporting recreational drugs."

Isn’t this a HoC violation?

[Imperium Anglorum]

It doesn't rely substantively on it.

[Morover]

IC: "Opposed."

OOC:

NOTES Section 9 of the General Assembly Resolution number 90, "Drug Trafficking Act",
"Recognises the right of nations to deny entry to vessels transporting recreational drugs."

Isn’t this a HoC violation?

OOC: Preambulatory clauses (such as the one in question) typically won't run afoul of the HoC rule.

[Uan aa Boa]

If the ambassadors here assembled were to have a whip round we could buy the authoring delegation a dictionary to look up words such as denote and enact.

[Dome Artan]

Against because of the Ensures clause. I'm not particularly against drug decriminalization but I'm not about to pay reparations to those who did break laws at the time.

[Wischland]

While Wischland does support the legalization of marijuana, this proposal has far too many flaws in it. Besides the issue that have already been mentioned, I'm concerned about the fact that the proposal denotes a certain amount of marijuana that can be possessed, but also seems to mandate pardon and reparations for any marijuana incarceration. The lack of specificity throughout the proposal is a serious problem.

[Pangurstan]

Would I be correct in interpreting it as mandating that governments legalize the possession of marijuana and the growing/sale of marijuana, but not mandating that governments legalize the use of marijuana?

[Alba and Cymru]

"Hmm, so what happens if one possesses more marijuana than the municipal capacity, distributes without a license, and refuses to pay fines for both of the aforementioned crimes?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Hmm, so what happens if one possesses more marijuana than the municipal capacity, distributes without a license, and refuses to pay fines for both of the aforementioned crimes?"

"Nonpayment of fines in most nations is itself a crime, ambassador."

[Alba and Cymru]

"Hmm, so what happens if one possesses more marijuana than the municipal capacity, distributes without a license, and refuses to pay fines for both of the aforementioned crimes?"

"Nonpayment of fines in most nations is itself a crime, ambassador."

"I understand that, sir, but due to the nature of this form of nonpayment, it would be classified under marijuana-related offenses. Is our nation going to have to reserve a special status for nonpayment of these crimes? my king and his judiciary would certainly hate having to overhaul the penal code... once again."

[Garialdi]

"The Nomadic people's of Garialdi vehemently oppose this edict. First of, the text isn't clear at all and is open to a lot of judiciary trouble. Second, we don't believe to be the World Assembly's job to interfere on all domestic matters, and every nation has the right to their sovereignty in deciding how to handle most inner affairs. This is no human rights issue, and definitely not a relevant enough matter to even be put to vote. This discussion is pointless and should not have made the counsil in the first place."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Nonpayment of fines in most nations is itself a crime, ambassador."

"I understand that, sir, but due to the nature of this form of nonpayment, it would be classified under marijuana-related offenses. Is our nation going to have to reserve a special status for nonpayment of these crimes? my king and his judiciary would certainly hate having to overhaul the penal code... once again."

"If it passes, you will have to add to it if nothing else. As with most resolutions."

[Barfleur]

Apart from everything else, this had no draft, so I will not support it.

Of all the reasons to oppose this proposal, I disagree with your approach. I'm all for looking at new proposals and giving helpful advice, but not drafting it on the forum shouldn't preclude a genuinely good proposal from your consideration. That being said, I voted AGAINST this proposal, and my view seems to popular given the vote so far.