[PASSED] Drug Decriminalization Act

[Imperium Anglorum]

What the evidence actually supports is not what this proposal wants to implement. The evidence supports a multi-faceted approach which uses decriminalisation as a tool to direct people to addiction treatment, which can also at times be compulsory. Decriminalisation is not a magical solution alone; for it to actually be supportable requires a substantive public health network. The warrants related to decriminalisation good, especially those relating to lower stigmas about drug usage and lowered fears of criminal prosecution, also imply this.

The multi-faceted approach is impossible to implement without decriminalization, as you've acknowledged above. Decriminalization alone is a major step that I feel should be tackled separately before delving into the secondary phase of tackling substance abuse.

The multi-faceted approach is necessary to prevent increases in the level of substance abuse. Putting decriminalisation first before everything else ignores the entire chain of logic used to justify it. Your approach also doesn't make any sense. It's like claiming that burglaries will go down if we decriminalise theft, even though in all the cases where theft decriminalisation and burglaries went together, there was a substantial economic intervention that removed push factors for property crime.

The purpose of decriminalisation is to get people to rehabilitation centres. The evidence supporting decriminalisation relates to a context of putting people in rehabilitation centres. Not building the rehabilitation centres puts the entire policy on its head.

No but I mean, whether the WA should legislate this. It really seems like a local or national matter.

I believe that the war on drugs that numerous countries are carrying out has had an adverse global effect. Thus, it would be an international matter.

So give some connections between specific actions taken in the war on drugs and this adverse global effect.

[Bears Armed]

Understanding that drugs have won the war on drugs,

Artorrios looks at his universal translator with tired disbelief.
"Gibberish again?!"

[Northern Connecticut]

1. Drugs have not won the war on drugs.
2. If this passes, I am leaving the WA.
3. Why do people suddenly like drugs?

[WayNeacTia]

“SHOE BANGING SUPPORT!”

Wayne

[Separatist Peoples]

1. Drugs have not won the war on drugs.
2. If this passes, I am leaving the WA.
3. Why do people suddenly like drugs?

"Why is this supposed to be a meaningful threat? Any nation can resign at will. Are we supposed to be emotionally held hostage by this statement, afraid that we may upset your delegation?"

[WayNeacTia]

1. Drugs have not won the war on drugs.
2. If this passes, I am leaving the WA.
3. Why do people suddenly like drugs?

1. Drugs have clearly won.
2. Good bye. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
3. People like to get high and relax.

[The Python]

Based. This is well-written and a good idea; support.

[Hulldom]

OOC: I really don't like that first intro clause, too meme-y.

Also, pursuant to GenSec's supposedly upcoming ruling on Protections During Territorial Transitions, wouldn't clause 3 fall as a House of Cards violation?

[Morover]

Though this should come as a surprise to no one, full support. I do think that this should come coupled with a resolution on treating addiction, but I don't necessarily believe it should be part of the same proposal. If no one else starts on that, I may consider pursuing it.

I do think it's an interesting question whether "War on Drugs" is a real life reference.

[Hulldom]

Though this should come as a surprise to no one, full support. I do think that this should come coupled with a resolution on treating addiction, but I don't necessarily believe it should be part of the same proposal. If no one else starts on that, I may consider pursuing it.

I do think it's an interesting question whether "War on Drugs" is a real life reference.

Just to clarify, I'd like to support this one. It's definitely worthwhile. But...what I said earlier was simply my concerns as of now.

[Bursken]

Though this should come as a surprise to no one, full support. I do think that this should come coupled with a resolution on treating addiction, but I don't necessarily believe it should be part of the same proposal. If no one else starts on that, I may consider pursuing it.

I do think it's an interesting question whether "War on Drugs" is a real-life reference.

I agree with the resolution on treating and rehabbing druggies, but I feel like decriminalizing them would have adverse effects unknown at the time

[Greater Cesnica]

Also, pursuant to GenSec's supposedly upcoming ruling on Protections During Territorial Transitions, wouldn't clause 3 fall as a House of Cards violation?

According to SL, no. Considering they were the one who provided that part about World Assembly resolutions.

[Bears Armed]

I do think it's an interesting question whether "War on Drugs" is a real life reference.

OOC: When it's given explicitly as "the War on Drugs", as here, I'd say that it definitely is. (Especially as, even in RL, that's a particular-nation thing rather than universal terminology...)
[One-sixth of GenSec]

[Greater Cesnica]

I do think it's an interesting question whether "War on Drugs" is a real life reference.

OOC: When it's given explicitly as "the War on Drugs", as here, I'd say that it definitely is. (Especially as, even in RL, that's a particular-nation thing rather than universal terminology...)
[One-sixth of GenSec]

Noted. Dropped it.

[Quartia and Karafuto]

This resolution doesn't sufficiently clarify what "decriminalize" means. Does it mean legalization? Or does it mean they remain illegal but with no punishment? Or does it mean setting a maximum punishment?

[Tsaivao]

This resolution doesn't sufficiently clarify what "decriminalize" means. Does it mean legalization? Or does it mean they remain illegal but with no punishment? Or does it mean setting a maximum punishment?

It means what the word "decriminalize" means. Not everything needs to be explicitly defined.

[Fachumonn]

Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

Understanding that punitive efforts against recreational drug use have failed,

Aware that policies bringing about the decriminalization of recreational drug possession have been demonstrated to decrease the negative societal effects associated with substance abuse,

Noting that drug possession charges are a favored tool of legal authorities and governments seeking to marginalize or suppress minorities and political opposition to their governments,

Unconvinced that the criminalization of individuals in possession of recreational drugs deters recidivism or recreational drug use,

Hereby:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. ”drug” as a chemical substance which induces psychoactive effects after being consumed, where such a substance is not considered legal for recreational consumption or a substance used for recognized medical purposes or otherwise as part of recognized sacramental purposes,
   2. ”drug possession” as the possession of drugs by an individual where such possession is not for the purposes of monetary or other forms of material gain, and “illicit drug possession” as any possession of drugs outside these boundaries,
   3. ”drug trafficking” as the illicit distribution of drugs for monetary or other forms of material gain, and
   4. ”drug manufacturing” as the illicit production of drugs for monetary or other forms of material gain.
2. Reaffirms the right of member states to set internal policy regarding drug trafficking, drug manufacturing, illicit drug possession, and the legal distribution and production of drugs, subject to past or future World Assembly resolutions.
3. Requires that member states, within the bounds of any past or future World Assembly resolutions;
   
   1. decriminalize the act of drug possession and
   2. initiate a review process to re-evaluate the cases of those imprisoned and/or convicted of the act of drug possession in order to determine release and/or pardon eligibility given the following considerations:
      
      1. the time served for the offense(s),
      2. any separate offenses committed in addition to the act of drug possession,
      3. the suitability for re-entry into societal participation,
      4. the likelihood of recidivism in regards to other criminal activities, and
      5. the positive benefits of receiving a full pardon for the act of drug possession.
4. Strongly urges member states to offer full, unconditional releases and/or pardons for those convicted solely for the act of drug possession.

Co-authored by Honeydewistania.

Based. Approved!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

What the evidence actually supports is not what this proposal wants to implement. The evidence supports a multi-faceted approach which uses decriminalisation as a tool to direct people to addiction treatment, which can also at times be compulsory. Decriminalisation is not a magical solution alone; for it to actually be supportable requires a substantive public health network. The warrants related to decriminalisation good, especially those relating to lower stigmas about drug usage and lowered fears of criminal prosecution, also imply this.

The multi-faceted approach is impossible to implement without decriminalization, as you've acknowledged above. Decriminalization alone is a major step that I feel should be tackled separately before delving into the secondary phase of tackling substance abuse.

The multi-faceted approach is necessary to prevent increases in the level of substance abuse. Putting decriminalisation first before everything else ignores the entire chain of logic used to justify it. Your approach also doesn't make any sense. It's like claiming that burglaries will go down if we decriminalise theft, even though in all the cases where theft decriminalisation and burglaries went together, there was a substantial economic intervention that removed push factors for property crime.

The purpose of decriminalisation is to get people to rehabilitation centres. The evidence supporting decriminalisation relates to a context of putting people in rehabilitation centres. Not building the rehabilitation centres puts the entire policy on its head.

OOC (if this was IC, apologies, I can't parse it at this point and may have fucked up the quote tags on mobile): The multifaceted approach, in order to be effective, often requires more than 5,000 characters to enact with any substantial effectiveness. I would urge the author to allude to the sorts of treatment and rehab programs that actually help addicts, if they can't fit actual policy on them into this resolution; with an eye to crafting a follow-up re: same. I would also urge additional preamble statements on police corruption, and the increased prevalence of unlawful procedure even where patriotic members of demographic majorities are accused of drug involvement, in nations enforcing prohibition; these being social ills even worse than the tragic plight of drug addicts.

[Greater Cesnica]

What the evidence actually supports is not what this proposal wants to implement. The evidence supports a multi-faceted approach which uses decriminalisation as a tool to direct people to addiction treatment, which can also at times be compulsory. Decriminalisation is not a magical solution alone; for it to actually be supportable requires a substantive public health network. The warrants related to decriminalisation good, especially those relating to lower stigmas about drug usage and lowered fears of criminal prosecution, also imply this.

The multi-faceted approach is impossible to implement without decriminalization, as you've acknowledged above. Decriminalization alone is a major step that I feel should be tackled separately before delving into the secondary phase of tackling substance abuse.

The multi-faceted approach is necessary to prevent increases in the level of substance abuse. Putting decriminalisation first before everything else ignores the entire chain of logic used to justify it. Your approach also doesn't make any sense. It's like claiming that burglaries will go down if we decriminalise theft, even though in all the cases where theft decriminalisation and burglaries went together, there was a substantial economic intervention that removed push factors for property crime.

The purpose of decriminalisation is to get people to rehabilitation centres. The evidence supporting decriminalisation relates to a context of putting people in rehabilitation centres. Not building the rehabilitation centres puts the entire policy on its head.

OOC (if this was IC, apologies, I can't parse it at this point and may have fucked up the quote tags on mobile): The multifaceted approach, in order to be effective, often requires more than 5,000 characters to enact with any substantial effectiveness. I would urge the author to allude to the sorts of treatment and rehab programs that actually help addicts, if they can't fit actual policy on them into this resolution; with an eye to crafting a follow-up re: same. I would also urge additional preamble statements on police corruption, and the increased prevalence of unlawful procedure even where patriotic members of demographic majorities are accused of drug involvement, in nations enforcing prohibition; these being social ills even worse than the tragic plight of drug addicts.

I have incorporated this advice. Looking to submit this fairly soon.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What the evidence actually supports is not what this proposal wants to implement. The evidence supports a multi-faceted approach which uses decriminalisation as a tool to direct people to addiction treatment, which can also at times be compulsory. Decriminalisation is not a magical solution alone; for it to actually be supportable requires a substantive public health network. The warrants related to decriminalisation good, especially those relating to lower stigmas about drug usage and lowered fears of criminal prosecution, also imply this.

The multi-faceted approach is impossible to implement without decriminalization, as you've acknowledged above. Decriminalization alone is a major step that I feel should be tackled separately before delving into the secondary phase of tackling substance abuse.

The multi-faceted approach is necessary to prevent increases in the level of substance abuse. Putting decriminalisation first before everything else ignores the entire chain of logic used to justify it. Your approach also doesn't make any sense. It's like claiming that burglaries will go down if we decriminalise theft, even though in all the cases where theft decriminalisation and burglaries went together, there was a substantial economic intervention that removed push factors for property crime.

The purpose of decriminalisation is to get people to rehabilitation centres. The evidence supporting decriminalisation relates to a context of putting people in rehabilitation centres. Not building the rehabilitation centres puts the entire policy on its head.

OOC (if this was IC, apologies, I can't parse it at this point and may have fucked up the quote tags on mobile): The multifaceted approach, in order to be effective, often requires more than 5,000 characters to enact with any substantial effectiveness. I would urge the author to allude to the sorts of treatment and rehab programs that actually help addicts, if they can't fit actual policy on them into this resolution; with an eye to crafting a follow-up re: same. I would also urge additional preamble statements on police corruption, and the increased prevalence of unlawful procedure even where patriotic members of demographic majorities are accused of drug involvement, in nations enforcing prohibition; these being social ills even worse than the tragic plight of drug addicts.

It would be too difficult to write something near the word limit which would work; the author could cut off the preamble (a la Tariffs and Trade Convention) and practise some word economy.

EDIT. I meant it wouldn't be too difficult. Fuck.

[Abacathea]

Ok, so it seems as you're considering actually submitting this, I'm going to give it genuine feedback, so let me grab my red pen and lets begin.

Aware that policies bringing about the decriminalization of recreational drug possession have been demonstrated to decrease the negative societal effects associated with substance abuse,

This has actually been seen to be a falsehood where addiction is prevalent, as most legitimate establishments wont operate on a "buy now, pay later" platform, street crime increases as a consequence.

Noting that drug possession charges are a favored tool of legal authorities and governments seeking to marginalize or suppress minorities and political opposition to their governments,

That I take serious concern with. Charges can and should only be preferred by legitimate governments where an offence has occurred. Ergo, a law must have been broken for a charge to follow, so if drugs are illegal, it is not abusive or suppressive to prosecute such offences.

Unconvinced that the criminalization of individuals in possession of recreational drugs deters recidivism or recreational drug use,

Agreed.

[*]”drug” as a chemical substance which induces psychoactive effects after being consumed, where such a substance is not considered legal for recreational consumption or a substance used for recognized medical purposes or otherwise as part of recognized sacramental purposes,

I'm not happy with that definition, some chemical substances are drugs but not all drugs are chemical substances.

[*]Reaffirms the right of member states to set internal policy regarding drug trafficking, drug manufacturing, illicit drug possession, and the legal distribution and production of drugs, subject to past or future World Assembly resolutions.

So you're only attacking simple possession or personal possession, ok, I won't fault that, but I stand by my earlier point re societal impact regardless.

[*]Requires that member states, within the bounds of any past or future World Assembly resolutions;
[list=a][*]decriminalize the act of drug possession and

Wow, so we're talking all drugs regardless of their classification and societal impact once the quantity comes within the remit of personal use. Nope, against. There's a difference between five grams of weed and five grams of heroin. I'd suggest this ambassador has never met the latter users.

[*]the likelihood of recidivism in regards to other criminal activities, and
[*]the positive benefits of receiving a full pardon for the act of drug possession.

Respectfully, the positive benefit of a full pardon is the ability to pretend to be reformed and having been marginalized only to go out and being as recidivist as you like.

Frankly I hate this legislation in its entirety, and that is no reflection on the authors. I think a misguided one size fits all approach to drug related crime is never going to work. It is one of those legislation's that appears to be part of a wider "movement" that, from this Ambassadors view, has always been more "self serving" than greater good. People often tend to cite prohibition in the Earth decade that was the 1920's as an example of where prohibition and criminalization doesn't work and that people as a whole fought the power and won.

Lets look at what they won, - multiple murders on a weekly basis worldwide on planet earth as a result of Alcohol fueled decision making. Anti social behaviour ranging from petty vandalism to intimidation and beyond. Liver failures, alcoholism and families destroyed. But we gloss over it, because we won this in the 1920s and we cannot backpedal now.

Lets see what could be won with this, psychosis admissions significantly increasing, street crime significantly increasing, methadone and needle clinics requiring a significant boost, hopsitalisations from deviated septums and overdoses going through the roof. I could go on Ambassador, but I really don't feel I should have to.

[Bears Armed]

[*]Requires that member states, within the bounds of any past or future World Assembly resolutions;
[list=a][*]decriminalize the act of drug possession and

Wow, so we're talking all drugs regardless of their classification and societal impact once the quantity comes within the remit of personal use. Nope, against. There's a difference between five grams of weed and five grams of heroin. I'd suggest this ambassador has never met the latter users.

OOC: ... and that's even ignoring drugs of non-RL origins such as [e.g.] Thionite, Bloodhype, or Zeus...

Oh, and it would also decriminalize possession of drugs that the possessor actually intends to use on other people: "roofies", anybody?

[Greater Cesnica]

Oh, and it would also decriminalize possession of drugs that the possessor actually intends to use on other people: "roofies", anybody?

See, that right there is a valid point. I'll address this.

EDIT: Addressed.

Wow, so we're talking all drugs regardless of their classification and societal impact once the quantity comes within the remit of personal use. Nope, against. There's a difference between five grams of weed and five grams of heroin. I'd suggest this ambassador has never met the latter users.

"On the contrary, Ambassador. I have met the latter users. Their plight will not be helped by incarceration and punitive measures. Only compassion can help."

I'm not happy with that definition, some chemical substances are drugs but not all drugs are chemical substances.

"The definition I have provided is considered proper by medical professionals and experts. There can be no medical definition of drugs which entails their existence outside of them being chemical substances. There is no possible debate or legitimate contention on this point."

It would be too difficult to write something near the word limit which would work; the author could cut off the preamble (a la Tariffs and Trade Convention) and practise some word economy.

OOC: I have started working on a companion draft that would fully tackle rehabilitation and aiding those suffering from substance abuse issues. A nice co-author is also helping out.

[Abacathea]

OOC: I have started working on a companion draft that would fully tackle rehabilitation and aiding those suffering from substance abuse issues. A nice co-author is also helping out.

I think that would be a more resounding success than what you're currently aiming for. That notwithstanding I've said my piece, I wont continue to labor the point.

[Northern Connecticut]

1. Drugs have not won the war on drugs.
2. If this passes, I am leaving the WA.
3. Why do people suddenly like drugs?

"Why is this supposed to be a meaningful threat? Any nation can resign at will. Are we supposed to be emotionally held hostage by this statement, afraid that we may upset your delegation?"

Its not a threat. In fact, the only reason I am still in WA is I am running for President of my region next month and need endorsements. and I could honestly give a rats ass if you feel emotionally held hostage, because that was never my intention.