[DEFEATED] Insta-Repeal "Drug Decriminalization Act"

[Abacathea]

Respectfully, I'd like to raise a few points in response to this;

• If you believe rehabilitation and counselling and therapy is the answer, then why are you pushing back when part of the argument of this repeal is the failure of the target legislation to address that?
  
• You quite consistently go on about abuses of power and the state of prisons. I'm not going to argue with you further on this as, to quote a delightful modern phrase "there is no point in playing chess with a Pigeon it will just knock over the pieces, shit on the board and then strut around like it won the game"
  
• I can tell you that your experience of drugs is one thing, and mine is another, and my reference to a burglarizing junkie is on point. Let me possit a question to you, A heroin addict, currently on methadone, relapses (as they are very prone to do). Now per your scenario, the addict, who might not seek treatment (because there is another issue, you all seem to think that el adicto will willingly seek out help) decides he'll go to his recreational drugs establishment, who of course, will not take "credit" for los drugas, so where is the money coming from? Or are you going to subsidize the purchase of drugs for extreme addicts?

We're not going to see eye to eye on this. You have a delightful world view that everything works itself out with the right systems. I disagree. People have to want to use those systems, and when that involves hard work, it is always easier to return to default settings, and I can tell you that happens more often that not.

"Might. A word plagued by uncertainty and speculation. In international policy, we don't base decisions on picayune concerns, but on empirical evidence, and the empirical evidence in question has consistently revealed a significant decrease in drug related addictions, crimes, and deaths, in every nation that either decriminalized or legalized drug consumption and shifted towards the principle of harm reduction. A severely addicted person with a high relapse risk would not have been left to roam free on their own to begin with, and for these particularly serious cases, inpatient care in a well-equipped and humane treatment center would be the prime focus for recovery in that scenario. No healthcare system worth its name would let a critically ill person wander around unobserved, especially not a heroin addict, and by far, prisons are simply not an environment conducive to a drug addict's recovery, especially not in nations that favour a hardline brutalizing approach to criminal justice, and even if such prison does offer drug addiction treatment, the sheer levels of violence and "dog-eat-dog" conflicts in many such complexes, in addition to being trapped in a cold and uncaring area renders many such attempts woefully unsuccessful. Rendering a person criminal solely on the basis of drug consumption that, at worst, only harms themselves and no one else, is an easy recipe to destabilize said person's psyche and cause severe and longlasting trauma, eventually triggering a descent towards actually serious crime, leaving entire communities devastated in their wake, and for this reason, this resolution remains misguided, and should be opposed at all costs. I trust that the General Assembly shall recognize the folly of this repeal attempt and reject it with haste once voting commences."

I'm going to say something I have never said to ANY other ambassador in this Assembly before. I think you're wrong. I think you're well intended, but completely wrong and I see no way whatsoever we will depart from our positions. So lets call it for what it is.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

I'm going to say something I have never said to ANY other ambassador in this Assembly before. I think you're wrong. I think you're well intended, but completely wrong and I see no way whatsoever we will depart from our positions. So lets call it for what it is.

[Bananaistan]

… poor living standards … torturous cage ...

"If you have evidence of these things happening in any member state, you should immediately inform the WACC. These things would be severe breaches of member states' responsibilities under existing international law.

... All in all, drug decriminalization and legalization was and still is an indisputable success, with Czechoslovakia serving as a prime example, and we certainly do not desire for the world to return to a miserable past.

"The repeal of the target will not require your nation to change these policies.

"Incidentally, we've had a different experience in Bananaistan where allowing the justice system the flexibility to act appropriately in each individual case has been a complete success in suppressing the international organised crime trade in illegal drugs in our jurisdiction."

OOC: I think some players think the target exists in isolation. It doesn't. There are reams of international law already in place dealing with the social and economic issues which give rise to much RL drug abuse, and additionally preventing unfair targeting of minority groups. There's also a number of resolutions dealing with treatment of prisoners.

People also say that criminalisation and prohibition doesn't work and then point to the difference in total harm caused by legal drugs like alcohol compared to illegal drugs. I often wonder why nobody says that legalisation doesn't work considering the huge harm that alcohol causes.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

… poor living standards … torturous cage ...

"If you have evidence of these things happening in any member state, you should immediately inform the WACC. These things would be severe breaches of member states' responsibilities under existing international law.

... All in all, drug decriminalization and legalization was and still is an indisputable success, with Czechoslovakia serving as a prime example, and we certainly do not desire for the world to return to a miserable past.

"The repeal of the target will not require your nation to change these policies.

"Incidentally, we've had a different experience in Bananaistan where allowing the justice system the flexibility to act appropriately in each individual case has been a complete success in suppressing the international organised crime trade in illegal drugs in our jurisdiction."

OOC: I think some players think the target exists in isolation. It doesn't. There are reams of international law already in place dealing with the social and economic issues which give rise to much RL drug abuse, and additionally preventing unfair targeting of minority groups. There's also a number of resolutions dealing with treatment of prisoners.

People also say that criminalisation and prohibition doesn't work and then point to the difference in total harm caused by legal drugs like alcohol compared to illegal drugs. I often wonder why nobody says that legalisation doesn't work considering the huge harm that alcohol causes.

OOC: Alcohol taxation and regulatory limitations on who it can be legally sold to is a far more effective way of curbing its consumption than to drive it underground and turn otherwise benign drinkers into criminals, and it also gives the government a significant amount of revenue. A win-win for both citizens and the state.

[Untecna]

"If you have evidence of these things happening in any member state, you should immediately inform the WACC. These things would be severe breaches of member states' responsibilities under existing international law.



"The repeal of the target will not require your nation to change these policies.

"Incidentally, we've had a different experience in Bananaistan where allowing the justice system the flexibility to act appropriately in each individual case has been a complete success in suppressing the international organised crime trade in illegal drugs in our jurisdiction."

OOC: I think some players think the target exists in isolation. It doesn't. There are reams of international law already in place dealing with the social and economic issues which give rise to much RL drug abuse, and additionally preventing unfair targeting of minority groups. There's also a number of resolutions dealing with treatment of prisoners.

People also say that criminalisation and prohibition doesn't work and then point to the difference in total harm caused by legal drugs like alcohol compared to illegal drugs. I often wonder why nobody says that legalisation doesn't work considering the huge harm that alcohol causes.

OOC: Alcohol taxation and regulatory limitations on who it can be legally sold to is a far more effective way of curbing its consumption than to drive it underground and turn otherwise benign drinkers into criminals, and it also gives the government a significant amount of revenue. A win-win for both citizens and the state.

That would be illegal though because of GAR#17.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Alcohol taxation and regulatory limitations on who it can be legally sold to is a far more effective way of curbing its consumption than to drive it underground and turn otherwise benign drinkers into criminals, and it also gives the government a significant amount of revenue. A win-win for both citizens and the state.

That would be illegal though because of GAR#17.

OOC: That would be illegal for the G.A. to do, for that reason, yes... but nothing under existing international law, and no changes that would occur if this repeal passes, would make it illegal for the nations themselves to use such policies (as many probably do)...

Re alcohol vs. other drugs, as I pointed out in an earlier post it's probably easier to prevent a "new" drug's use from becoming widespread in a society by criminalizing its possession & trade than it is to suppress the use of a drug that has already been legal and widely-used there for centuries.

[Sincluda]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST the General Assembly Resolution, Repeal: "Drug Decriminalization Act".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

[Apatosaurus]

This is now at vote.

[Gonswanza]

Time to watch this crash and burn...

[Grand Pato]

This repeal is reactionary nonsense. It says a lot, but it boils down to being nothing at its core. VOTE AGAINST!

So, I'll take it piece by piece:

Highlighting the fallacies present in the legislation early on, including the assertion that decriminalization is demonstrated to reduce negative societal effects when the reality is that statistics naturally reflect a reduction in drug related offences but show a marked increase in petty street crimes in order to feed a dependency that prevails regardless of the lawful status of drugs,

Drug decriminalization demonstrably and with great consistency increases health, safety, and removes barriers to crucial harm-reduction. Data has shown time and time again that drug use overall remains about the same following decriminalization, but reduces dependency significantly since treatment and rehabilitation is more accessible. Statistics do not "show a marked increase in petty street crimes in order to feed a dependency that prevails regardless of the lawful status of drugs." The fundamental change here is REHABILIATION. Rehabilitation is a hell of a lot better than punishment.

Disheartened by the political and polarizing statement 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," when the reality is that possession charges are preferred against a person in possession of drugs in the same way speeding tickets are preferred against persons speeding. The enforcement of laws against criminal offenders and the disproportionate targeting of minority groups are in no way the same thing nor are they addressable by the decriminalization of drugs as this resolution would have nations believe,

Again, it is statistically provable that the minorities and the majority in any given nation oftentimes use drugs at around or at exactly the same rate. Despite that, minorities are charged a hell of a lot more often. You have made the implication that the law is enforced equally with considerably less of a basis than the Drug Decriminalization Act was written upon.

Disgusted that the target legislation resorted to polarizing statements such as "authorities are often empowered by the continued criminalization of recreational drug possession to commit violence and other indignities against even non-marginalized demographics," and that the legislation in question would have members believe that decriminalization of drugs would address and end systematic or endemic issues of corruption in the fields that it might exist,

It's not black and white. We don't live in all-or-nothing society in which a piece of law that acknowledges a disparity is implying it will "end" core and wide-reaching systematic issues. For all this talk of fallacies, this sounds like a false dilemma.

Closing:

It goes further on to say the act actually doesn't do enough, not addressing fundamental issues. Respectfully, this can be addressed in further legislation, assuming there is merit.

But, as I've discussed, the reactionary language which makes up its longest sections reveals the bad faith nature of this proposal to repeal. If there was a level of good faith, there would be a substantive replacement to address the flaws presented. But there isn't.

The Drug Decriminalization Act should stand as an important step in the right direction.

VOTE AGAINST

[Caymarnia]

The National Council of the People's Will concurs with the statement by the honorable delegate of Abacathea, as well as similar statements made during the vote for the target resolution - this is a matter left to the legislatures of the member nations. Some matters cannot be dealt with solely by one sweeping resolution by the World Assembly, nor should they ever be - and we have already stated our concerns with the target resolution when we voted against it:

...the resolution... treats all drugs used recreationally as being on the same level. This is not true. Cocaine, opiates, and amphetamines are not on the same level as cannabis or tobacco (or alcohol, if we want to lump that in); indeed, the demand for and distribution of these "harder" drugs constitute a considerable threat to the health and security of all nations. Decriminalizing them will not alter that.

Caymarnia therefore votes for the repeal.

[Abacathea]

There are a number of points which have been raised which I whole heartedly disagree with by an ambassador in this thread. That said at the risk of coming across as rude or disrespectful to nations or more importantly their players I have made a decision to allow this to run its course and I will weight in at the end with a summation of thoughts. I felt it better to state that now rather than have people think I was avoiding the thread. I will respond once this has concluded regardless of how it plays out.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

There are a number of points which have been raised which I whole heartedly disagree with by an ambassador in this thread. That said at the risk of coming across as rude or disrespectful to nations or more importantly their players I have made a decision to allow this to run its course and I will weight in at the end with a summation of thoughts. I felt it better to state that now rather than have people think I was avoiding the thread. I will respond once this has concluded regardless of how it plays out.

"Sorry, it looks like your attempt to repeal the Drug Decriminalization Act was well and truly repudiated, by almost the same margin as the DDA's approval, no less. In the end, your resolution has failed to provide any objective and indepth rationale for repealing a milestone in human rights, and a resolution's tone and way of writing does not a bad resolution make. I rest my case."

[Concrete Slab]

There are a number of points which have been raised which I whole heartedly disagree with by an ambassador in this thread. That said at the risk of coming across as rude or disrespectful to nations or more importantly their players I have made a decision to allow this to run its course and I will weight in at the end with a summation of thoughts. I felt it better to state that now rather than have people think I was avoiding the thread. I will respond once this has concluded regardless of how it plays out.

"Sorry, it looks like your attempt to repeal the Drug Decriminalization Act was well and truly repudiated, by almost the same margin as the DDA's approval, no less. In the end, your resolution has failed to provide any objective and indepth rationale for repealing a milestone in human rights, and a resolution's tone and way of writing does not a bad resolution make. I rest my case."

Ambassador, this feedback perhaps might have been helpful before the proposal was submitted. I would also like to remind you that the voting is far from finished, with over three days remaining for nations to put forth their votes. Your mocking of earlier comments from the ambassador from Abacathea is not necessary and is frowned upon by the delegation from Concrete Slab.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Source

There is a lot of say with regard to this Act. The Office will focus on three main points.

The Act is poorly written to the degree that it does not do what it wants to do. The definition of “simple drug possession” in the Act is ineffective at actually stopping member nations from de facto criminalising the possession of drugs. This is for two reasons.

First, the target does not permit distribution of drugs for “monetary or other forms of material gain”. The intent of possessing a drug is difficult to show one way or the other. In the real world, nations set presumptions to distribute on certain quantities: eg if you are carrying 30 kilos of cocaine, the courts most anywhere will presume that you are distributing it. Member nations can easily treat almost all possession as criminal by setting small presumptions to distribute. Eg Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 s 17 (setting a presumption to distribute, inter alia, as low as 15 grammes of cannabis or 3 grammes of cocaine) (Singapore).

Second, the target’s bar on “providing drugs to an individual without their consent or otherwise with malicious intent” is extremely poorly written. The meaning of the word “malicious” in law is not “harmful”. Yet, harm has nothing to do with it: malice is “a state of mind... usually taken to be equivalent to intention or recklessness[;] it does not require any hostile attitude”. “malice”, Oxford Dictionary of Law (5th edn, 2003). The “malicious intent” clause really means that possessing drugs with intent or reckless intent is not part of “simple drug possession”. Because only simple drug possession is safeguarded against, and because most possession is intentional, this definition protects vanishingly few from criminal action.

Decriminalisation alone does not benefit member nations. What needs to be understood here is that drug decriminalisation must go with other things for it to work. Drug addicts, without treatment, are more likely to commit property crimes (from need to secure money to buy more drugs), kill or injure people recklessly (under the influence thereof), or injure themselves (from eg overdoses). The purpose of decriminalisation and more recent views on dealing with drugs is not merely to decriminalise, but to ensure treatment options are not ignored from stigma or fear of prosecution.

The resolution does only the former and none of the latter. Thus, the target resolution does almost nothing in actually preventing the emergence of crime. The main purpose is to prevent incarceration. Even pretending that incarceration is the only option, it has three main purposes: rehabilitation, incapacitation, and deterrence. Deterrence is near useless with addicts. But rehabilitation and incapacitation reduce crime levels and improve public safety by striking at its source. Many resolutions have been passed which ensure the humane and effective operation of rehabilitative policies in member states. Eg GA 194 “Treatment of Inmates”, GA 534 “Fair Treatment of Prisoners”, GA 555 “Protecting Imprisoned Youths”, etc. Insofar as there are no treatment centres to go to, it is unclear how the target resolution seeks to reduce drug harms, direct or indirect.

What the target resolution should have been was a single resolution combining decriminalisation with clear treatment options. The original authors have protested that two resolutions would do or that they did not have enough space. Both are wrongheaded: the extreme delay (and inchoate nature of) the treatment proposal leaves us with drug harms and no treatment while space easily could have been found by omitting in the target resolution a preamble almost as long as the operative text.

Treating all drugs identically does not help member nations. There is a strong argument that drugs like marijuana ought to be decriminalised. Treatment for it is readily available, though the need for treatment is relatively low. Its negative impacts also are small. On the other hand, treating other drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, and prescription drugs of that sort, is not similarly wise, especially if a drug (eg heroin) could kill a user on first use.

Most real world studies show no major harms from drug decriminalisation. This is because the vast majority of real world evidence deals with cannabis use only. Ayden Scheim et al, “Impact evaluations of drug decriminalisation and legal regulation on drug use, health and social harms: a systematic review”, (2020) 10 BMJ Open (specifically that 91.2 pc of decriminalisation articles are from the USA and 95.6 pc evaluated cannabis reform). The only clear evidence for decriminalisation of all drugs writ large comes from Portugal, where “decriminalization did not trigger dramatic changes in drug‐related behavior because [decriminalisation] largely codified de facto practices”. Hannah Laqueur, “Uses and Abuses of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal” (2015) 40 Law & Social Inquiry 746.

And Portuguese evidence is mixed. The way it is depicted in the media is poor: “the overemphasis... on the reform, and not the concurrent drug strategy which expanded services for drug users in Portugal, has fostered overconfident assertions about [decriminalisation] and a lack of appreciation of... the causal mechanisms [for] outcomes”. Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes and Alex Stevens, “A Resounding Success or a Disastrous Failure: Re-examining the Interpretation of Evidence on the Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs” (2012) 31 Drug and Alcohol Review 101, 111. And even a positive view of Portuguese reform cannot escape the need for expanded drug treatment services, ibid, which the target resolution blithely ignores.

Conclusion. The WA Office, in evaluating the target resolution, finds itself disappointed. Before us is a very nice title, in line with the zeitgeist, executed very poorly and with almost malicious disregard for the evidence. Insofar as the target resolution is ineffective it ought to be repealed. Add on top of that total disregard for the sine qua non necessity of addiction treatment and the lack of any well-written drug treatment resolutions forthcoming, the Office confidently recommends a vote in favour of repeal.

[Tinhampton]

Source

You are literally the only person in the WA who can write a successful repeal for this steaming pile of poo as it stands

[Sierra Lyricalia]

<snip>

"We disagree with the English Imperial delegation's characterization of 'malice' - many nations simply do not subscribe to the definitions Ambassador Wellesley offers. A person seeking the pharmaceutical equivalent of unusually self-destructive masturbation can hardly be said to bear 'malice.' Yet the rest of the argument holds water, and we urge the repeal of the target resolution, that it may be replaced by a more comprehensive narcotics forgiveness and treatment regime."

[Greater Cesnica]

There are a number of points which have been raised which I whole heartedly disagree with by an ambassador in this thread. That said at the risk of coming across as rude or disrespectful to nations or more importantly their players I have made a decision to allow this to run its course and I will weight in at the end with a summation of thoughts. I felt it better to state that now rather than have people think I was avoiding the thread. I will respond once this has concluded regardless of how it plays out.

"Sorry, it looks like your attempt to repeal the Drug Decriminalization Act was well and truly repudiated, by almost the same margin as the DDA's approval, no less. In the end, your resolution has failed to provide any objective and indepth rationale for repealing a milestone in human rights, and a resolution's tone and way of writing does not a bad resolution make. I rest my case."

"Ambassador, while I appreciate your, ah, passionate defense of the target resolution at hand here, I would request that you not take so much glee at the situation. Gloating of this nature is quite unbecoming of this Assembly."

[Deacarsia]

I strongly support this proposal.

[Comfed]

(Image)

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST the General Assembly Resolution, Repeal: "Drug Decriminalization Act".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

The IFV doesn’t address how the repeal points out flaws in the legislative writing itself.

[Imperium Anglorum]

<snip>

"We disagree with the English Imperial delegation's characterization of 'malice' - many nations simply do not subscribe to the definitions Ambassador Wellesley offers. A person seeking the pharmaceutical equivalent of unusually self-destructive masturbation can hardly be said to bear 'malice.' Yet the rest of the argument holds water, and we urge the repeal of the target resolution, that it may be replaced by a more comprehensive narcotics forgiveness and treatment regime."

Malicious intent to possess is just wilful possession. Malice does not imply a harmful attitude. Eg, with possession, Cal Penal Code s 18715 (it's even charged in this way, see Count 2). That's why Oxford's Dictionary of Law gives it the definition that it does.

---

(Image)

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST the General Assembly Resolution, Repeal: "Drug Decriminalization Act".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

This proposal aims to repeal the recently-passed Drug Decriminalization Act, which the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs supported. Thus, the Ministry would require significant flaws in the resolution to be uncovered before reversing this position. This repeal does not meet those standards. It declares that GA#557 should be repealed because of what it calls "polarizing statements" made by the target and because of a few small ambiguities. The ministry finds both of the potentially "polarizing" statements to be true and therefore has no issue with their inclusion in the resolution and the ambiguities in question are not significant enough to warrant repeal. Thus, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal.

The IFV doesn’t address how the repeal points out flaws in the legislative writing itself.

I think the Ministry ought to recognise certain significant flaws uncovered (or at least mentioned) in the repeal resolution, to wit:

Noting that clause 1(b)(i) in its definition of drug possession provides a defense to individuals involved in the sale and supply and/or trafficking of controlled drugs as the prima facie requirement is "monetary or personal gain" which may not always be immediately evident or easily substantiated in a court of law,

Perplexed by the concept of "malicious intent" in clause 1(b)(ii) and worried that legislation with ambiguity inevitably always favors those who would corrupt it,

Lamenting that clause 3a, sweepingly and broadly mandates the decriminalization of drugs for the purpose of "simple possession" without any consideration towards mitigating factors eg; The quantity of a controlled drug in a persons possession, nature of the adverse effects or addictive nature of said controlled drug or classification of the drug in question,

Saddened that a resolution that alludes to offender recidivism, societal participation and recommends the benefits of pardons has taken no positive steps towards addressing the root cause of drug possession, drug trafficking and black market trade i.e; addiction,

[Gonswanza]

"While you guys bicker back and forth over the morals of such a useless scrap of paper, I'll be watching the fireworks from a safe distance... That is, from my own office in Kotun. Don't even bother with a call in this case, since I already know the outcome of this poorly written excuse of a reactionary repeal, made as a rather comical attempt for a badge of self merit."

-President Mawar, shortly before leaving the WA office complex to return to Gonswanza via private jet.

[Abacathea]

"While you guys bicker back and forth over the morals of such a useless scrap of paper, I'll be watching the fireworks from a safe distance... That is, from my own office in Kotun. Don't even bother with a call in this case, since I already know the outcome of this poorly written excuse of a reactionary repeal, made as a rather comical attempt for a badge of self merit."

-President Mawar, shortly before leaving the WA office complex to return to Gonswanza via private jet.

I had intended to stay out of this until the end, but I will say this, I earned my badges a long time ago had you bothered your ass to look ambassador, and my self merit is not set by such stock either so if you’d kindly take your snark and stick it where you believe this repeal should go we can all get on with our day.

[Apatosaurus]

Don't even bother with a call in this case, since I already know the outcome of this poorly written excuse of a reactionary repeal, made as a rather comical attempt for a badge of self merit.

TL;DR

a CoMmEnDeD 15 tImE wA aUtHoR iS wRiTiNg ThIs As A bAdGe HuNt!!1!

[Imperium Anglorum]

I read the target again.

"simple drug possession" [is] the possession of drugs by an individual where such possession is not for the purposes of (i) monetary of other forms of material gain or (ii) providing drugs to an individual without their consent or otherwise with malicious intent...

The mere possession of a date rape drug is not excluded from the definition of "simple drug possession". That is not a good omission. People should not be allowed to just have ketamine or Rohypnol. A possessor should be required to make a showing that they possess such a drug for a medical reason or something similar.

There are two elements here. If we take the view that member nations can set broad rebuttable presumptions, then a member nation could also set a rebuttable presumption that possession of most any drug is to be used on someone else, making almost all possession without a pharmacy script de facto impermissible. But if we take the view that member nations cannot set broad rebuttable presumptions and would have to make a showing thereof, then member nations would have to show that possession is for the purpose of "providing drugs to an individual without their consent". Nb "providing" (which means supplying) rather than "administering", which is another textual error. Making such a showing is extremely difficult: in the same way that someone could argue that they intend to self-administer Adderall or Ritalin to help in studies, they could plausibly argue that their possession of Rohypnol is for self-administration due to insomnia (per its legitimate usage).