NationStates

I am reliably informed there is a counter campaign running against this, so it is entirely possible I may not make it to quorum. If that is the case so be it. I am a man of my word and will not force the issue any more so than I already have.

Abacathea wrote:I am reliably informed there is a counter campaign running against this, so it is entirely possible I may not make it to quorum. If that is the case so be it. I am a man of my word and will not force the issue any more so than I already have.

OOC: This is disappointing. There could be a far better replacement but obviously someone wants to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend everything is great.

Edit: Thought I had already edited this. That Aba won't continue the repeal is the disappointing bit. GC is ofc fully entitled to campaign against the repeal. That I think there could be a much better replacement is irrelevant to that.

Bananaistan wrote:

Abacathea wrote:I am reliably informed there is a counter campaign running against this, so it is entirely possible I may not make it to quorum. If that is the case so be it. I am a man of my word and will not force the issue any more so than I already have.

OOC: This is disappointing. There could be a far better replacement but obviously someone wants to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend everything is great.

Edit: Thought I had already edited this. That Aba won't continue the repeal is the disappointing bit. GC is ofc fully entitled to campaign against the repeal. That I think there could be a much better replacement is irrelevant to that.

OOC: It's currently only 1 approval short of quorum, so there's still hope of it reaching the floor.

Bears Armed wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
OOC: This is disappointing. There could be a far better replacement but obviously someone wants to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend everything is great.

Edit: Thought I had already edited this. That Aba won't continue the repeal is the disappointing bit. GC is ofc fully entitled to campaign against the repeal. That I think there could be a much better replacement is irrelevant to that.

OOC: It's currently only 1 approval short of quorum, so there's still hope of it reaching the floor.

Seems to have reached quorum 4 hours ago.

The Python wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: It's currently only 1 approval short of quorum, so there's still hope of it reaching the floor.

Seems to have reached quorum 4 hours ago.

Only two questions remain so, will it stay there, and will it survive the vote.

Edit; Can confirm this is still being campaigned against and thanks to a program a kind member nation have me access to 13 delegates have removed their approval. Again cest la vie.

Edit; With three hours before quorum locks in, we are at quorum by two endorsements. Despite the removal of 22 endorsements. It remains to be seen how this plays out.

Abacathea wrote:

The Python wrote:Seems to have reached quorum 4 hours ago.

Only two questions remain so, will it stay there, and will it survive the vote.

Edit; Can confirm this is still being campaigned against and thanks to a program a kind member nation have me access to 13 delegates have removed their approval. Again cest la vie.

InfoEurope is a useful tool indeed.

"This repeal attempt doesn't even pretend to do a good job at addressing the actual case for decriminalizing drugs, and instead relies on the genetic fallacy, attacking the resolution's tone and language instead of actually trying to refute the central point of the debate. For this reason, it would be foolish to roll back a direly needed reform based on "I don't like it", and given that the repeal proponents have presented zero concrete arguments for why the Drug Decriminalization Act should be repealed asides from logical fallacies, and the fact it was passed with a overwhelming >65% supermajority, this flawed repeal attempt should be rejected with haste."

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: A resolution getting less than two-thirds of the vote... isn't generally seen as an "overwhelming supermajority," at least not in the General Assembly.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:"This repeal attempt doesn't even pretend to do a good job at addressing the actual case for decriminalizing drugs, and instead relies on the genetic fallacy, attacking the resolution's tone and language instead of actually trying to refute the central point of the debate. For this reason, it would be foolish to roll back a direly needed reform based on "I don't like it", and given that the repeal proponents have presented zero concrete arguments for why the Drug Decriminalization Act should be repealed asides from logical fallacies, and the fact it was passed with a overwhelming >65% supermajority, this flawed repeal attempt should be rejected with haste."

You’re right it doesn’t. Because a repeal cannot target issues outside of the target resolution. That would be illegal per GA rules.

It does however have a number of points that targets the actual proposal. Perhaps you should go back and read it? I would also recommend whilst you’re in the mood for some light reading perhaps some light calculus too, 65% does not a “supermajority” make ambassador.

Abacathea wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:"This repeal attempt doesn't even pretend to do a good job at addressing the actual case for decriminalizing drugs, and instead relies on the genetic fallacy, attacking the resolution's tone and language instead of actually trying to refute the central point of the debate. For this reason, it would be foolish to roll back a direly needed reform based on "I don't like it", and given that the repeal proponents have presented zero concrete arguments for why the Drug Decriminalization Act should be repealed asides from logical fallacies, and the fact it was passed with a overwhelming >65% supermajority, this flawed repeal attempt should be rejected with haste."

You’re right it doesn’t. Because a repeal cannot target issues outside of the target resolution. That would be illegal per GA rules.

It does however have a number of points that targets the actual proposal. Perhaps you should go back and read it? I would also recommend whilst you’re in the mood for some light reading perhaps some light calculus too, 65% does not a “supermajority” make ambassador.

"Your resolution is a case of the genetic fallacy, pure and simple. By now it's common knowledge that the so-called "War on Drugs" has been an unmitigated disaster everywhere it has been attempted, so prohibitionists have resorted to desperate attacks over tone and phrasing of all things just to try to mislead the General Assembly into repealing an evidence based reform that would improve human rights and social wellbeing worldwide. Needless to say, unless you have compelling evidence to the contrary of drug decriminalization's efficacy, this proposal will be rejected."

Just lol if you think the target resolution is evidence-based reform.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Just lol if you think the target resolution is evidence-based reform.

"At this point, the "War on Drugs" is a self-evident failure, unless the Ambassador has been living under a rock for the past few decades."

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Just lol if you think the target resolution is evidence-based reform.

"At this point, the "War on Drugs" is a self-evident failure, unless the Ambassador has been living under a rock for the past few decades."

"What is this War on Drugs you refer to? It's certainly nothing that Bananaistan and our allies in the Wasraw Pact have heard of."

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Just lol if you think the target resolution is evidence-based reform.

"At this point, the "War on Drugs" is a self-evident failure, unless the Ambassador has been living under a rock for the past few decades."

And you think the alternative is the solution? Simply decriminalize and leave people off to it? I can assure you I have more than enough experience in the field to know exactly the societal consequences of drug abuse. Lawful or otherwise.

Abacathea wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:"At this point, the "War on Drugs" is a self-evident failure, unless the Ambassador has been living under a rock for the past few decades."

And you think the alternative is the solution? Simply decriminalize and leave people off to it? I can assure you I have more than enough experience in the field to know exactly the societal consequences of drug abuse. Lawful or otherwise.

Criminalizing drugs does not, and will not, prevent people from attaining drugs, which is a major issue to such IRL things as the War on Drugs. In terms of NS, that would still apply.

It's like banning guns. People will still get their hands on guns somehow, so why ban them or criminalize them?

Another point I'd like to bring up is that if you criminalize something, you immediately remove any norms or restrictions that were on that thing. In this case, anyone could consume drugs, no matter the age, gender, race, ethnicity, anything of that sort. If you don't believe me, check out the Prohibition in 1920s and 30s America. Alcohol was criminalized, but everyone still had it, and everyone consumed it. The reason it failed was because of these two points I've made.

Untecna wrote:

Abacathea wrote:
And you think the alternative is the solution? Simply decriminalize and leave people off to it? I can assure you I have more than enough experience in the field to know exactly the societal consequences of drug abuse. Lawful or otherwise.

Criminalizing drugs does not, and will not, prevent people from attaining drugs, which is a major issue to such IRL things as the War on Drugs. In terms of NS, that would still apply.

It's like banning guns. People will still get their hands on guns somehow, so why ban them or criminalize them?

Another point I'd like to bring up is that if you criminalize something, you immediately remove any norms or restrictions that were on that thing. In this case, anyone could consume drugs, no matter the age, gender, race, ethnicity, anything of that sort. If you don't believe me, check out the Prohibition in 1920s and 30s America. Alcohol was criminalized, but everyone still had it, and everyone consumed it. The reason it failed was because of these two points I've made.

OOC: And yet many countries IRL have successfully severely restricted guns.

Bananaistan wrote:

Untecna wrote:Criminalizing drugs does not, and will not, prevent people from attaining drugs, which is a major issue to such IRL things as the War on Drugs. In terms of NS, that would still apply.

It's like banning guns. People will still get their hands on guns somehow, so why ban them or criminalize them?

Another point I'd like to bring up is that if you criminalize something, you immediately remove any norms or restrictions that were on that thing. In this case, anyone could consume drugs, no matter the age, gender, race, ethnicity, anything of that sort. If you don't believe me, check out the Prohibition in 1920s and 30s America. Alcohol was criminalized, but everyone still had it, and everyone consumed it. The reason it failed was because of these two points I've made.

OOC: And yet many countries IRL have successfully severely restricted guns.

OOC: Most of these countries did not outlaw guns altogether, but implemented training and licensing programs for prospective gun owners, while restricting the sale of military-grade equipment and modifications. They also happened to be fairly developed and with a more egalitarian distribution of wealth, with low levels of corruption and crime, and with well-functioning criminal justice systems. Drug abuse and related illnesses and cartels however remain rampant in all countries that have extreme prohibitionist laws against them, particularly the US, with the DEA only able to stop less than 1% of all drugs smuggled into the country, and with their potency and impurities rising year by year thanks to the drug market being driven underground, beyond licensed regulators. On the contrary, countries that have decriminalized drugs, most notably Portugal, have successfully reduced rates of drug abuse and HIV/AIDS infections, and drug-related crimes and cartel activities also plumetted in the country, not to mention significantly lower rates of overdoses and deaths related to drug addictions. All in all, their drug policy has been a solid success, especially since they were a nation dealing with rampant crime and disease epidemics before they adopted decriminalization, and now their rates of drug related crimes, diseases, and deaths are well below the EU average, as is drug abuse.

https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-de ... d-straight
https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug ... alization/

Abacathea wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:"At this point, the "War on Drugs" is a self-evident failure, unless the Ambassador has been living under a rock for the past few decades."

And you think the alternative is the solution? Simply decriminalize and leave people off to it? I can assure you I have more than enough experience in the field to know exactly the societal consequences of drug abuse. Lawful or otherwise.

"With all due respect, Ambassador, throwing people in inhumane cages and leaving them to be brutalized in abusive prisons instead of actually treating their underlying addiction and resolving any socioeconomic problems they have is not an answer that would actually accomplish a world without drugs, quite the contrary. All it would result in is embolden dangerous drug cartels to take over all drug-related production and rake in enormous profits and influence as demand remains unbroken, while entire communities would be ripped apart by police brutality and human rights abuses, with the people being arrested ending up even worse than before they were imprisoned to begin with, in most cases becoming violent criminals immediately after release. Recriminalizing drugs and violently persecuting drug users who never actually hurt anyone would be the equivalent of shooting oneself in the crotch, and the only entity that would actually benefit from this chaos are the cartels themselves. For this reason, your repeal attempt is simply misguided, and should be struck down with prejudice."

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:

Abacathea wrote:
And you think the alternative is the solution? Simply decriminalize and leave people off to it? I can assure you I have more than enough experience in the field to know exactly the societal consequences of drug abuse. Lawful or otherwise.

"With all due respect, Ambassador, throwing people in inhumane cages and leaving them to be brutalized in abusive prisons instead of actually treating their underlying addiction and resolving any socioeconomic problems they have is not an answer that would actually accomplish a world without drugs, quite the contrary. All it would result in is embolden dangerous drug cartels to take over all drug-related production and rake in enormous profits and influence as demand remains unbroken, while entire communities would be ripped apart by police brutality and human rights abuses, with the people being arrested ending up even worse than before they were imprisoned to begin with, in most cases becoming violent criminals immediately after release. Recriminalizing drugs and violently persecuting drug users who never actually hurt anyone would be the equivalent of shooting oneself in the crotch, and the only entity that would actually benefit from this chaos are the cartels themselves. For this reason, your repeal attempt is simply misguided, and should be struck down with prejudice."

Respectfully ambassador you’re spouting the same rhetoric that I find deplorable as the target resolution. You seem to have this notion that nations across the universe as well as “RL” have nothing but brutalizing police forces and prisons which engage in systematic and constant abuse. And to then go on to suggest as you have that all drug users are criminalized for is drug use and they’d be otherwise upstanding individuals is nonsense. It is extremely evident that your picture of the justice systems is painted by zero experience of it, or at worst one bad experience which you’ve colored your perspective with.

Perhaps the next time your house is being burgled by an armed junkie looking for cash for their next fix you can call a therapist to the scene rather than the police.

Abacathea wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:"With all due respect, Ambassador, throwing people in inhumane cages and leaving them to be brutalized in abusive prisons instead of actually treating their underlying addiction and resolving any socioeconomic problems they have is not an answer that would actually accomplish a world without drugs, quite the contrary. All it would result in is embolden dangerous drug cartels to take over all drug-related production and rake in enormous profits and influence as demand remains unbroken, while entire communities would be ripped apart by police brutality and human rights abuses, with the people being arrested ending up even worse than before they were imprisoned to begin with, in most cases becoming violent criminals immediately after release. Recriminalizing drugs and violently persecuting drug users who never actually hurt anyone would be the equivalent of shooting oneself in the crotch, and the only entity that would actually benefit from this chaos are the cartels themselves. For this reason, your repeal attempt is simply misguided, and should be struck down with prejudice."

Respectfully ambassador you’re spouting the same rhetoric that I find deplorable as the target resolution. You seem to have this notion that nations across the universe as well as “RL” have nothing but brutalizing police forces and prisons which engage in systematic and constant abuse. And to then go on to suggest as you have that all drug users are criminalized for is drug use and they’d be otherwise upstanding individuals is nonsense. It is extremely evident that your picture of the justice systems is painted by zero experience of it, or at worst one bad experience which you’ve colored your perspective with.

Perhaps the next time your house is being burgled by an armed junkie looking for cash for their next fix you can call a therapist to the scene rather than the police.

"Ambassador, no one is arguing that burglary or robbery ought to be illegal. I just believe, as I understand the esteemed ambassador from Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia also believes, that merely having a dependence to drugs, which is almost by nature out of the control of the individual afflicted, should not be criminalized. Perhaps if this 'armed junkie' were able to seek help for his addiction, without worrying about being deprived of liberty, he would not be in a position to commit such a crime."

Abacathea wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:"With all due respect, Ambassador, throwing people in inhumane cages and leaving them to be brutalized in abusive prisons instead of actually treating their underlying addiction and resolving any socioeconomic problems they have is not an answer that would actually accomplish a world without drugs, quite the contrary. All it would result in is embolden dangerous drug cartels to take over all drug-related production and rake in enormous profits and influence as demand remains unbroken, while entire communities would be ripped apart by police brutality and human rights abuses, with the people being arrested ending up even worse than before they were imprisoned to begin with, in most cases becoming violent criminals immediately after release. Recriminalizing drugs and violently persecuting drug users who never actually hurt anyone would be the equivalent of shooting oneself in the crotch, and the only entity that would actually benefit from this chaos are the cartels themselves. For this reason, your repeal attempt is simply misguided, and should be struck down with prejudice."

Respectfully ambassador you’re spouting the same rhetoric that I find deplorable as the target resolution. You seem to have this notion that nations across the universe as well as “RL” have nothing but brutalizing police forces and prisons which engage in systematic and constant abuse. And to then go on to suggest as you have that all drug users are criminalized for is drug use and they’d be otherwise upstanding individuals is nonsense. It is extremely evident that your picture of the justice systems is painted by zero experience of it, or at worst one bad experience which you’ve colored your perspective with.

Perhaps the next time your house is being burgled by an armed junkie looking for cash for their next fix you can call a therapist to the scene rather than the police.

"If that "armed junkie" you speak of was actually able to get freely accessible help for his drug addiction and poor living standards without fear of being outed and then thrown into a torturous cage for being a drug user, then there would be no robbery to speak of, Ambassador. I myself come from a nation where decriminalization has greatly reduced drug-related crimes, addictions, and deaths, and drug cartels are a relic of the past, virtually nonexistent in terms of influence in our country, and our treasury has ample revenue from taxing and regulating the recreational drug sector. We of course seek to direct our citizens away from hazardous drugs such as heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, ketamine, and other opiates, but for herbs such as cannabis, we apply the principle of moderation to consumption, exactly as was practiced with alcohol and cigarettes in the past, and incidentally, many of our citizens have ceased consuming alcohol entirely in light of this shift, with cannabis by far being the most harmless alternative out of these, and our public health still remains excellent in spite of fearmongering that legalizing soft drugs would make us a "nation of dopeheads". 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."

Barfleur wrote:

Abacathea wrote:
Respectfully ambassador you’re spouting the same rhetoric that I find deplorable as the target resolution. You seem to have this notion that nations across the universe as well as “RL” have nothing but brutalizing police forces and prisons which engage in systematic and constant abuse. And to then go on to suggest as you have that all drug users are criminalized for is drug use and they’d be otherwise upstanding individuals is nonsense. It is extremely evident that your picture of the justice systems is painted by zero experience of it, or at worst one bad experience which you’ve colored your perspective with.

Perhaps the next time your house is being burgled by an armed junkie looking for cash for their next fix you can call a therapist to the scene rather than the police.

"Ambassador, no one is arguing that burglary or robbery ought to be illegal. I just believe, as I understand the esteemed ambassador from Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia also believes, that merely having a dependence to drugs, which is almost by nature out of the control of the individual afflicted, should not be criminalized. Perhaps if this 'armed junkie' were able to seek help for his addiction, without worrying about being deprived of liberty, he would not be in a position to commit such a crime."

OOC: I think you meant legal, right? Burglary obviously is illegal.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:

Abacathea wrote:
Respectfully ambassador you’re spouting the same rhetoric that I find deplorable as the target resolution. You seem to have this notion that nations across the universe as well as “RL” have nothing but brutalizing police forces and prisons which engage in systematic and constant abuse. And to then go on to suggest as you have that all drug users are criminalized for is drug use and they’d be otherwise upstanding individuals is nonsense. It is extremely evident that your picture of the justice systems is painted by zero experience of it, or at worst one bad experience which you’ve colored your perspective with.

Perhaps the next time your house is being burgled by an armed junkie looking for cash for their next fix you can call a therapist to the scene rather than the police.

"If that "armed junkie" you speak of was actually able to get freely accessible help for his drug addiction and poor living standards without fear of being outed and then thrown into a torturous cage for being a drug user, then there would be no robbery to speak of, Ambassador. I myself come from a nation where decriminalization has greatly reduced drug-related crimes, addictions, and deaths, and drug cartels are a relic of the past, virtually nonexistent in terms of influence in our country, and our treasury has ample revenue from taxing and regulating the recreational drug sector. We of course seek to direct our citizens away from hazardous drugs such as heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, ketamine, and other opiates, but for herbs such as cannabis, we apply the principle of moderation to consumption, exactly as was practiced with alcohol and cigarettes in the past, and incidentally, many of our citizens have ceased consuming alcohol entirely in light of this shift, with cannabis by far being the most harmless alternative out of these, and our public health still remains excellent in spite of fearmongering that legalizing soft drugs would make us a "nation of dopeheads". 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."

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.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:

Barfleur wrote:"Ambassador, no one is arguing that burglary or robbery ought to be illegal. I just believe, as I understand the esteemed ambassador from Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia also believes, that merely having a dependence to drugs, which is almost by nature out of the control of the individual afflicted, should not be criminalized. Perhaps if this 'armed junkie' were able to seek help for his addiction, without worrying about being deprived of liberty, he would not be in a position to commit such a crime."

OOC: I think you meant legal, right? Burglary obviously is illegal.

OOC: Yes, I should have noticed that!

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.

"These are all good points you make, ambassador, and I will address them to the best of my ability. As to your first point, I believe addiction services should primarily be sought voluntarily, and in the alternate, if a person is picked up for a minor offense and appears to be under the influence of a drug (such as trespassing on someone else's yard to 'hit the bong,' as I hear the youth do nowadays), the court should be able to impose a sentence of treatment as opposed to a fine (which only punishes the state of being poor) or imprisonment (which only makes an unfortunate person's life even worse). If a person is addicted to a drug and manages not to commit any crimes, then they should not be criminalized just for addiction or simple possession. As to your second point, I am quite familiar with chess with pigeons; that's what comes with playing board games in the park with friends--every so often, a bird will come in and have its way with your game. And I certainly did not imply that police or judges are inherently corrupt, or anything of that sort, as I know many of each personally as part of my job, and I can assure you that they are as professional and even-handed as you will find. As to your third point, I did not make the point that the state should be required to subsidize recreational drugs (that should be up to each locality, ideally). I simply think that if 'el adicto' is able to live a law-abiding life while suffering from a serious physiological impairment, that does not pose a threat to society. An armed home invader is certainly not a law-abiding person, and a hippie who smokes marijuana on a park bench while humming Bob Marley songs is not a criminal in the making."

Abacathea wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:"If that "armed junkie" you speak of was actually able to get freely accessible help for his drug addiction and poor living standards without fear of being outed and then thrown into a torturous cage for being a drug user, then there would be no robbery to speak of, Ambassador. I myself come from a nation where decriminalization has greatly reduced drug-related crimes, addictions, and deaths, and drug cartels are a relic of the past, virtually nonexistent in terms of influence in our country, and our treasury has ample revenue from taxing and regulating the recreational drug sector. We of course seek to direct our citizens away from hazardous drugs such as heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, ketamine, and other opiates, but for herbs such as cannabis, we apply the principle of moderation to consumption, exactly as was practiced with alcohol and cigarettes in the past, and incidentally, many of our citizens have ceased consuming alcohol entirely in light of this shift, with cannabis by far being the most harmless alternative out of these, and our public health still remains excellent in spite of fearmongering that legalizing soft drugs would make us a "nation of dopeheads". 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."

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."