Yet another 'Legalize It!' Proposal...

[Enheightening]

CONSIDERING it to be each person's right to pursue whatever spiritual ambitions one may, with whatever substances they may, with exception given only to the safety of those non-participants.

THEREBY legalizing for personal use the sale, purchase, and consumption of substances that make use of chemicals that can not be consumed in such quantity as to be proven immediately harmful to a user. The power to restrict growth of any concerned substances that may be herbal to that of legally established and licensed businesses shall remain with each nation-state.

MANDATING that each nation-state will make allowances for these industry to grow as free from regulation as other industries are in said nation.

STIPULATING that:
a) Nation-states reserve the right to restrict the consumption of concerned substances to a person's private property in such cases as the following are not true:
1) A legally supported lease agreement is not already in place that restricts the signed as to such actions as smoking indoors.
2) A business owner has, in legal accordance with the member-state's laws, decided to allow open-area consumption of concerned substances.
3) A hotel, or other temporary residence, is being legally paid for by the participant in which such activities has been pre-allowed.

NOTING that a personal vehicle, for the sake of this resolution, does not constitute private property. Individual nation-states shall retain the right under this resolution to abolish the consumption of concerned substances in conjunction with operating vehicles.

ENCOURAGING all complying nations to properly label all substances for sale with an accurate and complete description of chemicals/ingredients contained, possible adverse reactions, health conditions from which concurrent usage may produce health issues, and whatever else may be mandated by each nation-states food, health and/or pharmacuetical policies.

ENCOURAGES nation-states to embrace this new industry and tax it unprejudicially.

ALLOWING nation-states to decide whether or not to set a minimum age for consumption on concerned substances but only when based upon precedents set by similar issues such as the age to vote, drive, consume alcohol, and getting married.

[Vocatus]

Might as well get in early.

NO.

[Dave Nation (Ancient)]

While the Free Land of Dave Nation supports the right of the individual within its own borders to consume such substances, it does not feel it is the job of the World Assembly to require other nations to feel the same way. The ability to smoke pot is not so important a right that Dave Nation would want to impose its own view on the issue on another sovereign nation.

That being said, citizens of such nations are welcome to travel to the environmentally stunning Dave Nation to tour our wilderness and get as high as they like. Currency exchange rates are very equitable, so exchange for some Daves, see our countryside, smoke up, spray some graffiti on our walls and spend spend spend.

[Enheightening]

-Taking the liberty to pause in reflection, his fingers worked deftly over a joint soon to be smoked, and before long it was sitting between his lips, patiently bobbing as it awaited a flame's touch.

While the Free Land of Dave Nation supports the right of the individual within its own borders to consume such substances, it does not feel it is the job of the World Assembly to require other nations to feel the same way. The ability to smoke pot is not so important a right that Dave Nation would want to impose its own view on the issue on another sovereign nation.

It doesn't sound to me like you support the right of the individual, friend. One can not do so and at the same time call for national sovereignty on an issue. Not that it may not be admirable to allow member-nations exclusive rights to legislate on certain matters... we simply disagree that this is one such case.

-Opening the zippo with one swipe against his jeans, the young Jonathon William Stone swiped once more in the opposite direction and spawned fire from a struck flint, inhaling thoughtfully and offering it to the Ambassador with whom he was discussing,-

While we may agree that this is a narrow scope for legislation, I can not help but think this issue is a microcausm for so many other things. Until we as legislators set ourselves free of this paradigm that tells us we know better than our citizens, we are no better than overbearing parents... in fact much worse, as we have no biological or instinctual pull for the furtherment of our family.

I believe that parents should have the right to parent... but let us not restrict a parents' choices, hmm? Let us not assume all parents would have their children not smoke marijuana. And for the love of freedom lets let our children... and, more pointedly, all our peoples learn through experience what is bad or good.

The point of legislation is to mitigate freedoms where they may encroach upon another person's equal freedom. Lets not overstep our bounds. And when a nation has overstepped that boundary, is it not our very duty to reaffirm these god given rights?

-Whether or not the other Ambassador partook, Jon would retrieve the joint when it was again his turn and take leave of speach to enjoy the splendid aroma and flavor of this harmless and happy aphrodesiac.-

[Vocatus]

The point of legislation is to mitigate freedoms where they may encroach upon another person's equal freedom. Lets not overstep our bounds. And when a nation has overstepped that boundary, is it not our very duty to reaffirm these god given rights?

That may be your governing philosophy, but we reserve the right to protect our citizens from things that would harm them. And among the many rights enshrined in our Constitution, the right to ingest harmful substances is not one.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Zakath awoke from sleeping on his modified desk at the term "god-given rights"

What? Since when is the WA legislating based on god-given rights? Find another basis for a persons' right to consume potentially dangerous substances before coming to the WA to legislate on it. Opposed due to conflict with current national legislation, and lack of need.

[Southern Darenjon Territories]

No. This is something we like to call MICROMANAGEMENT.

[Mallorea and Riva]

For the record I think that this piece of legislation could be workable on the National level, but to have it put in place on the international level is simply not necessary. I respect the wishes of nations that would adopt this policy, but it is not something the WA should be dealing with.

[Enheightening]

That may be your governing philosophy, but we reserve the right to protect our citizens from things that would harm them. And among the many rights enshrined in our Constitution, the right to ingest harmful substances is not one.

While I do not think that my governing philosophy should become your own, I do not think that this difference of opinion negates the fact that this body is entitled and burdened with the authority to vote on such matters. Would you care to define 'harmful,' friend, so that perhaps I could be more specific about which substances I wish to legalize? Or...

-Smiling now, Jon's eyes were beginning to glaze over with that all too familiar and comforting watery fog. Licking his lips, and pondering why he hadn't bothered to bring a drink with him, he let billow out another exhale.-

Or perhaps safety is only a shining knight that conservatives use to champion their cause? Make no mistake... I do not wish to legalize drugs that will promote violence or lack of safety. I do, however, recognize marijuana (for example,) as being fairly harmless. Not only will you fall asleep before you overdose from it (as sure a thing as no human can kill themselves by holding their breath,) but it has no dabilitating effects. If it is mildly unhealthy it is no moreso than alcohol, and should be provisioned with no more caution.

If, in fact, one were to argue that drugs cause crime then I would venture a guess that legalizing it would serve to lessen crime in as much a way as lifting prohibition of alcohol might for a country. Furthermore, it is another thing for nation's to tax. It is another industry that will add to the agriculture and beauty of a nation rather than fill its sky with smog.

-Perhaps on a bit of a tangent, and catching himself as he noticed his neglected joint, he'd take time to pause and regather what points he was trying to make exactly over another inhale.-

What? Since when is the WA legislating based on god-given rights?

Forgive me, if the phrase itself implies some divine authority I never fully intended. However, as innocent (if naive,) figures of speach go, I'd say god-given rights is exactly what this Assembly strives to protect. The rights of the accused? The right to marriage? The right to employment without prejudice? Right to privacy? Right to medical care? Right to practice one's own religion? Are these not what we can, stepping momentarily away from political correctness and religious debate, all agree are 'god-given rights'?

And while we are granting the freedom to practice one's own religion are we not remiss for not having already allowed that spiritual polytheist to smoke his peyote? Or that college student to clear his mind and have a refreshing night's sleep before an exam?

-Breathlessly, he solicited another inhale from the joint, rolling it this way and that in his hand... examining it absent-mindedly as he held that smoke for a specified amount of time and then let it go. Licking his thumb, he began to poke moisture onto the rolling paper where it had started burning unevenly.-

Representatives... friends... I do not expect everyone to agree, but I would hope for some more constructive criticisms. Whether or not this issue is of great importance to you, I believe we are duty-bound to address it.

Does anyone think it would be necessary, though fairly superfluous, to include a small-ish paragraph in the proposal's text outlining some good thay may come from this being passed? Or perhaps some more rights given to the nation-state for regulating? One thing I can think of that I probably should've included is the affirmation of a nation's right to prohibit trafficking of substances across international borders.

[Mallorea and Riva]

International borders, now there is something you could potentially work with. Unfortunately it has already been covered here

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Opposed! The resolutions on drug trafficking and the legalisation of medical drugs is enough.

[Enheightening]

I'll have to put to rest the bit about international borders... it has indeed been already covered.

Opposed! The resolutions on drug trafficking and the legalisation of medical drugs is enough.

The resolution on drug trafficking explicitly says that, with the exception of international trafficking, it will not be construed to stand as a blocker to future legislation on consumption and distribution. Therefore I do not know what you mean by, 'it is enough,' unless of course that was an emotional allusion to historic votes that haven't gone your way. In which case I am terribly sorry for your loss, but I do not think that you have made a valid point.

Saying that someone may smoke marijuana if they have cancer is not at all enough. It is not even the same topic!

-Puffing idly on his dying joint as the discussions continued he was beginning to feel his position was indefensible... though, honestly, frustration was rising within him as he saw little foundation for the opposition's arguement. All staunchness aside, nobody has yet attempted to explain why recreational drugs are bad. Rubbing the joint out against the side of his desk, Jon put the half inch roach into his pocket for later use.-

[Mallorea and Riva]

Zakath sighed and leaned back in his chair
You are currently encountering the phenomena known as "opposition to micromanagement". There is a universal belief that there IS a line between what the WA should and should not legislate one. Where that line falls is another matter. It is the opinion of those you are currently arguing with that the WA is on the wrong side of the line with this issue. It is recreational, therefore it is hardly of vital importance. That is why there is no need for legislation on it.

[Dukopolious]

CONSIDERING it to be each person's right to pursue whatever spiritual ambitions one may, with whatever substances they may, with exception given only to the safety of those non-participants.

THEREBY legalizing for personal use the sale, purchase, and consumption of substances that make use of chemicals that can not be consumed in such quantity as to be proven immediately harmful to a user. The power to restrict growth of any concerned substances that may be herbal to that of legally established and licensed businesses shall remain with each nation-state.

MANDATING that each nation-state will make allowances for these industry to grow as free from regulation as other industries are in said nation.

STIPULATING that:
a) Nation-states reserve the right to restrict the consumption of concerned substances to a person's private property in such cases as the following are not true:
1) A legally supported lease agreement is not already in place that restricts the signed as to such actions as smoking indoors.
2) A business owner has, in legal accordance with the member-state's laws, decided to allow open-area consumption of concerned substances.
3) A hotel, or other temporary residence, is being legally paid for by the participant in which such activities has been pre-allowed.

NOTING that a personal vehicle, for the sake of this resolution, does not constitute private property. Individual nation-states shall retain the right under this resolution to abolish the consumption of concerned substances in conjunction with operating vehicles.

ENCOURAGING all complying nations to properly label all substances for sale with an accurate and complete description of chemicals/ingredients contained, possible adverse reactions, health conditions from which concurrent usage may produce health issues, and whatever else may be mandated by each nation-states food, health and/or pharmacuetical policies.

ENCOURAGES nation-states to embrace this new industry and tax it unprejudicially.

ALLOWING nation-states to decide whether or not to set a minimum age for consumption on concerned substances but only when based upon precedents set by similar issues such as the age to vote, drive, consume alcohol, and getting married.

firstly Nice flag
Secondly strength and category.

[Enheightening]

You are currently encountering the phenomena known as "opposition to micromanagement". There is a universal belief that there IS a line between what the WA should and should not legislate one.

I can agree with your deduction, friend, though I think this is more or less the National Sovereignty card being played. I think we mean the same thing... only I'm a little more blunt, as frankly the National Sovereignty card is a card that can be argued to apply for anything by one talented with words and subversion. Don't get me wrong-- I am not accusing you of subversion, Ambassador, in fact I welcome this debate and think that it is healthy.

What I am doing is accusing those who use that card too much of 'copping out' and, essentially, attempting to squash discussion on anything they don't like without troubling themselves with constructing an arguement.

It is recreational, therefore it is hardly of vital importance.

Agreed. However, it is not the right granted that should be examined; it is the nation's authority to strip an individual of that right. Why should a nation be allowed to abolish something so whimsical and 'unimportant?'

What if a nation abolished sports? Again... this is not important, but isn't it absurd? And would we not be righteous in our speed as we outlined a proposal allowing all populations to fund and organize their own sporting events?

Many leaders may ask themselves, "Why should they have the right?" I beseech all of those gathered here today to ask themselves, "Why shouldn't they?" I recognize and fully appreciate the fact that it is a nation's responsibility to serve, protect, and provide for its citizens. What then is the responsibility of this body? Is it not to make sure those nations do a good job? Are we not supervisors and micromanagers by our very nature?

Let us not be afraid to step up to the plate, friends. Let us not be afraid to be bold. The time for cut and dry policies has gone; they have already been written! If we can not surpass ourselves than our efforts are superfluous.

Secondly strength and category.

I would like to work on the text a bit more first, but do not think I am not thinking of an appropriate category and how to possibly re-write this legislation to fit. Do you have any recommendations? I may take a slightly different angle on the whole thing and see if I can't get a mild furtherment of industry proposal allowed.

[Mousebumples]

I would like to work on the text a bit more first, but do not think I am not thinking of an appropriate category and how to possibly re-write this legislation to fit. Do you have any recommendations? I may take a slightly different angle on the whole thing and see if I can't get a mild furtherment of industry proposal allowed.

This is Recreational Drug Use. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you're dealing with access to recreational drugs, it belongs in that category. Don't try to claim that it can/does fit in any other category.

[Hellegnium]

CONSIDERING it to be each person's right to pursue whatever spiritual ambitions one may, with whatever substances they may, with exception given only to the safety of those non-participants.

THEREBY legalizing for personal use the sale, purchase, and consumption of substances that make use of chemicals that can not be consumed in such quantity as to be proven immediately harmful to a user. The power to restrict growth of any concerned substances that may be herbal to that of legally established and licensed businesses shall remain with each nation-state.

MANDATING that each nation-state will make allowances for these industry to grow as free from regulation as other industries are in said nation.

STIPULATING that:
a) Nation-states reserve the right to restrict the consumption of concerned substances to a person's private property in such cases as the following are not true:
1) A legally supported lease agreement is not already in place that restricts the signed as to such actions as smoking indoors.
2) A business owner has, in legal accordance with the member-state's laws, decided to allow open-area consumption of concerned substances.
3) A hotel, or other temporary residence, is being legally paid for by the participant in which such activities has been pre-allowed.

NOTING that a personal vehicle, for the sake of this resolution, does not constitute private property. Individual nation-states shall retain the right under this resolution to abolish the consumption of concerned substances in conjunction with operating vehicles.

ENCOURAGING all complying nations to properly label all substances for sale with an accurate and complete description of chemicals/ingredients contained, possible adverse reactions, health conditions from which concurrent usage may produce health issues, and whatever else may be mandated by each nation-states food, health and/or pharmacuetical policies.

ENCOURAGES nation-states to embrace this new industry and tax it unprejudicially.

ALLOWING nation-states to decide whether or not to set a minimum age for consumption on concerned substances but only when based upon precedents set by similar issues such as the age to vote, drive, consume alcohol, and getting married.

NO! The Hippies Will NOT Win!!!

[Mallorea and Riva]

CONSIDERING it to be each person's right to pursue whatever spiritual ambitions one may, with whatever substances they may, with exception given only to the safety of those non-participants.

THEREBY legalizing for personal use the sale, purchase, and consumption of substances that make use of chemicals that can not be consumed in such quantity as to be proven immediately harmful to a user. The power to restrict growth of any concerned substances that may be herbal to that of legally established and licensed businesses shall remain with each nation-state.

MANDATING that each nation-state will make allowances for these industry to grow as free from regulation as other industries are in said nation.

STIPULATING that:
a) Nation-states reserve the right to restrict the consumption of concerned substances to a person's private property in such cases as the following are not true:
1) A legally supported lease agreement is not already in place that restricts the signed as to such actions as smoking indoors.
2) A business owner has, in legal accordance with the member-state's laws, decided to allow open-area consumption of concerned substances.
3) A hotel, or other temporary residence, is being legally paid for by the participant in which such activities has been pre-allowed.

NOTING that a personal vehicle, for the sake of this resolution, does not constitute private property. Individual nation-states shall retain the right under this resolution to abolish the consumption of concerned substances in conjunction with operating vehicles.

ENCOURAGING all complying nations to properly label all substances for sale with an accurate and complete description of chemicals/ingredients contained, possible adverse reactions, health conditions from which concurrent usage may produce health issues, and whatever else may be mandated by each nation-states food, health and/or pharmacuetical policies.

ENCOURAGES nation-states to embrace this new industry and tax it unprejudicially.

ALLOWING nation-states to decide whether or not to set a minimum age for consumption on concerned substances but only when based upon precedents set by similar issues such as the age to vote, drive, consume alcohol, and getting married.

NO! The Hippies Will NOT Win!!!

Hardly constructive criticism wouldn't you say?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Um, please...

[Enheightening]

This is Recreational Drug Use. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you're dealing with access to recreational drugs, it belongs in that category. Don't try to claim that it can/does fit in any other category.

I'm not even going to try and argue that. In all honesty I must admit that I'm new here and am still learning my way around. If there is a category for Recreational Drug Use I shall certainly make use of it! And I suppose that would make the strength medium... or whatever word means that.

-Though it did occur to Jon that he might've slipped up due to being high, he cleverly decided not to admit that openly... as it would be bad for his arguement.-

The Hippies Will NOT Win!!!

While I'm sure the Ambassador is making something of a 'joke,' I'd like to take the time to point out how extremely stereotypical and narrow-minded that arguement is... if only so others may see parts of it reflected in their own logic. These 'hippies,' as it was so eloquently put, demand rights. As did various ethnicities, religions, and genders at one point.

While I am aware that I am prone to exaggeration-- I also take the time to check my various opinions for consistancy on neighboring topics. In this particular case I can see the potential harms of legalizing marijuana... as I can see the potential harm in allowing homosexuals into a nation's military. Based on related precedent (in my own country and in this Assembly,) however, I do not think these problems outweigh the right.

Based on so much passed legislation I can only say that this is, in fact, the logical next step that we are so unwilling to take. The brink upon which we stand but pause before leaping to say, "No... no person shall have the right to infringe upon another's rights to life, liberty, and happiness. However, we, as the all-knowing government, shall infringe upon their rights to liberty and happiness when it pleases us."

[Zhelezo]

Countries that do not legalize drug use are only hurting themselves. Drugs can just be smuggled in from countries where drugs are legal.

Though I personally believe in the legalization of drugs, I believe it is the right of each nation to decide whether or not drugs should be legal.

Unless there are cruel and unusual punishments associated with drug use in a majority of countries, I don't see why it's so urgent to legalize drug use.

If you can show me evidence that legalizing drug use will help the international community, perhaps I'll change my mind.

[Ardchoille]

Secondly strength and category.

I would like to work on the text a bit more first, but do not think I am not thinking of an appropriate category and how to possibly re-write this legislation to fit.

There's a reason people keep asking this. Proposals have to be written to the category. You don't just write one and try to shoehorn it in where it might fit if you looked at it sideways in a snowstorm and hacked off its legs. I understand that setting out your draft as a proposal helps you get your ideas in order, but if you want to make a legal proposal, you've going to have to go for a total rewrite.

Strength is also a consideration when writing. The Recreational Drugs category doesn't have a choice of strengths; it's treated as Strong, so your language will have to reflect that (eg, verbs like "mandates" rather than "urges" or "recommends") and so will the breadth of your proposal -- like, how truly "international" it is.

[Enheightening]

There's a reason people keep asking this. Proposals have to be written to the category. You don't just write one and try to shoehorn it in where it might fit if you looked at it sideways in a snowstorm and hacked off its legs. I understand that setting out your draft as a proposal helps you get your ideas in order, but if you want to make a legal proposal, you've going to have to go for a total rewrite.

-Recognizing the speaker as something of a 'moderator,' around here, and more or less the authority on what is or isn't legal, Jon pulled an apologetic smile while the man spoke... eyes still red, and feeling a little scolded.-

Well, Sir, I never meant to say I didn't think choosing an appropriate category and strength was important... however, I think that the text is the most important and that it should not be pre-emptively shoehorned into a shape that isn't beneficial. I believe that it is a shame that we are constricted by so few categories.

That being said I do not deny the benefit of your advice, but I do not see how my acting in a different order makes my proposal illegal. Or why it would need to be re-written to fall into the Recreational Drug Use category. In fact it seems a perfect fit, and I humbly request an explaination for why this is presently illegal.

Other than that this is a work in progress and far from done, I would say it is legal and befitting the category. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes?

[Ardchoille]

FWIW, moderator posts offering advice, particularly on legality, are usually taken as OOC because we have to mention things like metagaming, which our characters don't know about. When I'm IC I usually use Ardchoilleans, and the comments come from my (often sober) President, Dicey Reilly, or one of her slipshod staff. (I do have a couple of other nations I use, too, depending on how sarcastic I'm feeling, but Ardchoilleans is the most reasonable. )

Mods don't do blanket legality checks. One of the things that makes submitting a proposal a leap of faith is not actually knowing whether it's legal, or whether it will be pulled from the queue and you'll get an illegal proposal warning. You just have to make sure it's the best it can be.

That's why you should pay close attention to what other players tell you ... on the other hand, they just might be assuring you they think it's illegal to stop you submitting it, so it never has a chance of becoming law. This is a game, after all. There has to be some jeopardy in it. (If they quote you chapter and verse from a resolution, they're slightly more likely to be sincere.)

Heh, feeling a little scolded, are we? Well, here, have a freebie to make up:

All but one of your clauses begin with participles. It's "The WA, considering ... mandating ... stipulating, etc ... does what?" The only active verb you've got there is "encourages". So if a nation's government looks at this and asks "What is the WA actually making us do about it, though?"" the answer is just "encourage." A proposal is a long sentence that begins with "The WA" and includes the WA telling nations to do some specific action.

[Enheightening]

If you can show me evidence that legalizing drug use will help the international community, perhaps I'll change my mind.

I shall endeavor to build an arguement for why legalizing drug use will help the international community. Less specifically, but very much a good arguement in my opinion, I'd like to submit for your review something my office has put together (OOC: it's actually a link to something somebody else wrote... I'm not taking credit for it so much as trying to add a RP aspect)

http://www.perkel.com/politics/issues/pot.htm

I will attempt to rewrite my proposal in a way that reflects more of an international concern, though in my opinion this body legislates (as it very well should and has to,) often on topics that aren't intrinsicly international. If a nation is determined by this body to be restricting its citizens from something that should be their right then, with a vote, it is our jobs to fix it. It is international if only because more than one nation is having the same 'problems.'

(OOC:

snip

lol. OOC it is. hope I get a chance to see you IC sometime though, your nation sounds pretty interesting. If a little 'Dicey?' heh.

I appreciate you being frank... I'd rather know the way it works than the way it's supposed to work. And don't think that because my character still supports his own idea that I/he isn't paying close attention!

For example... no, I don't actually feel scolded though Jon there did.

I now see what you mean and I have to agree. Is it... uh, certainly implied that I am MANDATING legalizing said substances... but I suppose for the sake of the game I should reword it to make it stronger. I'm certainly planning on rewording it anyway probably several more times.