Enheightening wrote:Vocatus wrote: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.
-One of the Vocatian delegates activates a fan, harmlessly dispersing the foul, drug-filled smoke just short of the Vocatian table.
We highly doubt that lifting the prohibition on alcohol would serve to decrease the crime rate in our country as it's almost zero currently despite the fact that we ban all mind-altering substances, including all intoxicants, depressants, and any stimulant stronger than coffee. Nothing that permanently harms the body or, especially, the brain, is or will be permitted within our borders.
We hope you will allow us to break down some of the common arguments for legalization of drugs.
Firstly, we will not allow economic considerations to stand before the health and safety of our citizens. And even if we did, those who would potentially be employed in the drug industry currently hold gainful jobs elsewhere, so we don't see how it would increase tax revenue in any case.
Secondly, we will not allow our national policy to be dictated by smugglers. You will find that when we pass a law we take all necessary measures to enforce it. And unlike so many other problems, crime is an issue which can be combated directly and forcefully, leading to its utter elimination. If people attempt to smuggle and manufacture controlled substances, those people will be arrested. End of issue.
Now, as to the core of the issue: does a government have the right to dictate to its citizens whether or not they can input drugs into their body. For some governments, perhaps ones whose soul function is to prevent people from infringing on each others' rights, the answer may be no. For others, whose functions include ensuring the health and common good of their citizens, the answer may well be yes. The WA is not solely a democratic body, after all. Its ranks include monarchies, theocracies, anarchies, nation-sized corporations, and in our case a Bureaucracy. The proper scope and powers of government differ from one member state to another.
We know what you are trying to do, Honored Ambassador. But your passionate rhetoric cannot cancel out the ill effects of the substances you advocate, nor can it break the trust bestowed upon us by our founding documents. We will protect our people.
), and because you're not in the WA, you wouldn't be affected.
