[WITHDRAWN] Prohibition of Salvia Divinorum

[Athfhotla]

This proposal began as a prohibition against the recreational use of Salvia divinorum, which is a psychoactive plant. Anticipating that many would complain that the proposal was too specific and demand to know why the Kingdom singled out Salvia divinorum, we decided that there was merit to this argument and decided to alter our proposal to prohibit the recreational use of all psychoactive substances. Realizing how much of a cluster... bomb that was, we went back to specifically addressing Salvia divinorum as it is a psychoactive substance the short-term effects of which are dangerous and the long-term effects of which are still relatively unknown.

Your constructive criticism is welcome, and while your destructive criticism is unwelcome I acknowledge that I'll be hearing that as well. The Kingdom isn't in a hurry to submit this proposal and we will be taking our time.

OOC: Is the title too long? Also, if someone who knows better than I do could check to make sure Category and Decision are correct that would be great. I'm mostly going by the Essential Medication Act, but that's a Decision: Legalize and there are no Decision: Outlaw so I'm not 100% sure I'm doing this correctly.

Prohibition of Salvia Divinorum
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.

Category: Recreational Drug Use Decision: Outlaw Proposed by: Athfhotla

The General Assembly,

NOTING that Salvia divinorum is a psychoactive plant that has reportedly produced dysphoric, dissociative, and hallucinatory effects in its users;

FURTHER NOTING that the long-term physical, mental, and emotional effects of Salvia divinorum use are relatively unknown;

ALARMED that some member nations have failed to enact or have enacted only minimal laws related to the cultivation, production, distribution, sale, and/or use of Salvia divinorum;

CONCERNED that the lack of international legal uniformity in regard to Salvia divinorum may put the health and/or safety of international travelers in jeopardy;

CONVINCED that the known short-term effects and the lack of information regarding long-term effects of Salvia divinorum make it unsafe for recreational use and potentially detrimental to social stability;

ACKNOWLEDGING that Salvia divinorum may have health benefits and encouraging the exploration of those potential benefits by medical researchers;

Therefore:

1. OUTLAWS the recreational use of Salvia divinorum in all member nations;

2. SPECIFIES that the religious and/or spiritual use of Salvia divinorum is a recreational use and is prohibited in all member nations;

3. CLARIFIES that this resolution shall not be construed to limit access to and/or use of Salvia divinorum for medically essential purposes.

Prohibition of Psychoactive Substance Use
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.

Category: Recreational Drug Use Decision: Outlaw Proposed by: Athfhotla

The General Assembly,

NOTING that psychoactive substances can produce dysphoric, dissociative, hallucinatory, and/or other potentially dangerous effects in their users;

FURTHER NOTING that the long-term physical, mental, and/or emotional effects of many psychoactive substances are little known or unknown;

ALARMED that some member nations have failed to enact or have enacted only minimal laws related to the cultivation, production, distribution, sale, and/or use of psychoactive substances;

CONCERNED that the lack of international legal uniformity in regard to psychoactive substances may put the health and/or safety of international travelers in jeopardy;

CONVINCED that the known short-term effects and the lack of information regarding long-term effects of psychoactive substances make them unsafe for recreational use and potentially detrimental to social stability;

ACKNOWLEDGING that psychoactive substances may have health benefits, encouraging the exploration of those potential benefits by medical researchers, and promoting the medically sanctioned and responsible use of beneficial psychoactive substances;

Therefore:

1. OUTLAWS the recreational use of psychoactive substances in all member nations;

2. SPECIFIES that the religious and/or spiritual use of psychoactive substances is a recreational use and is prohibited in all member nations;

3. CLARIFIES that this resolution shall not be construed to limit access to and/or use of psychoactive substances for medically essential purposes.

[Jesus H Christ]

Alcohol is a psychoactive drug that has a depressant effect. Surely you wouldn't deny Jesus his sacramental wine. He died for your sins, the least you could do is permit him to share fermented fruit of the vine with his followers.

[Three Weasels]

...and with that, the government of Three Weasels will simply classify all currently legal psychoactive drugs as medically necessary and allow their purchase over the counter without a prescription as long as one currently meets the requirement under national law, thus circumventing this pointless proposal. Just to demonstrate the glaring issue with your proposal. Or you could take the easy route and not legislate on this topic when it's clear that you will encounter plenty of opposition for various reasons.

And why should we care about a bunch of foreign bipedals anyway? If they can't handle our psychoactive drugs then they shouldn't be using them. There are plenty of posters alerting them to the fact that while many of the legal drugs aren't dangerous to the local Mustela populations, they may be detrimental to the visiting bipedal. If they choose to ignore the warnings, that's their decision. We'll just ship the body back to its native country in a bag along with our condolences and a reminder to pay attention to the pamphlets offered by hotels.

[Athfhotla]

Alcohol is a psychoactive drug that has a depressant effect. Surely you wouldn't deny Jesus his sacramental wine. He died for your sins, the least you could do is permit him to share fermented fruit of the vine with his followers.

Yes, and so is caffeine. We should have kept this restricted to Salvia divinorum since that's what we were aiming for anyway. We'll revise the proposal.

...and with that, the government of Three Weasels will simply classify all currently legal psychoactive drugs as medically necessary and allow their purchase over the counter without a prescription as long as one currently meets the requirement under national law, thus circumventing this pointless proposal. Just to demonstrate the glaring issue with your proposal.

I'm not sure you could actually do that given the "good faith" requirement of GAR #2, but in any event this flaw in our proposal -- if it actually is a flaw -- was necessitated by GAR #124. That resolution says the following:

DEFINES “medically essential drug” (MED) as a medication or treatment that is necessary to improve management and/or treatment of a patient’s medical condition but is specially regulated and/or restricted within a given nation.

Given GAR #2 and the definition of MED in GAR #124, I don't believe that the glaring loophole you mention actually exists.

Or you could take the easy route and not legislate on this topic when it's clear that you will encounter plenty of opposition for various reasons.

Applying that argument, no one should ever legislate again. I haven't seen a single proposal in my time observing this Assembly that hasn't encountered "plenty of opposition for various reasons." Everyone seemed a bit exhausted with fetuses and penises -- so behold, not a single mention of a fetus or a penis is to be found in this proposal. But we will be revising our proposal to return to the topic we originally wanted to address anyway, which was specifically Salvia divinorum.

And why should we care about a bunch of foreign bipedals anyway? If they can't handle our psychoactive drugs then they shouldn't be using them. There are plenty of posters alerting them to the fact that while many of the legal drugs aren't dangerous to the local Mustela populations, they may be detrimental to the visiting bipedal. If they choose to ignore the warnings, that's their decision. We'll just ship the body back to its native country in a bag along with our condolences and a reminder to pay attention to the pamphlets offered by hotels.

Believe it or not, General Assembly proposals aren't tailored to the Mustela. You have to care about a bunch of foreign bipedals because you agreed to join the World Assembly, which includes foreign bipedals as well as Mustela. Establishing international uniformity in regard to a dangerous psychoactive drug to protect international travelers is unquestionably international in scope and falls well within the purview of this Assembly.

[Flibbleites]

We see no reason why national drug laws should be decided on an international level, opposed.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Three Weasels]

I'm not sure you could actually do that given the "good faith" requirement of GAR #2, but in any event this flaw in our proposal -- if it actually is a flaw -- was necessitated by GAR #124.

We would be in compliance, since it wouldn't technically be recreational, it would be pharmaceutical. What the consumer does when it's out of the pharmacy is not our government's concern. So, we implement it in that way. We did read the resolution, we certainly did. Which is why we're compliant in this manner. At no time would these psychoactive drugs be considered legal for recreational use; they'd be only available from a pharmacy. Since we faithfully follow the privacy legislation already passed by this body, our pharmacists will dispense drugs for medicinal use. If folks use them for other purposes, well, the government can't know because it's being used by private citizens.

Applying that argument, no one should ever legislate again. I haven't seen a single proposal in my time observing this Assembly that hasn't encountered "plenty of opposition for various reasons." Everyone seemed a bit exhausted with fetuses and penises -- so behold, not a single mention of a fetus or a penis is to be found in this proposal. But we will be revising our proposal to return to the topic we originally wanted to address anyway, which was specifically Salvia divinorum.

Ah, Salvia Divinorum. Like any drug, in the hands of the individual who is prepared to handle it, it can be a learning and growing experience. Conversely, if it is in the hands of a person who isn't prepared to deal with it, the effects can be detrimental. It has the potential for both good and bad. Knowledge, not prohibition, is empowering. If citizens are exposed to a narcotics education which tells them everything they are better able to make informed decisions and you have a population which is less likely to wind up in prison because your only solution to narcotics is a full out prohibition.

We prefer a legislation which allows us to determine our own narcotics policy, as we're sure most nations are. Though we accept that some narcotics are harmful, they may not be harmful to a particular population while toxic for another. A legislation exercising common sense in this matter is most preferable. Some populations may want a particular narcotic because its religious text calls for it as part of the worship ritual while another may view it as something for use during "happy hour".

Believe it or not, General Assembly proposals aren't tailored to the Mustela. You have to care about a bunch of foreign bipedals because you agreed to join the World Assembly, which includes foreign bipedals as well as Mustela.

There is nothing in any of the resolutions which says we have to give a damn. It just says we shouldn't lob our missiles at them and generally need to be diplomatic. So, we accomplish this by being neutral and not giving a damn.

[Athfhotla]

We see no reason why national drug laws should be decided on an international level, opposed.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

We have provided not one but two reasons, one unquestionably international in scope and the other certainly a serious domestic concern if not an international concern as well:

Salvia divinorum is a psychoactive drug that has dangerous short-term effects and virtually unknown long-term effects. Its use in member nations could jeopardize the health, the safety, the very lives of unsuspecting international travelers. Its use certainly puts the individual who uses it in jeopardy and, given its psychoactive effects, it could also prove detrimental to social stability at both the national and international levels. What begins in one member nation doesn't always remain in one member nation.

[Teutonic Territories]

Yeah no. If it is really that dangerous, then the best solution is to let them have it. Anyone stupid enough to try it will get killed, and the world's overall intelligence will improve.

Social Darwinism for the win!

[Athfhotla]

We would be in compliance, since it wouldn't technically be recreational, it would be pharmaceutical. What the consumer does when it's out of the pharmacy is not our government's concern. So, we implement it in that way. We did read the resolution, we certainly did. Which is why we're compliant in this manner. At no time would these psychoactive drugs be considered legal for recreational use; they'd be only available from a pharmacy. Since we faithfully follow the privacy legislation already passed by this body, our pharmacists will dispense drugs for medicinal use. If folks use them for other purposes, well, the government can't know because it's being used by private citizens.

You're still ignoring the definition of a medically essential drug in GAR #124, which by necessity applies to Clause 3 of this proposal as well:

DEFINES “medically essential drug” (MED) as a medication or treatment that is necessary to improve management and/or treatment of a patient’s medical condition but is specially regulated and/or restricted within a given nation.

The kind of loophole you suggest would mean that your nation is acting in bad faith, in violation of GAR #2, Article 9.

Ah, Salvia Divinorum. Like any drug, in the hands of the individual who is prepared to handle it, it can be a learning and growing experience. Conversely, if it is in the hands of a person who isn't prepared to deal with it, the effects can be detrimental. It has the potential for both good and bad. Knowledge, not prohibition, is empowering. If citizens are exposed to a narcotics education which tells them everything they are better able to make informed decisions and you have a population which is less likely to wind up in prison because your only solution to narcotics is a full out prohibition.

And you're certainly free to argue that when this proposal is eventually at vote. But your belief that a dangerous psychoactive drug is perfectly safe when used correctly doesn't negate the fact that it is a psychoactive drug, it is by its very nature volatile, and it has reported detrimental effects that include dysphoria, dissociation, and hallucination.

Nowhere does this proposal mandate imprisonment. Member nations would be free to subject those who violate the law to rehabilitation rather than imprisonment as this proposal avoids micromanaging member nations' criminal justice systems.

We prefer a legislation which allows us to determine our own narcotics policy, as we're sure most nations are. Though we accept that some narcotics are harmful, they may not be harmful to a particular population while toxic for another. A legislation exercising common sense in this matter is most preferable. Some populations may want a particular narcotic because its religious text calls for it as part of the worship ritual while another may view it as something for use during "happy hour".

This is a purely national sovereigntist argument. You're free to make it, of course, but I'm equally free to dismiss it as hogwash. Some populations may indeed want a dangerous psychoactive for religious reasons while some may want it for happy hour; but neither should have it for either of these purposes because it is a dangerous psychoactive. I find it unlikely that psychoactives have none of the effects I've mentioned on the Mustela -- otherwise, why use them? Again, this is by no means a solely domestic matter and is well within the purview of this Assembly.

[Alqania]

"Well, to make this ban effective, salvinorin A would also need to be banned, lest people just start synthesising the drug", Christine theorised. "But either way, the Queendom remains unconvinced that the substance should be banned. It is very potent, yes, and dosage should obviously be appropriate when used medically or recreationally, but banning a drug because of its potency seems rather irrational. And no, the fact that people travel across national borders does not make this an international issue."

[Three Weasels]

We prefer a legislation which allows us to determine our own narcotics policy, as we're sure most nations are. Though we accept that some narcotics are harmful, they may not be harmful to a particular population while toxic for another. A legislation exercising common sense in this matter is most preferable. Some populations may want a particular narcotic because its religious text calls for it as part of the worship ritual while another may view it as something for use during "happy hour".

This is a purely national sovereigntist argument. You're free to make it, of course, but I'm equally free to dismiss it as hogwash. Some populations may indeed want a dangerous psychoactive for religious reasons while some may want it for happy hour; but neither should have it for either of these purposes because it is a dangerous psychoactive. I find it unlikely that psychoactives have none of the effects I've mentioned on the Mustela -- otherwise, why use them? Again, this is by no means a solely domestic matter and is well within the purview of this Assembly.

Who are you to say what is "dangerous" and what isn't?

Why use a drug? To experiment, to explore the world around us. Our Ministry of Recreational & Medicinal Narcotics has a schedule of drugs it considers "lethal" to the general population. Anything not on the list is fair game for use. Whether or not any effects are noticed depends entirely on the individual. Some do experience the effects of the drug as listed on this site, while others don't. We prefer to teach in our school the concept of responsible use, which includes the concept of having a partner to watch over you if you're doing a drug for the first time. This is a person you trust to remain sober until you say otherwise. The person is responsible for you and won't do anything if they feel your judgment is impaired. We feel a system where knowledge and awareness works far better than a general prohibition.

We are opposed to prohibition because it doesn't focus on being responsible, understanding the drug and seeking help when you're in trouble. Prohibition has a tendency to drive people into the underground where they are the most likely to get hurt. Our system is about being open and allowing people to seek help, whereas a system where a drug is prohibited is likely to drive its users underground where they can be hurt. Yes this is a risk but being an open society allows us to explore another part of ourselves and get help if we make a mistake. We once believed in prohibition for a particular substance but instead of achieving desired results, we just drove users underground where more and more were hurt.

Can Salvia be used responsibly? Of course. Can it be used irresponsibly? Sure. If individuals are educated and entrusted with factual information they are able to make better choices surrounding narcotics like Salvia.

[Democratic Consensia]

Narcotics legislation aught to be left to the individual member-states. Salvia divinorum's risks are equal in all senses to other mild drugs such as alchohol and tobacco. If this was a true issue of public safety, work on those two drugs first... they are more broadly used.

Further, the insistence that religious use and recreational use are one and the same is absurd and is an insult to the member-states that have freedom of religion enshrined in their legal structures.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We are opposed. The logic of this proposal is thus: this might be dangerous, therefore we should ban it. By this logic the WA should also ban alcohol, cigarettes, cigars, guns, prostitution, knives, forks, microwaves, toasters, etc., etc., etc. This absurd, i.e. illogical. Therefore the basis for this prohibition is absurd, i.e. illogical. We are therefore opposed to a ban.
We would however be happy to require informed consent before its use.

(EDIT: By the way, otherwise a good proposal.)

[Mousebumples]

Recreational drug policy should be left up to individual member states to determine - which is why my EMA is worded as it is. I'd apologize for any difficulties it caused in drafting, but ... I can't say I'm sorry as I shall be voting against should it ever be submitted.

I'd recommend adding the paper this proposal was printed on to the WA Compost out back. It will make for great plant food in the spring.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Conservita Victoria]

Lord Grayfeather stood, "Ambassador, allow me to explain that this particular drug and others like it are used by the Academy of the Oracle's Sisters in order to attain their visions which not only allows them to achieve a state closer to our God but also provides a service in that they will provide advise for the common man. Salvia is the most effective of these drugs and we humbly request that your banning of this will severely harm my nation's divining ability, which in turn will effect all aspects of society.
"Internationally speaking, the banning of drugs is a silly and pointless effort. For one, nations loose the taxes they get by selling the drug. Secondly, the nation is able to make sure that the drug is remarkably safer than drugs one could buy from the street if it were illegal. For instance, I am told that faecal matter, among other dangerous substance, has been known to be used to cut Heroin. And finally, ban a drug and crime increases as people attempt to supply people through increasingly dangerous and illegal methods." He took a sip of water before continuing, "I am sure my counter part's mind and heart is in the right place but I fear that if we ban Salvia it will lead to laws on other drugs and the problems that arise from banning drugs will cause more issue than was previously intended."

[Krioval]

We are pleased to see the authoring nation has taken an interest in the art of WA proposal writing. That said, we feel that this proposal is too narrow to merit international legislation. The Imperial Chiefdom also has very few restrictions on drug use, so we would probably oppose any legislation to ban certain drugs without very compelling evidence of serious harm.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Goobergunchia]

The kind of loophole you suggest would mean that your nation is acting in bad faith, in violation of GAR #2, Article 9.

As we have noted in previous discussions on this topic, "Rights and Duties" § 9 only requires that nations "carry out in good faith its obligations arising from ... international law". It is the longstanding opinion of the Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic that obligations arising from resolutions of both the World Assembly and its predecessor are limited to those explicitly stated in the language of the resolution. There is no obligation to comply with policy directives that may be implicit in a resolution or sought by the author of the resolution.

That being said, we are not necessarily opposed to this draft proposal. As a cursory examination left us without clear guidance on the merits of the proposal, we have requested guidance from our Ministry of Health and Ministry of Culture and expect to take a position based on their recommendation.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Citizen of the Rejected Realms

[Segland]

Just wanted to say, drug laws are not to be decided on an international level.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: "Salvia divinorum, which is a psychoactive plant."

RL reference?

[Athfhotla]

"Well, to make this ban effective, salvinorin A would also need to be banned, lest people just start synthesising the drug", Christine theorised. "But either way, the Queendom remains unconvinced that the substance should be banned. It is very potent, yes, and dosage should obviously be appropriate when used medically or recreationally, but banning a drug because of its potency seems rather irrational. And no, the fact that people travel across national borders does not make this an international issue."

We thank Princess Christine for noting that salvinorin A would have to be prohibited as well for this proposal to be effective, and we'll make the necessary revisions in the next draft. We regret that the Queendom doesn't share our view on this. The Kingdom doesn't believe that potency is the primary issue here; Salvia divinorum is quite potent and has the effects we've mentioned in its natural form and without further manipulation. As a result, it is dangerous in its natural form and even more dangerous when it is manipulated to enhance potency.

Narcotics legislation aught to be left to the individual member-states. Salvia divinorum's risks are equal in all senses to other mild drugs such as alchohol and tobacco. If this was a true issue of public safety, work on those two drugs first... they are more broadly used.

Salvia divinorum's risks are most certainly not equal to the risks of other mild drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. The risks of using the former are far greater. Alcohol can cause, at worst, a dysphoric effect. Neither alcohol nor tobacco typically cause dissociation or hallucination, while these effects are quite common as a result of using Salvia divinorum. In fact, the hallucinatory effects are very well known and are probably the primary reason for the drug's use.

Further, the insistence that religious use and recreational use are one and the same is absurd and is an insult to the member-states that have freedom of religion enshrined in their legal structures.

We find this argument entirely unconvincing. At least eight passed and active resolutions that could be said to infringe upon religious freedom spring immediately to mind: GAR #15, GAR #16, GAR #39, GAR #54, GAR #91, GAR #114, GAR #128, and GAR #160. I'm sure there are more; those are just right off the top of my head. It is not absurd to say that using a psychoactive substance to induce dissociation and hallucination for religious purposes is equally unsafe as using such a substance to induce the same effects for recreational purposes and thus prohibited.

Ambassador, allow me to explain that this particular drug and others like it are used by the Academy of the Oracle's Sisters in order to attain their visions which not only allows them to achieve a state closer to our God but also provides a service in that they will provide advise for the common man. Salvia is the most effective of these drugs and we humbly request that your banning of this will severely harm my nation's divining ability, which in turn will effect all aspects of society.

We would refer Lord Grayfeather to the argument we've just made in regard to the religious use of a dangerous psychoactive substance like Salvia divinorum. That said, we may be willing to exempt religious use from this prohibition if we can do so in such a way that the religious exemption can't be exploited as a loophole to allow anyone to use the drug. Does Lord Grayfeather have any suggestions in that regard?

"Internationally speaking, the banning of drugs is a silly and pointless effort. For one, nations loose the taxes they get by selling the drug. Secondly, the nation is able to make sure that the drug is remarkably safer than drugs one could buy from the street if it were illegal. For instance, I am told that faecal matter, among other dangerous substance, has been known to be used to cut Heroin. And finally, ban a drug and crime increases as people attempt to supply people through increasingly dangerous and illegal methods."

The Kingdom's suggestion is that member nations should find alternative revenue sources and beef up their police forces to prevent the illegal sale or distribution of Salvia divinorum. The arguments you make are good arguments for member nations to take such actions, but not good arguments for us to scrap this proposal.

"I am sure my counter part's mind and heart is in the right place but I fear that if we ban Salvia it will lead to laws on other drugs and the problems that arise from banning drugs will cause more issue than was previously intended."

I sincerely hope that Lord Grayfeather is right. It's shameful that this Assembly hasn't acted to prohibit the recreational use of extraordinarily dangerous drugs such as heroin and most opiates, methamphetamine, cocaine, many psychoactives, etc. Salvia divinorum is a drug as dangerous as any of these. The presence of these drugs in the international marketplace constitutes a severe risk to the health and safety of people in every member nation (and in non-member nations, but the Assembly is powerless to do anything about that).

That being said, we are not necessarily opposed to this draft proposal. As a cursory examination left us without clear guidance on the merits of the proposal, we have requested guidance from our Ministry of Health and Ministry of Culture and expect to take a position based on their recommendation.

We thank Lord Evif for his helpful thoughts on the proper interpretation of GAR #2, Article 9, and we hope that Goobergunchian health and culture officials will issue a recommendation in favor of our proposal.

OOC: "Salvia divinorum, which is a psychoactive plant."

RL reference?

OOC: Here. The study is from an article in Economic Botany dated 1987, but if Salvia divinorum was psychoactive in 1987 it's still psychoactive in 2012.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: "Salvia divinorum, which is a psychoactive plant."

RL reference?

OOC: Here. The study is from an article in Economic Botany dated 1987, but if Salvia divinorum was psychoactive in 1987 it's still psychoactive in 2012.

OOC: I meant "RL reference" as in "Does this plant definitely exist in NS (and not just in some nation's RP here), or would naming it actually make the proposal illegal for including a reference to something that only definitely exists in RL"...

[Athfhotla]

OOC: I meant "RL reference" as in "Does this plant definitely exist in NS (and not just in some nation's RP here), or would naming it actually make the proposal illegal for including a reference to something that only definitely exists in RL"...

OOC: I see, sorry. I'm not a huge fan of that argument -- do we really want the moderators to have to get in the sticky situation of deciding whether or not something exists in NS? Given that aliens, sentient ponies, and phasers apparently exist in NS I don't think it's a stretch to say that Salvia divinorum exists here. And wouldn't it be enough for a player -- myself, for example -- to say that Salvia divinorum exists in his or her nation, since it was apparently enough for a player to say that sentient ponies -- or bears, for that matter -- exist in his or her nation for that to pop into existence?

And still OOC, I'm not targeting ponies or bears -- but come on. If sentient ponies and bears exist I think Salvia divinorum can.

[Bears Armed]

And wouldn't it be enough for a player -- myself, for example -- to say that Salvia divinorum exists in his or her nation, since it was apparently enough for a player to say that sentient ponies exist in his or her nation for that to pop into existence?

And still OOC, I'm not targeting ponies -- but come on. If sentient ponies exist I think Salvia divinorum can.

OOC: The "Well, it exists in my nation" has already been declared insufficient in the case of the Bible... and mentioning specifc types of non-human sapients in actual proposals is also not allowed...

[Athfhotla]

OOC: The "Well, it exists in my nation" has already been declared insufficient in the case of the Bible... and mentioning specifc types of non-human sapients in actual proposals is also not allowed...

OOC: Wait, so the Bible doesn't exist in NS? That's pretty absurd.

That said, this proposal can be reworked not to specifically mention Salvia divinorum if that's really necessary, but I must stress how ludicrous I think it is that such should be necessary. Maybe we should repeal GAR #128 because we're not sure if fetuses actually exist in NS. And clearly the debate over male circumcision is a non-starter because foreskins (or penises!) may not even exist here...

Is critiquing others' proposals and hanging out in the Strangers' Bar but never writing one's own proposal a valid life choice? Because that's sounding like an excellent option right about now.

[Quelesh]

We are opposed to the prohibition of any drug, and we are especially opposed to an international mandate of drug prohibition. Short of entirely reversing the intent of the proposal, and requiring that recreational use of Salvia divinorum be legal, rather than illegal, it is not possible for this proposal to be modified in such a way that we would not oppose it.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador