[DRAFT] No Recreational Drugs

[Karakis]

My proposal was rejected. Here it is:

While recognizing that not all recreational drugs are dangerous, it has been shown that the majority are dangerous to people's health, and have been known to cause people to harm others. In order to prevent people from harming themselves or others, no person will be allowed to sell any drug with out a license, or buy any drug with out a prescription. Furthermore, all licensed drug dealers must be audited every year, and all prescriptions must be authorized by at least three medical doctors. Copies of these prescriptions must be kept by the dealers for at least two years. In addition, any person or group wishing to use a drug for any reason other than medical, must obtain a Non-Medical Drug Use Permit (NMDUP) from the WA. These people or groups will be strictly monitored and must have the permit renewed every six months.
The following drugs will be completely illegal with or with out a prescription (but may be obtained with an NMDUP):

Opiates (Synthetic opiates, aka, opioids will remain legal with prescription)
Methamphetamines

The following drugs will be exempt from this law:

Caffeine
Alcohol

Here is a copy of the telegram that came with it:

You submitted a Proposal that was unfortunately invalid. If you would like to submit another proposal, please familiarize yourself with the guidelines in the Proposal Rules forum thread. We highly recommend that you post a draft to the General Assembly Forum first to be checked before submitting it to the game! The people there are very helpful at polishing drafts so they meet the guidelines. Your proposal was removed for a categorical violation. In your attempt to regulate medicinal narcotics, you've conflated it with recreational narcotics and created a strongly worded regulation that doesn't outlaw anything given its far-reaching exemption clauses. Medicinal narcotics can be regulated in the health category.

Can you help tell me what is wrong with it and give suggestions of how to fix it.

EDIT:
Current draft:

In order to prevent the abuse of dangerous and harmful drugs for recreational purposes, this law:
DEFINES a drug as a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
BANS the sale of any drug for recreational purposes
ASSERTS that any person or group wishing to use a drug for non-medical purposes must obtain a Non-Medical Drug Use Permit (NMDUP)

LIMITS the use of NMDUP's to scientific testing
CREATES a Non-Medical Drug Use Committee to regulate the release of NMDUP's

LIMITS the sale of all drugs to licensed pharmacists
EXEMPTS caffeine

[Separatist Peoples]

My proposal was rejected. Here it is:

While recognizing that not all recreational drugs are dangerous, it has been shown that the majority are dangerous to people's health, and have been known to cause people to harm others. In order to prevent people from harming themselves or others, no person will be allowed to sell any drug with out a license, or buy any drug with out a prescription. Furthermore, all licensed drug dealers must be audited every year, and all prescriptions must be authorized by at least three medical doctors. Copies of these prescriptions must be kept by the dealers for at least two years. In addition, any person or group wishing to use a drug for any reason other than medical, must obtain a Non-Medical Drug Use Permit (NMDUP) from the WA. These people or groups will be strictly monitored and must have the permit renewed every six months.
The following drugs will be completely illegal with or with out a prescription (but may be obtained with an NMDUP):

Opiates (Synthetic opiates, aka, opioids will remain legal with prescription)
Methamphetamines

The following drugs will be exempt from this law:

Caffeine
Alcohol

Here is a copy of the telegram that came with it:

You submitted a Proposal that was unfortunately invalid. If you would like to submit another proposal, please familiarize yourself with the guidelines in the Proposal Rules forum thread. We highly recommend that you post a draft to the General Assembly Forum first to be checked before submitting it to the game! The people there are very helpful at polishing drafts so they meet the guidelines. Your proposal was removed for a categorical violation. In your attempt to regulate medicinal narcotics, you've conflated it with recreational narcotics and created a strongly worded regulation that doesn't outlaw anything given its far-reaching exemption clauses. Medicinal narcotics can be regulated in the health category.

Can you help tell me what is wrong with it and give suggestions of how to fix it.

OOC: You must have submitted this under the Recreational Drug Use category, instead of Health, and attempted to regulate for medical drugs. This would have been a category violation. You should read through The Rules to learn about categories and what they cover. Then, you should correct your current draft to be legal and post it back here for players to review. To make this legal, you will likely need to remove the references to medical drugs.

[Karakis]

I am a little confused by that because it is specifically designed to prevent recreational drug use. At least, I think so. The idea was to make it 1) illegal to use drugs for non-medical purposes, and 2) make it impossible to abuse medical drugs.

[Separatist Peoples]

I am a little confused by that because it is specifically designed to prevent recreational drug use. At least, I think so. The idea was to make it 1) illegal to use drugs for non-medical purposes, and 2) make it impossible to abuse medical drugs.

OOC: The category for medical drug use is different from the category for recreational drugs. I'm afraid that really isn't possible with the current category layout. And, honestly, the issue of recreational drug use is a national one, so its best to leave that decision to individual governments. So, again, if you focus on recreational drug use, you really ought not delve deeply into medical drug abuse.

[Karakis]

OK I think I could take them and split them into two, so tell me how this sounds:
The first in Recreational drugs:

While recognizing that not all recreational drugs are dangerous, it has been shown that the majority are dangerous to people's health, and have been known to cause people to harm others. In order to prevent people from harming themselves or others, all drugs will be outlawed if they are not being used for medical purposes

The following drugs will be exempt from this law:

Caffeine
Alcohol

And this one in Medical Drugs:

In order to prevent the abuse of medical drugs, no person will be allowed to sell any drug with out a license, or buy any drug with out a prescription. Furthermore, all licensed drug dealers must be audited every year, and all prescriptions must be authorized by at least three medical doctors. Copies of these prescriptions must be kept by the dealers for at least two years. In addition, any person or group wishing to use a drug for any reason other than medical, must obtain a Non-Medical Drug Use Permit (NMDUP) from the WA. These people or groups will be strictly monitored and must have the permit renewed every six months.
The following drugs will be completely illegal with or with out a prescription (but may be obtained with an NMDUP):

Opiates (Synthetic opiates, aka, opioids will remain legal with prescription)
Methamphetamines

[Separatist Peoples]

OK I think I could take them and split them into two, so tell me how this sounds:
The first in Recreational drugs:

While recognizing that not all recreational drugs are dangerous, it has been shown that the majority are dangerous to people's health, and have been known to cause people to harm others. In order to prevent people from harming themselves or others, all drugs will be outlawed if they are not being used for medical purposes

The following drugs will be exempt from this law:

Caffeine
Alcohol

And this one in Medical Drugs:

In order to prevent the abuse of medical drugs, no person will be allowed to sell any drug with out a license, or buy any drug with out a prescription. Furthermore, all licensed drug dealers must be audited every year, and all prescriptions must be authorized by at least three medical doctors. Copies of these prescriptions must be kept by the dealers for at least two years. In addition, any person or group wishing to use a drug for any reason other than medical, must obtain a Non-Medical Drug Use Permit (NMDUP) from the WA. These people or groups will be strictly monitored and must have the permit renewed every six months.
The following drugs will be completely illegal with or with out a prescription (but may be obtained with an NMDUP):

Opiates (Synthetic opiates, aka, opioids will remain legal with prescription)
Methamphetamines

OOC: I'll assume that you've gone head and read the rules that I linked to you. You should also take some time to read through some of the Passed Resolutions so you can figure out the format and the syntax for resolutions. You should try to adapt what you have here into the standard format. It isn't necessary, but the vast, vast majority of voters seem to prefer the standard formal layout of UN-style resolutions.

[Grays Harbor]

Why in the hell should THREE Doctors have to sign off on every medical prescription? That is idiotic.

[Karakis]

Why in the hell should THREE Doctors have to sign off on every medical prescription? That is idiotic.

I understand your opinion, but having only one doctor sign off on a prescription means all you have to do is find a doctor who is willing to sign you a prescription for a drug you don't need.
Let me take this time to answer the questions that are about to follow:

Yes, doctors like that exist
Yes, it is a crime
Yes, it usually involves the "patient" (read: druggie) bribing the "doctor" (read: corrupt, greedy idiot)

Having three doctors sign off on it makes it harder to do without getting caught.

[Grays Harbor]

Why in the hell should THREE Doctors have to sign off on every medical prescription? That is idiotic.

I understand your opinion, but having only one doctor sign off on a prescription means all you have to do is find a doctor who is willing to sign you a prescription for a drug you don't need.
Let me take this time to answer the questions that are about to follow:

Yes, doctors like that exist
Yes, it is a crime
Yes, it usually involves the "patient" (read: druggie) bribing the "doctor" (read: corrupt, greedy idiot)

Having three doctors sign off on it makes it harder to do without getting caught.

And it makes it more expensive, time consuming, and inconvenient for the 99% of people just trying to get their prescriptions filled. It is idiotic. It is unworkable.

(OOC: If this was a real life thing, this naive rule would mean every time my wife needed to refill her insulin she would have to see three endocrinologists. Tell me with a straight face how that makes an sense.)

[Defwa]

Why in the hell should THREE Doctors have to sign off on every medical prescription? That is idiotic.

I understand your opinion, but having only one doctor sign off on a prescription means all you have to do is find a doctor who is willing to sign you a prescription for a drug you don't need.
Let me take this time to answer the questions that are about to follow:

Yes, doctors like that exist
Yes, it is a crime
Yes, it usually involves the "patient" (read: druggie) bribing the "doctor" (read: corrupt, greedy idiot)

Having three doctors sign off on it makes it harder to do without getting caught.

Three issues:
Country doctors, where there may only be one established doctor in a hundred miles and thus having someone die because they couldn't medication for their blood pressure.
Birth control or medications for STDs, having to convince three separate doctors of the necessity of such things can be difficult especially on a moral level.
Prescription includes the immediate use of a medication. So if someone were to prescribe and then give a patient a shot of epinephrin or insulin in an emergency situation, the doctor would have to pull two more doctors out of their own duties to look at the patient again and hope they lived.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Having three doctors sign off on it makes it harder to do without getting caught.

OOC: Not really, given the WA has absolutely no law on what constitutes a "doctor" anyway.

[Karakis]

I understand your opinion, but having only one doctor sign off on a prescription means all you have to do is find a doctor who is willing to sign you a prescription for a drug you don't need.
Let me take this time to answer the questions that are about to follow:

Yes, doctors like that exist
Yes, it is a crime
Yes, it usually involves the "patient" (read: druggie) bribing the "doctor" (read: corrupt, greedy idiot)

Having three doctors sign off on it makes it harder to do without getting caught.

And it makes it more expensive, time consuming, and inconvenient for the 99% of people just trying to get their prescriptions filled. It is idiotic. It is unworkable.

(OOC: If this was a real life thing, this naive rule would mean every time my wife needed to refill her insulin she would have to see three endocrinologists. Tell me with a straight face how that makes an sense.)

OK, I see your point, but the Idea of this is to make it impossible to abuse prescription drugs. I have, however, worked on making it more sensible.
Tell me, how does this sound?

In order to prevent people from abusing medical drugs, no person will be allowed to sell any drug with out a license, or buy any drug with out a prescription. Furthermore, all licensed drug dealers must be audited every year. Due to their high risk of abuse, all prescriptions for any form of pain killer, depressant (not including alcohol), or stimulant must be authorized by at least three medical doctors. Copies of all prescriptions must be kept by the dealers for at least two years . In addition, any person or group wishing to use a drug for any reason other than medical, must obtain a Non-Medical Drug Use Permit (NMDUP) from the WA. These people or groups will be strictly monitored and must have the permit renewed every six months.

The following drugs will be completely illegal with or with out a prescription (but may be obtained with an NMDUP):

Opiates (Synthetic opiates, aka, opioids will remain legal with a pain-killer prescription)
Methamphetamines

The following drugs will be exempt from this law:

Caffeine
Alcohol (to be regulated by the nations)

I figured that would be better. It's also works toward the more specific problem because pain killers, depressants, and stimulants are the most commonly abused drugs. Also, do you have any problems with the other law?

[The Dark Star Republic]

pain killers, depressants, and stimulants are the most commonly abused drugs

OOC: The most commonly abused drug is alcohol, which you have rather bizarrely exempted.

[Karakis]

Having three doctors sign off on it makes it harder to do without getting caught.

OOC: Not really, given the WA has absolutely no law on what constitutes a "doctor" anyway.

Doctors aren't defined by laws. They are defined by degrees, like from college.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Not really, given the WA has absolutely no law on what constitutes a "doctor" anyway.

Doctors aren't defined by laws. They are defined by degrees, like from college.

OOC: That is absolutely not true. Gaining a degree in medicine does not, in most jurisdictions anyway, automatically confer a right to practice medicine. That is obtained by being licensed as a physician/surgeon.

[Karakis]

pain killers, depressants, and stimulants are the most commonly abused drugs

OOC: The most commonly abused drug is alcohol, which you have rather bizarrely exempted.

Two things:

1. Why do you keep writing OOC when you are clearly in character?
2. I exempted alcohol because this law is about medical drugs and I'm fairly sure alcohol isn't one of those.

Would the law be better (easier to understand) if I wrote it in standard form?

[Kaboomlandia]

1. Sep is writing OOC because they are referring to RL.
2. uh, rubbing alcohol?

To answer your format question: Yes.

[The Dark Star Republic]

1. Why do you keep writing OOC when you are clearly in character?

OOC: I'm not in character. You would be able to tell were I as I would sign off as my character (usually Ms. Chinmusic).

2. I exempted alcohol because this law is about medical drugs and I'm fairly sure alcohol isn't one of those.

Alcohol has been used medicinally for hundreds of years.

Would the law be better (easier to understand) if I wrote it in standard form?

The law is perfectly easy to understand. It's simply a bad idea.

[Karakis]

Doctors aren't defined by laws. They are defined by degrees, like from college.

OOC: That is absolutely not true. Gaining a degree in medicine does not, in most jurisdictions anyway, automatically confer a right to practice medicine. That is obtained by being licensed as a physician/surgeon.

In that case, that looks like a glaring oversight. How does this sound?

DEFINES a doctor as any person who has graduated from a medical school and obtained a license to practice medicine

[Karakis]

2. I exempted alcohol because this law is about medical drugs and I'm fairly sure alcohol isn't one of those.

Alcohol has been used medicinally for hundreds of years.

Then maybe it would be better if I defined what a drug was, because (modern) medicinal alcohol does not fall into that category. By drug I meant

a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body

(courtesy of Google )

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Well, it's still a bit circular because it doesn't require that nations have any formal licensing authority. They could operate a medical licensing board equivalent of the Universal Life Church and be in compliance.

But I'm dragging your thread a bit off topic, so I suppose that definition will have to do.

[Karakis]

Didn't you say that you were working on legislation to define a doctor (on the other thread)? Can I see what that looks like?

Also, just to keep the conversation up to date, I'm going to (once we've hammered out what should be in it) rewrite the laws in standard form.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Didn't you say that you were working on legislation to define a doctor (on the other thread)? Can I see what that looks like?

OOC: So as to avoid hijacking your topic, I'll TG :)

[Grays Harbor]

And it makes it more expensive, time consuming, and inconvenient for the 99% of people just trying to get their prescriptions filled. It is idiotic. It is unworkable.

(OOC: If this was a real life thing, this naive rule would mean every time my wife needed to refill her insulin she would have to see three endocrinologists. Tell me with a straight face how that makes an sense.)

OK, I see your point, but the Idea of this is to make it impossible to abuse prescription drugs. I have, however, worked on making it more sensible.
Tell me, how does this sound?

In order to prevent people from abusing medical drugs, no person will be allowed to sell any drug with out a license, or buy any drug with out a prescription. Furthermore, all licensed drug dealers must be audited every year. Due to their high risk of abuse, all prescriptions for any form of pain killer, depressant (not including alcohol), or stimulant must be authorized by at least three medical doctors. Copies of all prescriptions must be kept by the dealers for at least two years . In addition, any person or group wishing to use a drug for any reason other than medical, must obtain a Non-Medical Drug Use Permit (NMDUP) from the WA. These people or groups will be strictly monitored and must have the permit renewed every six months.

The following drugs will be completely illegal with or with out a prescription (but may be obtained with an NMDUP):

Opiates (Synthetic opiates, aka, opioids will remain legal with a pain-killer prescription)
Methamphetamines

The following drugs will be exempt from this law:

Caffeine
Alcohol (to be regulated by the nations)

I figured that would be better. It's also works toward the more specific problem because pain killers, depressants, and stimulants are the most commonly abused drugs. Also, do you have any problems with the other law?

No. Just -No. All you are doing is adding layer upon layer of bureaucratic nonsense. None of what you are doing with your piling on of additional naive bureaucracy will do a damn thing towards "preventing abuse". The one and only thing you are accomplishing is to make the lives of Doctors, Pharmacists, and Patients more difficult, more time consuming, and more expensive. Drop the three doctors thing. It Is Idiotic, wasteful, and pointless.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Medical prescription abuse in your nation does not constitute a need for change in mine. This is not an international issue. Absolutely opposed."