[SUBMITTED] Minors and Recreational Drugs

[New Min]

Link: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1530365377
Category: Moral Denceny (Significant)

Noting that recreational drugs can seriously damage a sapient being's body.

Realizing that minor's bodies are more vulnerable than adult bodies.

Believing that minors need to be protected from harming themselves with recreational drug use.

The World Assembly,

(1) Defines a 'minor' as a sapient being under the legal age of majority as defined by in their nation for the purpose of this resolution.

(2) Defines 'dangerous drugs' as substances qualified as "drugs that are dangerous when used recreationally" by the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) for the purpose of this resolution.

(3) Mandates that the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) decides which substances should be considered "drugs that are dangerous when used recreationally."
(3.1) Requires the WAFDRA to only consider substances that can seriously damage a sapient being's body, even when used in a small amount, to be "drugs that are dangerous when used recreationally."

(4) Bans the use of drugs by minors when:
(4.1) the substance is a dangerous drug,
(4.2) and the substance is used for a reason other than a medical reason or during a drug addiction rehabilitation program.

(5) Prohibits selling and/or handing over dangerous drugs to minors.
(5.1) Mandates member nations to consider violation of clause 5 a criminal offense, and
(5.2) Requires member nations to seriously punish those found guilty of violating clause 5.
(5.3) Selling/handing over dangerous drugs to minors with a valid prescription is excepted from this clause.

(6) Prohibits the possession of dangerous drugs by minors for non-medical reasons.

(7) Encourages member states to help minors addicted to recreational drugs.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Great. Kids can't drink soda now."

[New Min]

"Great. Kids can't drink soda now."

I will add a definition for "drugs"..

[Erithaca]

As per convention, number your clauses instead of using letters.

[New Min]

As per convention, number your clauses instead of using letters.

Done, thanks for the feedback.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Great. Kids can't drink soda now."

I will add a definition for "drugs"..

"Soda contains caffeine. Caffeine has a physiological effect. Your proposal includes caffeine. In fact, it also includes chocolate, sugar, and water. Bad proposal is bad."

[Kenmoria]

"This proposal is very human-centred, despite the many non-human species in the WA, change “human” to “sapient being” in the draft to remedy this. You also have banned all food, as that has the physiological effect of providing energy to the body."

[Separatist Peoples]

"This proposal is very human-centred, despite the many non-human species in the WA, change “human” to “sapient being” in the draft to remedy this."

"Indeed. I've met a delegation of space-faring reptiles that had a radical physiological reaction to ginger of all things."

[New Min]

I have tried to use both pieces of feedback given:

I will add a definition for "drugs"..

"Soda contains caffeine. Caffeine has a physiological effect. Your proposal includes caffeine. In fact, it also includes chocolate, sugar, and water. Bad proposal is bad."

I hope that the exemption made in 3.3 has solved this problem.

"This proposal is very human-centred, despite the many non-human species in the WA, change “human” to “sapient being” in the draft to remedy this. You also have banned all food, as that has the physiological effect of providing energy to the body."

I hope the problem is solved now.

Thanks for the feedback and don't hesitate to give more feedback.

[Separatist Peoples]

I have tried to use both pieces of feedback given:

"Soda contains caffeine. Caffeine has a physiological effect. Your proposal includes caffeine. In fact, it also includes chocolate, sugar, and water. Bad proposal is bad."

I hope that the exemption made in 3.3 has solved this problem.

"This proposal is very human-centred, despite the many non-human species in the WA, change “human” to “sapient being” in the draft to remedy this. You also have banned all food, as that has the physiological effect of providing energy to the body."

I hope the problem is solved now.

Thanks for the feedback and don't hesitate to give more feedback.

"You've still banned water and food, both of which have physiological impacts on the body."

[New Min]

I have tried to use both pieces of feedback given:

I hope that the exemption made in 3.3 has solved this problem.


I hope the problem is solved now.

Thanks for the feedback and don't hesitate to give more feedback.

"You've still banned water and food, both of which have physiological impacts on the body."

You're right, I forget about that part. I think I have solved now.

[Separatist Peoples]

"You've still banned water and food, both of which have physiological impacts on the body."

You're right, I forget about that part. I think I have solved now.

"Ok, so we can give children small amount of cannabis, mushrooms, and LSD. I hope you see the problem inherent in your regulatory scheme?"

[New Min]

You're right, I forget about that part. I think I have solved now.

"Ok, so we can give children small amount of cannabis, mushrooms, and LSD. I hope you see the problem inherent in your regulatory scheme?"

First of all, I personally do not consider those drugs as being 'non-dangerous'. In the end, every country has its responsibility to decide which drugs they consider non-dangerous. And even though some countries might misuse this part, I think most won't. Considering that a lot of countries do not abide by all resolutions, I personally think this problem with countries interpreting words in a way they like it is something which happens with many resolutions, and the most important thing we want to achieve is making the current situation in which children may use recreational and dangerous drugs better, not making it perfect. I know the resolution gives nations more space to decide how to interpret it, more than in an ideal situation, but I do think this resolution is important and I do believe it's good enough to bring to vote.

If you have any idea how to phrase the definition of drugs better, I am happy to hear it!

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ok, so we can give children small amount of cannabis, mushrooms, and LSD. I hope you see the problem inherent in your regulatory scheme?"

First of all, I personally do not consider those drugs as being 'non-dangerous'. In the end, every country has its responsibility to decide which drugs they consider non-dangerous. And even though some countries might misuse this part, I think most won't. Considering that a lot of countries do not abide by all resolutions, I personally think this problem with countries interpreting words in a way they like it is something which happens with many resolutions, and the most important thing we want to achieve is making the current situation in which children may use recreational and dangerous drugs better, not making it perfect. I know the resolution gives nations more space to decide how to interpret it, more than in an ideal situation, but I do think this resolution is important and I do believe it's good enough to bring to vote.

If you have any idea how to phrase the definition of drugs better, I am happy to hear it!

"Then you've accomplished nothing. Nations that believe such drugs are harmful would already have regulated their access by minors. Nations that do not would not. The law would have accomplished literally nothing. So, why bother?"

[New Min]

First of all, I personally do not consider those drugs as being 'non-dangerous'. In the end, every country has its responsibility to decide which drugs they consider non-dangerous. And even though some countries might misuse this part, I think most won't. Considering that a lot of countries do not abide by all resolutions, I personally think this problem with countries interpreting words in a way they like it is something which happens with many resolutions, and the most important thing we want to achieve is making the current situation in which children may use recreational and dangerous drugs better, not making it perfect. I know the resolution gives nations more space to decide how to interpret it, more than in an ideal situation, but I do think this resolution is important and I do believe it's good enough to bring to vote.

If you have any idea how to phrase the definition of drugs better, I am happy to hear it!

"Then you've accomplished nothing. Nations that believe such drugs are harmful would already have regulated their access by minors. Nations that do not would not. The law would have accomplished literally nothing. So, why bother?"

You show the importance of such regulations by making a resolution. Forcing countries doesn't work. For example, there is a ban on slavery (WAR #23), but still, a lot of countries have slavery. You could say it hasn't had any effect, but still, the WA made clear that it finds slavery a bad thing, and I do believe it influenced slavery regulations in many countries.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Then you've accomplished nothing. Nations that believe such drugs are harmful would already have regulated their access by minors. Nations that do not would not. The law would have accomplished literally nothing. So, why bother?"

You show the importance of such regulations by making a resolution. Forcing countries doesn't work. For example, there is a ban on slavery (WAR #23), but still, a lot of countries have slavery. You could say it hasn't had any effect, but still, the WA made clear that it finds slavery a bad thing, and I do believe it influenced slavery regulations in many countries.

"The World Assembly ought not waste it a time wot h virtue signalling. If you are not enacting policy and enforcing it, you waste resources by passing it.

"That some nations ignore WA laws is a poor reason to pass more that will be ignored. Might as well pass a law that bans Bad Things. Do or do not."

[New Min]

You show the importance of such regulations by making a resolution. Forcing countries doesn't work. For example, there is a ban on slavery (WAR #23), but still, a lot of countries have slavery. You could say it hasn't had any effect, but still, the WA made clear that it finds slavery a bad thing, and I do believe it influenced slavery regulations in many countries.

"The World Assembly ought not waste it a time wot h virtue signalling. If you are not enacting policy and enforcing it, you waste resources by passing it.

"That some nations ignore WA laws is a poor reason to pass more that will be ignored. Might as well pass a law that bans Bad Things. Do or do not."

Do you know any way in which this resolution could be written in a way it actually is enforceable?

[Separatist Peoples]

"The World Assembly ought not waste it a time wot h virtue signalling. If you are not enacting policy and enforcing it, you waste resources by passing it.

"That some nations ignore WA laws is a poor reason to pass more that will be ignored. Might as well pass a law that bans Bad Things. Do or do not."

Do you know any way in which this resolution could be written in a way it actually is enforceable?

"I doubt it. As I said, any nation that feels mnor drug use is bad will have banned or regulated it. You could tighten up the language to exclude subjective standards. But there isn't much benefit to internationally enforcing this."

[Christian Democrats]

Bans the use of drugs by minors

We don't believe the General Assembly should punish minors for using controlled substances. The solution to the international drug problem includes rehabilitating users and punishing manufacturers, distributors, and sellers.

[Kenmoria]

Do you know any way in which this resolution could be written in a way it actually is enforceable?

"I doubt it. As I said, any nation that feels mnor drug use is bad will have banned or regulated it. You could tighten up the language to exclude subjective standards. But there isn't much benefit to internationally enforcing this."

"I disagree that there is no point in continuing this draft. Whilst there are some problems regarding over-applicability and one size fits all legislation, the idea isn't by itself doomed. You could say that a nation believing something's bad will ban it about most topics the WA has covered, such as FGM, but that doesn't stop the resolutions from being good ideas."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I doubt it. As I said, any nation that feels mnor drug use is bad will have banned or regulated it. You could tighten up the language to exclude subjective standards. But there isn't much benefit to internationally enforcing this."

"I disagree that there is no point in continuing this draft. Whilst there are some problems regarding over-applicability and one size fits all legislation, the idea isn't by itself doomed. You could say that a nation believing something's bad will ban it about most topics the WA has covered, such as FGM, but that doesn't stop the resolutions from being good ideas."

"There is a difference. In the WA, female genital mutilation is banned regardless of what member nations believe culturally. This proposal permits minor drug use to be limited only at the discretion of the member state. Discretionary bans are useless. Your premise is flawed."

[New Min]

Bans the use of drugs by minors

We don't believe the General Assembly should punish minors for using controlled substances. The solution to the international drug problem includes rehabilitating users and punishing manufacturers, distributors, and sellers.

Point 5 encourages member nations to help minors addicted to drugs. Illegal selling of drugs is already banned by another resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

Illegal selling of drugs is already banned by another resolution.

"Which? I don't believe the World Assembly has totally banned any recreational drugs."

[Kenmoria]

"Clause 6 is unnecessary, it brings in no new mandates and does not back up anything else in the proposal. It could also be read as actually weakening the proposal's strength."

[Attempted Socialism]

(3) Bans the use of drugs by minors when:
(3.1) the drugs are not used to cure a disease after consulting a doctor and having his permission,
(3.2) or when the drugs are not being used as part of a drug rehabilitation program.
(3.3) The usage of non-dangerous drugs in non-dangerous amounts is excluded from the ban.

"Part three should be revised in its entirety. Currently Three-one only allows for male doctors to give permission, a permission that itself is problematic since most doctors in no meaningful way 'permits' their patients to take drugs but rather recommends or administers drugs. Three-two would read 'Bans the use of drugs by minors when or when the drugs are...' since it follows from Three, but is constructed as a run-on sentence from Three-one by mistake. Three-three has the added flaw of negating itself in a curious fashion due to the same issue. Since the clause is banning use of drugs, Three-three bans the usage of non-dangerous drugs and excludes them from the ban as well for good measure.
I seriously suggest you rework the definitions so you do not have to attempt at these work-arounds, and subsequently revise this part."