[DEFEATED] Drug Abuse Amelioration Act

[Maowi]

This is a creative approach to the management of drug problems which Holly United (vice delegate of South Pacific) came up with, and we drafted it together. It's sort of a similar approach to IRL Portugal, which is proving successful.

Drug Abuse Amelioration Act

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

Aware of the addictive nature of most recreational drugs;

Cognizant that the use or possession of recreational drugs is banned in many member nations;

Believing that criminalizing the use or possession of recreational drugs does little to help those who are addicted to said drugs; and

Eager to improve the situation for drug addicts through effective social policies;

The World Assembly:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   
   1. 'recreational drugs' as substances taken recreationally for their physical or psychoactive effects;
      
      
   2. 'rehabilitation' as the elimination of a person's physical or psychological dependence on recreational drugs based on scientific methods, and harming or distressing the person only as much as is necessary for the treatment. Rehabilitation may take place within a secure environment provided that this aids the treatment in some way;
   
   
2. Reserves to all member nations the right to decide which recreational drugs to ban and which to legalise;
   
   
3. 1. Mandates that member nations in which the use of recreational drugs is illegal may not punish or give a criminal record to a person for using or possessing with the sole intent of using recreational drugs the first time they are caught, although the illegal drugs may be confiscated from the user; instead, an addicted user must be provided with rehabilitation;
      
      
   2. Encourages member nations to mandate the return to rehabilitation by a former user of drugs if, after a period of time wherein the immediate effects of withdrawal have passed and normal life has been mostly resumed, restarting of recreational drug use begins;
   
   
4. Clarifies that:
   
   
   1. light fines may be given to those found using recreational drugs in member nations in which the possession and use of recreational drugs is illegal, not exceeding the fines given for a civil offence, the first time they are caught;
      
      
   2. member nations may keep records on the identities of those found, for the first time, illegally possessing or using recreational drugs, not to be disclosed to any non-government individual and to be used solely to check whether a person illegally possessing or using recreational drugs is doing so for the first time;
      
      
   3. member nations may punish people for crimes, other than the possession and use of recreational drugs, committed strictly as a result of their use of recreational drugs;
      
      
   4. member nations may punish people trying to make other people take recreational drugs without both their knowledge and consent;
   
   
5. 1. Orders people, groups and organisations legally selling recreational drugs to clearly state the ingredients of their products on the packaging of said products, in the principal language(s) spoken by people in the place of sale. The list of ingredients must be easily legible to the naked eye;
      
      
   2. Clarifies that in the case in which recreational drugs are being sold without packaging, the entity selling the drugs must communicate the ingredients of the drugs to the buyer upon being asked, and must provide an accessible method for the buyer to enquire about the ingredients.

Co-authored with Holly United

Thoughts, feedback, opinions and constructive criticisms are very welcome

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 2, is the ‘should’ intended to convey a command, that member nations are obligated to criminalise the situation you describe, or a recommendation, that member nations have merely a moral responsibility for criminalisation? Either way, it needs to be clarified, and I recommend opting for the latter choice.”

[Maowi]

“In clause 2, is the ‘should’ intended to convey a command, that member nations are obligated to criminalise the situation you describe, or a recommendation, that member nations have merely a moral responsibility for criminalisation? Either way, it needs to be clarified, and I recommend opting for the latter choice.”

It's a recommendation, as we assume nations in which the possession and use of recreational drugs is illegal will want to still stop the use of recreational drugs and if they do, that's how they should do it. Do you recommend changing the wording?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"What is a 'government-approved company,' ambassador? Would we be able to continue to license drug manufacturers and pharmaceutical artisans through the existing product safety bureaucracy, or are you mandating a state-sanctioned monopoly?"

[Maowi]

"What is a 'government-approved company,' ambassador? Would we be able to continue to license drug manufacturers and pharmaceutical artisans through the existing product safety bureaucracy, or are you mandating a state-sanctioned monopoly?"

"That's just in to make sure drugs are produced as safely as possible, ambassador, so governments would have to actively check which companies they are allowing to make drugs. Would you suggest adding in a section about these companies having to prove the relative safety of their products?"

[Morover]

"Quite frankly, I just fail to see the need. If you expanded upon clause one, I could get behind this, but, as it stands, I simply cannot see why a nation would not be allowed to have private industry in this regard."

[Maowi]

"Quite frankly, I just fail to see the need. If you expanded upon clause one, I could get behind this, but, as it stands, I simply cannot see why a nation would not be allowed to have private industry in this regard."

"Private industry would still be permitted, but companies would have to be government approved i.e. the government has to make sure they're not selling sand mixed with fox dung."

[Grays Harbor]

Well, it’s better than the old “make weed legal, dude!” proposals we used to get 10-15 years ago.

[Morover]

"Quite frankly, I just fail to see the need. If you expanded upon clause one, I could get behind this, but, as it stands, I simply cannot see why a nation would not be allowed to have private industry in this regard."

"Private industry would still be permitted, but companies would have to be government approved i.e. the government has to make sure they're not selling sand mixed with fox dung."

"Perhaps a better way to go about it, then, is to make the ingredients required to be able to be clearly seen. I only worry for WA nations that are so largely capitalistic that they cannot realistically survey every single pharmaceutical/recreational drug company."

[Greifenburg]

"A commendable goal, which my nation could get behind. Although, the term recreational drug itself could be a bit to broad, as it technically includes, for humans at least, for example alcohol, nicotin and caffeine. Surely you don't expect us to approve every single brewery, tobacco, coffee, soft drink and tea manufacturer, right?"

[Araraukar]

1. MANDATES that member nations in which the possession or use of recreational drugs is currently illegal may not punish or criminalize people found using recreational drugs or possessing them with the intent of using them, but must provide or make available rehabilitative services helping them end their drug use;

IC: "Why? Give me one good reason why possession and use of illegal drugs should suddenly be let slip unpunished? Anyone caught with illegal drugs in their possession gets rehabilitative services in prison, anyway, it's a mandatory part of the sentencing. Also, what would your proposal do if the individual refuses these services, given that you're prohibiting any punishment?"

OOC: This will be near-impossible to pass, just so you know. Illegal drugs are one of the biggies that people tend to vote OOCly on.

[Kyoki Chudoku]

Tokiko cleared her throat. ”Look. I’ve willing to let a lot of vices slip in the name of sanity. Look at my scars. That’s an example. But when people start shovin’ poison into their bodies, and you want us to waste what limited resources we have on rehabilitation without even punishing the traitors? There are people more worthy of those resources. People who’ve suffered because of war and situations they could avoid, instead of their own idiotic decision to defy both Chudokuren law and common sense. Recreational drugs aren’t a major problem here, incredibly, but we have no intent on going soft on people who poison themselves and others. Also, doesn’t this proposal mean you can’t do anything to people makin’ their own illegal drugs purely for themselves, even if some of those processes can be fatal? It addresses legal drugs being made that way, but not illegal ones. I’m guessing that’s an error, but even without that, we’re firmly against.”

[Falcania]

1. MANDATES that member nations in which the possession or use of recreational drugs is currently illegal may not punish or criminalize people found using recreational drugs or possessing them with the intent of using them, but must provide or make available rehabilitative services helping them end their drug use;

IC: "Why? Give me one good reason why possession and use of illegal drugs should suddenly be let slip unpunished? Anyone caught with illegal drugs in their possession gets rehabilitative services in prison, anyway, it's a mandatory part of the sentencing. Also, what would your proposal do if the individual refuses these services, given that you're prohibiting any punishment?"

OOC: This will be near-impossible to pass, just so you know. Illegal drugs are one of the biggies that people tend to vote OOCly on.

One good reason? It doesn't work very well. Drug addiction is a public health issue, not a criminal issue. Imprisoning drug users to curb the use of drugs is like imprisoning typhoid sufferers to stop the spread of typhoid. It doesn't solve the problem, just puts it out of view.

[Kyoki Chudoku]

IC: "Why? Give me one good reason why possession and use of illegal drugs should suddenly be let slip unpunished? Anyone caught with illegal drugs in their possession gets rehabilitative services in prison, anyway, it's a mandatory part of the sentencing. Also, what would your proposal do if the individual refuses these services, given that you're prohibiting any punishment?"

OOC: This will be near-impossible to pass, just so you know. Illegal drugs are one of the biggies that people tend to vote OOCly on.

One good reason? It doesn't work very well. Drug addiction is a public health issue, not a criminal issue. Imprisoning drug users to curb the use of drugs is like imprisoning typhoid sufferers to stop the spread of typhoid. It doesn't solve the problem, just puts it out of view.

”Oh, of course. What an apt comparison. After all, we all know how many people go and pick up typhoid on purpose, whether by manufacturing their own infections or going to typhoid dealers on the streets.“

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 2, is the ‘should’ intended to convey a command, that member nations are obligated to criminalise the situation you describe, or a recommendation, that member nations have merely a moral responsibility for criminalisation? Either way, it needs to be clarified, and I recommend opting for the latter choice.”

It's a recommendation, as we assume nations in which the possession and use of recreational drugs is illegal will want to still stop the use of recreational drugs and if they do, that's how they should do it. Do you recommend changing the wording?

“Yes, I think make it clearer that this is a recommendation rather than a command, because some past resolutions have used ‘should’ to mean member nations must do something.”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"What is a 'government-approved company,' ambassador? Would we be able to continue to license drug manufacturers and pharmaceutical artisans through the existing product safety bureaucracy, or are you mandating a state-sanctioned monopoly?"

"That's just in to make sure drugs are produced as safely as possible, ambassador, so governments would have to actively check which companies they are allowing to make drugs. Would you suggest adding in a section about these companies having to prove the relative safety of their products?"

"That... didn't really answer my question. Do you foresee member states treating the industry akin to food production, where many nations have a relatively open licensure and inspection regime? Or does 'government-approved company' denote something more strenuous, say like municipal utilities, where either the government itself runs the program or allows a heavily regulated monopoly to do so?"

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Title does not match contents.

[Araraukar]

IC: "Why? Give me one good reason why possession and use of illegal drugs should suddenly be let slip unpunished? Anyone caught with illegal drugs in their possession gets rehabilitative services in prison, anyway, it's a mandatory part of the sentencing. Also, what would your proposal do if the individual refuses these services, given that you're prohibiting any punishment?"

One good reason? It doesn't work very well. Drug addiction is a public health issue, not a criminal issue. Imprisoning drug users to curb the use of drugs is like imprisoning typhoid sufferers to stop the spread of typhoid. It doesn't solve the problem, just puts it out of view.

IC: "Which part of "rehabilitative services being a mandatory part of the sentencing" escaped your attention?" Johan asked rather testily. "Putting them in prison gives us a way to make sure they go through the rehabilitation and therapy, and allows us to prevent them from accessing drugs when they're not supposed to. In short, controlled conditions for mandatory rehabilitation."

OOC: Title does not match contents.

OOC: That too.

”Oh, of course. What an apt comparison. After all, we all know how many people go and pick up typhoid on purpose, whether by manufacturing their own infections or going to typhoid dealers on the streets.“

IC: "Also, recreational drugs are not contagious. People may learn the habit from example of others, but they are not a highly contagious infectious disease."

[Falcania]

One good reason? It doesn't work very well. Drug addiction is a public health issue, not a criminal issue. Imprisoning drug users to curb the use of drugs is like imprisoning typhoid sufferers to stop the spread of typhoid. It doesn't solve the problem, just puts it out of view.

IC: "Which part of "rehabilitative services being a mandatory part of the sentencing" escaped your attention?" Johan asked rather testily. "Putting them in prison gives us a way to make sure they go through the rehabilitation and therapy, and allows us to prevent them from accessing drugs when they're not supposed to. In short, controlled conditions for mandatory rehabilitation."

Many nations have reported that recreational drug use inside prison is a huge problem, and scientific studies often bear this conclusion out. So while rehabilitation of drug use inside prison can be possible, the evidence doesn't show that it's necessarily a great solution.

”Oh, of course. What an apt comparison. After all, we all know how many people go and pick up typhoid on purpose, whether by manufacturing their own infections or going to typhoid dealers on the streets.“

IC: "Also, recreational drugs are not contagious. People may learn the habit from example of others, but they are not a highly contagious infectious disease."

Recreational drugs are absolutely contagious. There are two ways to get a drug - you either acquire it directly, or you learn how to make it. It is an environmental factor, and a learned behaviour. People with no exposure to drugs don't suddenly wake up one morning with a whimsical desire to take up meth. Either they know someone who is involved with drugs, or the idea to become involved with drugs is suggested to them.

In every case, a person taking drugs requires someone else to "transmit" the drug to them. If you take any addict, you can map the transactions that have taken place from person to person to find the way they got the drugs, whether by buying drugs, having drugs advocated to them, taught how to make drugs, given drugs as a gift or available in a social context. And it looks very, very similar to the model of the spread of a contagious disease.

By applying public health strategies it is possible to contain and treat endemic drug use by cutting off vectors of transmission and eliminating sources - in this case, drug dealers, the 'Typhoid Marys' in this analogy. If it's illegal to own or buy drugs, then that makes a powerful disincentive for any drug users to come forward and report drug-related crimes. You can compare this to another example of a public health issue that has been prosecuted as a crime - abortion. Often people who had been injured by unsafe illegal abortion would not be able to come forward to the police to report their abortionist because they would implicate themselves in a crime of having had an abortion themselves.

Finally, the statistics for sexually transmitted infections suggest that people going around giving themselves diseases for fun may not be as far-fetched as you may think.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC:

I RP my issue choices. The world rankings relevant here:
Lowest crime rate, top 0.07%
Health, top 0.08%
Safety, top 0.2%
Lifespan, top 0.2%
Inclusiveness, top 0.9%
Law enforcement, top 2%
Public healthcare, top 2%

Youth rebelliousness, bottom 6%
Recreational drug use, bottom 4%

IC: "Ambassador, to my knowledge "because some nations can't handle their problems" has never equalled to a good reason. If anything, the fact that my nation has managed to make things work with the criminalization of the "recreational" drugs and the mandatory treatment of those involved with them, should prove that statistics have little value when we're talking about nations with such different levels of care provided. The issues you cite, have been all but eliminated in Araraukar, and you still haven't given me a good reason for why we should be taking steps backwards."

OOC: Before someone points it out, Araraukar is in IC in WA, I've just got the WA status on a puppet account right now, because I don't want the stat effects from IS proposals (133rd most pacifist in the world currently) passing, and I'm going to be busy with moving soon, and likely going to miss a vote or two...

[Falcania]

*snip*

OOC:

I RP my issue choices. The world rankings relevant here:
Lowest crime rate, top 0.07%
Health, top 0.08%
Safety, top 0.2%
Lifespan, top 0.2%
Inclusiveness, top 0.9%
Law enforcement, top 2%
Public healthcare, top 2%

Youth rebelliousness, bottom 6%
Recreational drug use, bottom 4%

IC: "Ambassador, to my knowledge "because some nations can't handle their problems" has never equalled to a good reason. If anything, the fact that my nation has managed to make things work with the criminalization of the "recreational" drugs and the mandatory treatment of those involved with them, should prove that statistics have little value when we're talking about nations with such different levels of care provided. The issues you cite, have been all but eliminated in Araraukar, and you still haven't given me a good reason for why we should be taking steps backwards."

OOC: Before someone points it out, Araraukar is in IC in WA, I've just got the WA status on a puppet account right now, because I don't want the stat effects from IS proposals (133rd most pacifist in the world currently) passing, and I'm going to be busy with moving soon, and likely going to miss a vote or two...

Good for you, ambassador. You found a solution that works when you are at the pinnacle of the world for access to healthcare. Not every nation can be lucky enough to be Araraukar. Treating drug addiction as a public health issue is simply more cost-effective than criminalising it. If you can afford to arrest every drug user in your nation, and provide them with rehabilitative care in prison, you can afford to do that without putting them through the judicial system first, and move straight to mandatory care, while still complying with this legislation.

[Araraukar]

If you can afford to arrest every drug user in your nation, and provide them with rehabilitative care in prison, you can afford to do that without putting them through the judicial system first, and move straight to mandatory care, while still complying with this legislation.

IC: "Not the way it is currently reworded. You would not be allowed to mandate care or force them to actually go through the rehabilitation. Additionally, if loss of freedom is involved, how is it not prison?"

OOC: Araraukarian prison system is modeled after that of Finland's, not whatever uncivilized horror nations like USA or Thailand.

[Falcania]

If you can afford to arrest every drug user in your nation, and provide them with rehabilitative care in prison, you can afford to do that without putting them through the judicial system first, and move straight to mandatory care, while still complying with this legislation.

IC: "Not the way it is currently reworded. You would not be allowed to mandate care or force them to actually go through the rehabilitation. Additionally, if loss of freedom is involved, how is it not prison?"

OOC: Araraukarian prison system is modeled after that of Finland's, not whatever uncivilized horror nations like USA or Thailand.

A secure hospital, a secure psychiatric unit for example, deprives its patients of freedom without being a prison. Imprisonment is a punitive measure, distinct from a secure therapeutic environment.

[Kyoki Chudoku]

IC: "Which part of "rehabilitative services being a mandatory part of the sentencing" escaped your attention?" Johan asked rather testily. "Putting them in prison gives us a way to make sure they go through the rehabilitation and therapy, and allows us to prevent them from accessing drugs when they're not supposed to. In short, controlled conditions for mandatory rehabilitation."

Many nations have reported that recreational drug use inside prison is a huge problem, and scientific studies often bear this conclusion out. So while rehabilitation of drug use inside prison can be possible, the evidence doesn't show that it's necessarily a great solution.

IC: "Also, recreational drugs are not contagious. People may learn the habit from example of others, but they are not a highly contagious infectious disease."

Recreational drugs are absolutely contagious. There are two ways to get a drug - you either acquire it directly, or you learn how to make it. It is an environmental factor, and a learned behaviour. People with no exposure to drugs don't suddenly wake up one morning with a whimsical desire to take up meth. Either they know someone who is involved with drugs, or the idea to become involved with drugs is suggested to them.

In every case, a person taking drugs requires someone else to "transmit" the drug to them. If you take any addict, you can map the transactions that have taken place from person to person to find the way they got the drugs, whether by buying drugs, having drugs advocated to them, taught how to make drugs, given drugs as a gift or available in a social context. And it looks very, very similar to the model of the spread of a contagious disease.

By applying public health strategies it is possible to contain and treat endemic drug use by cutting off vectors of transmission and eliminating sources - in this case, drug dealers, the 'Typhoid Marys' in this analogy. If it's illegal to own or buy drugs, then that makes a powerful disincentive for any drug users to come forward and report drug-related crimes. You can compare this to another example of a public health issue that has been prosecuted as a crime - abortion. Often people who had been injured by unsafe illegal abortion would not be able to come forward to the police to report their abortionist because they would implicate themselves in a crime of having had an abortion themselves.

Finally, the statistics for sexually transmitted infections suggest that people going around giving themselves diseases for fun may not be as far-fetched as you may think.

”With all due respect- that is to say, none- I find these points nothing more than excuses. There’s a couple of important differences for one thing. You don’t find most people growing gardens of typhoid patients in their basements, or combining chemicals to make, I don’t know, influenza. But enough on the analogy. The core problem is that you focus on the rehabilitation- in fact, to you, that’s the only concern it seems. You’re not addressing the problem. You’re saying, what, we can’t do a thing about people using drugs even if it is illegal? All we can do is try help them, let them poison themselves again, rinse and repeat? That’s a terrible suggestion. Not many killers are coming forward about their crimes, you hardly see that listed as a reason to legalise murder. Same with shady financial schemes. People get involved in those, don’t want to come forward because it’s illegal, end up ripped off. You don’t see us rushing to their aid, because it’s their fault. Same with drugs. If someone comes up to someone else, jabs ‘me with a needle, of course we aren’t gonna hold that against the victim. But otherwise, it’s their fault, at least in part, and they deserve punishment for such treachery.”

Tokiko coughed a little. “Actually, speaking of which, let’s talk about the uses of drugs. You never did address my earlier point about people makin’ their own illegal drugs, and how under this resolution, we can’t do a thing about it. Even though some of those processes with stuff like, I don’t know, methamphatmine, have this nasty little tendency to poison people making it if they’re not careful. And considerin’ what they’re makin’....anyway. That needs to be dealt with. But also, nowhere in this is it mentioned that you can use drugs on others without their consent without sellin’ ‘em. Sedation and defilement comes to mind. Are you gonna say that if we run into someone carryin’ a needle of say, ketamine, probably tryin’ to jab someone else with it, the most we can do is rehabilitate them? One more point. I could be wrong on this, but...doesn’t this resolution give places which legalise drugs more power to punish drug users than countries where the things are illegal all-around? Since the first part only deals with illegal drugs, so if say, weed is legal, and someone uses it from an illegal source, they can get arrested, but if weed is illegal, than they can’t? I find that ironic and stupid.”

[Falcania]

”With all due respect- that is to say, none- I find these points nothing more than excuses. There’s a couple of important differences for one thing. You don’t find most people growing gardens of typhoid patients in their basements, or combining chemicals to make, I don’t know, influenza. But enough on the analogy. The core problem is that you focus on the rehabilitation- in fact, to you, that’s the only concern it seems. You’re not addressing the problem. You’re saying, what, we can’t do a thing about people using drugs even if it is illegal? All we can do is try help them, let them poison themselves again, rinse and repeat? That’s a terrible suggestion.

Why? Nobody's trying to criminalise suicide. I'm not about to claim that the recreational drug industry has no element worth criminalising. Sure, make it a crime to sell drugs, to give drugs, to make drugs, or to conspire to do any of those. But making it a crime to own drugs, or take drugs? What does that achieve?

Not many killers are coming forward about their crimes, you hardly see that listed as a reason to legalise murder. Same with shady financial schemes. People get involved in those, don’t want to come forward because it’s illegal, end up ripped off. You don’t see us rushing to their aid, because it’s their fault. Same with drugs.

Don't be daft, the 'killer' argument is daft. You've got a closer analogy with the 'shady financial schemes' argument but there's a distinction. If someone participates in an illegal, fraudulent scam and gets ripped off, their criminal culpability should be proportional to the harm caused. If the 'shady financial scheme' involves you being asked to do something that will hurt or steal from somebody else, then you've committed a crime, sure. If in the 'shady financial scheme' the only person losing out is you, then you haven't committed a crime.

If someone comes up to someone else, jabs ‘me with a needle, of course we aren’t gonna hold that against the victim. But otherwise, it’s their fault, at least in part, and they deserve punishment for such treachery.”

Tokiko coughed a little. “Actually, speaking of which, let’s talk about the uses of drugs. You never did address my earlier point about people makin’ their own illegal drugs, and how under this resolution, we can’t do a thing about it. Even though some of those processes with stuff like, I don’t know, methamphatmine, have this nasty little tendency to poison people making it if they’re not careful. And considerin’ what they’re makin’....anyway. That needs to be dealt with. But also, nowhere in this is it mentioned that you can use drugs on others without their consent without sellin’ ‘em. Sedation and defilement comes to mind. Are you gonna say that if we run into someone carryin’ a needle of say, ketamine, probably tryin’ to jab someone else with it, the most we can do is rehabilitate them?

I agree on this point. Possession of some drugs is equivalent to possession of a deadly weapon. Perhaps the legislation could do with some tightening here.

One more point. I could be wrong on this, but...doesn’t this resolution give places which legalise drugs more power to punish drug users than countries where the things are illegal all-around? Since the first part only deals with illegal drugs, so if say, weed is legal, and someone uses it from an illegal source, they can get arrested, but if weed is illegal, than they can’t? I find that ironic and stupid.”

I guess the fact that section 3 is an "order" and section 2 is an "announcement" of something that "may and should" be done, supports your reading. I agree it's inconsistent.