[DEFEATED] Drug Abuse Amelioration Act

[Maowi]

Also I'm really not sure what to do about the self medication, as it seems to me that's a whole separate issue - any thoughts?

OOC: I meant medicating in the sense of using illegal drugs to ease the symptoms of some condition. And don't think marijuana here, think more serious drugs. Also, what about using legit medications as drugs (for their psychoactive or physically intoxicating effects)?

For your second point, the medication would fit the definition of recreational drugs in those circumstances, so they'd fall under the proposal. Regarding your first point, I think that would be different, as the person wouldn't be addicted to the drugs, right? They wouldn't need rehabilitation so much as treatment for their condition. I mean, we could try and include a separate set of clauses for that eventuality but at that point you might as well write a separate proposal?

OOC: On the new draft, rehabilitation definition - what counts as "effective"? Like, how is that measured? Also, that clause ends in a period, unlike the other clauses.

Changed to "successful treatment of a person's dependence on recreational drugs", as it's important to make sure people don't relapse as soon as they leave rehab. Even if people are having to be kept in rehab some time longer, it pays off in the long run by preventing repeat offences.

For the "no punishment" - would follow-up to any rehabilitation program be allowed, like getting frequently tested for signs of drug use (urine/blood tests and whatnot similar) for a period of time?

Well, I wouldn't consider drug tests punishment, especially as they often take place at random IRL, so I'd be inclined to say yes, although if someone makes a good argument for them being punishment we can change the wording to allow it.

In clause 5, drop the ( ) from around the committed crimes, and instead of tacking "only" at the end, I'd reword the end of that whole clause as it as "may be punished for crimes committed, other than the possession and use of drugs, provided they do not have a prior drug offence on record". Which reminds me, you might need to add something about law enforcement being allowed to keep records to know who are re-offenders, even if they're not criminal records. In any case, you don't need to mention rehabilitation of first-timers again in that clause, since clause 3 mandates it (though I'd question how you could easily tell someone is addicted without locking them up and seeing if they get withdrawal symptoms, so that clause may need some more work).

I've made your suggested changes, thanks . You have a good point about telling whether someone is addicted, although you can often tell from their physical symptoms, and then hair drug tests can pretty reliably identify chronic drug use, as a real life example.

Clause 6, does "giving someone something edible/drinkable that contains drugs, without telling them that" as "forcing"?

Fixed that, thanks.

And clause 7 should probably specify that it's meant for nations where the drugs are legal.

Is it not fine just saying 'ORDERS people, groups and organisations legally selling recreational drugs to clearly state ...'?

[Linux and the X]

Shouldn't this be classified as Recreational Drug Use?

[Kenmoria]

Shouldn't this be classified as Recreational Drug Use?

(OOC: That category was removed, so is now part of the civil rights category instead.)

[Linux and the X]

Shouldn't this be classified as Recreational Drug Use?

(OOC: That category was removed, so is now part of the civil rights category instead.)

Damn kids. Get offa my lawn!

[Araraukar]

Regarding your first point, I think that would be different, as the person wouldn't be addicted to the drugs, right?

OOC: How do you figure that? I have bipolar, depression and anxiety issues and am on life-long medication for bipolar at least. If I go cold turkey on the meds, I will get withdrawal symptoms. Isn't that pretty much proof of physical addiction? Similarly, any long-time user of any other drug that causes physical addiction, is likely addicted to it. Just look at how difficult it is to quit smoking tobacco, if you've smoked a lot for many years.

Changed to "successful treatment of a person's dependence on recreational drugs", as it's important to make sure people don't relapse as soon as they leave rehab.

But if they do relapse later, even if it's after many years their rehabilitation ended, does it still count as successful?

You have a good point about telling whether someone is addicted, although you can often tell from their physical symptoms, and then hair drug tests can pretty reliably identify chronic drug use, as a real life example.

Yeah, but use =/= addiction, or so people claim anyway...

And clause 7 should probably specify that it's meant for nations where the drugs are legal.

Is it not fine just saying 'ORDERS people, groups and organisations legally selling recreational drugs to clearly state ...'?

If it lets Araraukarians to put into prison anyone carrying illegal drugs in any kinds of packages that don't have all that info, then I'm all for it.

[Maowi]

OOC: How do you figure that? I have bipolar, depression and anxiety issues and am on life-long medication for bipolar at least. If I go cold turkey on the meds, I will get withdrawal symptoms. Isn't that pretty much proof of physical addiction? Similarly, any long-time user of any other drug that causes physical addiction, is likely addicted to it. Just look at how difficult it is to quit smoking tobacco, if you've smoked a lot for many years.

Oh right, sorry, I misunderstood the point you were making.
Your original point was about using illegal drugs for relieving the symptoms of a condition, and I think force legalising medical drug use does not fall under the aims of this proposal. The intent of this is to deal with reducing illegal recreational drug use, and I think that adding a clause about medical drug use would be out of place with the rest of the proposal, with the preamble, with the title or simply its purpose.

Changed to "successful treatment of a person's dependence on recreational drugs", as it's important to make sure people don't relapse as soon as they leave rehab.

But if they do relapse later, even if it's after many years their rehabilitation ended, does it still count as successful?

I was thinking about setting a threshold for the length of time after rehab ends in which, if the client relapses, they have to re-enter rehabilitation. But I'm struggling to think of ways of phrasing that in a way which accommodates all the different species on NS. Does anybody happen to have any neat ways of solving this? Thanks

You have a good point about telling whether someone is addicted, although you can often tell from their physical symptoms, and then hair drug tests can pretty reliably identify chronic drug use, as a real life example.

Yeah, but use =/= addiction, or so people claim anyway...

That's a fair point. So I guess you'd have to remove their access to drugs and check them for withdrawal symptoms. I guess I could put in something like this:

Defines an 'addicted user' as a person who, when denied access to recreational drugs, exhibits withdrawal symptoms such as, but not limited to, vomiting, diarrhoea, palpitations and muscle twitching. Member nations may check whether someone found illegally possessing or using recreational drugs is an addicted user by denying them access to recreational drugs and keeping them in a controlled environment for no longer than 150% of the mean time in which withdrawal symptoms are manifested, and may monitor them for withdrawal symptoms but may not harm them in any way that is unnecessary for checking for the presence of withdrawal symptoms;

Thoughts? And also, is 'withdrawal symptoms' too informal?

Is it not fine just saying 'ORDERS people, groups and organisations legally selling recreational drugs to clearly state ...'?

If it lets Araraukarians to put into prison anyone carrying illegal drugs in any kinds of packages that don't have all that info, then I'm all for it.

But I'm confused why that would let you do that??? If you could kindly oblige to explain, then I'll make sure to fix that pronto

[Maowi]

don't legalize weed

I'm not asking you to. Have you by any chance read the proposal?

[Hatzisland]

don't legalize weed

OOC: This is a serious forum. Save comments like that for The Fifth Dimension(just trying to warn you before the not so nice one's come on.)

Edit: I guess the post was deleted.

[Kenmoria]

“I have an issue with the word ‘succesful’ in the definition of ‘rehabilitation’. Namely, you require member nations to provide or make available rehabilitation, but there is no way for a state to guarantee the success of any methods, at least in ones of a technological advancement equal to or lower than Kenmoria.”

[Maowi]

“I have an issue with the word ‘succesful’ in the definition of ‘rehabilitation’. Namely, you require member nations to provide or make available rehabilitation, but there is no way for a state to guarantee the success of any methods, at least in ones of a technological advancement equal to or lower than Kenmoria.”

OOC:

I was thinking about setting a threshold for the length of time after rehab ends in which, if the client relapses, they have to re-enter rehabilitation. But I'm struggling to think of ways of phrasing that in a way which accommodates all the different species on NS. Does anybody happen to have any neat ways of solving this? Thanks

This is the problem right now. I can't think of a nice way of phrasing it.

[Kenmoria]

OOC:

I was thinking about setting a threshold for the length of time after rehab ends in which, if the client relapses, they have to re-enter rehabilitation. But I'm struggling to think of ways of phrasing that in a way which accommodates all the different species on NS. Does anybody happen to have any neat ways of solving this? Thanks

This is the problem right now. I can't think of a nice way of phrasing it.

(OOC: I would recommend against putting in something of that nature, partly due to the difficulty of accommodating many different species, though that could be quite easy to work around with careful wording, but mainly because that doesn’t seem like enough of an international issue. Although it is makes sense for the General Assembly to mandate rehabilitation, returning after rehabilitation strikes me as more of a national issue.

To this end, I suggest ‘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’ for the clause.)

[Maowi]

(OOC: I would recommend against putting in something of that nature, partly due to the difficulty of accommodating many different species, though that could be quite easy to work around with careful wording, but mainly because that doesn’t seem like enough of an international issue. Although it is makes sense for the General Assembly to mandate rehabilitation, returning after rehabilitation strikes me as more of a national issue.

To this end, I suggest ‘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’ for the clause.)

I appreciate your concerns, but that suggestion was an effort to give some sort of framework for what 'successful' means, in order to avoid nations putting someone in 'rehabilitation' for two seconds before chucking them out again and immediately arresting them when they inevitably take drugs. I guess I'll have to rework the definition of 'rehabilitation' to avoid that loophole, though, and put in your 'Encourages' clause (thanks, it's nice and clear and concise )

[Araraukar]

But I'm confused why that would let you do that??? If you could kindly oblige to explain, then I'll make sure to fix that pronto

OOC: I said if. Remember that in IC Araraukar is going to want to chuck anyone dealing with any kind of illegal drugs (whether as buyer, seller or user or all of the above) into prison where they can't help but go through rehab. Still, the requirement to have all the usual info on the package just gives them one more thing to call drug-related people criminals for failing to do...

Also, clause 2 currently stands as

Mandates that member nations in which the use of recreational drugs is illegal may not punish or criminalize people found, for the first time, using recreational drugs (or proven to be possessing them with the sole intent of using them), but must provide or make available to addicted users rehabilitation, although the illegal drugs may be confiscated from the user;

I'd probably rephrase it as

Mandates that member nations in which use of recreational drugs is illegal may not punish or give a criminal record to a person found using or in possession of, with the sole intent of using, recreational drugs the first time they are caught, though the illegal drugs may be confiscated from the user; instead an addicted user must have access to rehabilitation;

Still not 100% happy with the wording, but basically trying to unbend an unnecessary bend in your sentence.

And I'd change 3.c.'s "people found committing crimes under the influence of recreational drugs" to "people found committing crimes related to their use of recreational drugs" so that clause 2 doesn't give them a free walk if they, to be able to buy the drugs, robbed someone (a crime not done while under the influence, but likely under withdrawal symptoms, and definitely due to their use of drugs even if they at the time were not under the influence).

Also something that you might want to make very clear, like maybe making it the actual first clause, adding something like "Clarifies that nothing in this resolution mandates either the legalization or the criminalization of recreational drugs." And if you want to make this a blocker with a clause people will like, instead make that read something like "Grants member nations the freedom to decide which recreational drugs they wish to legalize or ban". (Just don't use "leaves the choice" or any other weak wording.) Most people like the nations being allowed to decide on the legality issues of big things like drugs or guns, so putting that blocker clause at the top, even before definitions, but still an active clause, would likely get you a lot of for votes.

[Maowi]

But I'm confused why that would let you do that??? If you could kindly oblige to explain, then I'll make sure to fix that pronto

OOC: I said if. Remember that in IC Araraukar is going to want to chuck anyone dealing with any kind of illegal drugs (whether as buyer, seller or user or all of the above) into prison where they can't help but go through rehab. Still, the requirement to have all the usual info on the package just gives them one more thing to call drug-related people criminals for failing to do...

It would allow your nation to jail people selling drugs without that information on the packaging, but you'd be allowed to jail people selling drugs anyway. You'd still have to rehabilitate them (if they use drugs too) but you could also jail them. I don't see why it would allow you to jail users of drugs without that information on though? Unless I'm just being really thick, which is highly likely.

Also, clause 2 currently stands as

Mandates that member nations in which the use of recreational drugs is illegal may not punish or criminalize people found, for the first time, using recreational drugs (or proven to be possessing them with the sole intent of using them), but must provide or make available to addicted users rehabilitation, although the illegal drugs may be confiscated from the user;

I'd probably rephrase it as

Mandates that member nations in which use of recreational drugs is illegal may not punish or give a criminal record to a person found using or in possession of, with the sole intent of using, recreational drugs the first time they are caught, though the illegal drugs may be confiscated from the user; instead an addicted user must have access to rehabilitation;

Still not 100% happy with the wording, but basically trying to unbend an unnecessary bend in your sentence.

Thanks, that makes it much better already. I'll try work out a way to make it as concise as possible.

And I'd change 3.c.'s "people found committing crimes under the influence of recreational drugs" to "people found committing crimes related to their use of recreational drugs" so that clause 2 doesn't give them a free walk if they, to be able to buy the drugs, robbed someone (a crime not done while under the influence, but likely under withdrawal symptoms, and definitely due to their use of drugs even if they at the time were not under the influence).

Hmm, I see your point, but I don't want to leave exploitable loopholes. I'm on my phone atm so I can't be bothered to strain my eyes on this tiny screen too much but I'll figure out a way around that a some point.

Also something that you might want to make very clear, like maybe making it the actual first clause, adding something like "Clarifies that nothing in this resolution mandates either the legalization or the criminalization of recreational drugs." And if you want to make this a blocker with a clause people will like, instead make that read something like "Grants member nations the freedom to decide which recreational drugs they wish to legalize or ban". (Just don't use "leaves the choice" or any other weak wording.) Most people like the nations being allowed to decide on the legality issues of big things like drugs or guns, so putting that blocker clause at the top, even before definitions, but still an active clause, would likely get you a lot of for votes.

Yep, good idea, I think that blocker is something worth having in there. I'll put it in later. I don't think, with the blocker in, it would be necessary to have the clarification as well.

[Araraukar]

I don't see why it would allow you to jail users of drugs without that information on though? Unless I'm just being really thick, which is highly likely.

OOC: No I'm just looking for additional loopholes. But if you put the clause in, then I'll have one more... There are some loopholes that you won't be able to plug without making this impossible to pass, that'll let Araraukar chuck people found with drugs in jail anyway, but I could always use some more. XD

And I'd change 3.c.'s "people found committing crimes under the influence of recreational drugs" to "people found committing crimes related to their use of recreational drugs" so that clause 2 doesn't give them a free walk if they, to be able to buy the drugs, robbed someone (a crime not done while under the influence, but likely under withdrawal symptoms, and definitely due to their use of drugs even if they at the time were not under the influence).

Hmm, I see your point, but I don't want to leave exploitable loopholes.

It's a loophole. I'm suggesting plugging it, because it's a loophole for the opposition.

I don't think, with the blocker in, it would be necessary to have the clarification as well.

No, it was meant as an either/or. The blocker clause trumps the clarification.

[Maowi]

I've made changes to the draft. I'm not sure about the strength of the 'rehabilitation' definition, I feel like it still needs work.

I don't see why it would allow you to jail users of drugs without that information on though? Unless I'm just being really thick, which is highly likely.

OOC: No I'm just looking for additional loopholes. But if you put the clause in, then I'll have one more... There are some loopholes that you won't be able to plug without making this impossible to pass, that'll let Araraukar chuck people found with drugs in jail anyway, but I could always use some more. XD

Hm, I'll keep trying to get you to speak - not that it will work . I'm still not seeing the loophole you're referring to. I shall have to pick my brain.

Hmm, I see your point, but I don't want to leave exploitable loopholes.

It's a loophole. I'm suggesting plugging it, because it's a loophole for the opposition.

I went for a sort of compromise which should hopefully keep some loopholes shut while still allowing for reasonable interpretations...

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 5, what would happen if drugs are sold without packaging? The way this is currently written, one could simply ignore the clause of this were the case. I recommend adding something about verbally stating the ingredients if asked, or some other way of clearly communicating the information.”

[Maowi]

“In clause 5, what would happen if drugs are sold without packaging? The way this is currently written, one could simply ignore the clause of this were the case. I recommend adding something about verbally stating the ingredients if asked, or some other way of clearly communicating the information.”

"Thank you, ambassador, we have added a clause to that effect which should hopefully work fine. We would tentatively like to propose that this could be ready for submission soon; would there be any major qualms with this?"

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:I think "Regulating the Use of Drugs" sounds better, nonetheless, support

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 5, what would happen if drugs are sold without packaging? The way this is currently written, one could simply ignore the clause of this were the case. I recommend adding something about verbally stating the ingredients if asked, or some other way of clearly communicating the information.”

"Thank you, ambassador, we have added a clause to that effect which should hopefully work fine. We would tentatively like to propose that this could be ready for submission soon; would there be any major qualms with this?"

“No, this looks good for submission, unless any other delegation finds some major issues.”

[Maowi]

OOC:I think "Regulating the Use of Drugs" sounds better, nonetheless, support

OOC: I think it should have 'recreational' in there, so maybe 'Regulating Recreational Drug Use'?

We'd be looking to submit this a week on Friday unless something major comes up. Any thoughts on the title? Or on anything?

[Kenmoria]

“Might I suggest ‘Regulating Recreational Drugs’ as a title, if you are unsatisfied with the current one?”

[Araraukar]

OOC: I think it should have 'recreational' in there, so maybe 'Regulating Recreational Drug Use'?

We'd be looking to submit this a week on Friday unless something major comes up. Any thoughts on the title? Or on anything?

OOC: I have more issue with the word "use" there, as you're not actually regulating drug use, you're regulating selling conditions and punishability of having them.

“Might I suggest ‘Regulating Recreational Drugs’ as a title, if you are unsatisfied with the current one?”

IC: "That still ignores how the proposal is mostly focused on regulating the punishability of the drugs, not the drugs or their use."

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I think it should have 'recreational' in there, so maybe 'Regulating Recreational Drug Use'?

We'd be looking to submit this a week on Friday unless something major comes up. Any thoughts on the title? Or on anything?

OOC: I have more issue with the word "use" there, as you're not actually regulating drug use, you're regulating selling conditions and punishability of having them.

“Might I suggest ‘Regulating Recreational Drugs’ as a title, if you are unsatisfied with the current one?”

IC: "That still ignores how the proposal is mostly focused on regulating the punishability of the drugs, not the drugs or their use."

“‘Regulating Recreational Drugs and their Punishments’? ‘Restrictions on the Punishability of Recreational Drugs’?”

[Araraukar]

"There is no elegant easy answer, I admit that, due to the proposal at hand attempting to legislate on two very different aspects of drug use at the same time."