[DEFEATED] Drug Abuse Amelioration Act

[Imperium Anglorum]

Your link won't work because it doesn't explicitly add yourself. You should start with his nation, add yourself, then re-link.

[Kyoki Chudoku]

With all the other summoned Chudokurens having been unable to make much of a persuasive argument against the proposal in its entirety, Naosu stepped in. Her hair was a bright green to match her piercing eyes. Rather than any kind of diplomatic attire, she wore the uniform of her professional- medicine. Her mouth and nose were concerned by a sickness mask. When she spoke, she did so with imperious authority, yet in a cold tone.

”The general defence of his proposal is a lack of correlation between criminalisation and repeated drug use. Kyoki Chudoku does not general experience this issue as a result of the harshness of punishments against drug users- frequently described as distributors of poison- which ensures that the vast majority of such traitors- for all criminals here are considered treacherous should their crime have any form of malignant or defiant intent- do not circulate back into the population. As such, we do not have the necessary situation to fully appreciate the nature of the issue. What we do have the situation to appreciate is how this proposal would reinforce the reintroduction of such individuals into the population.”

She coughed. Her eyes alone made it obvious that she hated herself for allowing such a slip to occur at such a crucial moment. Regardless, she continued. ”Before I continue, I must reveal that I suffer from an affliction myself. Specifically, I experience a combination of rampant and pathological perfectionism reinforced by involuntary obsessive-compulsive disorder. As such, I desire the optimal outcome for every action I take. In Kyoki Chudoku, criminalisation may or may not have minimal impact on the number of drug users in total, but it does grant us the ability to prevent their spread and ensure that any such individuals are appropriately punished. The concept that defiance will be met with negative consequences is essential to the operation of the state. This proposal removes a key capacity to reinforce this by forcing us to be merciful to criminals, and allow them a second chance, regardless of the fact that it is likely that many such criminals will repeat their crimes. The intent may be out of desperation or depression, but this does not excuse other crimes. One cannot claim effectively desperation to escape a murder sentence, or a bank robbery sentence, or indeed any other criminal sentence. It is therefore no excuse for voluntary recreational poison intake. Therefore, to apply different standards to such crime is perplexing.”

She looked down for a moment. ”However, I understand that many nations do not appreciate such arguments, and are insistent upon the overall perceived benefits of this proposal. Furthermore, I recognise that demanding exemption based upon national sovereignty is an ineffective argument in an organisation dedicated to sacrificing national sovereignty for collective consensus.”

[Hatzisland]

Maybe you should invest a little more into education then, instead of legalizing drugs.

"Alternatively, you can recognize that drug use is rarely a choice made by the rational, but by the desperate, and that penalizing people for their mistakes without requisite support makes them more likely to re-offend, thus costing your justice system a great deal.

"Though, if I were you, I would worry less about our education program and more about your own."

Not true. You can make the same argument about theft. Theft is done by the desperate. Legalizing first-time theft will allow crime rates to skyrocket. Punishment is the answer in a significant portion of cases. Enough that this proposition deserves full and overwhelming opposition.

[The New Nordic Union]

Legalizing first-time theft will allow crime rates to skyrocket.

OOC: Actually, it wouldn't since it would not be illegal

[Hatzisland]

Legalizing first-time theft will allow crime rates to skyrocket.

OOC: Actually, it wouldn't since it would not be illegal

Very funny. But I actually disagree. Even if you legalized first-offense theft, crime rates would still skyrocket, at least in my opinion.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Alternatively, you can recognize that drug use is rarely a choice made by the rational, but by the desperate, and that penalizing people for their mistakes without requisite support makes them more likely to re-offend, thus costing your justice system a great deal.

"Though, if I were you, I would worry less about our education program and more about your own."

Not true. You can make the same argument about theft. Theft is done by the desperate. Legalizing first-time theft will allow crime rates to skyrocket. Punishment is the answer in a significant portion of cases. Enough that this proposition deserves full and overwhelming opposition.

"Theft isn't addictive. Theft doesn't drive you to commit more crimes. You've a piss-poor analogy, ambassador."

OOC: Actually, it wouldn't since it would not be illegal

Very funny. But I actually disagree. Even if you legalized first-offense theft, crime rates would still skyrocket, at least in my opinion.

"Because? How would permitting first time offenders to receive rehabilitation rather than besmirching their records increase crime?"

[Hatzisland]

Not true. You can make the same argument about theft. Theft is done by the desperate. Legalizing first-time theft will allow crime rates to skyrocket. Punishment is the answer in a significant portion of cases. Enough that this proposition deserves full and overwhelming opposition.

"Theft isn't addictive. Theft doesn't drive you to commit more crimes. You've a piss-poor analogy, ambassador."

Very funny. But I actually disagree. Even if you legalized first-offense theft, crime rates would still skyrocket, at least in my opinion.

"Because? How would permitting first time offenders to receive rehabilitation rather than besmirching their records increase crime?"

A) Any crime can be like a drug. Do you think the serial killers weren't addicted to killing? Same thing here
and
B) The abuse of the system would be terrible.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Theft isn't addictive. Theft doesn't drive you to commit more crimes. You've a piss-poor analogy, ambassador."


"Because? How would permitting first time offenders to receive rehabilitation rather than besmirching their records increase crime?"

A) Any crime can be like a drug. Do you think the serial killers weren't addicted to killing? Same thing here
and
B) The abuse of the system would be terrible.

"Right. Because killing has been shown to be so addictive. Not at all like empirically and biologically demonstrable studies have shown drugs to be. This is a facile argument, ambassador, and utterly beneath you.

"Prove it. You've made the claim. Demonstrate how people would abuse this to any effect. Frankly, I don't see how. Hard addicts would get caught again. Recreational users would get a wake-up call and potentially stop without having their futures shattered. Anybody who uses their freebie in bad faith would either change their ways or get caught again anyway. So, how demonstrate abuse."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"This entire discussion is asinine. Reducing punishment for simple use or possession of drugs lowers drug addiction and use rates, and reduces incidental or tangential crimes, including violence. Period. Arguing otherwise requires that you ignore literally all of history. 'Beware of all those in whom the urge to punish is strong.' You people gotta get some new hobbies."

OOC: It's really not that hard.

[American Pere Housh]

I can understand wanting to legalize marijuana but why would anybody legalize cocaine, heroin, meth or any other narcotics.

[Separatist Peoples]

I can understand wanting to legalize marijuana but why would anybody legalize cocaine, heroin, meth or any other narcotics.

"To harm black marketeers, and because people have the right to take whatever chemicals they wish?"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I can understand wanting to legalize marijuana but why would anybody legalize cocaine, heroin, meth or any other narcotics.

"Because factually it reduces the harm that they do to people more than prohibition does. As well as generally being less expensive to society. Prohibition is an utter failure, ambassador. Also what Bell just said."

[Aclion]

"Because legalizing all recreational drugs will open the doors to research into less harmful alternatives."

[Kowani]

"Because legalizing all recreational drugs will open the doors to research into less harmful alternatives."

Additionally, we can subsidize it and get cheaper versions, so, if you have cartels? No more cartels. And tax revenue, there’s always tax revenue.

[Falcania]

I can understand wanting to legalize marijuana but why would anybody legalize cocaine, heroin, meth or any other narcotics.

Because they feel amazing?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Everyone talks of drug use being a victimless crime, but it really isn't most of the time in Real Life. People get stoned/high and go driving, or attack someone (drunk fights happen all the time) or steal things to finance their habit or get raped when out of it, etc., etc. But consider cases where actual endangerment of another individual happens directly because of the use of drugs; should a pregnant or breastfeeding mother be allowed to pass their addiction off onto her baby? What about not taking care of - depriving of food, shelter or other fundamental right - of a child too young to fend for themselves? These happen all the time in RL, so they can be assumed to happen in NS too.

And what about the drugs that are physically damaging (think corrosive damage) even on first use, or which can cause serious complications (psychosis) as a design rather than accident? Can such people be left without treatment and just be shoved into rehabilitation?

And my continued question/issue, can you deprive a first-timer of their liberty to put them into a controlled environment for the duration of the detox/rehab? I haven't gotten a reply in IC so trying in OOC.

[Falcania]

OOC: Everyone talks of drug use being a victimless crime, but it really isn't most of the time in Real Life. People get stoned/high and go driving, or attack someone (drunk fights happen all the time) or steal things to finance their habit or get raped when out of it, etc., etc. But consider cases where actual endangerment of another individual happens directly because of the use of drugs; should a pregnant or breastfeeding mother be allowed to pass their addiction off onto her baby? What about not taking care of - depriving of food, shelter or other fundamental right - of a child too young to fend for themselves? These happen all the time in RL, so they can be assumed to happen in NS too.

And what about the drugs that are physically damaging (think corrosive damage) even on first use, or which can cause serious complications (psychosis) as a design rather than accident? Can such people be left without treatment and just be shoved into rehabilitation?

And my continued question/issue, can you deprive a first-timer of their liberty to put them into a controlled environment for the duration of the detox/rehab? I haven't gotten a reply in IC so trying in OOC.

((Well that's a topic for NSG, really. Fundamentally though, it's completely arbitrary that it's legal in most countries to have a bottle of alcohol or a pack of cigarettes, but a criminal offence to have a bag of cocaine. Every example you listed of these things not being a "victimless crime" is simply inconsistent because it applies to alcohol, which is widely available and legal, just as much as it does to illegal drugs.))

[Bananaistan]

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, 'recreational drugs' as substances other than food taken recreationally for their psychoactive effects;
   
   
2. MANDATES that member nations in which the use of recreational drugs is currently 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 rehabilitative services helping them end their drug use, although the illegal drugs may be confiscated from the user;
   
   
3. CLARIFIES that people found committing crimes under the influence of recreational drugs in member nations in which the use of recreational drugs is illegal may be punished (for the crimes committed only) but must also be provided with rehabilitative services if they have not been found using recreational drugs before;
   
   
4. FURTHER CLARIFIES that member nations may punish people trying to force other people to take recreational drugs without their consent;
   
   
5. ORDERS companies 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.

OOC:

1) Why should we send non-addicted recreational users of drugs to addiction counselling? This requirement is far too broad, particularly when the definition relies on "recreational use". The proposal seems to me to straddle two stools and is in danger of falling between them. If you want a proposal dealing with addicts and counselling etc, then write that proposal. If you want a proposal that's actually about recreational drugs, then write that proposal.

2) Well done. You've banned member states tackling drink and drug driving. These are crimes solely based on the intoxication of the individual if the individual is not otherwise driving dangerously.

3) What about sole traders, partnerships and other unincorporated entities selling recreational drugs?

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: 1. Araraukar has banned alcohol too. 2. Endangering the life and wellbeing of a child is a crime against WA laws, yet that's now somehow not punishable simply because the user is a "recreational" user (many of who are behaviourally if not physically addicted) of a forbidden substance getting caught for the first time?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

*snip*

OOC: 1. Araraukar has banned alcohol too. 2. Endangering the life and wellbeing of a child is a crime against WA laws, yet that's now somehow not punishable simply because the user is a "recreational" user (many of who are behaviourally if not physically addicted) of a forbidden substance getting caught for the first time?

OOC: 1. At least you're consistent, unlike most U.S. drug warriors.

2. Agreed that the wording in this resolution appears to require all first-time offenders be treated leniently. It would be better to apply context (e.g. was the person driving? currently in charge of a minor? acting otherwise recklessly or in such a way as to promote a public hazard?). And no, don't list those things as exceptions; instead change the wording of clauses 2 and 3 to mandate your rehab or counselling only for those found guilty solely of simple use or possession. This way local law enforcement can make a proper judgment as to which such crimes are honestly victimless.

[American Pere Housh]

Maybe there is a reason that cocaine, heroin,meth and other narcotics are illegal. It is because they are deadly to use and make and they are addictive to use. Once you start using them, it is hard to stop. I have seen people on these drugs and it has ruined people's lives.

[Falcania]

*snip*

OOC: 1. Araraukar has banned alcohol too. 2. Endangering the life and wellbeing of a child is a crime against WA laws, yet that's now somehow not punishable simply because the user is a "recreational" user (many of who are behaviourally if not physically addicted) of a forbidden substance getting caught for the first time?

((I'd argue that this particular interpretation of tge proposal is a bit of a stretch but I'm happy to acquiesce on the point in calling for clarification))

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Maybe there is a reason that cocaine, heroin,meth and other narcotics are illegal. It is because they are deadly to use and make and they are addictive to use. Once you start using them, it is hard to stop. I have seen people on these drugs and it has ruined people's lives.

As the lawyers say, asked and answered:

"This entire discussion is asinine. Reducing punishment for simple use or possession of drugs lowers drug addiction and use rates, and reduces incidental or tangential crimes, including violence. Period. Arguing otherwise requires that you ignore literally all of history. 'Beware of all those in whom the urge to punish is strong.' You people gotta get some new hobbies."

OOC: It's really not that hard.

I can understand wanting to legalize marijuana but why would anybody legalize cocaine, heroin, meth or any other narcotics.

"To harm black marketeers, and because people have the right to take whatever chemicals they wish?"

I can understand wanting to legalize marijuana but why would anybody legalize cocaine, heroin, meth or any other narcotics.

"Because factually it reduces the harm that they do to people more than prohibition does. As well as generally being less expensive to society. Prohibition is an utter failure, ambassador. Also what Bell just said."

"Because legalizing all recreational drugs will open the doors to research into less harmful alternatives."

[Separatist Peoples]

Maybe there is a reason that cocaine, heroin,meth and other narcotics are illegal. It is because they are deadly to use and make and they are addictive to use. Once you start using them, it is hard to stop. I have seen people on these drugs and it has ruined people's lives.

"Sounds like their call."

[Bananaistan]

"The evidence that non-prohibition of alcohol works very well is strong. You'd never hear of public drunkenness, drink driving, drink induced spousal or child abuse, lost productivity, etc.

"Let's not assume that legalisation is this great panacea that brings no problems of its own."