[DEFEATED] Drug Abuse Amelioration Act

[Falcania]

"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."

A lot of paper could be saved if the World Assembly simply established a list of what chemicals we are and are not allowed to put into our body.

That is the logical conclusion of these unnecessary bills we are seeing, after all.

[Araraukar]

"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."

OOC: ^This, basically...

IC: "It is exactly because of the evidence of such incidents falling dramatically after the banning of alcohol, that we as a nation oppose any WA-mandated leniency on recreational drugs. When someone goes to prison for drug-related charges, rehabilitation is mandatory anyway, and refusal to cooperate with the therapy provided can in the extreme mean that they will not be eligible for parole, but must serve their full sentence. I don't know what kind of drug-rich hellholes the prisons are in other nations, but I would suggest that is the failing of their prison systems, not the legalisation or banning of any or all drugs."

[Maowi]

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?

1) Good point, and I'll see about editing it so that rehabilitation is only required for addicts. However, I'll have to be careful about not allowing nations to abuse that, i.e. claiming that the user is not addicted, when they are.

2) I'll consider changing it to allowing punishment for those doing things which could potentially be dangerous under the influence of recreational drugs, but also mandating rehabilitation.

3) The nation is allowed to decide whether their activities are legal; I'm not sure if I've missed your point here?

EDIT:

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.

If that is "part of the rehabilitation", i.e. if it helps the rehabilitation, then yes? At least that is my intention, but I'd have to get confirmation that that is a reasonable interpretation.

[Bananaistan]

1) Good point, and I'll see about editing it so that rehabilitation is only required for addicts. However, I'll have to be careful about not allowing nations to abuse that, i.e. claiming that the user is not addicted, when they are.

2) I'll consider changing it to allowing punishment for those doing things which could potentially be dangerous under the influence of recreational drugs, but also mandating rehabilitation.

3) The nation is allowed to decide whether their activities are legal; I'm not sure if I've missed your point here?

OOC:

1. Fair enough

2. Again, "mandated" rehabilitation should only be for addicts.

2a. While you're at it perhaps add a line somewhere about only using rehabilitation based on scientific methods. I doubt anyone wants a WA mandated AA style cult supported by judges sending them all and sundry like we have IRL.

3. Your last clause refers to companies. Companies are not the only type of entity which does business.

[Maowi]

OOC:

1. Fair enough

2. Again, "mandated" rehabilitation should only be for addicts.

2a. While you're at it perhaps add a line somewhere about only using rehabilitation based on scientific methods. I doubt anyone wants a WA mandated AA style cult supported by judges sending them all and sundry like we have IRL.

3. Your last clause refers to companies. Companies are not the only type of entity which does business.

Thanks, those are all good spots. I'll edit the last clause to include anybody legally selling the drugs.

[Araraukar]

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.

If that is "part of the rehabilitation", i.e. if it helps the rehabilitation, then yes? At least that is my intention, but I'd have to get confirmation that that is a reasonable interpretation.

OOC: So they CAN be imprisoned, then. In Araraukar the rehab/detox facilities exist within the prison system, so that there's no need to have multiple security systems (private security companies are not allowed).

[Falcania]

If that is "part of the rehabilitation", i.e. if it helps the rehabilitation, then yes? At least that is my intention, but I'd have to get confirmation that that is a reasonable interpretation.

OOC: So they CAN be imprisoned, then. In Araraukar the rehab/detox facilities exist within the prison system, so that there's no need to have multiple security systems (private security companies are not allowed).

((Imprisonment is a separate and distinct practice from secure custodial treatment and while the facilities can overlap it's important to differentiate the two.

It's also something to discuss IC))

[Araraukar]

((It's also something to discuss IC))

IC: "Since in Araraukar the substance abuse rehabilitation services are part of the prison system on account of the substances themselves being illegal to own and use, putting someone in rehabilitation by necessity means putting them in a prison. If this is not good enough for the WA, then I'm sure the WA will be more than happy to pay for the building of such facilities and for the increase of law enforcement personnel to secure them?"

OOC: I tried in IC before. Also, Araraukar is in WA in IC, it's OOCly not in it until I get back to my own computer and am not coping with a tiny smartphone screen.

[Falcania]

((It's also something to discuss IC))

IC: "Since in Araraukar the substance abuse rehabilitation services are part of the prison system on account of the substances themselves being illegal to own and use, putting someone in rehabilitation by necessity means putting them in a prison. If this is not good enough for the WA, then I'm sure the WA will be more than happy to pay for the building of such facilities and for the increase of law enforcement personnel to secure them?"

It seems prohibitively expensive for a nation to situate the entirety of its hospitals inside prisons but if your citizens are happy to head to their nearest prison in order to receive routine medical care, then who am I to judge?

[Araraukar]

It seems prohibitively expensive for a nation to situate the entirety of its hospitals inside prisons but if your citizens are happy to head to their nearest prison in order to receive routine medical care, then who am I to judge?

"Oh please, don't even pretend that we're talking about regular healthcare facilities, when it comes to drug rehabilitation programs. They are special clinics in other nations too."

OOC: And the same goes OOCly, because when we're talking about something that you'd do instead of jailtime, there's going to be more or less invasive measures in place to ensure you don't just go on using as normal.

[Falcania]

It seems prohibitively expensive for a nation to situate the entirety of its hospitals inside prisons but if your citizens are happy to head to their nearest prison in order to receive routine medical care, then who am I to judge?

"Oh please, don't even pretend that we're talking about regular healthcare facilities, when it comes to drug rehabilitation programs. They are special clinics in other nations too."

OOC: And the same goes OOCly, because when we're talking about something that you'd do instead of jailtime, there's going to be more or less invasive measures in place to ensure you don't just go on using as normal.

Fantastic! I'm delighted to tell you that with a functioning system of hospital care, you already have almost all of the infrastructure necessary to have coordinated therapeutic rehabilitation services, of which, as we all know, secure residential care is only a relatively small part of.

[Araraukar]

Fantastic! I'm delighted to tell you that with a functioning system of hospital care, you already have almost all of the infrastructure necessary to have coordinated therapeutic rehabilitation services, of which, as we all know, secure residential care is only a relatively small part of.

IC: "Your skills at sarcasm need some work, ambassador. As we all know, we're not talking about voluntary ditching of an unhealthy habit, but a court-mandated action upon an individual against their will, which they receive instead of a prison sentence due to - in the best case scenario - having been found in the possession of an illegal substance. They do not get a choice in the matter. Secure location until they at the very least have cleared the substance from their system is just common sense."

OOC: That's about as far as the character can go without starting to call your character names, so if you'd like to go on about the nuances, it'll have to be in OOC.

EDIT: The current definition can make coffee and other caffeinated drinks recreational drugs, and in most cases excludes alcohol. Was that intentional? And also, wouldn't an addict take a drug for the physical effects (withdrawal symptoms) rather than "psychoactive" ones? And what about people selfmedicating? That's not recreational use either. They can still be thrown into a prison, looks like.

[Falcania]

Fantastic! I'm delighted to tell you that with a functioning system of hospital care, you already have almost all of the infrastructure necessary to have coordinated therapeutic rehabilitation services, of which, as we all know, secure residential care is only a relatively small part of.

IC: "Your skills at sarcasm need some work, ambassador. As we all know, we're not talking about voluntary ditching of an unhealthy habit, but a court-mandated action upon an individual against their will, which they receive instead of a prison sentence due to - in the best case scenario - having been found in the possession of an illegal substance. They do not get a choice in the matter. Secure location until they at the very least have cleared the substance from their system is just common sense."

OOC: That's about as far as the character can go without starting to call your character names, so if you'd like to go on about the nuances, it'll have to be in OOC.

EDIT: The current definition can make coffee and other caffeinated drinks recreational drugs, and in most cases excludes alcohol. Was that intentional? And also, wouldn't an addict take a drug for the physical effects (withdrawal symptoms) rather than "psychoactive" ones? And what about people selfmedicating? That's not recreational use either. They can still be thrown into a prison, looks like.

First of all, there are a number of court-mandated rehabilitation options that do not involve involuntary commitment. For example, an addict can be ordered to attend regular therapeutic sessions as an outpatient, if their physician or caseworker thinks that would be a viable care pathway. If they fail, or relapse, then sure, involuntary commitment could be the next way to go.

Fundamentally, rehabilitation in a secure environment is distinct from rehabilitation in a prison sentence. For a simple example - when it ends. The length of a prison sentence is decided by a judge, and the length is commensurate with the severity of the crime. The length of involuntary commitment is decided by a medical professional based on the medical needs of the addict. And it isn't a one-size-fits-all scenario.

[Kenmoria]

“I believe your definition could be simplified, as food is taken for nutrition and sustenance rather than for its psychoactive effects.”

[Marxist Germany]

Support

[Araraukar]

First of all, there are a number of court-mandated rehabilitation options that do not involve involuntary commitment.

OOC: None of which are mandated here, so a nation like Araraukar that doesn't care about you as a human after you have knowingly broken the laws (multiple, in this instance, each of which carries a separate punishment and out of which only two are being legislated upon, and the rest would likely land you in prison anyway) is going to be more interested in stomping out the problem than how nice an experience it's going to be to the stompee.

The length of a prison sentence is decided by a judge, and the length is commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Except when the WA takes that decision out of your hands.

[Falcania]

First of all, there are a number of court-mandated rehabilitation options that do not involve involuntary commitment.

OOC: None of which are mandated here, so a nation like Araraukar that doesn't care about you as a human after you have knowingly broken the laws (multiple, in this instance, each of which carries a separate punishment and out of which only two are being legislated upon, and the rest would likely land you in prison anyway) is going to be more interested in stomping out the problem than how nice an experience it's going to be to the stompee.

The length of a prison sentence is decided by a judge, and the length is commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Except when the WA takes that decision out of your hands.

((I mean, sure, if the reason your delegates don't like the legislation is that you roleplay an order-focused police state then there's not much worth arguing from a moral standpoint))

[Araraukar]

((I mean, sure, if the reason your delegates don't like the legislation is that you roleplay an order-focused police state then there's not much worth arguing from a moral standpoint))

OOC: That pretty much sums up Araraukar. It's technically a single-leader dictatorship, but in practice it's a bureaucracy-driven police state. It can be fairly close to utopia if you're a law-abiding citizen, and does a good job at being a dystopia if you're not citizen or make the mistake of breaking one of the myriad laws...

[Maowi]

I've edited the draft to include responses to some of your feedback (thanks ).

I changed the definition of recreational drugs to include drugs taken for their physical effects as well as their psychoactive effects (although alcohol is psychoactive by the way) and got rid of the word 'food' which, as pointed out, was unnecessary.
I also included a definition of rehabilitation to make the active clauses more concise, and to make sure it was only scientifically proven methods. And then I changed the active clauses so that only addicts must be provided with rehab.
I put in Ara's suggestion about allowing a light fine, and I changed the companies section to include anybody legally selling recreational drugs.

Feedback and opinions on any of the above changes would be welcome, but particularly:
Does the fines section work in limiting the heftiness of the fines?
And the way it is currently worded, does it create problems for nations only banning some, but not all, recreational drugs?

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?

Thanks

[Kenmoria]

Feedback and opinions on any of the above changes would be welcome, but particularly:
Does the fines section work in limiting the heftiness of the fines?
And the way it is currently worded, does it create problems for nations only banning some, but not all, recreational drugs?

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?

Thanks

(OOC: The fines section looks currently to be fine, as it prohibits overly expensive fines but still allows them. Although it is worded such that a member nation in which some recreational drugs are illegal could give fines to people using any recreational drugs, that is banned anyway by extant GA law, so I don’t see an issue.

As for self-medication, I agree that it is a separate issue that isn’t really within the confines of this proposal.)

[Matthewstownville]

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.

Recreational Drugs 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, 'recreational drugs' as substances taken recreationally for their physical or psychoactive effects;
   
   
2. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, 'rehabilitation' as the effective treatment of a person's addiction to recreational drugs based on scientific methods. Rehabilitation may take place within a secure environment provided that this aids the treatment in some way.
   
   
3. 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;
   
   
4. CLARIFIES that 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;
   
   
5. FURTHER 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 rehabilitation if they have not been found using recreational drugs before;
   
   
6. FURTHER CLARIFIES that member nations may punish people trying to force other people to take recreational drugs without their consent;
   
   
7. 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.

Co-authored with Holly United

Thoughts, feedback, opinions and constructive criticisms are very welcome

Matthewstownville would definately be for this proposal why not go one further and encourage nations to legalise their drug markets in totality - the financial rewards and the positive impact on our tourism industry (and slightly higher than average tax rates)means we can keep our public services in excellent working order, we have been lifted out of poverty by nationalising the drug market and gaining masses of revenue from our free lovin' stoner population and the tens of thousands of visitors each year - Come check us out this summer

[American Pere Housh]

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.

Recreational Drugs 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, 'recreational drugs' as substances taken recreationally for their physical or psychoactive effects;
   
   
2. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, 'rehabilitation' as the effective treatment of a person's addiction to recreational drugs based on scientific methods. Rehabilitation may take place within a secure environment provided that this aids the treatment in some way.
   
   
3. 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;
   
   
4. CLARIFIES that 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;
   
   
5. FURTHER 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 rehabilitation if they have not been found using recreational drugs before;
   
   
6. FURTHER CLARIFIES that member nations may punish people trying to force other people to take recreational drugs without their consent;
   
   
7. 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.

Co-authored with Holly United

Thoughts, feedback, opinions and constructive criticisms are very welcome

Matthewstownville would definately be for this proposal why not go one further and encourage nations to legalise their drug markets in totality - the financial rewards and the positive impact on our tourism industry (and slightly higher than average tax rates)means we can keep our public services in excellent working order, we have been lifted out of poverty by nationalising the drug market and gaining masses of revenue from our free lovin' stoner population and the tens of thousands of visitors each year - Come check us out this summer

I'm going to have to say no to coming to your country. The only narcotic legal in the APH is marijuana for medical use only. Recreational use of marijuana carries a heavy fine and if a person is caught with drugs like cocaine, heroin,meth, lsd or any other drug faces time in prison.

[Holly United]

http://static3.businessinsider.com/dutc ... ing-2016-3

“A number of factors underlie the Netherlands' ability to keep its crime rate so low, namely, relaxed drug laws, a focus on rehabilitation over punishment, and an electronic ankle monitoring system that allows people to re-enter the workforce.”

They have closed 19 prisons and have even gotten prisoners sent to them by other countries. Think of all the resources being saved!

By making drug users face prison time for a mental addiction whether they get it illegally or succumb to abuse of prescription medication it is ultimately a waste of money to jail drug users when you can do your best to track there movements and make arrests on distributors rather than the users which ultimately need to be rehabilitated and helped back into society not punished for their addiction.

[Araraukar]

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)?

*snip*

OOC: Much of which is a problem only if drugs are easily available. If they're not, you're going to have far fewer drug-users and thus far fewer people potentially ending in prison.

---

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.

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?

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).

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

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

[Maowi]

-snip-

Thanks for the feedback, I'm on my phone right now so I'll have a look when I'm back on my laptop