[DISCARDED] Ban On The Involuntary Administration Of Drugs

[Youssath]

OOC: May I recommend that 1(2) be amended such that medical hallucinogens be the exception of this clause? This is because ketamine is a popular drug and I am a chemist myself who regularly uses that for medical drug testing and such.

OOC: Ketamine's primary use isn't being hallucinogen, though? Also I think that testing should have a separate resolution for it (if it doesn't already), with this one focusing on the use on people.

OOC: It's cheap to manufacture. The main primary use of ketamine that people don't get to hear about is for medically induced anaesthesia. The reason why no one heard about it is because of the medical grade of ketamine, along with its potency. The other use for it, as you have stated, is to get high under hallucinogenic conditions.

And yes, we should have a separate resolution regarding testing on the use of people.

"Ambassador, your concern is understandable but unnecessary. If you'll note, I:2 specifies that it only prohibits member-states from forcefully administering these hallucinogens. If you're forcefully applying these hallucinogens, I'd have to bring into question your intent. However, if it does ease your mind, I could also add a clarification that it is permitted, with the express consent of the individual or their next-of-kin.

"The Youssathian Ambassador thanks the Morovian Ambassador for his recommendation of adding a clarification for the express consent of the individual or their next-of-kin. However, the Araraukarian Ambassador has expressed concern about the potential loopholes of such clarifications. Perhaps we could define it towards 'medical hallucinogens' on medical circumstances with the express consent of the individual or their next-of-kin and two doctors' approval? That way, I am sure the system won't be abused significantly. Oh, I am sure the medical drug industries have a lot to thrive for!"

OOC: The basic law states that it prohibits member-states from forcing any individual to use hallucinogens against their will. While it is true that if the individual consents to using hallucinogens it is thus no longer forced to begin with as stated by Araraukar, may I suggest that only under specific circumstances (medical) with trained personnel's approval after assessment of the situation (two at least, so that there is no bias) can medically designated hallucinogens by the World Health Authority be granted with express consent of the individual, or the next-of-kin if the individual is incapacitated.

[Araraukar]

The main primary use of ketamine that people don't get to hear about is for medically induced anaesthesia.

OOC: I wasn't aware of it having other uses until you mentioned it.

"However, the Araraukarian Ambassador"

My ambassador hasn't said anything in the time you've been here. When she speaks she speaks "like this". I mark my posts OOC for a reason. It stands for out-of-character and means that I'm talking as my RL self.

OOC: ... may I suggest that only under specific circumstances (medical) with trained personnel's approval after assessment of the situation (two at least, so that there is no bias) can medically designated hallucinogens by the World Health Authority be granted with express consent of the individual, or the next-of-kin if the individual is incapacitated.

Why the hell would you use hallucinogens - ones whose primary use is to cause hallucinations - on anyone???

[Youssath]

Why the hell would you use hallucinogens - ones whose primary use is to cause hallucinations - on anyone???

It's cheap to manufacture.

medically induced anaesthesia

medically designated hallucinogens

OOC: READ. Just because it's a hallucinogen doesn't mean it's only purpose is to induce hallucinations. Going by your flow of logic, since paracetamol has an alcohol (-OH group) group within it, we should have that included for drink driving amirite?

[Araraukar]

OOC: READ. Just because it's a hallucinogen doesn't mean it's only purpose is to induce hallucinations.

OOC: And you need to read the proposal's first definition: "Defines a hallucinogen as a drug which is intended to have a hallucinogenic effect on an individual,". Note the word "intended". And if its intended use is not to produce hallucinations, then it's not a hallucinogen as far as this proposal is concerned. Clear enough?

[Morover]

"The Youssathian Ambassador thanks the Morovian Ambassador for his recommendation of adding a clarification for the express consent of the individual or their next-of-kin. However, the Araraukarian Ambassador has expressed concern about the potential loopholes of such clarifications. Perhaps we could define it towards 'medical hallucinogens' on medical circumstances with the express consent of the individual or their next-of-kin and two doctors' approval? That way, I am sure the system won't be abused significantly. Oh, I am sure the medical drug industries have a lot to thrive for!"

OOC: The basic law states that it prohibits member-states from forcing any individual to use hallucinogens against their will. While it is true that if the individual consents to using hallucinogens it is thus no longer forced to begin with as stated by Araraukar, may I suggest that only under specific circumstances (medical) with trained personnel's approval after assessment of the situation (two at least, so that there is no bias) can medically designated hallucinogens by the World Health Authority be granted with express consent of the individual, or the next-of-kin if the individual is incapacitated.

"I have decided against the clarification, as it should already be clear due to the 'against their will' in article 1 clause 2. Further feedback would still be appreciated."

OOC: Gotta agree with Araraukar on this one, sorry.

[Kenmoria]

“For article two clause three, I recommend removing ‘in their immediate vicinity’. Sniper rifles can harm somebody many metres away, and I’ve no doubt other nations have lasers which can spread for miles.”

[Araraukar]

“Sniper rifles can harm somebody many metres away, and I’ve no doubt other nations have lasers which can spread for miles.”

IC: "Not that I am a weapons expert, but I have been told that a good sniper can hit someone from a bit over two of your miles away. However, tranquilizer darts don't fly that far, so it would be fairly difficult to sedate them while they are still miles away."

OOC: Actually, now I think about it, there should probably be something in that clause to exclude police and military when they're acting within the normal laws and rules.

[Morover]

“For article two clause three, I recommend removing ‘in their immediate vicinity’. Sniper rifles can harm somebody many metres away, and I’ve no doubt other nations have lasers which can spread for miles.”

“Sniper rifles can harm somebody many metres away, and I’ve no doubt other nations have lasers which can spread for miles.”

IC: "Not that I am a weapons expert, but I have been told that a good sniper can hit someone from a bit over two of your miles away. However, tranquilizer darts don't fly that far, so it would be fairly difficult to sedate them while they are still miles away."

OOC: Actually, now I think about it, there should probably be something in that clause to exclude police and military when they're acting within the normal laws and rules.

"I'd have to be more inclined to agree with the Kenmorian delegation, here. It would be foolish to assume that tranquilizers are the only method of sedation - especially amongst more advanced nations."

OOC: Yeah, I'll add a clause in regarding police and military exclusions there. Thanks for that tip.

[Kenmoria]

“For article two clause three, I recommend removing ‘in their immediate vicinity’. Sniper rifles can harm somebody many metres away, and I’ve no doubt other nations have lasers which can spread for miles.”

IC: "Not that I am a weapons expert, but I have been told that a good sniper can hit someone from a bit over two of your miles away. However, tranquilizer darts don't fly that far, so it would be fairly difficult to sedate them while they are still miles away."

OOC: Actually, now I think about it, there should probably be something in that clause to exclude police and military when they're acting within the normal laws and rules.

"I'd have to be more inclined to agree with the Kenmorian delegation, here. It would be foolish to assume that tranquilizers are the only method of sedation - especially amongst more advanced nations."

OOC: Yeah, I'll add a clause in regarding police and military exclusions there. Thanks for that tip.

“In the new version of the clause, I suggest adding ‘relevant’ instead of ‘all’ before ‘international and national legislation’. This is because non-member international law or the national law of other countries shouldn’t be considered.”

[Morover]

"I'd have to be more inclined to agree with the Kenmorian delegation, here. It would be foolish to assume that tranquilizers are the only method of sedation - especially amongst more advanced nations."

OOC: Yeah, I'll add a clause in regarding police and military exclusions there. Thanks for that tip.

“In the new version of the clause, I suggest adding ‘relevant’ instead of ‘all’ before ‘international and national legislation’. This is because non-member international law or the national law of other countries shouldn’t be considered.”

"Yes, apologies. That was a result of rushing and not properly reviewing the changes made. Thanks for pointing that out, ambassador."

[Morover]

OOC; bump

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 2-3 and clause 3-2 appear almost identical, and I can’t discern much difference between them. Do you need to have both?”

[Morover]

“Clause 2-3 and clause 3-2 appear almost identical, and I can’t discern much difference between them. Do you need to have both?”

"Fixed, ambassador. I believe that the issue came when editing formatting and something wasn't deleted when being moved."

[Fecaw]

1.1- Isn't this definition almost a tautology? Try to use a more meaningful or specific definition like you do in 2.1.
2.5- Yet again, be more specific about "safety"

[Morover]

1.1- Isn't this definition almost a tautology? Try to use a more meaningful or specific definition like you do in 2.1.
2.5- Yet again, be more specific about "safety"

OOC: The definition for "hallucinogen" is about as specific as I can make it without excluding some forms of hallucinogens. While the definition may be unnecessary, I still feel better having a definition. I'd prefer, if possible, to avoid any claims that "hallucinogen" needs a definition, which would almost certainly happen if I remove it.

I'll see what I can do about 2.5.

[Kenmoria]

“Your ‘believing’ clause doesn’t quite work in my eyes, possibly because there isn’t a verb before ‘is’. I suggest, ‘Believing that forcing a person to consume drugs is unethical and immoral’.”

[Morover]

“Your ‘believing’ clause doesn’t quite work in my eyes, possibly because there isn’t a verb before ‘is’. I suggest, ‘Believing that forcing a person to consume drugs is unethical and immoral’.”

"Fixed."

"Also, I'll begin to look into submitting this proposal, probably in about three weeks or so."

[Kenmoria]

“Your ‘believing’ clause doesn’t quite work in my eyes, possibly because there isn’t a verb before ‘is’. I suggest, ‘Believing that forcing a person to consume drugs is unethical and immoral’.”

"Fixed."

"Also, I'll begin to look into submitting this proposal, probably in about three weeks or so."

“That seems to be an appropriate time scale for submission; this proposal has my full support.”

[United Massachusetts]

I will have some feedback soon.

[Morover]

"I'm looking to submit this within the week, perhaps even sooner. Some final feedback would be fantastic."

OOC: I do feel like there is something off about this, though I can't necessarily put my finger on it. It appears as if everything works as intended, so I don't really know what it could be. Maybe it's just me being overly critical of my own writing, though.

[Kenmoria]

"I'm looking to submit this within the week, perhaps even sooner. Some final feedback would be fantastic."

OOC: I do feel like there is something off about this, though I can't necessarily put my finger on it. It appears as if everything works as intended, so I don't really know what it could be. Maybe it's just me being overly critical of my own writing, though.

“The word ‘the’ before ‘public health’ in article 3, clause 1 shouldn’t be there; good luck with submission.”

(OOC: The proposal seems fine to me.)

[Youssath]

"I'm looking to submit this within the week, perhaps even sooner. Some final feedback would be fantastic."

OOC: I do feel like there is something off about this, though I can't necessarily put my finger on it. It appears as if everything works as intended, so I don't really know what it could be. Maybe it's just me being overly critical of my own writing, though.

"The resolution is just fine, ambassador. However, as I have stated previously, this resolution does not clarify the position of medical hallucinogens, and without consent from an incapacitated patient, it can be interpreted as 'forcing individuals to consume' against their will (since the lack of a response doesn't justify an affirmative response). Furthermore, this clause will outright ban cheap medical hallucinogens worldwide, which will drastically increase medical costs as doctors scramble to find alternative and more expensive methods to administer anaesthesia for basic medical operations and surgeries. This is totally unacceptable for any decent-minded government who cares for its citizens, and as such this resolution goes against our interests and moral codes in ensuring affordable healthcare for all citizens."

"As such, should this resolution gains the approval from the GA delegation, we shall be voting against this resolution."

[Morover]

"I'm looking to submit this within the week, perhaps even sooner. Some final feedback would be fantastic."

OOC: I do feel like there is something off about this, though I can't necessarily put my finger on it. It appears as if everything works as intended, so I don't really know what it could be. Maybe it's just me being overly critical of my own writing, though.

"The resolution is just fine, ambassador. However, as I have stated previously, this resolution does not clarify the position of medical hallucinogens, and without consent from an incapacitated patient, it can be interpreted as 'forcing individuals to consume' against their will (since the lack of a response doesn't justify an affirmative response). Furthermore, this clause will outright ban cheap medical hallucinogens worldwide, which will drastically increase medical costs as doctors scramble to find alternative and more expensive methods to administer anaesthesia for basic medical operations and surgeries. This is totally unacceptable for any decent-minded government who cares for its citizens, and as such this resolution goes against our interests and moral codes in ensuring affordable healthcare for all citizens."

"As such, should this resolution gains the approval from the GA delegation, we shall be voting against this resolution."

"Ambassador, I'll admit that I'm not an expert on hallucinogens from a medical perspective - but please enlighten me on a use of hallucinogens (as defined by this proposal) which will be directly beneficial to an already incapacitated patient. If you can come up with a legitimate gripe, I'll change it."

(OOC: I'm still not convinced of your ketamine argument - it just doesn't fall under the classification of hallucinogen as defined by this proposal.)

[Youssath]

"Ambassador, I'll admit that I'm not an expert on hallucinogens from a medical perspective - but please enlighten me on a use of hallucinogens (as defined by this proposal) which will be directly beneficial to an already incapacitated patient. If you can come up with a legitimate gripe, I'll change it."

(OOC: I'm still not convinced of your ketamine argument - it just doesn't fall under the classification of hallucinogen as defined by this proposal.)

"Here's the thing, ambassador. The terminology "hallucinogens" is used to classify, on your own terms, a drug (medical or not) that induces a hallucinogenic effect on the individual. It does not state the purpose of why the hallucinogen is used. Any drugs that can induce any hallucinogenic-like symptoms is considered a hallucinogen based on your own interpretations, regardless of the purpose of why that drug is used in the first place. Ketamine is considered as a hallucinogen because it is used for recreational purposes to get "high" after clubbing (which is true), and its symptoms of double vision, irregular heartbeat, hallucinations, nausea and vomiting all fit the criteria of the consumption of hallucinogens in general. Even though it is also used extensively in medical procedures, it is still classified as a hallucinogen because there are people who still use it recreationally to get some "high" like other hallucinogens out there. Hence, ketamine produces the same outcome as that other hallucinogens and can be classified as a hallucinogen, although used similarly for medical purposes."

"Furthermore, as I have stated before, the lack thereof of consent by an already incapacitated patient does not imply affirmative response at all (no response doesn't mean you have their consent). Combined with the fact that ketamine is a hallucinogen, which is expressly classified under Article One of your proposal (even though you do not recognize ketamine to be a hallucinogen, but your resolution states so), and it will be difficult to administer proper medical procedures towards the patient without violating this resolution here."

"I would like to remind you that there is a difference between the literal interpretation of hallucinogens and the actual usage of them. It seems to me that you hold a negative view on the word of "hallucinogens", thinking that they are all used to get high and for recreational purposes when clearly, it can also be used to describe beneficial drugs that produce hallucinogenic-like effects as a side effect of the drug."

[Morover]

"Ambassador, I'll admit that I'm not an expert on hallucinogens from a medical perspective - but please enlighten me on a use of hallucinogens (as defined by this proposal) which will be directly beneficial to an already incapacitated patient. If you can come up with a legitimate gripe, I'll change it."

(OOC: I'm still not convinced of your ketamine argument - it just doesn't fall under the classification of hallucinogen as defined by this proposal.)

"Here's the thing, ambassador. The terminology "hallucinogens" is used to classify, on your own terms, a drug (medical or not) that induces a hallucinogenic effect on the individual. It does not state the purpose of why the hallucinogen is used. Any drugs that can induce any hallucinogenic-like symptoms is considered a hallucinogen based on your own interpretations, regardless of the purpose of why that drug is used in the first place. Ketamine is considered as a hallucinogen because it is used for recreational purposes to get "high" after clubbing (which is true), and its symptoms of double vision, irregular heartbeat, hallucinations, nausea and vomiting all fit the criteria of the consumption of hallucinogens in general. Even though it is also used extensively in medical procedures, it is still classified as a hallucinogen because there are people who still use it recreationally to get some "high" like other hallucinogens out there. Hence, ketamine produces the same outcome as that other hallucinogens and can be classified as a hallucinogen, although used similarly for medical purposes."

"Furthermore, as I have stated before, the lack thereof of consent by an already incapacitated patient does not imply affirmative response at all (no response doesn't mean you have their consent). Combined with the fact that ketamine is a hallucinogen, which is expressly classified under Article One of your proposal (even though you do not recognize ketamine to be a hallucinogen, but your resolution states so), and it will be difficult to administer proper medical procedures towards the patient without violating this resolution here."

"I would like to remind you that there is a difference between the literal interpretation of hallucinogens and the actual usage of them. It seems to me that you hold a negative view on the word of "hallucinogens", thinking that they are all used to get high and for recreational purposes when clearly, it can also be used to describe beneficial drugs that produce hallucinogenic-like effects as a side effect of the drug."

"I think you misunderstand my definition - from what you're describing, this 'ketamine' substance is not directly intended to cause hallucinogens - that's just an unfortunate side effect. And that's the main wording behind the clause, really. If someone were to forcefully give an individual this 'ketamine' for the purposes of giving them a hallucinogenic reaction, then it would be considered a hallucinogen for this proposal. If it was for medical purposes, it would not fall under the definition as defined by this proposal. It really is a case-by-case basis."

"From what it seems to me, you're allowing your preemptive knowledge on hallucinogens overlook what this proposal really defines as a hallucinogen. I know that, at least in my nation, there is no medical reason that a solely hallucinogenic reaction should be deemed necessary. Just because there is an unfortunate side effect of causing hallucinations or other hallucinogenic reactions does not make it a hallucinogen, according to my proposal."

OOC: I feel it should be said that my nation is based on a planet where ketamine does not necessarily exist, hence their slight confusion when it's brought up. Even when regarding the existence of Ketamine, though, my stance is the same. I genuinely think that either I'm misunderstanding your arguments or you don't understand why I wrote the definition the way I did.

Also, I feel it should be said once more that it's not necessarily good RP to respond to OOC comments IC - From the point of view of my ambassador, you randomly brought up ketamine, which they have no idea what it truly is. Of course, I as a player understand, but I do try to remain fairly consistent with my worldbuilding, especially when it comes to interactions with those outside of the worldbuilding.