[DISCARDED] Ban On The Involuntary Administration Of Drugs

[Araraukar]

OOC: The primary issue that arose has been fixed. Theoretically, this will be submitted and campaigned for beginning on Tuesday night.

OOC: Why is the "people, organizations = member states in this proposal" thing hidden in the last clause? Just put it first so people won't vote against this because they cba read all the way to the end and think you're only legislating for the states and not, you know, everyone.

Clause 2.3. should probably have the exception attached to the danger to others, not the use of medication. The way it's written now makes it look like you were making an exception to allow using lethal doses on law enforcement...

Clause 2.5. continues to be a problem, like Banana pointed out.

Clause 2.6. are the meds supposed to be safe, as in pure and not contaminated, or safe, as in kept behind lock and key? "Injuries ... direct result of the sedative" doesn't really say much. Because, like, if you take sleeping pills and then go driving a car, you're just asking to end up in an accident as a result of the sedative's effect, but the sedative itself would have worked as it should.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Perhaps article two clause five could be altered to a suggestion, or limited only to areas with a high population density, so that substances in isolated areas aren’t affected?)

[Morover]

All OOC:

OOC: The primary issue that arose has been fixed. Theoretically, this will be submitted and campaigned for beginning on Tuesday night.

OOC: Why is the "people, organizations = member states in this proposal" thing hidden in the last clause? Just put it first so people won't vote against this because they cba read all the way to the end and think you're only legislating for the states and not, you know, everyone.

Seems to be reading too far into it to me, but I'll see what I can do.

Clause 2.3. should probably have the exception attached to the danger to others, not the use of medication. The way it's written now makes it look like you were making an exception to allow using lethal doses on law enforcement...

Took me a second but I see what you mean. I'll see how I can work with that grammatically to make it make more sense.

Clause 2.5. continues to be a problem, like Banana pointed out.

I'd argue that my phrasing of 'reasonable threat' fixed the issue Banana pointed out, but if you disagree, I can do what Kenmoria suggests, or some alteration of it.

Clause 2.6. are the meds supposed to be safe, as in pure and not contaminated, or safe, as in kept behind lock and key? "Injuries ... direct result of the sedative" doesn't really say much. Because, like, if you take sleeping pills and then go driving a car, you're just asking to end up in an accident as a result of the sedative's effect, but the sedative itself would have worked as it should.

I'll do my best to clarify that.


EDIT: Changed 2.2 to be any individual at all, to have a positive side effect of limiting unethical warfare. I'm in no rush to submit so I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Just realized that much of this may contradict GA #272, in terms of riot suppression with non-lethal chemical suppression methods. Could catch both hallucinogens and sedatives.

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: Just realized that much of this may contradict GA #272, in terms of riot suppression with non-lethal chemical suppression methods. Could catch both hallucinogens and sedatives.

That really is a stretch.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Just realized that much of this may contradict GA #272, in terms of riot suppression with non-lethal chemical suppression methods. Could catch both hallucinogens and sedatives.

(OOC: The clause says ‘within the boundaries of current and future World Assembly legislation,’, so this is fine.)

[Morover]

OOC: Just realized that much of this may contradict GA #272, in terms of riot suppression with non-lethal chemical suppression methods. Could catch both hallucinogens and sedatives.

OOC: I agree with Wayneactia, though, as Kenmoria pointed out, it would be a nonissue regardless due to the wording of the legislation.

I am interested in some further critiques of this.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I am interested in some further critiques of this.

OOC: I still disagree with the Americanism of using "drugs" when you mean "medications".

[Morover]

OOC: I am interested in some further critiques of this.

OOC: I still disagree with the Americanism of using "drugs" when you mean "medications".

OOC: While I disagree with you in principle, I would agree that a new name is an order (this has also been requested in private by some individuals), but I'm not sure exactly what it should be.

Something along the lines of "Convention Against the Involuntary Administration of Drugs or Other Medications", but, alas, there is a character limited.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I still disagree with the Americanism of using "drugs" when you mean "medications".

OOC: While I disagree with you in principle, I would agree that a new name is an order (this has also been requested in private by some individuals), but I'm not sure exactly what it should be.

Something along the lines of "Convention Against the Involuntary Administration of Drugs or Other Medications", but, alas, there is a character limited.

(OOC: ‘Convention Against Forced Drug or Medication Use’?)

[Greater vakolicci haven]

If we lose articles 2.3 and 3, I can vote for this.

[Kenmoria]

“Article 3.1 should end with a full stop.”

If we lose articles 2.3 and 3, I can vote for this.

(OOC: 2.3 means that police are allowed to sedate somebody about to commit a mass murder, instead of just killing them. Article 3 is for vaccinations.)

[Greater vakolicci haven]

“Article 3.1 should end with a full stop.”

If we lose articles 2.3 and 3, I can vote for this.

(OOC: 2.3 means that police are allowed to sedate somebody about to commit a mass murder, instead of just killing them. Article 3 is for vaccinations.)

I'm aware what both mean.

[Kenmoria]

“Article 3.1 should end with a full stop.”


(OOC: 2.3 means that police are allowed to sedate somebody about to commit a mass murder, instead of just killing them. Article 3 is for vaccinations.)

I'm aware what both mean.

(OOC: Mandatory vaccinations are required by WA law, so removing article 3 would make this proposal illegal for contradiction of extant legislation.

I don’t see how it’s better to kill somebody than tranquillise them, and it certainly isn’t something that should be forced on member states. The proposal doesn’t require that this be allowed or used in member nations; it merely gives them the choice of whether or not to do so.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Allows the consumption of drugs shown to be essential for public health to be mandated by a state,

Is far more broad than what I passed.

[Morover]

If we lose articles 2.3 and 3, I can vote for this.

OOC: For 3, I'll consider replacing it with an assertion that prior and future resolutions take precedence, which creates essentially the same intended effect without being as overarching. 2.3 is non-negotiable, however.

Also, I think Ban On The Involuntary Administration Of Drugs is a more appropriate title (which keeps the spirit of the proposal), so I'll change that momentarily

“Article 3.1 should end with a full stop.”

If we lose articles 2.3 and 3, I can vote for this.

(OOC: 2.3 means that police are allowed to sedate somebody about to commit a mass murder, instead of just killing them. Article 3 is for vaccinations.)

Fixed.

[Morover]

OOC: I've opted to remove article three entirely. It's covered adequately in prior resolutions.

[Morover]

OOC: Unless a significant issue comes up, this will be submitted on January 14th.

[Kenmoria]

“Article 2, clause 3 doesn’t need to have ‘who is not on-duty police or military personnel’, since both those groups would presumably always be acting within the confines of relevant legislation.”

[Morover]

“Article 2, clause 3 doesn’t need to have ‘who is not on-duty police or military personnel’, since both those groups would presumably always be acting within the confines of relevant legislation.”

OOC: Changed this shortly after you suggested it, but forgot to mention it here.

I've actually decided to delay submission until January 18th, so I can submit it at an optimal time and get a good campaign out there, without worrying about work getting in the way. I know it's not really how it works, optimally, but any criticism would be preferred to be said before that point in time.

I have changed the title to include "Last Call" to bring in those who only read the titles.

EDIT: Also, in clause 3 I edited it to clarify that only the relevant law enforcement or military may apply the doses.

[Maowi]

"Perhaps to cut down on repetition, for ease of reading, and to ensure no loopholes can be used to avoid prosecution, you could use phrasing prohibiting actions, rather than prohibiting x from doing y.

"An example: change ...

Prohibits member-states, corporations operating in any member-states, or any individual residing or visiting in a member-state from forcing any individual to consume, intake, or otherwise use hallucinogens against their will,

... to ...

Prohibits the forcing of any individual to consume, intake, or otherwise use hallucinogens against their will,

... although that could probably be tweaked slightly to improve that phrasing. Similarly, change ...

Further prohibits all member-states, corporations operating in any member-states, or any individual residing or visiting in a member-state from intentionally releasing hallucinogens in aerosol form, in order to cause residents to have a hallucinogenic reaction, unless all those who will be exposed have given express consent.

... to ...

Further prohibits the intentional release of hallucinogens in aerosol form, in order to cause residents to have a hallucinogenic reaction, unless all those who will be exposed have given express consent.

... and so on. In that clause, I'd also remove the first comma. Grammatically, it makes it seem as though the World Assembly is prohibiting the release of hallucinogens in order to cause residents to have a hallucinogenic reaction. I do not think that's what you were going for."

Edit: OOC: Now that I think about it, the way you've structured your proposal doesn't work, grammatically. You've got:

The World Assembly ... enacts the following ... defines, prohibits, etc.

You should either just get rid of "enacts the following" (and replace it with "hereby" if you want), or change all the verbs from e.g. "defines x as y" to "x is defined as y",

[Morover]

"Perhaps to cut down on repetition, for ease of reading, and to ensure no loopholes can be used to avoid prosecution, you could use phrasing prohibiting actions, rather than prohibiting x from doing y.

"An example: change ...

Prohibits member-states, corporations operating in any member-states, or any individual residing or visiting in a member-state from forcing any individual to consume, intake, or otherwise use hallucinogens against their will,

... to ...

Prohibits the forcing of any individual to consume, intake, or otherwise use hallucinogens against their will,

... although that could probably be tweaked slightly to improve that phrasing. Similarly, change ...

Further prohibits all member-states, corporations operating in any member-states, or any individual residing or visiting in a member-state from intentionally releasing hallucinogens in aerosol form, in order to cause residents to have a hallucinogenic reaction, unless all those who will be exposed have given express consent.

... to ...

Further prohibits the intentional release of hallucinogens in aerosol form, in order to cause residents to have a hallucinogenic reaction, unless all those who will be exposed have given express consent.

... and so on. In that clause, I'd also remove the first comma. Grammatically, it makes it seem as though the World Assembly is prohibiting the release of hallucinogens in order to cause residents to have a hallucinogenic reaction. I do not think that's what you were going for."

Edit: OOC: Now that I think about it, the way you've structured your proposal doesn't work, grammatically. You've got:

The World Assembly ... enacts the following ... defines, prohibits, etc.

You should either just get rid of "enacts the following" (and replace it with "hereby" if you want), or change all the verbs from e.g. "defines x as y" to "x is defined as y",

OOC: I'll fix all this right now. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Verdant Haven]

"I am supportive of the general principal which inspires this proposed resolution, but find there are some modifications that would be necessary for it to be acceptable in practice, largely revolving around medical scenarios which are far more broad than what is defined in the clauses presently contained."

Category: Regulation - Safety

The World Assembly,

Distressed by the notable lack of legislation on the topic of forced drug use,

Believing that forcing a person to consume drugs is unethical and immoral,

Disgusted at those that intentionally drug another individual for personal gain,

Aware that, in certain circumstances, the required intake of drugs is useful,

Believing that there should be regulations on forced drug use,

The first and fifth declarations are basically the same. I would toss the first and keep the fifth, which is stronger.

I would also alter the second item to insert "for non-medical purposes" in the middle.

Enacts the Following:

As suggested by Maowi above, this should just be "Hereby" or another word that works with the tense you've used in the articles.

Article One

1. Defines a hallucinogen as a drug which is intended to have a hallucinogenic effect on an individual,
   
   
2. Prohibits member-states, corporations operating in any member-states, or any individual residing or visiting in a member-state from forcing any individual to consume, intake, or otherwise use hallucinogens against their will,
   
   
3. Further prohibits all member-states, corporations operating in any member-states, or any individual residing or visiting in a member-state from intentionally releasing hallucinogens in aerosol form, in order to cause residents to have a hallucinogenic reaction, unless all those who will be exposed have given express consent.

I am concerned that attempting to prohibit "any individual residing in or visiting..." may fall afoul of attempting to legislate for non-WA members. Should a non-WA citizen be visiting or resident within a WA nation, we may assume that the laws of the WA nation will be enforced, but specifically attempting to write a policy that targets residents and visitors, as opposed to citizens, is crossing this oft-trod line. The rule would be stronger without any attempt at an exclusive list, as that creates the possibility of exceptions. If you simply prohibit the activity though, that directly catches all possible scenarios.

Additionally, sub-clause 1.3 only covers releases intended to affect residents, but says nothing of targeting visitors, nor of uses such as a border release where prevailing winds will carry it to a neighboring nation's communities. This should simply prohibit aerosol releases without consent, without limiting the protected class to only residents.

Article Two

1. Defines a sedative as any drug in which the main effect gives a tranquilizing, sleep-inducing, or any other effect which may invoke drowsiness,
   
   
2. Prohibits all member-states, corporations operating in any member-states, or any individual residing or visiting in a member-state from allowing the intentional sedation of any individual, except with the express consent of the individual who is being sedated, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin,
   
   
3. Clarifies that should an individual pose a physical threat to themselves or any other individual, non-lethal doses of sedative drugs are permitted to be used on said individual by relevant law enforcement or military,
   
   
4. Further clarifies that, during medical operation which is being performed with the consent of the patient or the patient's next-of-kin, a surgeon may apply an unapproved sedative, so long as it is deemed either medically necessary for the health and wellbeing of the patient, or for the operation to proceed in a safe manner,
   
   
5. Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any external natural substances that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated,
   
   
6. Requires the World Health Authority to ensure that all sedatives are kept to a standard of safety which will minimize all injuries that occur as a direct result of the sedative, assuming the sedative is being used by any reasonable person.

Co-Authored by United Massachusetts

Sub-clauses 2.2 and 2.4 seem to completely exclude the possibility of emergency medicine, where an incapacitated subject is not accompanied by their next-of-kin. The administration of sedation for transportation, stabilization, trauma surgery, and other medically vital activities is prohibited by this draft, unless the next-of-kin provides explicit approval. This will result in serious and lethal consequences on an immense scale.

Sub-clause 2.2 further stumbles with the use of the term "allowing" rather than "performing" or some other active verb. As written, it would seem to create an obligation for members of the public to forcibly intervene to prevent the sedation of others, as opposed to creating an obligation not to perform such sedation themselves.

Sub-clause 2.2 finally falls afoul of the same attempt to create an exclusive list as discussed for elements of Article 1, above. It is recommended that this list be removed in favor of creating a generally applicable policy.

Sub-clause 2.3 should include medical personnel in the exception list in addition to law enforcement and military. For example, the staff of a psychological ward facing an enraged and violent patient are not law enforcement or military personnel, and would under the current draft be unable to sedate their charge.

Sub-clause 2.4 uses the word "unapproved" in an unclear way. "Approval" is never defined, nor is it clear who or what the "approving" body is. On my initial reading this struck me as an authorization for an anesthesiologist, mid-procedure, to apply a medication that remains unapproved by regulators. I do not believe this was the intent.

Sub-clause 2.5 refers to "external natural substances" without any clarity on the meaning of the term. Are we speaking of drifting pollen from plants? Lavender oil imported from a foreign nation? All forms of natural sedatives if they are administered outdoors? Regardless of which, this seems to drift from the core purpose of this legislation, which relates to the deliberate administration of drugs, against the will of the recipient. Stretching it to address happenstantial environmental or trade incidence weakens the proposal rather than strengthening it.

Sub-clause 2.6 mandates that the WHA "ensure" sedatives are safe for their indicated uses, without providing clarity on how or in what manner they can do so. Are they creating a standard to which member states must adhere? Are they performing spot checks of batches? If so, who does this and how?

[Morover]

OOC: Hey, Verdant Haven. Thanks for stopping by. I think you'll find that, in my fixing Maowi's issues, I fixed many of yours. I'll address the issues of yours I didn't fix, though.

The first and fifth declarations are basically the same. I would toss the first and keep the fifth, which is stronger.

I would also alter the second item to insert "for non-medical purposes" in the middle.

I'll fix that.

Additionally, sub-clause 1.3 only covers releases intended to affect residents, but says nothing of targeting visitors, nor of uses such as a border release where prevailing winds will carry it to a neighboring nation's communities. This should simply prohibit aerosol releases without consent, without limiting the protected class to only residents.

I'll fix this as well.

Sub-clauses 2.2 and 2.4 seem to completely exclude the possibility of emergency medicine, where an incapacitated subject is not accompanied by their next-of-kin. The administration of sedation for transportation, stabilization, trauma surgery, and other medically vital activities is prohibited by this draft, unless the next-of-kin provides explicit approval. This will result in serious and lethal consequences on an immense scale.

I'll see what I can do to fix this. I should be able to figure out something.

Sub-clause 2.3 should include medical personnel in the exception list in addition to law enforcement and military. For example, the staff of a psychological ward facing an enraged and violent patient are not law enforcement or military personnel, and would under the current draft be unable to sedate their charge.

You're correct. I'll fix it.

Sub-clause 2.4 uses the word "unapproved" in an unclear way. "Approval" is never defined, nor is it clear who or what the "approving" body is. On my initial reading this struck me as an authorization for an anesthesiologist, mid-procedure, to apply a medication that remains unapproved by regulators. I do not believe this was the intent.

Yes, that was unintended. I don't think the word is strictly necessary, so I'll remove it.

Sub-clause 2.5 refers to "external natural substances" without any clarity on the meaning of the term. Are we speaking of drifting pollen from plants? Lavender oil imported from a foreign nation? All forms of natural sedatives if they are administered outdoors? Regardless of which, this seems to drift from the core purpose of this legislation, which relates to the deliberate administration of drugs, against the will of the recipient. Stretching it to address happenstantial environmental or trade incidence weakens the proposal rather than strengthening it.

So, the intent was to make it so that natural substances occurring outside of the body of the actual sapient need to be suppressed. Personally, I think that it strengthens the proposal - for example, it should be mandated that any sort of carbon monoxide-like substance (which, in fairness, I'm not sure if carbon monoxide is strictly considered a sedative, but it's the first thing that comes to mind) should be suppressed. To do otherwise is negligent, and I think it should be covered by the proposal.

For the time being, however, I think I'll keep the clause and keep it under consideration. I will try and clarify the intention, however.

Sub-clause 2.6 mandates that the WHA "ensure" sedatives are safe for their indicated uses, without providing clarity on how or in what manner they can do so. Are they creating a standard to which member states must adhere? Are they performing spot checks of batches? If so, who does this and how?

My initial intention isn't ideal for the proposal, so I'll change it to something more acceptable.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Morover]

OOC:

This will be posted in 2 major updates, in approximately 26 and a half hours, unless a complaint that will require a significant amount of redrafting (beyond a grammatical or wording issue, really).

Speak now or forever hold your piece (or wait until I've started campaigning, that's also an option - albeit, a slightly less ideal option).