[DISCARDED] Ban On The Involuntary Administration Of Drugs

[The Yellow Monkey]

Strongly against.

Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated,

This is a weasily provision which effectively requires member nations to seek out and destroy barley, marijuana, and other plants which, admittedly, pose a "reasonable threat" of resulting in involuntary sedation if misused either by individuals or ne'er-do-wells.

I do not believe that many member nations have fully thought through the implications of this provision.

[Maowi]

Strongly against.

Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated,

This is a weasily provision which effectively requires member nations to seek out and destroy barley, marijuana, and other plants which, admittedly, pose a "reasonable threat" of resulting in involuntary sedation if misused either by individuals or ne'er-do-wells.

I do not believe that many member nations have fully thought through the implications of this provision.

OOC: Morover can confirm, but I think the intention of this is to have member nations remove plants and other natural substances which you could get sedated by just by walking past them. (I don't know any RL examples, but I'm sure there are a few - and I don't think something like marijuana is an example of that?) In any case, whether this was the intention or not, I believe it to be a reasonable interpretation of the legislation and one that my nation certainly will be adopting.

[The Yellow Monkey]

OOC: Morover can confirm, but I think the intention of this is to have member nations remove plants and other natural substances which you could get sedated by just by walking past them. (I don't know any RL examples, but I'm sure there are a few - and I don't think something like marijuana is an example of that?) In any case, whether this was the intention or not, I believe it to be a reasonable interpretation of the legislation and one that my nation certainly will be adopting.

I am not a botanist but I've never heard of such plants. I would love to see an example of a plant that will knock you out just because you smelled/walked past it. Sounds like something out of a bad science fiction movie.

I know seasonal allergies can cause people to feel "foggy" but surely this isn't a mandate to go suppress all flowers during pollination season.

It's just a bad provision. I can't think of a serious situation where it makes any sense. I agree it's amorphous; that's hardly a selling point for international legislation imposing a mandate. The plain text requires suppressing any "natural substances" that "pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated." As previously mentioned, barley (grain alcohol), marijuana, opium, and a whole host of other plants meet that definition.

So I am still strongly opposed to what is, at best, a provision which reasonable nations will be forced to either ignore or heavily qualify with "intentions" that are not clear from the language of the law.

[Bears Armed]

The plain text requires suppressing any "natural substances" that "pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated." As previously mentioned, barley (grain alcohol), marijuana, opium, and a whole host of other plants meet that definition.

OOC
People consuming those drugs for recreational purposes (rather than as medically-prescribed sedatives anyway) generally do so voluntarily, and in the knowledge that they can have sedative effects: I don't see any "reasonable threat" of "involuntary" sedation there...

[The Yellow Monkey]

People consuming those drugs for recreational purposes (rather than as medically-prescribed sedatives anyway) generally do so voluntarily, and in the knowledge that they can have sedative effects: I don't see any "reasonable threat" of "involuntary" sedation there...

There is a "reasonable threat" that those substances can be used to achieve involuntary sedation of others. The prospect of individuals drugging others is what this proposal is about. When I first saw this provision in that context, I saw a government mandate to go after the substances themselves as a means to prevent bad guys from administering them to others involuntarily.

It's a bit academic, but It's also worth mentioning that just because someone has consumed an intoxicant voluntarily that doesn't necessarily mean they voluntarily became "sedated" by it. There are many people who consume over their limit and become intoxicated by mistake. The fact that they ignored the "reasonable threat" that over-consumption could cause impairment doesn't mean they voluntarily became impaired.

[Kananji]

Certain drugs should be illegal, and FORCING CONSUMPTION OF DRUGS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!! Nobody should be forced to take drugs, not even medical drugs. If they don't want to take the drug, then they won't take the drug. That simple. -President of Kananji

[Morover]

OOC:

So, reading over all the feedback here, I've honestly taken to agreeing with you all. There are a few small issues I need to fix, and honestly, I've been thinking it over and a newer version that I can theorize in my head would be ideal. As such, I'm currently changing my recommendation to "against" on all the forums I hold sway over. It may not be enough, but it is true that I need to fix these mistakes (and perhaps entirely revamp the proposal in order to be more formal, cohesive, and acceptable to the public), so I gotta try and hopefully a repeal won't be necessary.

I make no comment on the legality challenge at the current time.

[Auze]

"Support, reluctantly"

[Jutsa]

It has been decided best by the council of Jutsa to inform you that we have voted against the resolution, and have encouraged the region of Forest to do the same, par the request for changes to be made.

Though it most likely will be passed and need a repeal to fix the problems, we wish you and your objective the best, Morover.

[Wencee]

Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress any natural substances that are not considered a biological part of any sapient that pose a reasonable threat to their residents of being involuntarily sedated,

Being a Kingdom that has very 'lax' as some say drug laws - quite intentionally; we reject anything that might even possibly* infringe* upon that right. No matter the good 'intentions' of said Resolution; nor are we ignorant that our single vote can't stop this from passing regardless - We vote against, and hope others do as well. In the event of its passage we look forward to the chance to see this body repeal this, and replace it.

[Kananji]

Thank you for all the supporters. This injustice will soon be illegalized and the world will be a better place. -President of Kananji

[The Yellow Monkey]

OOC:

So, reading over all the feedback here, I've honestly taken to agreeing with you all. There are a few small issues I need to fix, and honestly, I've been thinking it over and a newer version that I can theorize in my head would be ideal. As such, I'm currently changing my recommendation to "against" on all the forums I hold sway over. It may not be enough, but it is true that I need to fix these mistakes (and perhaps entirely revamp the proposal in order to be more formal, cohesive, and acceptable to the public), so I gotta try and hopefully a repeal won't be necessary.

I make no comment on the legality challenge at the current time.

I appreciate your willingness to accept reasonable constructive criticism. More of our members could strive to be so magnanimous. It was perhaps a bit of a communal failure that reasonable improvements were not raised sooner, given that you posted this for drafting for more than half a year before submitting it.

I do not think there is time enough to stop this from becoming law. Government suppression of all sedative substances will be fun to roleplay for a while I suppose. While I am sure you are more than capable on your own, I would be happy to work with you on a repeal and replace.

[Green Days and Equality]

OOC:

So, reading over all the feedback here, I've honestly taken to agreeing with you all. There are a few small issues I need to fix, and honestly, I've been thinking it over and a newer version that I can theorize in my head would be ideal. As such, I'm currently changing my recommendation to "against" on all the forums I hold sway over. It may not be enough, but it is true that I need to fix these mistakes (and perhaps entirely revamp the proposal in order to be more formal, cohesive, and acceptable to the public), so I gotta try and hopefully a repeal won't be necessary.

I make no comment on the legality challenge at the current time.

D

I hope this doesnt pass. it is too flawed

[Imperium Anglorum]

There's no need to rub it in.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

*** NOTICE ***

As stated in the challenge thread, this proposal does contradict GAR #29 and is therefore illegal. It will be discarded at the end of voting.

Full opinion forthcoming posted here.

[Wencee]

*** NOTICE ***

As stated in the challenge thread, this proposal does contradict GAR #29 and is therefore illegal. It will be discarded at the end of voting.

Full opinion forthcoming.

Thank you for the Notice

[Araraukar]

OOC: You can probably expect to receive the detailed opinions somewhere around June...

[The Yellow Monkey]

*snip*

I look forward to this opinion, although even without seeing it I wish to register my dissatisfaction with the rushed decision of this case. I think closer analysis will show that the two laws are not really contradictory, and that there is no justification for taking this out of the hands of what should be a democratic process.

Hanging a decision on the (possible) difference between a person's "next-of-kin" and their "legal guardian" is obtuse and unreasonably technical. The proposal and the Patient's Rights Act do not really overlap or contradict eachother in a meaningful way, and they certainly could have been read as compatible. I feel this was a rushed decision to reach a desired result, as the proposal author had recognized areas for improvement and expressed support for an opportunity to rewrite. Those ends do not justify the use of the discard function.

On its face, this appears to be a poor precedent.

[Separatist Peoples]

*snip*

I look forward to this opinion, although even without seeing it I wish to register my dissatisfaction with the rushed decision of this case. I think closer analysis will show that the two laws are not really contradictory, and that there is no justification for taking this out of the hands of what should be a democratic process.

Hanging a decision on the (possible) difference between a person's "next-of-kin" and their "legal guardian" is obtuse and unreasonably technical. The proposal and the Patient's Rights Act do not really overlap or contradict eachother in a meaningful way, and they certainly could have been read as compatible. I feel this was a rushed decision to reach a desired result, as the proposal author had recognized areas for improvement and expressed support for an opportunity to rewrite. Those ends do not justify the use of the discard function.

On its face, this appears to be a poor precedent.

Ooc: I'm not sure most of us knew Morover was against his own proposal. We looked at the challenge argument and made a decision in the 24 hours we were given. Which, since we operate asynchronously across the globe, was no mean feat.

[Tinhampton]

"Ban on the Involuntary Administration of Drugs" was discarded by the WA for rule violations after garnering 8,116 votes in favor and 6,801 votes against.

[The Yellow Monkey]

Ooc: I'm not sure most of us knew Morover was against his own proposal. We looked at the challenge argument and made a decision in the 24 hours we were given. Which, since we operate asynchronously across the globe, was no mean feat.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Just doesn't look good from where I'm standing, especially since it looks like Gen Sec failed to follow it's own rules before using the Discard function. (See #6(i)-(iii))

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: I'm not sure most of us knew Morover was against his own proposal. We looked at the challenge argument and made a decision in the 24 hours we were given. Which, since we operate asynchronously across the globe, was no mean feat.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Just doesn't look good from where I'm standing, especially since it looks like Gen Sec failed to follow it's own rules before using the Discard function. (See #6(i)-(iii))

Ooc: I see we need to clarify that. That refers to the Discard function on our control panel for stuff not at vote. Not the mod discard power. That's a totally fair mistake, and I had to read it twice to make sure. I'll run that up the flag.

[Bananaistan]

Ooc: I'm not sure most of us knew Morover was against his own proposal. We looked at the challenge argument and made a decision in the 24 hours we were given. Which, since we operate asynchronously across the globe, was no mean feat.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Just doesn't look good from where I'm standing, especially since it looks like Gen Sec failed to follow it's own rules before using the Discard function. (See #6(i)-(iii))

OOC: IIRC that refers to the discard function we use to hide proposals not yet at vote from the publicly available proposal queue. The situation here was a moderator discard because only a moderator can discard at vote resolutions.

Edit: Ninaj'd by Sep.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Just doesn't look good from where I'm standing, especially since it looks like Gen Sec failed to follow it's own rules before using the Discard function. (See #6(i)-(iii))

OOC: IIRC that refers to the discard function we use to hide proposals not yet at vote from the publicly available proposal queue. The situation here was a moderator discard because only a moderator can discard at vote resolutions.

Edit: Ninaj'd by Sep.

*menacingly fades into the shadows*

[The Yellow Monkey]

OOC: IIRC that refers to the discard function we use to hide proposals not yet at vote from the publicly available proposal queue. The situation here was a moderator discard because only a moderator can discard at vote resolutions.

Again, just saying how it looks from the perspective of a player watching it play out. It seems odd to me that there would be greater transparency when it comes to a function used to hide a proposal and then remove it from the queue than for deletion of one already at vote. Especially since as far as I can see the ultimate justification for either of those actions is the same (i.e. some ultimate determination of illegality).

To the extent that Gen Sec does not follow the "Discard" procedures in its rules for this situation, and that Gen Sec will discard a proposal at vote using different rules, it really is not fair to proposal authors to take such action without some notice of the process that might result in their proposal being trash-canned.

Just trying to keep the game fair, is all.