[DISCARDED] Ban On The Involuntary Administration Of Drugs

[Morover]

“Based on article 1, clause 1, are you deliberately excluding drugs that are not airborn or edible? The use of ‘either’ suggests you are. There can also be intravenous consumption, possibly via injection, and taking the drug into the system through the skin or eyes.”

"Yes, that is an oversight on my part. I'll remove the specificity of 'either airborn or edible,' as it still gives across the same idea without creating any unintended consequences."

[Kenmoria]

“Is there a reason why clause 2 is bolded? It looks slightly odd in contrast to the rest of the mandates.”

[Morover]

“Is there a reason why clause 2 is bolded? It looks slightly odd in contrast to the rest of the mandates.”

OOC: I changed all of the operative clauses to be unbolded and missed one

[Morover]

"A new draft for this has been posted. While it's mostly just improving formatting and rearranging some clauses, I do think it's better than what it was."

[Kenmoria]

“Clause one of article two doesn’t quite flow correctly due to the list containing multiple different structures.”

[The New Nordic Union]

'Does Article II, clause 4: "Clarifies that, should an individual pose a physical threat to any individual in their immediate vicinity, non-lethal doses of sedative drugs are permitted to be used on them." include situations where the person being sedated is a risk for themself? It could reasonably be argued that they are not in their own vicinity. If so, we would propose to include regulations concerning the risk of self-harm.'

[Morover]

“Clause one of article two doesn’t quite flow correctly due to the list containing multiple different structures.”

"I removed the 'for the purposes of this resolution' in the definitions, which should theoretically make it flow better. If I didn't fix what you were talking about, please let me know."

'Does Article II, clause 4: "Clarifies that, should an individual pose a physical threat to any individual in their immediate vicinity, non-lethal doses of sedative drugs are permitted to be used on them." include situations where the person being sedated is a risk for themself? It could reasonably be argued that they are not in their own vicinity. If so, we would propose to include regulations concerning the risk of self-harm.'

"I do see what you mean, and I'll try and rewrite the clause to include a self-harm portion. Thanks for your feedback."

[Kenmoria]

“Clause one of article two doesn’t quite flow correctly due to the list containing multiple different structures.”

"I removed the 'for the purposes of this resolution' in the definitions, which should theoretically make it flow better. If I didn't fix what you were talking about, please let me know."

“Ignore me, it was fine before. That clause works fine. On another note, I don’t think ‘stance’ is the correct word for the ‘believing’ clause.”

[Morover]

"I removed the 'for the purposes of this resolution' in the definitions, which should theoretically make it flow better. If I didn't fix what you were talking about, please let me know."

“Ignore me, it was fine before. That clause works fine. On another note, I don’t think ‘stance’ is the correct word for the ‘believing’ clause.”

"Fixed. I also addressed the issue of self-harm in Article 2, Clause 4."

[WayNeacTia]

"Prohibits all member-states from allowing the intentional sedation of its residents, except with the consent of a medical patient, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin, or when sedation is required to perform a medical operation."

A back door death penalty ban? Nice. Considering this clause pretty much negates lethal injection.

No support.

[Morover]

"Prohibits all member-states from allowing the intentional sedation of its residents, except with the consent of a medical patient, or, where incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin, or when sedation is required to perform a medical operation."

A back door death penalty ban? Nice. Considering this clause pretty much negates lethal injection.

No support.

“Ambassador, I can understand your confusion, but that’s not what that clause would do. Lethal injections may invoke drowsiness, yes, but that is not it’s primary effect, as stated by the definition. If you have other reasons for your lack of support, that’s fine, but if it’s solely based off of this misunderstanding, I must ask you to reconsider.”

[Kenmoria]

“In article two clause three, ‘states’ should be ‘member states’, to make it clear you are not trying to legislative on non-members.”

[Maowi]

OOC: Although there is a history of rather interesting debate on the matter, the split infinitive in article two clause three rather annoys me, as someone who subscribes to the 'split infinitives are not grammatically incorrect but feel very awkward' line of thought. Of course, if you're a hardliner of split infinitive support you are perfectly entitled to disagree with me but consider changing it to read 'Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress...'
The dangling preposition in article three clause three also makes me prickly; in formal English that sentence would normally be phrased as 'Mandates that member-states hold private organizations and citizens to the same regulations on forced drug use to which the state is held.' Again, a merely stylistic choice.

Article three clause one doesn't make much sense to me as currently written: it would probably be clearer as 'Allows the consumption of drugs shown to be essential for the public health to be mandated by a state' or something to that effect.

'Full support, ambassador!'

[Morover]

“In article two clause three, ‘states’ should be ‘member states’, to make it clear you are not trying to legislative on non-members.”

"Fixed."

OOC: Although there is a history of rather interesting debate on the matter, the split infinitive in article two clause three rather annoys me, as someone who subscribes to the 'split infinitives are not grammatically incorrect but feel very awkward' line of thought. Of course, if you're a hardliner of split infinitive support you are perfectly entitled to disagree with me but consider changing it to read 'Requires that member-states attempt, to the best of their ability, to suppress...'
The dangling preposition in article three clause three also makes me prickly; in formal English that sentence would normally be phrased as 'Mandates that member-states hold private organizations and citizens to the same regulations on forced drug use to which the state is held.' Again, a merely stylistic choice.

Article three clause one doesn't make much sense to me as currently written: it would probably be clearer as 'Allows the consumption of drugs shown to be essential for the public health to be mandated by a state' or something to that effect.

'Full support, ambassador!'

OOC: Fixed all of those issues.

IC: "Thank you!"

[Kenmoria]

“Article two clause two allows involuntary sedation, with neither the consent of the subject nor their family, for a medical purpose. Given how this may be abused, I suggest changing it.”

[Morover]

“Article two clause two allows involuntary sedation, with neither the consent of the subject nor their family, for a medical purpose. Given how this may be abused, I suggest changing it.”

"Fixed. Initially, I thought about replacing the 'or' with an 'especially,' but decided that it would be better to simply remove that section of the clause altogether."

[Kenmoria]

“Article two clause two allows involuntary sedation, with neither the consent of the subject nor their family, for a medical purpose. Given how this may be abused, I suggest changing it.”

"Fixed. Initially, I thought about replacing the 'or' with an 'especially,' but decided that it would be better to simply remove that section of the clause altogether."

“On a grammar note, your final clause ends with a preposition ‘to’, which sounds strange and is thought by quite a few to be incorrect.”

[Araraukar]

“Article two clause two allows involuntary sedation, with neither the consent of the subject nor their family, for a medical purpose. Given how this may be abused, I suggest changing it.”

"Fixed. Initially, I thought about replacing the 'or' with an 'especially,' but decided that it would be better to simply remove that section of the clause altogether."

OOC: Given that clause 4 is the exception to clause 2, I suggest changing the order of the clauses so that 4 follows 2.

[Morover]

"Fixed. Initially, I thought about replacing the 'or' with an 'especially,' but decided that it would be better to simply remove that section of the clause altogether."

“On a grammar note, your final clause ends with a preposition ‘to’, which sounds strange and is thought by quite a few to be incorrect.”

"Ah, yes, I overlooked that when applying the grammatical changes Maowi suggested. I've fixed that."

"Fixed. Initially, I thought about replacing the 'or' with an 'especially,' but decided that it would be better to simply remove that section of the clause altogether."

OOC: Given that clause 4 is the exception to clause 2, I suggest changing the order of the clauses so that 4 follows 2.

OOC: Fixed. Thanks for the feedback.

I do wonder if there are any concerns beyond the grammar of this proposal, though. The contents don't feel entirely complete, but I'm not entirely sure what it's missing.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Given that clause 4 is the exception to clause 2, I suggest changing the order of the clauses so that 4 follows 2.

OOC: Fixed. Thanks for the feedback.

I do wonder if there are any concerns beyond the grammar of this proposal, though. The contents don't feel entirely complete, but I'm not entirely sure what it's missing.

(OOC: I can’t see anything wrong with the content, though I will tell you if I spot anything. Article two clause five seems rather out of place, however.)

[Morover]

OOC: Fixed. Thanks for the feedback.

I do wonder if there are any concerns beyond the grammar of this proposal, though. The contents don't feel entirely complete, but I'm not entirely sure what it's missing.

(OOC: I can’t see anything wrong with the content, though I will tell you if I spot anything. Article two clause five seems rather out of place, however.)

OOC: Does it? I can see how this isn't necessarily the proposal to include it in, so I may remove it. I was trying to demonstrate that I was aware that sedatives do have a plethora of uses, though, and that the WHA should ensure that those sedatives are safe.

Yeah, thinking about it, I'll probably remove it later today.

[Youssath]

The Youssathian ambassador speaks,

"Ambassador, while we would definitely like to support your resolution on the safeguards enforced to protect individuals, willing or not willing, from forced drug usage, we are profoundly concerned on the matter of medical hallucinogens with respect to your resolution. As you can see here, what I am holding on my hand right now is a bag of ketamine. Ketamine is a medical hallucinogen used to introduce anaesthesia. While used to medically sedate a patient, it is also a popular medical drug due to its cheap manufacturing costs and such. However, our concerns come from the internal contradiction between Article One, Clause Two and Article Two, Clause Two, where ketamine runs in the grey area of being a sleep-inducing hallucinogen."

"Article Two, Clause Two states that sedation can be administered with the consent of the patient or if incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin or when required for medical operations. However, Article One, Clause Two prohibits the state from using hallucinogens against the individual's will. So let's say if someone has been incapacitated and the hospitals are only able to provide ketamine to help provide anaesthesia, there will be a contradiction as the state is prohibited from administering medical hallucinogens to the patient even when consent is granted or that there is a requirement for anaesthesia for medical operations to continue. May I inquire where will medical hallucinogens be placed in this resolution? Because I hope that this cheap drug will continue to be used for medical purposes since all of Youssathian hospitals use them...

Thank you for your time, Ambassador. We would like to clarify the status of medical hallucinogens in this resolution."

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.

[Araraukar]

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.

[Morover]

The Youssathian ambassador speaks,

"Ambassador, while we would definitely like to support your resolution on the safeguards enforced to protect individuals, willing or not willing, from forced drug usage, we are profoundly concerned on the matter of medical hallucinogens with respect to your resolution. As you can see here, what I am holding on my hand right now is a bag of ketamine. Ketamine is a medical hallucinogen used to introduce anaesthesia. While used to medically sedate a patient, it is also a popular medical drug due to its cheap manufacturing costs and such. However, our concerns come from the internal contradiction between Article One, Clause Two and Article Two, Clause Two, where ketamine runs in the grey area of being a sleep-inducing hallucinogen."

"Article Two, Clause Two states that sedation can be administered with the consent of the patient or if incapacitated, their legal next-of-kin or when required for medical operations. However, Article One, Clause Two prohibits the state from using hallucinogens against the individual's will. So let's say if someone has been incapacitated and the hospitals are only able to provide ketamine to help provide anaesthesia, there will be a contradiction as the state is prohibited from administering medical hallucinogens to the patient even when consent is granted or that there is a requirement for anaesthesia for medical operations to continue. May I inquire where will medical hallucinogens be placed in this resolution? Because I hope that this cheap drug will continue to be used for medical purposes since all of Youssathian hospitals use them...

Thank you for your time, Ambassador. We would like to clarify the status of medical hallucinogens in this resolution."

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.

"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.

[Araraukar]

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.

OOC: Don't. If the individual consents, it's not forced to begin with. And next-of-kin exception would make it okay to feed children hallucinogens because of PRA. So please don't.