[Draft] Allow Recreational Drug Possession

[Morover]

OOC:

Bumping this. Minor tweaks were made.

[Stellonia]

"Get rid of Clauses 8 and 9 and you're onto something."

[WayNeacTia]

"I like the idea, I really do. But there are some serious deal breakers here:

Further allows the confiscation of recreational drugs;

Really? Why? If they aren't illegal anymore, why should police be able to confiscate them? This is an immediate hard pass.

Requires member-states to expunge all criminal records that have to do with drug possession;

Why? If it was a crime at the time, and someone was convicted, that's on them, not on the state.

Further requires member-states to end the prior incarceration of individuals who have been charged with drug possession;

See above.

Clarifies that individuals charged with other crimes on top of drug possession may have their sentences for the unrelated crimes continued, but any extension of the sentence that may have been a result of drug possession must be negated;

Once again, see above.

Demands that member-states shall pay reparations to all individuals who are currently or previously incarcerated for drug possession, equal to the amount of profits that would be lost (including, but not limited to, the lack of employment while incarcerated) from twice the length of the sentence, as well as any profits lost after the completion of the sentence due to any criminal record acquired;

Are you high? With this clause, it will not even make it to vote, let alone pass. Drop this one or this endeavor dies here and now.

Further demands that any fines or similar that were given as criminal punishment of drug possession must be given back to the individual who paid the fine within a reasonably timely manner.

See my above statement.

So yeah, some serious deal breakers. This needs a lot of work

Wayne

[Morover]

"I like the idea, I really do. But there are some serious deal breakers here:

Further allows the confiscation of recreational drugs;

Really? Why? If they aren't illegal anymore, why should police be able to confiscate them? This is an immediate hard pass.

"The overall goal of the proposal, ambassador, is to increase effective treatment for drug addiction - the confiscation of drugs is sometimes a necessary, if unfortunate, step in that process. You should also note that this proposal doesn't legalize recreational drug possession, it simply makes it so that criminal punishment may not be inflicted upon those who are guilty of drug possession."

Requires member-states to expunge all criminal records that have to do with drug possession;

Why? If it was a crime at the time, and someone was convicted, that's on them, not on the state.

Further requires member-states to end the prior incarceration of individuals who have been charged with drug possession;

See above.

Clarifies that individuals charged with other crimes on top of drug possession may have their sentences for the unrelated crimes continued, but any extension of the sentence that may have been a result of drug possession must be negated;

Once again, see above.

Demands that member-states shall pay reparations to all individuals who are currently or previously incarcerated for drug possession, equal to the amount of profits that would be lost (including, but not limited to, the lack of employment while incarcerated) from twice the length of the sentence, as well as any profits lost after the completion of the sentence due to any criminal record acquired;

Are you high? With this clause, it will not even make it to vote, let alone pass. Drop this one or this endeavor dies here and now.

Further demands that any fines or similar that were given as criminal punishment of drug possession must be given back to the individual who paid the fine within a reasonably timely manner.

[i]See my above statement.

"It is not just to keep someone incarcerated for something that is not worthy of incarceration, and those that were unjustly incarcerated should have reparations paid to them."

[Kenmoria]

"I like the idea, I really do. But there are some serious deal breakers here:

Further allows the confiscation of recreational drugs;

Really? Why? If they aren't illegal anymore, why should police be able to confiscate them? This is an immediate hard pass.

"The overall goal of the proposal, ambassador, is to increase effective treatment for drug addiction - the confiscation of drugs is sometimes a necessary, if unfortunate, step in that process. You should also note that this proposal doesn't legalize recreational drug possession, it simply makes it so that criminal punishment may not be inflicted upon those who are guilty of drug possession."

Requires member-states to expunge all criminal records that have to do with drug possession;

Why? If it was a crime at the time, and someone was convicted, that's on them, not on the state.

Further requires member-states to end the prior incarceration of individuals who have been charged with drug possession;

See above.

Clarifies that individuals charged with other crimes on top of drug possession may have their sentences for the unrelated crimes continued, but any extension of the sentence that may have been a result of drug possession must be negated;

Once again, see above.

Demands that member-states shall pay reparations to all individuals who are currently or previously incarcerated for drug possession, equal to the amount of profits that would be lost (including, but not limited to, the lack of employment while incarcerated) from twice the length of the sentence, as well as any profits lost after the completion of the sentence due to any criminal record acquired;

Are you high? With this clause, it will not even make it to vote, let alone pass. Drop this one or this endeavor dies here and now.

Further demands that any fines or similar that were given as criminal punishment of drug possession must be given back to the individual who paid the fine within a reasonably timely manner.

[i]See my above statement.

"It is not just to keep someone incarcerated for something that is not worthy of incarceration, and those that were unjustly incarcerated should have reparations paid to them."

“Reparations - yes. Reparations equal to he total sum of profits that would be lost from double the length of the sentence - definitely not. That’s a ridiculous sum of money if a member state has multiple drug users incarcerated who previously had highly-paying jobs.”

[Morover]

"The overall goal of the proposal, ambassador, is to increase effective treatment for drug addiction - the confiscation of drugs is sometimes a necessary, if unfortunate, step in that process. You should also note that this proposal doesn't legalize recreational drug possession, it simply makes it so that criminal punishment may not be inflicted upon those who are guilty of drug possession."

"It is not just to keep someone incarcerated for something that is not worthy of incarceration, and those that were unjustly incarcerated should have reparations paid to them."

“Reparations - yes. Reparations equal to he total sum of profits that would be lost from double the length of the sentence - definitely not. That’s a ridiculous sum of money if a member state has multiple drug users incarcerated who previously had highly-paying jobs.”

"Would it be preferable if it was equal to the total sum of profits that was lost from the time incarcerated as well as any profits lost after the completion of the sentence due to any criminal record acquired?"

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

We will not apologise, let alone pay "reparations", to those rightfully convicted of the grave Crime that is the possession of drugs (including hard drugs). This attempt to pass an ex post facto Law will not prevail.

Would The Holy Yellow Zombie Egg Home of Morover be willing to compensate the Holy Empire for its costs when paying reparations if this Proposal is passed?

--Saint Maximilian Kolbe, O.F.M. Conv., patron of drug addicts
Consuasor ad Sancti Imperii

[Kenmoria]

“Reparations - yes. Reparations equal to he total sum of profits that would be lost from double the length of the sentence - definitely not. That’s a ridiculous sum of money if a member state has multiple drug users incarcerated who previously had highly-paying jobs.”

"Would it be preferable if it was equal to the total sum of profits that was lost from the time incarcerated as well as any profits lost after the completion of the sentence due to any criminal record acquired?"

“That would be preferable, but still not ideal. Especially if there’s been a recent civil war or disaster, some governments might simply not be able to afford these reparations. Furthermore, the entire idea of paying reparations to people who have broken the law as it was then, is simply not acceptable to a lot of governments.”

[Araraukar]

"Would it be preferable if it was equal to the total sum of profits that was lost from the time incarcerated as well as any profits lost after the completion of the sentence due to any criminal record acquired?"

IC: "You really ARE high. Please go away until you've sobered up and then come back to speak like a sane person."

OOC: IF THEY COMMITTED A CRIME WHEN IT STILL WAS A CRIME, THE STATE OWES THEM NOTHING FOR ENFORCING THE LAW AS REQUIRED EVEN BY THE WA (CoCR, all laws apply evenly to all people). Should they be released when it's no longer a crime? Sure. But when it was a crime and they committed a crime and were suffering the consequences of the crime that was still a crime at the time, they're owed nothing. Goes for clause 9 as well.

[Morover]

"We have heard your feedback regarding the reparations, and while we disagree vehemently with the fact that states are not responsible for repaying those imprisoned over something that does not deserve incarceration, we do understand that such reparations may prove to be overly burdensome for some exceptionally poor states, especially those coming out of disaster which negatively affected economic conditions. As such, we have taken out the clause guaranteeing that right. Hopefully, better wording on the subject can be found, so that the clause can be reinstated to some effect."

"We have kept the clause guaranteeing the repayment of fines, however."

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Is this Proposal intented to cover hard drugs like cocaine?

--Saint Maximilian Kolbe, O.F.M. Conv., patron of drug addicts
Consuasor ad Sancti Imperii

[Kenmoria]

“On a semantic note, in clause 2 you make reference to ‘unless allowed by this resolution’. However, I can’t see any clause in your proposal that would allow member states to criminalise drug possession.”

[Stellonia]

"We have heard your feedback regarding the reparations, and while we disagree vehemently with the fact that states are not responsible for repaying those imprisoned over something that does not deserve incarceration, we do understand that such reparations may prove to be overly burdensome for some exceptionally poor states, especially those coming out of disaster which negatively affected economic conditions. As such, we have taken out the clause guaranteeing that right. Hopefully, better wording on the subject can be found, so that the clause can be reinstated to some effect."

"We think that this is a hill not worth dying upon."

"We have kept the clause guaranteeing the repayment of fines, however."

"We think that this is a fair clause. Punishments should be annulled."

[Morover]

“On a semantic note, in clause 2 you make reference to ‘unless allowed by this resolution’. However, I can’t see any clause in your proposal that would allow member states to criminalise drug possession.”

"There was a change made where now-clause 3 was made distinctive from being a subclause of clause 2, and clause 4 was added. I figured that this change may make a case for internal contradiction, so I added the clarification to the end of clause 2."

Is this Proposal intented to cover hard drugs like cocaine?

--Saint Maximilian Kolbe, O.F.M. Conv., patron of drug addicts
Consuasor ad Sancti Imperii

"Yes."

[WayNeacTia]

"We have heard your feedback regarding the reparations, and while we disagree vehemently with the fact that states are not responsible for repaying those imprisoned over something that does not deserve incarceration, we do understand that such reparations may prove to be overly burdensome for some exceptionally poor states, especially those coming out of disaster which negatively affected economic conditions. As such, we have taken out the clause guaranteeing that right. Hopefully, better wording on the subject can be found, so that the clause can be reinstated to some effect."

"We have kept the clause guaranteeing the repayment of fines, however."

"Then it will still be a hard pass for me, and I assume most other delegations. Even if it passes, that clause makes it very easy to repeal. I say drop it altogether."

Wayne

[Spiritual Republic of Caryton]

Opposed. It is the right of nations to punish recreational drugs as they please and people who commit crimes should not be pardoned. It also presses against governments ruled by religion, ie the Spiritual Republic of Caryton to impose what WA defines as its morality.

[Araraukar]

"We have kept the clause guaranteeing the repayment of fines, however."

"Then it will still be a hard pass for me, and I assume most other delegations. Even if it passes, that clause makes it very easy to repeal. I say drop it altogether."

OOC: Agreed.

It is the right of nations to punish recreational drugs as they please

OOC: Oh, they still can. They just have to put it under some other offence. Endangerment of minors, if the druggies have children. Traffic violations if they are out in traffic while high. Disruptive conduct (similar to RL existing alcohol-related charges) or disruption of peace or whathaveyou. People on drugs are going to be doing something stupid anyway, so get them on that instead. That's not something that can be plugged by the author without making this entirely impossible to pass.

[Ardiveds]

"We agree with the general sentiment of the resolution, especially since cannabis is already legal in Ardiveds and most of the people who have been charged with possession of other drugs are in prison for far more than just that; however, we refuse to pay anything to people formerly incarcerated for possession of drugs. We can help find them jobs after rehabilitation but paying them anything is out of the question. We stand Opposed."
--- Kaiser

[Picairn]

"While the Empire of Picairn has legalised marijuana, canabis and other mild drugs to the public, Schedule 1 drugs like heroin, cocaine, crack, LSD, etc. are still off-limits due to their powerful side-effects on the human mind and body. Some drugs can even kill you by rotting your flesh and destroy your organs. We maintain strict regulations on the dose and quality of the drugs on sale, as well as jail anyone who refused to comply or was found to possess Schedule 1 drugs. To release the convicted criminals would create an outrage across Picairn, and we do not owe them anything for enforcing our laws and protecting the public health. Same as the delegate from Ardiveds, we refuse to pay to people formerly incarcerated for possession of highly illegal drugs. We can help find them jobs after rehabilitation but paying them anything is out of the question. Opposed."

[Morover]

Opposed. It is the right of nations to punish recreational drugs as they please and people who commit crimes should not be pardoned. It also presses against governments ruled by religion, ie the Spiritual Republic of Caryton to impose what WA defines as its morality.

"I have no idea what the latter part of your sentence is saying."

It is the right of nations to punish recreational drugs as they please

OOC: Oh, they still can. They just have to put it under some other offence. Endangerment of minors, if the druggies have children. Traffic violations if they are out in traffic while high. Disruptive conduct (similar to RL existing alcohol-related charges) or disruption of peace or whathaveyou. People on drugs are going to be doing something stupid anyway, so get them on that instead. That's not something that can be plugged by the author without making this entirely impossible to pass.

OOC: If you can convince the Compliance Commission that it's in good faith, fine by me. If people commit other crimes while on drugs, they deserve to feel the law - but simply using drugs doesn't warrant criminal punishment.

"We agree with the general sentiment of the resolution, especially since cannabis is already legal in Ardiveds and most of the people who have been charged with possession of other drugs are in prison for far more than just that; however, we refuse to pay anything to people formerly incarcerated for possession of drugs. We can help find them jobs after rehabilitation but paying them anything is out of the question. We stand Opposed."
--- Kaiser

"In the current state of the draft, you only need to pay them should you have fined them in the first place - reparations no longer need to be paid for the amount of time they were imprisoned for."

"While the Empire of Picairn has legalised marijuana, canabis and other mild drugs to the public, Schedule 1 drugs like heroin, cocaine, crack, LSD, etc. are still off-limits due to their powerful side-effects on the human mind and body. Some drugs can even kill you by rotting your flesh and destroy your organs. We maintain strict regulations on the dose and quality of the drugs on sale, as well as jail anyone who refused to comply or was found to possess Schedule 1 drugs. To release the convicted criminals would create an outrage across Picairn, and we do not owe them anything for enforcing our laws and protecting the public health. Same as the delegate from Ardiveds, we refuse to pay to people formerly incarcerated for possession of highly illegal drugs. We can help find them jobs after rehabilitation but paying them anything is out of the question. Opposed."

"Rehabilitation is still an option, and I'd encourage every nation to enforce it. Additionally, dealers may still be punished criminally, which appears to be the main part of your concern."

[Morover]

OOC: Bump. I'll probably submit this sometime next month.

[Bananaistan]

"Opposed.

"Unless the thing they are taking is legal and supplied through entirely legal supply lines, it is entirely reasonable for people who fund international terrorism and organised crime groups to be punished for doing so."

[Imperium Anglorum]

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY: I concur with the Ambassador from Bananaistan.

[Deacarsia]

"Why?"

This proposal is a blatant violation of national sovereignty, and I also oppose the decriminalization of the possession of recreational drugs.

[Araraukar]

OOC (and IC): Opposed for the idiocy of wanting to free life-and-brain destroying drugs and for retroactively punishing nations for upholding their laws. The latter is the proper dealbreaker, but hard drugs should NEVER be decriminalized to begin with.

Also what Banana said about funding criminals and terrorists. If this passes, druggies in Araraukar will be treated as terrorist-funders instead of drug-victims and will receive prison sentences and massive fines, instead of mandatory drug rehabilitation and all the help possible to kick the habit.