[PASSED] Drug Decriminalization Act

[Imperium Anglorum]

The consumers are witnesses and why would they tell their drug dealer?
Our vote is against.

A customer could be asked 'who sold you the drugs' in court; refusal to answer isn't self-incrimination or a form of spousal or clerical privilege, and would be contempt of court if the customer refused to answer truthfully.

[Alpinumtia]

Concluding that the criminalization of recreational drug possession and its resulting consequences for both those truly in possession of such drugs and those falsely accused represents both a grave injustice towards human dignity and a waste of a nation's expenditure,

Upon further readings, the resolution makes no mention of criminal rehabilitation programs or funding of such programs. While written in the resolution, the only conceived answer to substance abuse is decriminalization. Consequently, this will only lead to an encouragement and normalization in substance abuse.

Furthermore, the resolution makes no mention of government-sponsored recreational programs nor government regulations on the content of substance. The purpose of the resolution, to control and regulate the market of the substance and to combat the problem of substances abuse, becomes null. We hence came to the conclusion that the intent under which this resolution is formulated is ill-disposed.

[WayNeacTia]

Making cannabis legal? Maybe, maybe.
Making all drugs legal? No.
Why No?
This resolution is very hypocritical and it aims to reduce innocent convicts which might be good in the first part. Then you read the author's previous drafts and see that they say "Drugs have won the war on drugs". This is extremely stupid as the war of drugs is on the side of the nations, not the drug dealers. This resolution will give free out of jail cards to criminals.

"simple drug possession" as the possession of drugs by an individual where such possession is not for the purposes of monetary or other forms of material gain or providing drugs to an individual without their consent or otherwise with malicious intent"

This slowly contradicts itself as governments can't manufacture drugs. Where do the consumers get the drugs? The drug dealers. The consumers are witnesses and why would they tell their drug dealer?
Our vote is against.

"The level of wrong in this statement makes my eyes hurt. You are equating an international drug kingpin to a guy carrying a dime bag."

Wayne

Concluding that the criminalization of recreational drug possession and its resulting consequences for both those truly in possession of such drugs and those falsely accused represents both a grave injustice towards human dignity and a waste of a nation's expenditure,

Upon further readings, the resolution makes no mention of criminal rehabilitation programs or funding of such programs. While written in the resolution, the only conceived answer to substance abuse is decriminalization. Consequently, this will only lead to an encouragement and normalization in substance abuse.

Furthermore, the resolution makes no mention of government-sponsored recreational programs nor government regulations on the content of substance. The purpose of the resolution, to control and regulate the market of the substance and to combat the problem of substances abuse, becomes null. We hence came to the conclusion that the intent under which this resolution is formulated is ill-disposed.

You didn't bother to read it at all did you? Let me point out the primary active clauses for you:

Requires that member states, within the bounds of any past World Assembly resolutions;
decriminalize the act of simple drug possession and
initiate a review process to re-evaluate the cases of those imprisoned and/or convicted of the act of simple drug possession in order to determine release and/or pardon eligibility given the following considerations:
the time served for the offense(s),
any separate offenses committed in addition to the act of simple drug possession,
the suitability for re-entry into societal participation,
the likelihood of recidivism in regards to other criminal activities, and
the positive benefits of receiving a full pardon for the act of simple drug possession.

There it is... As big a life. Decriminalize the act of simple possession. Does it really serve any purpose to throw a crackhead in jail? Simply because they were caught trying to get their fix in? What exactly does that achieve? Furthermore, the resolution allows nations to actually set their own drug policies as to what can actually be sold. So no this will not lead to normalization of substance abuse. It also doesn't block any potential resoultions sealing with treatment of substance abuse.

[Great Empire of Byzantium]

If one bought the drug from a "drug manufacturer" ( as defined by parameters in Article 1(e), then said drug has been bought illegally, which means said drug is, therefore, illegal.
By parameters stated in Article 1(a), a "drug" is defined as "a chemical substance which induces psychoactive effects after being consumed, where such a substance is not already considered legal for recreational consumption or a substance used for recognized medical purposes or otherwise as part of recognized sacramental purposes..."
By this argument, alcohol is a "drug", as it does induce psychoactive effects. (You can look it up.)
Thus, "illegal alcohol" is within the terms of a "drug", and so are illegal sleeping pills (also induce psychoactive effects) , etc., but there is no definition for "illegal alcohol", or what constitutes an "illegal sleeping pill".
(Said illegal items mentioned in last sentence do not matter if you ban alcohol.)
Thus, in such cases, this law is extremely vague. What constitutes as "illegal"? Is it an illegally manufactured drug, as stated above? But then, how will you know whether said drug was legally manufactured or not? Another item of note is that the text says that it is "Unconvinced that the criminalization of individuals in possession of recreational drugs deters recidivism or recreational drug use". The fact is, it depends. If you have a high compliance stat, then, of course. But if you don't it is highly unlikely that it will do anything. In fact people may become addicted to drug laws, as shown here.
Thus, such a law may increase civil rights, but also exponentially increases costs, as many "simple drug possessors" are in the prisons. (Or, at least, I think so.)
One last point: how will you find out whether the claimed "simple drug possessor" is really a simple drug possessor? How can you make sure he is not lying? Apart from contradictions, this law is also hard to implement.
This is my first attempt at debating a resolution, so pls correct my mistakes!
(I voted for it, but only because OWL said so. Amerion only did so because he had to follow TSP's laws himself.)

[Bananaistan]

Article 2 "Reaffirms the right of member states to set internal policy regarding drug trafficking, drug manufacturing, illicit drug possession, and the legal distribution and production of drugs, subject to past or future World Assembly resolutions... "
Article 3, part a then requires nations to "decriminalize the act of simple drug possession".
If one bought the drug from a "drug manufacturer" ( as defined by parameters in Article 1(e), then said drug has been bought illegally, which means said drug is, therefore, illegal.
By parameters stated in Article 1(a), a "drug" is defined as "a chemical substance which induces psychoactive effects after being consumed, where such a substance is not already considered legal for recreational consumption or a substance used for recognized medical purposes or otherwise as part of recognized sacramental purposes..."
By this argument, alcohol is a "drug", as it does induce psychoactive effects.
Thus, "illegal alcohol" is within the terms of a "drug", and so are illegal sleeping pills, etc, but there is no definition for "illegal alcohol", or what constitutes an "illegal sleeping pill".
You can interpret "drug trafficking" (Article 2) as to include distributing drugs to "simple drug possessors", thus Article 2 (" Reaffirms the right of member states to set internal policy regarding drug trafficking ") contradicts Article 3(a) (" Requires member states to decriminalize simple drug possession") as decriminalizing simple drug possession means simple drug possessors may continue buying such drugs (but not using them) from drug traffickers, thus indirectly legalizing drug trafficking.(contradictory of Article 2)
This is my first attempt at debating a resolution, so pls correct my mistakes!
(I voted for it, but only because OWL said so. Amerion only did so because he had to follow TSP's laws himself.)

OOC: Possession, purchase, sale, trafficking are all separate acts. Just because you can't do person A for being in possession of substance X doesn't mean you can't do B for selling it to A, A for buying from B, and do on.

[Changjo]

The United Federation of Changjo Office of International Affairs

The United Federation of Changjo will not be able to support this measure in the World Assembly and vehemently objects to the notion. It is the view of The Federation that any law regarding the legality or decriminalisation of narcotics is a sovereign decision for individual member states and that the passing of such notion would exceed the authority of the World Assembly.

[Legit Freedom]

First and foremost I whole heartedly agree that the decriminalization of some drug possession is necessary.
There is no shred of doubt in my mind that the 'war on drugs' has been used as a justification for the marginalization and segregation of minorities - a word I detest since I view all people as of equal value and meritocracy. - and has led to wrongful convictions causing unneeded expenses on the citizens of Legit Freedom.

However I also recognize as the offspring of addicts to cocaine, heroin and god knows what else, that these drugs do not always solely impact the user. If we were to review individual cases of those charged with drug possession I would wish for there to be a framework for determining whether or not their drug use was negligent towards someone other than themselves.
The state child protection services and foster care system were fully aware of my biological parents drug and alcohol vices, and also knew they were physically abusive especially when under the influence of narcotics. Whenever the state grew wind of where my parents were residing they simply moved in with another person with whom they had drug ties with; there must be an outline on how to deal with individuals who are parents that have possession of drugs, because to have such paraphernalia around children is extremely negligent.

Simply put;
1. create a framework for determining who of those possessed with drug possession are qualified as not a danger to anyone other than themselves
2. ensure those individuals with drugs in their possession are not parents, or caretakers of other individuals in which there is a dependency
3. instead of releasing them straight back into the community, they should be required to take treatment courses / services. if they refuse to kick their drug habits, depending on how strong of a drug they are abusing they should not be allowed to re-enter into society unmanaged.