[DEFEATED] Insta-Repeal "Drug Decriminalization Act"

[Imperium Anglorum]

• Do I support a replacement?
  Not really, but I wont actively campaign against a good one, this one does not meet that criteria for me
• Are you going to draft a replacement?
  No. I don't believe a replacement is required in lieu of striking bad legislation off the books
• But, isn't it better than nothing?
  No.

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY. I think the best response to these objections is basically akin to framework of competitiveness. There are really two outcomes we have here: effective treatment and decriminalisation or non-decriminalisation and ineffective treatment. The reason why is because treatment and decriminalisation go exactly together. If you treat alone, it is ineffective because few people go to it from fear of criminal action. If you decriminalise alone, it just indulges in all the actual harms of drug use – property crime, violent crime, organised crime (nb drug trading or smuggling is not legalised), overdoses, etc – without treating its sources.

What would be best is a big push, where both decriminalisation and effective treatment are put together. For some inexplicable reason, the authors refuse to pursue that path. Instead, they wish to put decriminalisation first, leaving treatment alone. They have recently proposed an inchoate proposal for treatment which leaves many important questions unanswered. The latter half is also far weaker politically: it is currently relatively easy to get behind decriminalisation emotionally, whereas the clinical nature of treatment is not so easily pursued. The two should have gone together in a single resolution. What the authors have chosen is a risky strategy that will likely leave the Assembly in the worst of all possibilities: decriminalisation without treatment. It is actually worse than doing nothing.

Repeal would not foreclose, permanently or temporarily, a proper replacement, which puts the two policies – decriminalisation and treatment – together meaningfully. It would signal that the Assembly has come to its senses and recognises foolish bind it is in. It would also allow the manifest oversights in the target resolution to be corrected. It would bundle the two topics together in a way that prevents them from being separated and causing the harms we described above. But it seems at least some of the authors are not interested in fixing their work at all, preferring instead to indulge in risk-taking and grandstanding. That is a real shame.

[Xanthorrhoea]

You guys seem to have a fundamental disagreement on whether or not decriminalisation is a good thing. The conversation seems to have strayed a bit from reviewing the proposal on its own merits, to bickering and making comments that aren’t going to do anything except inflame things further. Scoring verbal points does not further the debate about the merits of this proposal. Keep on topic.

In regards to the proposal itself, I honestly can’t support it. I find it highly ironic that this attempted repeal criticises its target for being overly emotive when this proposal itself is even more so. It’s criticisms of the substance of its target are frankly grasping at straws. I would like some serious elaboration on how you would misinterpret ‘malicious intent’ for example before I would think it justified to repeal based on that alone, and the rest of your issues with the clauses aren’t much better.

It’s extremely clear that this is a disingenuous attempt to find reasons to repeal a resolution because it has different politics from your own. The overwhelming majority of the WA approved of this proposal. If you don’t like the politics behind what passes, you’re free to leave the WA. Otherwise put up with it, or give an actual argument apart from “I don’t like this.”

As an additional point, debating real world statistics in your resolution comes dangerously close to IRL references IMO. If we start pulling out IRL stats to justify repealing resolutions, where does it end? Speaking in generalities, sure that’s fine, but the moment you start referencing specific statistics, you’re pulling from specific IRL sources that don’t necessarily have any NS analogue. That seems like it crosses the line to me.

Edit: Thanks IE for the most cogent argument so far. I’d still be in favour of pursuing a treatment proposal and seeing where that leads first before repealing, but I appreciate your well thought and well articulated argument.

[Bears Armed]

As an additional point, debating real world statistics in your resolution comes dangerously close to IRL references IMO. If we start pulling out IRL stats to justify repealing resolutions

OOC: The target resolution's arguments about the disproportionate effects of enforcing anti-drug laws on minorities, and police corruption, are themselves effectively based on RL (namely the [alleged, at least] situation in the USA), with no evidence given that they would automatically be widely true in NS as well, so maybe that proposal should have been challenged under the 'RL References' rule? Too late for that now, of course, but maybe GenSec should consider the possibility if a repeal succeeds but then a potential replacement takes the same approach...
In the case of my nation IC, and of me personally OOC, the fact that it treats all drugs as equal to each other instead of recognising that some are more harmful than others (and that trying to prevent the use of "new" ones becoming established in a culture might well be easier than trying to ban the use of ones that have been legal & widely used there for centuries) is the one of the main reasons for opposition.

[Bananaistan]

As an additional point, debating real world statistics in your resolution comes dangerously close to IRL references IMO. If we start pulling out IRL stats to justify repealing resolutions

OOC: The target resolution's arguments about the disproportionate effects of enforcing anti-drug laws on minorities, and police corruption, are themselves effectively based on RL (namely the [alleged, at least] situation in the USA), with no evidence given that they would automatically be widely true in NS as well, so maybe that proposal should have been challenged under the 'RL References' rule? Too late for that now, of course, but maybe GenSec should consider the possibility if a repeal succeeds but then a potential replacement takes the same approach...
In the case of my nation IC, and of me personally OOC, the fact that it treats all drugs as equal to each other instead of recognising that some are more harmful than others (and that trying to prevent the use of "new" ones becoming established in a culture might well be easier than trying to ban the use of ones that have been legal & widely used there for centuries) is the one of the main reasons for opposition.

OOC: IMO the "indirect" RL references in the target were fair enough and, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so the repeal referencing those references is also fair enough.

[Godular]

Zodiac bangs a gavel on his podium, then wonders for a moment where the gavel came from since he had an inflatable mallet before.

"I would like to introduce a motion to change the name of this proposal! I hereby demand it be named 'The Drug Re-Criminalization Act'!"

OOC: The game's coding automatically sets the title of any Repeal proposal as Repeal "Name of Target Resolution", and the author can not change this.

OOC: Aw dammit... it woulda been an awesome pun.

[Xanthorrhoea]

OOC: IMO the "indirect" RL references in the target were fair enough and, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so the repeal referencing those references is also fair enough.

That’s a fair point. However, I would still argue that the justification for a repeal shouldn’t be based on a disagreement over IRL statistics, but on the merits of the resolution it seeks to repeal. It doesn’t seem clear to me what the grounds for the repeal are (natsov, honest mistake etc). Disagreeing with stats in my mind doesn’t fit neatly into any of them (maybe natsov?). The other arguments are not enough to convince me it needs repeal. If there were a properly worded replacement drafted, then maybe (depending on the draft). I don’t think it’s egregious enough to warrant an Insta repeal with no plan for replacement. I’d rather see a proposal that attempts to fix these issues, and I feel like that’s a better way of honouring the direction the WA has clearly indicated it wants to go.

[Abacathea]

OOC: IMO the "indirect" RL references in the target were fair enough and, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so the repeal referencing those references is also fair enough.

That’s a fair point. However, I would still argue that the justification for a repeal shouldn’t be based on a disagreement over IRL statistics, but on the merits of the resolution it seeks to repeal. It doesn’t seem clear to me what the grounds for the repeal are (natsov, honest mistake etc). Disagreeing with stats in my mind doesn’t fit neatly into any of them (maybe natsov?). The other arguments are not enough to convince me it needs repeal. If there were a properly worded replacement drafted, then maybe (depending on the draft). I don’t think it’s egregious enough to warrant an Insta repeal with no plan for replacement. I’d rather see a proposal that attempts to fix these issues, and I feel like that’s a better way of honouring the direction the WA has clearly indicated it wants to go.

I should start Ambassador by saying that your earlier statement to the effect of “if you don’t like it you’re free to leave” I’d frankly ridiculous. Be the change you wish to see in all pursuits including the WA.

The WA in the nearly ten years that I have intermittently taken part in it, and some 4 years where I frequently took part in it has often passed bad legislation by high margins and it used to be (I don’t know if it still is) quoted as the lemming effect. So to that end I don’t set a tremendous amount of stock by you highlighting the margin which it is passing by, especially when, again, you’re the type of ambassador who’s answer is effectively “if you don’t like, leave”. You only need to spend time looking at earlier repealed resolutions and the passing margins there to see what has often been known, most delegates only read the title.

The justification does not centre purely on IRL statistics, it centers on sweeping and broad statements applied poorly to IG nations based on a narrow field of IRL reference COUPLED with poor execution and delivery regarding a clearly sensitive topic.

If you’re not happy with this you have several options available to you, I think one of them you’ve already suggested to me.

[Barfleur]

"Barfleur is opposed to this proposal. While I largely agree with my esteemed Anglican colleague Ms. Wellesley, in that drug decriminalization is best accompanied by effective treatment for drug-dependent persons, I do not think that is valid grounds for repealing the target resolution (er, potential resolution). Unless, of course, the replacement also includes provisions regarding treatment, but as the author has made it clear that they do not wish to introduce a replacement, I consider that option unlikely.

"I would like to draw the eyes of my fellow ambassadors to the provision in the target resolution which only requires 'simple drug possession' to be decriminalized. Member nations can, and should, still be able to prohibit and punish drug trafficking and possession with intent to traffic. I posit that merely having a drug in one's possession, for personal use, is not a threat to society, certainly not the extent that would warrant the massive expansion of the carceral system to deal with people with serious physiological issues. Slamming the bars shut on a person who suffers from addiction and who is not hurting anyone is certainly not what this body should be condoning."

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: How many more times do people have to point this out to you? NS =/= USA.

OOC: Is it inconceivable that there may be a significant bulk of nations IC, in the WA, that suffer from the flaws and injustices I described in my post?

OOC: So either create a proposal abolishing incarceration for everything or repeal the ban on executions and then create a proposal imposing the death penalty -- without the 20-30 years of appeals that the RL USA's system allows -- for ALL crimes. Either of those would be even more effective at saving nations' money... [/sarcasm]

Real funny.

[Goobergunchia]

You guys seem to have a fundamental disagreement on whether or not decriminalisation is a good thing. The conversation seems to have strayed a bit from reviewing the proposal on its own merits, to bickering and making comments that aren’t going to do anything except inflame things further. Scoring verbal points does not further the debate about the merits of this proposal. Keep on topic.

Leave the moderating to the moderators. Trust me, we're watching.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"The criminalization of drugs and those that use them leads to consequences that extend far beyond merely drug users. The repression of disenfranchised populations under the guise of seeking to eradicate drug use and possession of drugs, high incarceration rates, the waste of a nation's expenditure- all can be curbed through the decriminalization of drug possession."

OOC: How many more times do people have to point this out to you? NS =/= USA.

OOC: I'll be honest, I'm getting a bit sick of this statement being used as an indiscriminate cudgel against anything a European player doesn't like. Drug addiction is a worldwide problem, as are police aggression and incarceration. While the United States indeed tops this list, it's not as though the whole rest of the world is using the Nordic imprisonment model instead; and the other problems being addressed by the target resolution (or mentioned by the author in this thread) are likewise not limited to the US. These are international social problems, or at least problems facing virtually every country, nearly regardless of how like or unlike the USA they are. The racial aspect, indeed, is an issue in Europe as well, even if it's not as intimately tied to a history of enslavement and voter disenfranchisement as it is here.

TL;dr - "NS =/= USA" - well, neither is the rest of the world. That's not an argument, it's a tautology.

Edited to add: IA's argument in favor of repeal - that decriminalization measures are intimately connected to rehabilitative programs and vice versa, and the one is useless without the other - is far more cogent and universal than "these things aren't problems outside the United States." I highly recommend focusing efforts and arguments there instead.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Barfleur is opposed to this proposal. While I largely agree with my esteemed Anglican colleague Ms. Wellesley, in that drug decriminalization is best accompanied by effective treatment for drug-dependent persons, I do not think that is valid grounds for repealing the target resolution (er, potential resolution). Unless, of course, the replacement also includes provisions regarding treatment, but as the author has made it clear that they do not wish to introduce a replacement, I consider that option unlikely.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. There's no reason to believe that repeal of this resolution would foreclose a proper replacement. It need not come from the repealing delegation either.

[Abacathea]

OOC: How many more times do people have to point this out to you? NS =/= USA.

OOC: I'll be honest, I'm getting a bit sick of this statement being used as an indiscriminate cudgel against anything a European player doesn't like. Drug addiction is a worldwide problem, as are police aggression and incarceration. While the United States indeed tops this list, it's not as though the whole rest of the world is using the Nordic imprisonment model instead; and the other problems being addressed by the target resolution (or mentioned by the author in this thread) are likewise not limited to the US. These are international social problems, or at least problems facing virtually every country, nearly regardless of how like or unlike the USA they are. The racial aspect, indeed, is an issue in Europe as well, even if it's not as intimately tied to a history of enslavement and voter disenfranchisement as it is here.

TL;dr - "NS =/= USA" - well, neither is the rest of the world. That's not an argument, it's a tautology.

Edited to add: IA's argument in favor of repeal - that decriminalization measures are intimately connected to rehabilitative programs and vice versa, and the one is useless without the other - is far more cogent and universal than "these things aren't problems outside the United States." I highly recommend focusing efforts and arguments there instead.

OOC: no disrespect Sierra, genuinely, but I appreciate if you are indeed sick of hearing that argument, frankly I haven’t been around to see it made that often so I can’t comment and weight in on it.

Conversely though, I’m getting a bit browned off with the presumption that because America is going through a movement around these topics at the moment the presumption is the rest of the world must be too and to the same extent. We’re not. And I can factually state that. You’re right NS =/= USA, but the USA =/= the rest of the world either, European or not.

If you want to discuss it further in a civil and polite manner (that is to say I’m not looking to argue with you) I’ll happily discuss it in TG and I’ll explain my reasoning privately as opposed to here as it will only muddy the waters.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I am shocked that we've now got a problem with debating RL issues relating to this "problem".

[Xanthorrhoea]

Ok, take 2 on commenting on this, as my last comments were less than stellar. Apologies for the 'whole you can leave' comment, that wasn't necessary, and rather undermined my own point about being inflammatory. Not my best look.

Firstly, I agree the resolution is problematic, but I disagree that it is so problematic that it deserves instant repeal without a replacement ready.

The main objections I've seen to the resolution are that: 1. It treats all drug the same, 2. It doesn't consider additional factors (e.g. quantity/type of drug) when defining simple possession, 3. It's ambiguous, 4. It provides defences for people trafficking drugs, and 5. This shouldn't be separated from the resolution to improve treatment options to address addiction.

With respect to 1-4, I believe there is enough wiggle room in the current wording to give people the freedom to mitigate these downsides. For example, the resolution limits "simple drug possession" to possession not for the purposes of material gain/malicious intent (paraphrasing). It does not at all define how to determine if it is for the purposes of meterial gain/malicious intent. For those of you concerned that the resolution does not address quantity of drugs, I would argue that possessing a kilogram of meth would be rather compelling evidence for that possession to be for material gain, hence the smiple possession defence wouldn't apply. You could do this with different amounts for different drugs. It's a bit of a stretch, but if you want to write a law that possessing above a certain quantity of [insert drug here] creates a presumption of material gain that must be disproven by the defence, then you are free to do so. There's room to construct your own system there to mitigate these downsides. Use the ambiguity to your advantage to work around the consequnces you dislike.

With regards to separating this from a resolution to address addiction, I agree in principle, but properly addressing both decriminalisation and the even more ccomplex topic of addiction in a single 5000 character resolution would be a challenge. Doubly so to do so in a way that is more robust than the current efforts. To do both topics justice, I think you'd need 2 resolutions, simply for the character count.

Overall, the drug decriminalisation act has huge flaws and needs a re-write. I just consider it a waste of time to repeal it when it can be worked around instead. I'd rather wait for a better worded replacement to be drafted before repealing, so it doesn't become a dragged out saga that repeatedly displaces other issues the WA could be considering instead. We should address this once, all at once, and do it well then.

[Imperium Anglorum]

With regards to separating this from a resolution to address addiction, I agree in principle, but properly addressing both decriminalisation and the even more ccomplex topic of addiction in a single 5000 character resolution would be a challenge. Doubly so to do so in a way that is more robust than the current efforts. To do both topics justice, I think you'd need 2 resolutions, simply for the character count.

I'm the only person around who has actually hit the character count multiple times in my resolutions. And I'll tell you the actual answer: you don't. This isn't the EU where the preamble stretches for thirty pages before the actual regulation starts. All this jockeying about the character count is something I see in two ways: unwilling or unable. Either the character count "argument" is an excuse, in which case it should ignored, or it is reflective of the authors' inability to write succinctly. I'm not sure which is worse.

Edited in links to some of those resolutions.

[Abacathea]

Folks, I’m sick as a dog and awaiting results from a swab that is equally as topical in RL at the moment as everything else we’ve been giving out about. Given the Health and safety act is at quorum this may not be the “insta-repeal” I promised so there’s room i suppose if people are drafting replacement stuff. I’ll be back once I don’t feel like I’ve been hit by a bus.

[Bears Armed]

Folks, I’m sick as a dog and awaiting results from a swab that is equally as topical in RL at the moment as everything else we’ve been giving out about.

OOC: I'm sorry to hear that, and hope that all you've actually got wrong is something relatively mild from which you recover quickly.

[The Python]

OOC: Yeah, while I disagree with the premise, going to second what Bears Armed said.

[Alistia]

The Alistian WA Delegation would vote in favor of this repeal.

[Greater Cesnica]

Folks, I’m sick as a dog and awaiting results from a swab that is equally as topical in RL at the moment as everything else we’ve been giving out about. Given the Health and safety act is at quorum this may not be the “insta-repeal” I promised so there’s room i suppose if people are drafting replacement stuff. I’ll be back once I don’t feel like I’ve been hit by a bus.

I wish you the best with your health. Get better soon

[Abacathea]

Good news folks,

The great doctors over at Bears Armed were able to diagnose his Lordship with a case of a chest infection as opposed to Corvid which is great as it means our great leader will not be turning into a crow anytime soon.

To that end, I will be submitting this tonight (9 hours or so from now) and we'll let the dice fall as they see fit thereafter. I would like to thank everyone for their input up until this stage, both on the for and against side. It has become increasingly apparent to me that the only real resolution to this matter will be determined by the voting floor should we get that far.

As such, I'm not a sore loser and I have never acted otherwise, should I fail when the time comes, I will accept the will of the majority, bow my head and return to my other ventures which include repealing the Chemical Weapons accord and some stuff over in the Security Council. To quote Leonardo,

[Bears Armed]

Good news folks,

The great doctors over at Bears Armed were able to diagnose his Lordship with a case of a chest infection as opposed to Corvid which is great as it means our great leader will not be turning into a crow anytime soon.

To quote Leonardo,

(Image)

That isn't Leonardo!

[Abacathea]

Ok, take 2 on commenting on this, as my last comments were less than stellar. Apologies for the 'whole you can leave' comment, that wasn't necessary, and rather undermined my own point about being inflammatory. Not my best look.

I wouldn't worry about it, you're not the first to tell me to jog on and you won't be the last.

Firstly, I agree the resolution is problematic, but I disagree that it is so problematic that it deserves instant repeal without a replacement ready.

Respectfully, I disagree with your disagreement, but that is sadly the nature of things.

The main objections I've seen to the resolution are that: 1. It treats all drug the same, 2. It doesn't consider additional factors (e.g. quantity/type of drug) when defining simple possession, 3. It's ambiguous, 4. It provides defences for people trafficking drugs, and 5. This shouldn't be separated from the resolution to improve treatment options to address addiction.

Adequately summarized.

With respect to 1-4, I believe there is enough wiggle room in the current wording to give people the freedom to mitigate these downsides. For example, the resolution limits "simple drug possession" to possession not for the purposes of material gain/malicious intent (paraphrasing). It does not at all define how to determine if it is for the purposes of meterial gain/malicious intent. For those of you concerned that the resolution does not address quantity of drugs, I would argue that possessing a kilogram of meth would be rather compelling evidence for that possession to be for material gain, hence the smiple possession defence wouldn't apply. You could do this with different amounts for different drugs. It's a bit of a stretch, but if you want to write a law that possessing above a certain quantity of [insert drug here] creates a presumption of material gain that must be disproven by the defence, then you are free to do so. There's room to construct your own system there to mitigate these downsides. Use the ambiguity to your advantage to work around the consequnces you dislike.

You're quite right, a Kilo of meth is pretty telling, but where do you start your distinction. I've seen it argued that 20gms of weed broken down into 4 x 5gm bags is sale and supply, i've also seen it argued that 20gms in one bag is someone buying their weeks supply in bulk.

As for the remainder of your post, that would reaffirm to me, that drugs really should be left NatSov rather than internationally and broadly mandated for.

With regards to separating this from a resolution to address addiction, I agree in principle, but properly addressing both decriminalisation and the even more ccomplex topic of addiction in a single 5000 character resolution would be a challenge. Doubly so to do so in a way that is more robust than the current efforts. To do both topics justice, I think you'd need 2 resolutions, simply for the character count.

I respectfully disagree, but that is just me, I believe the character count isn't as restrictive as some authors would have you believe. Much more difficult issues have been addressed within the character count without exceptional difficulty. If an author feels strongly on a topic and is any way knowledgeable about it, they can make it work.

Overall, the drug decriminalisation act has huge flaws and needs a re-write. I just consider it a waste of time to repeal it when it can be worked around instead. I'd rather wait for a better worded replacement to be drafted before repealing, so it doesn't become a dragged out saga that repeatedly displaces other issues the WA could be considering instead. We should address this once, all at once, and do it well then.

I agree that I do not wish it to be a drawn out process. I'll be submitting this evening and then hopefully the next time we see this is the last time.

[Imperium Anglorum]

if you want to write a law that possessing above a certain quantity of [insert drug here] creates a presumption of material gain that must be disproven by the defence, then you are free to do so.

Or someone could just do this with minuscule quantities (eg one cigarette or one blunt) and make it de facto impermissible as the only way to challenge that presumption successfully would be to have papers permitting you to have a higher quantity... which a prohibitionist state wouldn't issue. It is almost like the target at hand is also ineffective beyond it's clear wording deficiencies. (Something I also noted on TNP's forum.)