[TABLED] Decriminalizing Drug Use

[Apatosaurus]

"The Apatosaurusian Delegation is writing this, for the event that the proposed repeal for GAR#577 here passes. Feedback from other ambassadors is wanted."

OOC: Currently 247 characters above the limit >.>"The Apatosaurusian Delegation has tabled this proposal with the repeal by the Abacathean delegation failing at vote. However, if GAR#577 does end up repealed by a different draft, we intend to revive this."

The General Assembly,

Noting that drug criminalization causes negative societal effects such as increasing crime, inequality and prosecution of innocents, as well as being blatantly ineffective in reducing drug use,

Believing that recreational drug users are “victims” and deserve aid, not prosecution,

Aware that GAR#577 was passed to decriminalize drug use, but was quickly repealed due to issues such as excess emotional language and ambigous wording, and thus

Concluding that a GA resolution is needed enforcing drug decriminalization,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. In this resolution,
   
   1. Food drugs are drugs that are usually consumed in the form of a food or drink, and that pose a low risk to others and/or the consumer's health in average quantities; examples include coffee and alcoholic drinks,
   2. Low-effect drugs are drugs that have a low risk to others and the consumer's health when consumed in average quantities,
   3. Moderate-effect drugs are drugs that can pose a moderate risk to the health of others when consumed in average quantities; examples include tobacco and marijuana,
   4. High-effect drugs are drugs that result in a very high risk to the health of others and/or the consumer's health when consumed in average quantities; examples include methamphetamine, and
   5. Criminally potent drugs are drugs whose main, substantial or predominant use is to aid in a criminal act; examples include ketamine and scopolamine.
2. Other terms are defined for the purposes of this resolution as follows:
   
   1. a “drug” is defined as a chemical substance that when consumed, induces psychoactive effects;
   2. “recreational drug use” is defined as the consumption of food drugs, low-effect, moderate-effect or high-effect drugs, to induce psychoactive effects and not for medical or religious purposes;
   3. “drug addiction” is defined as a strong desire to consume drugs, that is directly caused by psychoactive effects of past recreational drug use;
   4. “simple drug possession” is defined as the possession of food drugs, low-effect, moderate-effect or high-effect drugs that are not criminally potent and cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt is for monetary or material gain, to provide to other persons without their knowledge or with the sole or main intent to harm others;
   5. “drug addict” is defined as a person with drug addiction; and
   6. “addiction recovery services” are defined as services designed to help drug addicts recover from drug addiction and no longer be affected by drug addiction in the long-term.
3. All member-states must immediately lift any laws criminalising simple drug possession, recreational drug use or drug addiction. They also may not use simple drug possession, past recreational drug use or drug addiction as an aggravating factor when considering other crimes committed, excepting cases where past recreational drug use or drug addiction played a role in said crimes.
4. Member-states are required to permit the use of drugs for medical use, when proscribed by a medical professional and proven in reliable studies to be suitable for said use.
5. All member-states must also provide easily accessible, safe and free addiction recovery services for drug addicts. Member-states are hereby prohibited from prosecuting or otherwise discriminating against persons for attending or seeking addiction recovery services. This includes, but is not limited to, imposing higher taxes to persons receiving or seeking drug addiction recovery services, using the fact that a person sought or received drug addiction recovery services as an aggravating factor when considering other crimes committed, and failing to provide equal protection before the law to persons seeking or receiving addiction recovery services.
6. Member-states must provide information to persons in said member-states regarding the dangers of recreational drug use and drug addiction, such that the majority of persons in said member-states are aware of the dangers of recreational drug use and drug addiction, as well as how to avoid drug addiction.
7. Member-states that have persons imprisoned or convicted solely for recreational drug use, drug addiction or simple drug possession must immediately provide a full pardon to them, though member-states are permitted to require them to undergo addiction recovery services if necessary. If a member-state has persons imprisoned or convicted for other crimes, as well as recreational drug use, drug addiction or simple drug possession, member-states must review their sentences or convictions as appropriate, depending on the crimes involved in said cases.
8. Despite these previous regulations, member-states are permitted to:
   
   1. Criminalise posession of criminally potent drugs, excepting cases where they are necessary for valid medical use;
   2. Criminalise the distribution of low-effect, moderate-effect and/or high-effect drugs;
   3. Restrict recreational drug use when it is deemed to pose a health danger or immediate safety threat to others besides the consumer of recreational drugs; and
   4. Require persons addicted to moderate-effect or high-effect drugs, or that have committed a crime due to their drug addiction, to attend addiction recovery services.

[Apatosaurus]

This post exists for a reason

The General Assembly,

Noting that criminalization of drug use causes negative societal effects such as increasing crime, raising economic inequality and often causing prosecution of innocents, as well as being blatantly ineffective in reducing drug use,

Believing that recreational drug users are “victims” of drug use and deserve to receive proper aid, rather than being prosecuted,

Aware that GAR#577 was passed to decriminalize drug use, but was quickly repealed by GAR#XXX due to issues with GAR#577 including excess emotional language, ambiguous wording and the presence of a “blocker” clause, and

Concluding that this august body should enforce decriminalization in all member-states,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. In this resolution,
   
   1. a “drug” is defined as a chemical substance that when consumed, induces psychoactive effects;
   2. “recreational drug use” is defined as the consumption of drugs to induce psychoactive effects and not for medical or religious purposes;
   3. “drug addiction” is defined as a strong desire to consume drugs, that is directly caused by psychoactive effects of past recreational drug use;
   4. “simple drug possession” is defined as the possession of drugs that cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt is for monetary or material gain, to provide to other persons without their knowledge or with the sole or main intent to harm others;
   5. “drug addict” is defined as a person with drug addiction; and
   6. “addiction recovery services” are defined as services designed to help drug addicts recover from drug addiction and no longer be affected by drug addiction in the long-term.
2. All member-states must immediately decriminalize recreational drug use, drug addiction and simple drug possession. This includes using recreational drug use, drug addiction or simple drug possession as aggravating factors when considering other crimes committed.
3. All member-states must also provide easily accessible, safe and free addiction recovery services for drug addicts. Member-states are hereby prohibited from prosecuting or otherwise discriminating against persons for attending or seeking addiction recovery services. This includes, but is not limited to, imposing higher taxes to persons receiving or seeking drug addiction recovery services, using the fact that a person sought or received drug addiction recovery services as an aggravating factor when considering other crimes committed, and failing to provide equal protection before the law to persons seeking or receiving addiction recovery services.
4. Member-states must provide information to persons in said member-states regarding the dangers of recreational drug use and drug addiction, such that the majority of persons in said member-states are aware of the dangers of recreational drug use and drug addiction, as well as how to avoid drug addiction.
5. Member-states that have persons imprisoned or convicted solely for recreational drug use, drug addiction or simple drug possession must immediately provide a full pardon to them, though member-states are permitted to require them to undergo addiction recovery services if necessary. If a member-state has persons imprisoned or convicted for other crimes, as well as recreational drug use, drug addiction or simple drug possession, member-states must review their sentences or convictions as appropriate, depending on the crimes involved in said cases.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...This includes using recreational drug use, drug addiction or simple drug possession as aggravating factors when considering other crimes committed.

"Ambassador, while we generally favor the decriminalization of recreational chemicals across the entire WA, the 'aggravating factor' provision in this proposal is a bad idea. If a driver hits a pedestrian because of a mistake anyone could make, that probably doesn't warrant, say, revocation of operating license. But if a driver hits a pedestrian because she was too shitfaced to operate the vehicle safely, that is a serious judgment issue and the nation's criminal justice system should be able to treat it differently from other vehicular deaths. Even nations that have fully legal recreational chemical use still have regulations regarding acceptable usage situations; cognitive and nervous impairment from drug use is necessarily an aggravating factor in criminal charges. There must be a balance; even if currently the situation is skewed too far toward punishing individual choices, still the community deserves safety in return for its forbearance."

[Barfleur]

...This includes using recreational drug use, drug addiction or simple drug possession as aggravating factors when considering other crimes committed.

"Ambassador, while we generally favor the decriminalization of recreational chemicals across the entire WA, the 'aggravating factor' provision in this proposal is a bad idea. If a driver hits a pedestrian because of a mistake anyone could make, that probably doesn't warrant, say, revocation of operating license. But if a driver hits a pedestrian because she was too shitfaced to operate the vehicle safely, that is a serious judgment issue and the nation's criminal justice system should be able to treat it differently from other vehicular deaths. Even nations that have fully legal recreational chemical use still have regulations regarding acceptable usage situations; cognitive and nervous impairment from drug use is necessarily an aggravating factor in criminal charges. There must be a balance; even if currently the situation is skewed too far toward punishing individual choices, still the community deserves safety in return for its forbearance."

"To add, in many nations' legal systems, including Barfleur's causing death or injury by operating machinery may be treated as a more minor crime if it was effected by mere negligence, but if a person is killed by a rogue forklift operated by a worker high on methamphetamine, it is not unreasonable for the punishment to be greater than if the death were simply a careless accident. And in the criminal prosecution in the example I mentioned with the forklift, the fact that the driver had voluntarily chosen to ingest a dangerous drug, and that that drug resulted in the unsafe operation of heavy equipment and subsequent death of a person, should absolutely be treated as an aggravating factor."

OOC: In many legal systems which draw a distinction between "criminal negligence" and "recklessness" as mental states in the commission of a crime, the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or drugs may automatically trigger the latter state.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC:

The draft also continues to suffer from an instance on treating all drugs as a single class permitting no distinction between types (or common usage/purpose) of drugs, which is lunacy at best.

[Vikanias]

“We support this proposal due to the fact that we seals love the no-no powder. But for the main elephant in the room WHY IS THERE AN APATOSAURUS IN THE ROOM!?”

[Apatosaurus]

“WHY IS THERE AN APATOSAURUS IN THE ROOM!?”

"Ambassador, what have you got against dinosaurs :<"

*a post*

*OTHER post*

Ambassador Scott sighs. "Very well, clause 2 has been edited accordingly so that only using simple drug possession as an aggravating factor is restricted."

All member-states must immediately lift any laws criminalising simple drug possession, drug addiction or recreational drug use. They also may not use simple drug possession as an aggravating factor when considering other crimes committed.

[Outer Sparta]

Ambassador Tav: How are you going to address these issues when there is an ongoing repeal of a present drug decriminalization act at quorum? Until we see you make concrete changes and avoid falling into the pitfalls (in the event of a repeal) that affect past recreational drug resolutions, we are opposed to this one.

[Bananaistan]

OOC:

The draft also continues to suffer from an instance on treating all drugs as a single class permitting no distinction between types (or common usage/purpose) of drugs, which is lunacy at best.

OOC: Won't somebody please think of the smokers! They need to be able to be feed their habit at all places and times regardless of the inconvenience or health risk to others.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC:

The draft also continues to suffer from an instance on treating all drugs as a single class permitting no distinction between types (or common usage/purpose) of drugs, which is lunacy at best.

OOC: Won't somebody please think of the smokers! They need to be able to be feed their habit at all places and times regardless of the inconvenience or health risk to others.

I was thinking more of the date rapists (GHB, ketamine, Rohypnol), criminals (Scopolamine comes to mind, which aside from its medical uses is an extremely potent poison AND has memory effects similar to the date rape drugs before), and the flat out bizarre (Whoonga, which is apparently black-tar heroin mixed with detergent, rat poison, and in at least some reports HIV medications making its use not only outright stupid but an active danger to OTHER public health campaigns).

[Lancer the bike boi]

rides around the thread on a rocket bike
"even though im not in the WA, your cool, big dinosaur"

[Ransium]

rides around the thread on a rocket bike
"even though im not in the WA, your cool, big dinosaur"

This is spam, do not spam.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Won't somebody please think of the smokers! They need to be able to be feed their habit at all places and times regardless of the inconvenience or health risk to others.

I was thinking more of the date rapists (GHB, ketamine, Rohypnol), criminals (Scopolamine comes to mind, which aside from its medical uses is an extremely potent poison AND has memory effects similar to the date rape drugs before), and the flat out bizarre (Whoonga, which is apparently black-tar heroin mixed with detergent, rat poison, and in at least some reports HIV medications making its use not only outright stupid but an active danger to OTHER public health campaigns).

I would echo these concerns.

[Abacathea]

OOC:

The draft also continues to suffer from an instance on treating all drugs as a single class permitting no distinction between types (or common usage/purpose) of drugs, which is lunacy at best.

OOC: Won't somebody please think of the smokers! They need to be able to be feed their habit at all places and times regardless of the inconvenience or health risk to others.

As a smoker I echo this sentiment. As a coffee drinker I double down on it entirely.

[Apatosaurus]

OOC: Won't somebody please think of the smokers! They need to be able to be feed their habit at all places and times regardless of the inconvenience or health risk to others.

I was thinking more of the date rapists (GHB, ketamine, Rohypnol), criminals (Scopolamine comes to mind, which aside from its medical uses is an extremely potent poison AND has memory effects similar to the date rape drugs before), and the flat out bizarre (Whoonga, which is apparently black-tar heroin mixed with detergent, rat poison, and in at least some reports HIV medications making its use not only outright stupid but an active danger to OTHER public health campaigns).

Alright, I will fix these concerns in a new draft.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Treating all drugs the same is an issue. On the smoking issue, smoke free is a legit aim of a lot of countries IRL. It would be unreasonable for the GA to outlaw such an aim for member states. The various different drugs that D&B outlined clearly should also not be in "all drugs are the same" categorisation.

Additionally, restrictions on the use of drugs are also entirely reasonable, eg drinking in public, licensing laws, etc. Literally nobody wants public spaces to become solely the preserve of drunks and other junkies. I'm not sure what's gained by including use in the proposal where the other only dealt with possession.

[Apatosaurus]

"The Apatosaurusian Delegation is proud to announce new changes to the draft in response to feedback from other Ambassadors."

OOC: Treating all drugs the same is an issue. On the smoking issue, smoke free is a legit aim of a lot of countries IRL. It would be unreasonable for the GA to outlaw such an aim for member states. The various different drugs that D&B outlined clearly should also not be in "all drugs are the same" categorisation.

OOC: This does not prevent the criminalisation of the distribution of drugs, which has now been clarified in Section 8.

Additionally, restrictions on the use of drugs are also entirely reasonable, eg drinking in public, licensing laws, etc. Literally nobody wants public spaces to become solely the preserve of drunks and other junkies. I'm not sure what's gained by including use in the proposal where the other only dealt with possession.

OOC: This has also been clarified in Section 8.

[Apatosaurus]

In a remarkably loud voice, ambassador Scott says the word "Bump".

[Apatosaurus]

"The Apatosaurusian Delegation has tabled this proposal with the repeal by the Abacathean delegation failing at vote. However, if GAR#577 does end up repealed by a different draft, we intend to revive this."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I should quip that "tabled" only means "do nothing about it" in American English if only because the US political system is uniquely dysfunctional [Edit. Well, frankly, no more dysfunctional than most other presidential democracies.] when everywhere else in the Anglophone world it means "we are laying it on the table so we can vote on it now" (therefore "tabling" something means to take action on something). But for that former usage, perhaps consider "On hold".

[WayNeacTia]

I should quip that "tabled" only means "do nothing about it" in American English if only because the US political system is uniquely dysfunctional [Edit. Well, frankly, no more dysfunctional than most other presidential democracies.] when everywhere else in the Anglophone world it means "we are laying it on the table so we can vote on it now" (therefore "tabling" something means to take action on something). But for that former usage, perhaps consider "On hold".

I have made this very same quip myself. You see how it went....