[DRAFT] WA Drug Addiction Treatment Act

[Urgench]

Why on earth should the WA, and international organisation, be involved in dictating how member states deal with the issue of drug addiction? How is this a matter of international law?


Yours,

[Philimbesi]

A cutpurse and an addict are two very different things. If the person broke the law, then yes, at some point they should probably be punished. But it is more important that the human life is saved. Addiction is a disease, if anyone should be punished its the companies/countries that provided the person with the drug in the first place.

Right up until the cutpurse says they only did it because they are addicted to the adrenalin rush of stealing. So who's life is more important and why should this body value one form of addiction over the others?

Nations in this body have extremely vast differences of opinion on the very subject of drugs. Therefore addiction should be addressed on a local level. The USP feels as though the only aspect of drugs that should be dealt with on an international level is that where drugs are exported or transported from one nation to another.

[Eireann Fae]

Why on earth should the WA, and international organisation, be involved in dictating how member states deal with the issue of drug addiction? How is this a matter of international law?


Yours,

Right up until the cutpurse says they only did it because they are addicted to the adrenalin rush of stealing. So who's life is more important and why should this body value one form of addiction over the others?

Nations in this body have extremely vast differences of opinion on the very subject of drugs. Therefore addiction should be addressed on a local level. The USP feels as though the only aspect of drugs that should be dealt with on an international level is that where drugs are exported or transported from one nation to another.

"What makes the Charter of Civil Rights an international issue? How one nation treats its citizens has no bearing on the international community at large. What about the Workplace Safety Standards Act? Freedom of Marriage Act? Living Wage Act? All of these has a direct bearing only on how a nation treats the citizens within its borders, and should be of no concern to the international community at large. By your logic, these resolutions should not exist. Freedom of Expression is not an international concern, nor are the Right to a Lawful Divorce or Reduction of Abortion Act, or Access to Science in Schools. And that's all just within the first 50 GA resolutions..." Rowan puts her codex away.

"The fact is, this body has a long history of protecting the basic rights of the citizens and inhabitants of Member Nations, even on a national level. We are not asking to usurp your existing drug laws, or that you stop incarcerating people for simple possession of even minor drugs. All we ask is that those in genuine need of medical or mental care get the care they need. We see this as a basic civil rights issue, and should be no different than the resolutions I mentioned before, or the many others passed with a similar 'international effect'."

[Urgench]

Why on earth should the WA, and international organisation, be involved in dictating how member states deal with the issue of drug addiction? How is this a matter of international law?


Yours,

Right up until the cutpurse says they only did it because they are addicted to the adrenalin rush of stealing. So who's life is more important and why should this body value one form of addiction over the others?

Nations in this body have extremely vast differences of opinion on the very subject of drugs. Therefore addiction should be addressed on a local level. The USP feels as though the only aspect of drugs that should be dealt with on an international level is that where drugs are exported or transported from one nation to another.

"What makes the Charter of Civil Rights an international issue? How one nation treats its citizens has no bearing on the international community at large. What about the Workplace Safety Standards Act? Freedom of Marriage Act? Living Wage Act? All of these has a direct bearing only on how a nation treats the citizens within its borders, and should be of no concern to the international community at large. By your logic, these resolutions should not exist. Freedom of Expression is not an international concern, nor are the Right to a Lawful Divorce or Reduction of Abortion Act, or Access to Science in Schools. And that's all just within the first 50 GA resolutions..." Rowan puts her codex away.

"The fact is, this body has a long history of protecting the basic rights of the citizens and inhabitants of Member Nations, even on a national level. We are not asking to usurp your existing drug laws, or that you stop incarcerating people for simple possession of even minor drugs. All we ask is that those in genuine need of medical or mental care get the care they need. We see this as a basic civil rights issue, and should be no different than the resolutions I mentioned before, or the many others passed with a similar 'international effect'."

Your Excellency has confused human rights protections which transcend national concerns because they are protections of universal rights and meddling in national provision on matters which have nothing to do with human rights. How drug addiction treatment is provided is not a basic right of the citizens of member states.


The CoCR, the Living Wage Act, and Freedom of Expression are all of supranational importance because they enshrine rights which are universal and can be demonstrated to be such.

The other resolutions your Excellency mentions are a mixed bag, some of which elaborate on essential human rights, and others which are clearly not of an international importance and which should not have been assented to by this organisation. Simply because the WA has passed such laws this does not mean they are automatically of international significance, and to suggest that because unwise resolutions which meddle in matters best left to national governments have been passed that we ought to compound that foolishness by passing ever more unwise and ever more meddling resolutions is the counsel of insanity.


The issue of drug addiction treatment is not something which can be described as needing international regulation, the WA already has the Patient's Rights Act which engenders a culture of best practice in provision of healthcare within member states, is it necessary to go further and directly control and mandate exactly how healthcare provision is provided within member states, to micro-manage this provision?


Your Excellency need not lecture us again, we are fully conversant in the laws of this organisation.


Yours,

[Philimbesi]

Right to a Lawful Divorce or Reduction of Abortion Act, or Access to Science in Schools

I agree, and if the ambassador would check my debate and voting record they would find that I debated against and voted against all those measures on the same grounds as I will debate against this measure and vote against it should it be submitted.

I'm still interested in an answer to my question of why drug addiction should be singled out as a matter for this body to legislate over the plethora of other addictions that sentient beings might develop? Why not those with a sexual addiction, or a gambling addiction, or an addiction to chocolate, or kleptomania?

[Monikian WA Mission]

Right up until the cutpurse says they only did it because they are addicted to the adrenalin rush of stealing. So who's life is more important and why should this body value one form of addiction over the others?

"We do not think that a hormone would be classified the same as a drug. Nor would a hormonal addiction be classified the same as a drug addiction. As it stands we have to reiterate our belief that it is the duty of nations to ensure the health and well being of their citizens including those addicted to drugs."

Nations in this body have extremely vast differences of opinion on the very subject of drugs. Therefore addiction should be addressed on a local level. The USP feels as though the only aspect of drugs that should be dealt with on an international level is that where drugs are exported or transported from one nation to another.

"By and large Monikians agree. That said, this proposal makes no effort to decriminalize or criminalize drugs. That keeps that on the local level. It merely classifies drug addiction as a disease requiring that treatment be made available. How treatment is made available is completely up to the nation. In all honestly the entire proposal has huge loopholes in it for a good reason. As a Natsov friendly government ourselves we are seeking to prevent far worse legislation on this area. Though we may also tackle the exportation and transportation issue--to lower tariffs of course."

[Monikian WA Mission]

sexual addiction, or a gambling addiction, or an addiction to chocolate, or kleptomania?

"Actually there is already a proposal in this body on the issue of gambling addressing that addiction. I'm sure that if others want to address: "sexual addiction", "addiction to chocolate" which my understanding is a food humans just happen to like, or Kleptomania which is a mental disorder which should already be covered, they are more than free to do so."

[Urgench]

"By and large Monikians agree. That said, this proposal makes no effort to decriminalize or criminalize drugs. That keeps that on the local level. It merely classifies drug addiction as a disease requiring that treatment be made available. How treatment is made available is completely up to the nation. In all honestly the entire proposal has huge loopholes in it for a good reason. As a Natsov friendly government ourselves we are seeking to prevent far worse legislation on this area. Though we may also tackle the exportation and transportation issue--to lower tariffs of course."

But where was there any indication that what your Excellency now nakedly describes as a blocking resolution was even necessary? There are no drafting debates surrounding the issue of drug addiction treatment provision in progress other than this one. It seems absurd to suggest that this resolution is somehow necessitated by the rigours of a national sovereigntist position on WA legislation.

had your Excellency not raised the topic we have no reason to believe it would be being discussed at all.

Might we also say that given that your Excellency shows no real aptitude for the composition of sound and well reasoned statutory implements that your Excellency drop the notion that they might be doing the WA the greatest of services by writing any other resolutions, such as that your Excellency mentioned dealing with "the exportation and transportation issue" (whatever that may be). Indeed your Excellency would do this organisation the greatest service by not attempting that task.


Yours,

[Urgench]

"We do not think that a hormone would be classified the same as a drug. Nor would a hormonal addiction be classified the same as a drug addiction. As it stands we have to reiterate our belief that it is the duty of nations to ensure the health and well being of their citizens including those addicted to drugs."

These are the words of someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject matter they wish to write legislation for, it is outrageous folly and arrogance to presume to write laws for matters your Excellency is clearly in complete ignorance about.


Yours,

[Erythrina]

Why not those with [...] an addiction to chocolate

Oh hi! I see that has been addressed already...

A love potion to you!

[Great Nepal]

No, a simple no.
Using an illegal substance is a crime not a disease. They may now be attached to drugs so much that they cant stop it, but whose fault was it? THEIRS. We didn't open their mouth and put Drugs in their Digestive System. They decided to take drug voluntarily. They may have changed their ways now or may want to change their ways but that doesn't change the fact that they did a act which is defined as crime by law. There is a old probove in our nation, "If you take a plank of wood and put 1 nail each time you do a bad thing and take out 1 nail each time you do a good thing. In the end there may not be any nails left but the marks made by the nail will remain for ever on the plank".
-- Mr Ramesh Shaker
Deglate from one of the Puppets of Great Nepal

"So you would condemn a person that's mentally or physically addicted to drugs to go through a life in and out of prison rather than help them?" Rowan tries to keep a straight face as she asks the Nepalese Ambassador the question, but she has some difficulty due to the little Faerie dancing with an imaginary friend on her head. "These are sick people, and they need help! Yes, they committed a crime, and you are more than free to cast judgement on them and incarcerate them for their crime. But don't you think it'd be better to try and help them become productive members of society rather than cast them out as addicts that will immediately seek out their next high, only to be brought right back into the system?" At this point, the diminutive Emissary falls from the girl's head onto the desk, landing on her back. Rowan frowns in concern, but is put at ease when she tickles the Faerie's belly and is answered with a smile. Episky rolls into a ball on her side and starts to snore. The girl rolls her eyes before returning her gaze to Ramesh, waiting for a response.

Yes, we will condemn them. said Ramesh in a decisive tone matter of fact is that they are criminal. No matter if they reformed. We aren't going to waste tax payers dollar on he paushed for few second before continuing "Criminals. We have No sympathy for Criminals. If they are being forced/ encouraged to do drugs, we ask them to come to police and we will deal with those who were forcing or encouraging it. However if they do drugs, they no longer deserve our sympathy."

[Philimbesi]

Why not those with [...] an addiction to chocolate

Oh hi! I see that has been addressed already...

A love potion to you!

Exactly where in that statute is the topic of food addiction dealt with?

[Monikian WA Mission]

These are the words of someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject matter they wish to write legislation for, it is outrageous folly and arrogance to presume to write laws for matters your Excellency is clearly in complete ignorance about.


Yours,

Faiksa Albertron smirked before replying.

"While we will admit that we do not understand human physiology completely, we can state that this adrenalin alluded to is not an outside substance introduced to the physiology but rather a naturally occurring hormone. As such it cannot be classified as a drug. If it could I would suppose that next someone would claim that the hormones which initiate sexual maturity are drugs.

"As for your pathetic attempt at psychological warfare it won't work on me. I'm known well in Kulahn as a extremely hard-minded female.

But where was there any indication that what your Excellency now nakedly describes as a blocking resolution was even necessary? There are no drafting debates surrounding the issue of drug addiction treatment provision in progress other than this one. It seems absurd to suggest that this resolution is somehow necessitated by the rigours of a national sovereigntist position on WA legislation.

"We would question whether your excellency has been paying attention to the debates occuring in the GA and the rather silly resolution attempts by the Delegation of Nova Caeli. Granted its proposals are extremely stupid--but there the issue of constructing a universal addiction resolution. Indeed one which would not have loopholes large enough pilot a starcruiser through. Indeed the beauty of this resolution is those loopholes.

Might we also say that given that your Excellency shows no real aptitude for the composition of sound and well reasoned statutory implements that your Excellency drop the notion that they might be doing the WA the greatest of services by writing any other resolutions, such as that your Excellency mentioned dealing with "the exportation and transportation issue" (whatever that may be). Indeed your Excellency would do this organisation the greatest service by not attempting that task.


Yours,

"Perhaps your excellency has forgotten the purpose of a drafting committee? That is to improve upon the draft until such a point as it is passable. This draft is most likely not acceptable as it stands the point of even discussing it is to implement such revisions to where it is not only acceptable but passable.

"Over all I want to point out again that attempts at psychological warfare against my drafting of proposals will not work on me. I am as I said known to be a hard-minded female. Indeed if I were not I doubt that the Monikian Ministry of Interstellar Affairs would have appointed me Senior Ambassador to this Assembly.

"Also I will be including a provision in the latest draft to exclude hormones in one of the defining clauses."

[Urgench]

These are the words of someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject matter they wish to write legislation for, it is outrageous folly and arrogance to presume to write laws for matters your Excellency is clearly in complete ignorance about.


Yours,

Faiksa Albertron smirked before replying.

"While we will admit that we do not understand human physiology completely, we can state that this adrenalin alluded to is not an outside substance introduced to the physiology but rather a naturally occurring hormone. As such it cannot be classified as a drug. If it could I would suppose that next someone would claim that the hormones which initiate sexual maturity are drugs.

"As for your pathetic attempt at psychological warfare it won't work on me. I'm known well in Kulahn as a extremely hard-minded female.

But where was there any indication that what your Excellency now nakedly describes as a blocking resolution was even necessary? There are no drafting debates surrounding the issue of drug addiction treatment provision in progress other than this one. It seems absurd to suggest that this resolution is somehow necessitated by the rigours of a national sovereigntist position on WA legislation.

"We would question whether your excellency has been paying attention to the debates occuring in the GA and the rather silly resolution attempts by the Delegation of Nova Caeli. Granted its proposals are extremely stupid--but there the issue of constructing a universal addiction resolution. Indeed one which would not have loopholes large enough pilot a starcruiser through. Indeed the beauty of this resolution is those loopholes.

Might we also say that given that your Excellency shows no real aptitude for the composition of sound and well reasoned statutory implements that your Excellency drop the notion that they might be doing the WA the greatest of services by writing any other resolutions, such as that your Excellency mentioned dealing with "the exportation and transportation issue" (whatever that may be). Indeed your Excellency would do this organisation the greatest service by not attempting that task.


Yours,

"Perhaps your excellency has forgotten the purpose of a drafting committee? That is to improve upon the draft until such a point as it is passable. This draft is most likely not acceptable as it stands the point of even discussing it is to implement such revisions to where it is not only acceptable but passable.

"Over all I want to point out again that attempts at psychological warfare against my drafting of proposals will not work on me. I am as I said known to be a hard-minded female. Indeed if I were not I doubt that the Monikian Ministry of Interstellar Affairs would have appointed me Senior Ambassador to this Assembly.

"Also I will be including a provision in the latest draft to exclude hormones in one of the defining clauses."

The issue of whether or not hormones are an introduced substance into the physiology of a human being (when clearly unless they are synthetic they are not) is an irrelevance, and not apposite in anyway. The point your Excellency has spectacularly missed is that addiction may occur to a wide variety of substances, stimuli and behaviours which have the effect of causing physical dependence. This in point of fact does include hormones produced within the body which cause pleasurable or intoxicating physical symptoms.

Indeed the primary reason most introduced substances are addictive is that they induce biochemical or neurochemical responses which are themselves capable of creating dependency.

As for the attempt on the part of the honoured delegation of Nova Caeli at a universal addiction resolution your Excellency refers to it is manifestly moribund, all the more so since its drafting discussions have been closed permanently by the secretariat. So to what end does your Excellency attempt to block a totally moribund drafting process?

What your Excellency is referring to when they use the term psychological warfare we have absolutely no idea, is it considered psychological warfare in your Excellency's culture to have strong objections to the justifications for a WA proposal and to express deep concern that those who presume to author it exhibit no especially aptitude in doing so?

Yours,

[Great Nepal]

No.

Should cutpurses be given that choice? Break the law, pay the price.

A cutpurse and an addict are two very different things. If the person broke the law, then yes, at some point they should probably be punished. But it is more important that the human life is saved. Addiction is a disease, if anyone should be punished its the companies/countries that provided the person with the drug in the first place.

Once a person commits a crime they no longer remain human in our eyes. Of course after their penal, they earn status of humans back. Just cos one has two hands, two legs, face of human and nucleic acid which is similar to rest of us doesn't make them human.

[Monikian WA Mission]

Faiksa Albertron smirked before replying.

"While we will admit that we do not understand human physiology completely, we can state that this adrenalin alluded to is not an outside substance introduced to the physiology but rather a naturally occurring hormone. As such it cannot be classified as a drug. If it could I would suppose that next someone would claim that the hormones which initiate sexual maturity are drugs.

"As for your pathetic attempt at psychological warfare it won't work on me. I'm known well in Kulahn as a extremely hard-minded female.



"We would question whether your excellency has been paying attention to the debates occuring in the GA and the rather silly resolution attempts by the Delegation of Nova Caeli. Granted its proposals are extremely stupid--but there the issue of constructing a universal addiction resolution. Indeed one which would not have loopholes large enough pilot a starcruiser through. Indeed the beauty of this resolution is those loopholes.


"Perhaps your excellency has forgotten the purpose of a drafting committee? That is to improve upon the draft until such a point as it is passable. This draft is most likely not acceptable as it stands the point of even discussing it is to implement such revisions to where it is not only acceptable but passable.

"Over all I want to point out again that attempts at psychological warfare against my drafting of proposals will not work on me. I am as I said known to be a hard-minded female. Indeed if I were not I doubt that the Monikian Ministry of Interstellar Affairs would have appointed me Senior Ambassador to this Assembly.

"Also I will be including a provision in the latest draft to exclude hormones in one of the defining clauses."

The issue of whether or not hormones are an introduced substance into the physiology of a human being (when clearly unless they are synthetic they are not) is an irrelevance, and not apposite in anyway. The point your Excellency has spectacularly missed is that addiction may occur to a wide variety of substances, stimuli and behaviours which have the effect of causing physical dependence. This in point of fact does include hormones produced within the body which cause pleasurable or intoxicating physical symptoms.

"A synthetic artificially introduced hormone would be classified as a drug. A drug most likely used in the medical profession for medical purposes but still a drug. Furthermore it is not the purpose of this legislation to deal with addiction to any other substance other than drugs. Is your excellency arguing that we should expand the proposal to include treatment for substances and/or actions other than the ingestion of a substance?

Indeed the primary reason most introduced substances are addictive is that they induce biochemical or neurochemical responses which are themselves capable of creating dependency.

"Which is why addiction to these substances is a disease and not a crime.

"I'll illustrate this point from a matter of recent Monikian history. Some four earth years ago a ship containing humans crash landed on our planet. Many of these humans were seriously injured and we attempted to render them assistance, one such case being a human whose single heart had already stopped briefly while undergoing a procedure that saved his life. Normally when one is undergoing an operation and one of the patent's hearts, or worse both of them, stops it is not uncommon to administer 15 mg of *Janifriem. This naturally caused the heart to start beating again and he was able to continue living. However the effect of such a small dose to a human we discovered unfortunately is that he was instantly addicted to *Janifriem. The cause of this addiction was the result of neurochemical changes brought on by the drug itself. We found out from this unfortunate, and unintentional experience that this drug completely disrupted human neurotransmitters. His addiction unfortunately later killed him because we did not understand this until it was too late, and *Janifriem has an effect on us similar to Caffeine to a human and is legally obtainable in our society.

As for the attempt on the part of the honoured delegation of Nova Caeli at a universal addiction resolution your Excellency refers to it is manifestly moribund, all the more so since its drafting discussions have been closed permanently by the secretariat. So to what end does your Excellency attempt to block a totally moribund drafting process?

"That delegation will again attempt to address this issue once they learn how to create an ad hoc drafting committee. Once that happens I am under no illusion that the delegation of Nova Caeli will be permanently incapable of drafting a passable resolution with the help of more experienced delegations. Having more than once had interactions with this delegations it is the feeling of the Monikian Delegation, as I did indeed summon a Delegation Council (and let me tell you stuffing the 45 staff and subordinate ambassadors into a tent in a corridor on the 80th floor was difficult) on how best to address this issue which very well could be subjected to all manner of stupid proposals. Talik* Murzhan in his last official act as an Ambassador (as he is returning to Monkiah to give birth to his child--may his child be a feminine child) suggested that we draft a resolution to address the issue before they did.

What your Excellency is referring to when they use the term psychological warfare we have absolutely no idea, is it considered psychological warfare in your Excellency's culture to have strong objections to the justifications for a WA proposal and to express deep concern that those who presume to author it exhibit no especially aptitude in doing so?

Yours,

"In Monikian society it is not uncommon, especially in Local, Sub-National and in the Supreme Council for opposing factions to attack the psychological weaknesses of the proposer. If such an attack is successful the opposing faction does not have to do the long much more difficult task of actively lobbying against the proposal. Your behavior is quite similar to this behavior, so we have concluded that the attempt here is to get our delegation to drop the proposal rather than work on it until such time as we are sufficiently confident it is passable.

[Philimbesi]

Furthermore it is not the purpose of this legislation to deal with addiction to any other substance other than drugs.

Caffeine counts then?

[Great Nepal]

Faliksa Albertron eyes the Ambassador from Great Nepal.

"You do realize that this resolution does nothing to legalize or criminalize drugs right? You do realize that this resolution in no way stops nations from passing their own sentencing laws on drug related crimes right? And you do realize that the only thing that this resolution mandates is that treatment for addiction be made available right? Any nation which would refuse medical treatment for disease has far more severe problems than its citizens taking and becoming addicted to drugs regardless of the legality of the drugs in question."

No, we wouldn't want to waste taxpayers money on Criminals who will be sentenced to life in one of our work camps. Once they wont get drugs, they will change automatically.

[Frostaland]

very little amount of drugs are allowed in Frostaland (but not frowned upon).
Government is looking to stamp it out ASAP.

[Monikian WA Mission]

Furthermore it is not the purpose of this legislation to deal with addiction to any other substance other than drugs.

Caffeine counts then?

"As does *Janifrim, Jabrukah, *sord*dunak (though no addiction has ever been reported and that substance is highly regulated), tobacco, ethanol, cannabis or any other substance with psychoactive properties not produced by the body of the sentient being who is addicted. Whether or not these or any other drugs is legal or illegal would still be left up to the member nations."

No, we wouldn't want to waste taxpayers money on Criminals who will be sentenced to life in one of our work camps. Once they wont get drugs, they will change automatically.

"Then our Office of Innovative Compliance would probably suggest that your nation create a single treatment program, locate it in some backwater section of your nation, and create a waiting list of unreasonable length. This of course would bring you in compliance while spending extremely little money. That said, our nation would have nothing to worry about as drugs addiction is extremely low, but voluntary treatment for addiction is covered under our Constitution under the Right to Health Care amendment. And the right to health care is extended not just to citizen but any being in Monkiah citizen or not, Monikian or not."

[Philimbesi]

An internationally funded chapter of Caffeine Addicts Anonymous would not be something that the people of the USP would be interested in.

[Bears Armed]

And this from the same diplomatic mission that, only recently, called 'Wise Woodland Management' an affront to sovereignty?!?

"Well it is. You were proposing to regulate an industry in member nations which they can do themselves. This is ensuring that those with a disease--drug addiction--have the option of medical treatment made available to them without messing with the laws of the member nation further.

"We proposed "regulating" that industry only when its effects would cause identifiably harmful effects to another nation's environment &/or ecosystems, which is clearly an international issue.
You are proposing to mandate national policy on a matter where nations' policies have no effects on any other nations, and which is therefore equally clearly an "internal" matter.
If you honestly cannot scent that the latter is more of an affront to sovereignty than the former, then perhaps your nation should reconsider its process for choosing ambassadors."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Monikian WA Mission]

An internationally funded chapter of Caffeine Addicts Anonymous would not be something that the people of the USP would be interested in.

"Well thats good then because this proposal does not address how these treatment programs would be financed. It would be left up to the nation. This means that the treatment could be provided by a private intity--for profit or not--by a religious organization, or by the state. However the member nation chooses to finance it.

"That said a Caffeine Addicts Anonymous program would be unnecessary if there is no person in your nation that demands treatment for Caffeine addiction."

[Urgench]

The issue of whether or not hormones are an introduced substance into the physiology of a human being (when clearly unless they are synthetic they are not) is an irrelevance, and not apposite in anyway. The point your Excellency has spectacularly missed is that addiction may occur to a wide variety of substances, stimuli and behaviours which have the effect of causing physical dependence. This in point of fact does include hormones produced within the body which cause pleasurable or intoxicating physical symptoms.

"A synthetic artificially introduced hormone would be classified as a drug. A drug most likely used in the medical profession for medical purposes but still a drug. Furthermore it is not the purpose of this legislation to deal with addiction to any other substance other than drugs. Is your excellency arguing that we should expand the proposal to include treatment for substances and/or actions other than the ingestion of a substance?

Indeed the primary reason most introduced substances are addictive is that they induce biochemical or neurochemical responses which are themselves capable of creating dependency.

"Which is why addiction to these substances is a disease and not a crime.

"I'll illustrate this point from a matter of recent Monikian history. Some four earth years ago a ship containing humans crash landed on our planet. Many of these humans were seriously injured and we attempted to render them assistance, one such case being a human whose single heart had already stopped briefly while undergoing a procedure that saved his life. Normally when one is undergoing an operation and one of the patent's hearts, or worse both of them, stops it is not uncommon to administer 15 mg of *Janifriem. This naturally caused the heart to start beating again and he was able to continue living. However the effect of such a small dose to a human we discovered unfortunately is that he was instantly addicted to *Janifriem. The cause of this addiction was the result of neurochemical changes brought on by the drug itself. We found out from this unfortunate, and unintentional experience that this drug completely disrupted human neurotransmitters. His addiction unfortunately later killed him because we did not understand this until it was too late, and *Janifriem has an effect on us similar to Caffeine to a human and is legally obtainable in our society.

As for the attempt on the part of the honoured delegation of Nova Caeli at a universal addiction resolution your Excellency refers to it is manifestly moribund, all the more so since its drafting discussions have been closed permanently by the secretariat. So to what end does your Excellency attempt to block a totally moribund drafting process?

"That delegation will again attempt to address this issue once they learn how to create an ad hoc drafting committee. Once that happens I am under no illusion that the delegation of Nova Caeli will be permanently incapable of drafting a passable resolution with the help of more experienced delegations. Having more than once had interactions with this delegations it is the feeling of the Monikian Delegation, as I did indeed summon a Delegation Council (and let me tell you stuffing the 45 staff and subordinate ambassadors into a tent in a corridor on the 80th floor was difficult) on how best to address this issue which very well could be subjected to all manner of stupid proposals. Talik* Murzhan in his last official act as an Ambassador (as he is returning to Monkiah to give birth to his child--may his child be a feminine child) suggested that we draft a resolution to address the issue before they did.

What your Excellency is referring to when they use the term psychological warfare we have absolutely no idea, is it considered psychological warfare in your Excellency's culture to have strong objections to the justifications for a WA proposal and to express deep concern that those who presume to author it exhibit no especially aptitude in doing so?

Yours,

"In Monikian society it is not uncommon, especially in Local, Sub-National and in the Supreme Council for opposing factions to attack the psychological weaknesses of the proposer. If such an attack is successful the opposing faction does not have to do the long much more difficult task of actively lobbying against the proposal. Your behavior is quite similar to this behavior, so we have concluded that the attempt here is to get our delegation to drop the proposal rather than work on it until such time as we are sufficiently confident it is passable.

Your Excellency we do not need to be convinced of the benfits of providing adequate and effective provision of treatment for those who wish to rid themsleves of substance dependency, nor do we need to be convicned that substnace addicts are not criminals.

What we require is convincing on the matter of the utility of proposing a resolution which so directly meddles in affairs which are best left to national governments.

Your Excellency's answers swing wildly between claiming to be attempting to draft a resolution which satisfies the dead politics of National Sovereigntism by creating a statute which would act as a block to other resolutions which might deal with this issue, and giving justifications and reasonings for this proposal which indicate that a simple blocking resolution could not be farther from your mind, and that you intend instead to write a resolution which meddles and micro-manages national healthcare provision extremely directly in the best (though equally anachronistic) International Federalist tradition.

That your Excellency's government isn't even a member state of this organisation makes either position seem bizarre since your nation's citizens will not be effected whatever the outcome.

So we are forced once again to ask, why on earth your Excellency is even attempting this proposal?


Yours,

[Quelesh]

We are not asking to usurp your existing drug laws, or that you stop incarcerating people for simple possession of even minor drugs.

Well, to be fair, I certainly believe that we should ask for the latter.

As a Natsov friendly government ourselves we are seeking to prevent far worse legislation on this area.

So, basically, the purpose of this proposal is to act as a blocker preventing any future resolution legalizing/criminalizing drugs?