[SUBMITTED] Minors and Recreational Drugs

[New Min]

OOC: Clause 5 now forbids people from bringing their children with them into a pharmacist, when they themselves go get medication not prescribed to the children. So are you seriously mandating that toddlers be left outside the store in a, say, shopping mall?

OOC: Fixed.

[Kenmoria]

"Why are subclauses 5.1 and 5.2 under clause 5, when they relate to clause 6?"

[New Min]

"Why are subclauses 5.1 and 5.2 under clause 5, when they relate to clause 6?"

OOC: Because I forgot to change that when I removed a clause, but I fixed it.

[Kenmoria]

"You defined 'dangerous drugs' in clause 2, but then use just 'drug' throughout the rest of the proposal."

[New Min]

"You defined 'dangerous drugs' in clause 2, but then use just 'drug' throughout the rest of the proposal."

OOC: I've read it again, and don't see the problem. Maybe you mean this:

(4) Bans the use of drugs by minors when:
(4.1) the substance is a dangerous drug,

Here, the dangerous drugs clause is being used. If I still missed a mistake, please tell which one.

[Kenmoria]

"You defined 'dangerous drugs' in clause 2, but then use just 'drug' throughout the rest of the proposal."

OOC: I've read it again, and don't see the problem. Maybe you mean this:

(4) Bans the use of drugs by minors when:
(4.1) the substance is a dangerous drug,

Here, the dangerous drugs clause is being used. If I still missed a mistake, please tell which one.

"Clause five."

[New Min]

"Clause five."

This the the clause:

(5) Prohibits selling and/or handing over dangerous drugs to minors.
(5.1) Mandates member nations to consider violation of clause 5 a criminal offense, and
(5.2) Requires member nations to seriously punish those found guilty of violating clause 5.
(5.3) Selling/handing over dangerous drugs to minors with a valid prescription is excepted from this clause.

OOC: I really don't see where it is being used. (I'm sorry if I keep reading over it.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: I would suggest adding "for the purposes of this resolution" to the definitions. That's so you're not trying to re-define the English language in its entirety. Especially the "dangerous drugs" one.

[New Min]

OOC: I have submitted the proposal and started sending campaign telegrams!

OOC: I would suggest adding "for the purposes of this resolution" to the definitions. That's so you're not trying to re-define the English language in its entirety. Especially the "dangerous drugs" one.

IC: "I saw that a lot of resolutions don't do so and nor did I, to keep the proposal short. Thanks for the feedback though."

[Grays Harbor]

If we really believe that all committees are perfect, then we should really just eliminate national governments and have the WA directly administer all territories. Because they make the best and most perfect decision, every time.

There are some here who would advocate that very thing.

[Grays Harbor]

Here is my problem with this:

(6) Prohibits the possession of dangerous drugs by minors for non-medical reasons.

When prohibiting something, that makes it criminal activity, be it a misdemeanor or felony, even in States where recreational drugs are legal. Just like current (both RW and many NS States) laws which prohibit possession of alcohol by minors, and which gives them a juvenile criminal record.First, second, or even third offences may be overlooked, or dismissed with a "kids will be kids. Why, when I was his age ..." attitude, but repeat offences do lead to a criminal record and incarceration. Is this what we want?

(7) Encourages member states to help minors addicted to recreational drugs.

And then we get to this bit. Pamphlets, boring speakers at school, cutesy sloganeering ("Just Say NO!"), and wholly or partially State funded "rehab" run by well-intentioned but clueless social workers that the kids treat as a joke.

I really do not see how this will make anything better. It has far more potential to become an endless money pit.

[New Min]

When prohibiting something, that makes it criminal activity, be it a misdemeanor or felony, even in States where recreational drugs are legal. Just like current (both RW and many NS States) laws which prohibit possession of alcohol by minors, and which gives them a juvenile criminal record.First, second, or even third offences may be overlooked, or dismissed with a "kids will be kids. Why, when I was his age ..." attitude, but repeat offences do lead to a criminal record and incarceration. Is this what we want?

OOC: I am not able to understand you, sorry. This resolution indeed makes the possession illegal, but the penalties for the possession are up to each individual nation.

And then we get to this bit. Pamphlets, boring speakers at school, cutesy sloganeering ("Just Say NO!"), and wholly or partially State funded "rehab" run by well-intentioned but clueless social workers that the kids treat as a joke.

IC: "This clause doesn't encourage members to create pamphlets etc., but encourage them to help those who are addicted by (for example) setting up rehab programs. Of course, not all programs help, but I trust the member states to find a working program for their citizens."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Doesn’t really do much if there’s no enforcement mechanism, eh?

[New Min]

Doesn’t really do much if there’s no enforcement mechanism, eh?

IC: "Just like all other resolutions, the member states have the responsibility to enforce them."

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. To whom are you responding?

2. Doesn’t excuse writing legislation trivially bypassed.

[Araraukar]

Doesn’t really do much if there’s no enforcement mechanism, eh?

OOC: There's no real enforcement mechanism that can be written into a proposal, aside from the ones already existing.

Clause 7 refers to recreational drugs, which are otherwise only referred to in one preamble clause. One could easily consider them to mean "non-dangerous drugs", such as, indeed, caffeine.

[New Min]

Clause 7 refers to recreational drugs, which are otherwise only referred to in one preamble clause. One could easily consider them to mean "non-dangerous drugs", such as, indeed, caffeine.

IC: "If children are addicted to caffeine, the WA encourages its member states to help them indeed."

1. To whom are you responding?

OOC: I was responding to you.

Doesn’t excuse writing legislation trivially bypassed.

IC: "If nations chose to give light penalties to those who break a clause in this resolution, that is their sovereign right to do so."
OOC: And just like Ararauker said, we can't build in an enforcement mechanism.

There's no real enforcement mechanism that can be written into a proposal, aside from the ones already existing.

[Araraukar]

Clause 7 refers to recreational drugs, which are otherwise only referred to in one preamble clause. One could easily consider them to mean "non-dangerous drugs", such as, indeed, caffeine.

IC: "If children are addicted to caffeine, the WA encourages its member states to help them indeed."

OOC: Please stop responding to OOC comments in IC. EDIT: That's what IA meant with the "who are you responding to".

[New Min]

IC: "If children are addicted to caffeine, the WA encourages its member states to help them indeed."

OOC: Please stop responding to OOC comments in IC. EDIT: That's what IA meant with the "who are you responding to".

OOC: Okay, I'm sorry.

[Honk Donk]

Aren't proposal debates supposed to be out of character anyway?

[Honk Donk]

Defines a 'minor' as a sapient being under the legal age of majority as defined by in their nation for the purpose of this resolution.

Could a nation not just define this age as zero to avoid having to obey the proposal?

[Kenmoria]

Aren't proposal debates supposed to be out of character anyway?

(OOC: No, IC is completely permissible in draft threads, some people prefer it. However, legality challenge threads are always OOC.)

[New Min]

Could a nation not just define this age as zero to avoid having to obey the proposal?

OOC: They could, but this would also mean that babies are no longer the responsibility of their parents, as they are considered 'adult'. So I don't see this happening, except for maybe a few nations.

[New Min]

OOC: I just saw that a GenSec member considered my proposal illegal because of the category rule, does anyone know why he disagrees with the category?

EDIT: I know there is a separate "Outlaw Recreation Drugs" category, but, as far as I know, this can only be used for completely outlawing drugs.

[Araraukar]

OOC: EDIT: I know there is a separate "Outlaw Recreation Drugs" category, but, as far as I know, this can only be used for completely outlawing drugs.

OOC: To my knowledge it can also be used for restrictions. It's basically just badly named.