[DRAFT] Cannabis Legalization Convention

[Greater Cesnica]

Pertaining to Araraukar's rant:
I'm sorry that you had that personal experience. Not every person is good. Not every drug user is bad. Not everyone is like your neighbor. I sympathize with your viewpoint, but I'd have to disagree. If people are in their own home, not an apartment, for instance, and smoke marijuana in moderation, that is indeed victimless. Or when Joe Rogan smokes marijuana in his studio with his guests, that's victimless. There are way more victimless uses of drugs than those that have victims. Also, I would highly recommend that you visit a therapist, if you feel that the trauma from your experience is sufficient enough to warrant that. I find it appalling that the neighbor acted in such a despicable manner. Just, please try to understand, not everyone is like him.

[Araraukar]

If people are in their own home, not an apartment, for instance, and smoke marijuana in moderation, that is indeed victimless.

OOC: Unless there are others present who do not want to inhale the drug smoke. But, again, if you want to argue drug politics, go to NS General, this is still the wrong forum for it. NSG: viewforum.php?f=20

This is still not an international issue, but the edited clause 3 lets nations deal with it like with alcohol and tobacco, so that's sufficient for me ICly.

EDIT:

Also, I would highly recommend that you visit a therapist, if you feel that the trauma from your experience is sufficient enough to warrant that.

Not that my therapy is any business of yours, but they (for other, long-term issues) are who put my complaints of new symptoms over the past several months together and realized they fit burnout and PTSD (the panic attack I recognized as one on my own) to begin with.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Come on Ara, you're not fooling anyone. Drug policy arguments are all very relevant.

[Araraukar]

Come on Ara, you're not fooling anyone. Drug policy arguments are all very relevant.

OOC: Yeah, but that post was personally addressing my RL situation which I don't want to discuss further personally (because if I said what I really thought, on the matter, I'd get a Mod Warning). If he wants to talk policy in IC, he can put it in IC in more general terms and then we can talk policy.

[Greater Cesnica]

If people are in their own home, not an apartment, for instance, and smoke marijuana in moderation, that is indeed victimless.

But, again, if you want to argue drug politics, go to NS General, this is still the wrong forum for it. NSG: viewforum.php?f=20

EDIT:

Also, I would highly recommend that you visit a therapist, if you feel that the trauma from your experience is sufficient enough to warrant that.

Not that my therapy is any business of yours, but they (for other, long-term issues) are who put my complaints of new symptoms over the past several months together and realized they fit burnout and PTSD (the panic attack I recognized as one on my own) to begin with.

OOC: I find you linking the NSG forum to be particularly condescending. But nevertheless, I do hope that you're able to put this stuff behind you eventually.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I find you linking the NSG forum to be particularly condescending. But nevertheless, I do hope that you're able to put this stuff behind you eventually.

OOC: If you mean change my opinion, not gonna happen. Been on anti-drugs stance all my life. Won't change. But like I told IA, if you want to talk drug policies, can do so in IC on more general terms.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: I find you linking the NSG forum to be particularly condescending. But nevertheless, I do hope that you're able to put this stuff behind you eventually.

OOC: If you mean change my opinion, not gonna happen. Been on anti-drugs stance all my life. Won't change. But like I told IA, if you want to talk drug policies, can do so in IC on more general terms.

I never meant that. I meant at least try to put the trauma behind you.

[Tinfect]

If people are in their own home, not an apartment, for instance, and smoke marijuana in moderation, that is indeed victimless.

OOC:
It's one thing if they're alone/only with those consenting to exposure. Quite another if people who do not are around; IE, children, who can be developmentally harmed by long-term exposure. These are mind-altering substances, the use of which in the presence of others, barring certain things like edibles, (which have their own problems,) will expose everyone around you. That is certainly not victimless.

[Greater Cesnica]

If people are in their own home, not an apartment, for instance, and smoke marijuana in moderation, that is indeed victimless.

OOC:
It's one thing if they're alone/only with those consenting to exposure. Quite another if people who do not are around; IE, children, who can be developmentally harmed by long-term exposure. These are mind-altering substances, the use of which in the presence of others, barring certain things like edibles, (which have their own problems,) will expose everyone around you. That is certainly not victimless.

OOC: Yes, I should have clarified that. But for those who are alone/consenting to exposure, I consider it victimless.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I find you linking the NSG forum to be particularly condescending. But nevertheless, I do hope that you're able to put this stuff behind you eventually.

OOC: If you mean change my opinion, not gonna happen. Been on anti-drugs stance all my life. Won't change. But like I told IA, if you want to talk drug policies, can do so in IC on more general terms.

The Epstein Drive Expanse of Imperium Anglorum's new Ambassador FancyPants McTechFace transports into the chamber. 'We support full legalisation', he says in a Sean Connery-esque accent, 'everyone already has a personal atmospheric purifier implanted in their neck with anti-vacuum force fields so they can operate easily in hard vacuum without having to put on a space suit; it's unheard of that second hand smoke might get into someone else's lungs'.

OOC. Or perhaps...

Arguments based primarily on RP are weak, because on some level anyone can RP anything. I could just as easily write a roleplay of some pirates attacking some Dark Star tourists out on their yacht and dismembering them, and using that to justify the law, at which point it seems to just become a case of who can concoct the most lurid fantasies. Gruenberg (as Dark Star Republic), NationStates (10 Feb 2015) viewtopic.php?p=23467721#p23467721.

That said, I will vote against the proposal if it comes to it; I don't feel that full legalisation is a good policy position writ large. Perhaps decriminalisation of possession and personal use might be, given the penological costs associated with enforcement, but smoke inhalation harms lung function, there is evidence of increased rates of psychosis, concerns with dependence (1, 2) (physical or psychological) which is unsurprisingly exacerbated when more potent varieties of cannabis are consumed, and various other harms (and benefits). I think a more nuanced treatment should be pursued, with greater discretion to national decisions or greater deference to empirical evidence.

[Tinfect]

The Epstein Drive Expanse of Imperium Anglorum's new Ambassador FancyPants McTechFace transports into the chamber. 'We support full legalisation', he says in a Sean Connery-esque accent, 'everyone already has a personal atmospheric purifier implanted in their neck with anti-vacuum force fields so they can operate easily in hard vacuum without having to put on a space suit; it's unheard of that second hand smoke might get into someone else's lungs'.

OOC. Or perhaps...

Arguments based primarily on RP are weak, because on some level anyone can RP anything. I could just as easily write a roleplay of some pirates attacking some Dark Star tourists out on their yacht and dismembering them, and using that to justify the law, at which point it seems to just become a case of who can concoct the most lurid fantasies. Gruenberg (as Dark Star Republic), NationStates (10 Feb 2015) viewtopic.php?p=23467721#p23467721.

OOC:
Like it or not, the GA is ostensibly an IC forum. I get that you don't care for RP, but there was absolutely no need for this, especially when Ara was talking OOC.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The Epstein Drive Expanse of Imperium Anglorum's new Ambassador FancyPants McTechFace transports into the chamber. 'We support full legalisation', he says in a Sean Connery-esque accent, 'everyone already has a personal atmospheric purifier implanted in their neck with anti-vacuum force fields so they can operate easily in hard vacuum without having to put on a space suit; it's unheard of that second hand smoke might get into someone else's lungs'.

OOC. Or perhaps...

Arguments based primarily on RP are weak, because on some level anyone can RP anything. I could just as easily write a roleplay of some pirates attacking some Dark Star tourists out on their yacht and dismembering them, and using that to justify the law, at which point it seems to just become a case of who can concoct the most lurid fantasies. Gruenberg (as Dark Star Republic), NationStates (10 Feb 2015) viewtopic.php?p=23467721#p23467721.

OOC: Like it or not, the GA is ostensibly an IC forum. I get that you don't care for RP, but there was absolutely no need for this, especially when Ara was talking OOC.

I think your response misses the nuance of my position, ie what is implied by the portions you decided not to quote: it is not possible to have a meaningful discussion about cannabis' dependence, lung function, psychosis, driver impairment, etc impacts without relying on real world sources. You trot out some ambassadors saying these things are true in your nation? Someone else trots out some ambassadors to assert they aren't. You trot out some assertions about second hand smoke? Someone else trots out some assertions about how somehow cannabis smoke isn't dangerous. (It is in fact dangerous, see my last post, just not as dangerous as tobacco smoke.) Duelling assertions is no substitute for empirical results.

Ah yes, IA, but this is an IC forum and you can debate the real world in General!

First, that the real world can be spoken about in General does not imply the GA is barred from reality itself. Second, which gets to what I think you're talking about with '[I] don't care for RP', is that duelling assertions can only be resolved by the real world. (Not to mention that I do lots of world-building, I just don't publish it.) Third, I'll be very frank about my interpretation of what happened. Ara (for sensible personal reasons) decided to oppose the proposal. But then, in reaction to any criticism thereof or push back thereto, does little more than deflect with a redirect to NSG and assertions of IC-purism. These are foolish responses that warrant every ounce of parody.

[WayNeacTia]

I also don't see it as an international issue. Being able to buy or sell cannabis isn't anything approaching a human right.

How is it not? Drugs cross borders all the time. We legalize it, you don't. Our citizens can travel to your nation, and be deprived of it. Your citizens come over and smoke all they want and likely smuggle it back. If it is legal everywhere, we don't have this problem. It is just as important as abortion, on which, how many fucking drafts, proposals and fucking votes have we had on that particular quagmire?

[Araraukar]

I also don't see it as an international issue. Being able to buy or sell cannabis isn't anything approaching a human right.

How is it not? Drugs cross borders all the time. We legalize it, you don't. Our citizens can travel to your nation, and be deprived of it. Your citizens come over and smoke all they want and likely smuggle it back.

OOC: As for drug trafficking...

IC: "I'm fairly sure there's a resolution requiring people entering a nation to find out the laws that may be different to their home nation - and possibly one requiring said laws to be easily obtainable prior to entry - and obey the local laws when in a nation. Even if there wasn't, generally speaking nations are more than capable of enforcing their laws on tourists and domestics alike."

OOC: If the "but this is legal here and illegal there so people will come here to do it legally and then smuggle it there" is used as the legalization argument, then the same applies to child porn, because of different age limits in WA nations. Final EDIT: I think you need to take a drink now, because referencing child porn is close enough to the "but think of the children".