[PASSED] World Psychoactive Drugs Act

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Update: this is now GA #657.
-----
In case that GA #577 is repealed.

I'd appreciate feedback on the 2b test; the intent with mandating "clear and convincing evidence" is that member nations must meet a burden of proof which is much higher than just "three grams of cocaine or two grams of heroin" (CF: Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act.)

Believing that drug criminalisation, as previously declared by this chamber, has been an ineffective policy, which, instead of actually reducing drug addiction and use, punishes victims and causes harm to society writ large,

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to past World Assembly law still in force.

1. In this resolution, a "psychoactive drug" is a substance consumed recreationally in order to induce psychoactive effects.
   
   
2. No member nation may prosecute, punish, or penalise any individual for their possession of a psychoactive drug, except where
   
   
   1. said drug is used, and can be successfully used, to incapacitate another individual as to facilitate the commission of violence against that individual, and the individual possessing said drug is demonstrably aware that they are possessing said drug; or
      
      
   2. that member nation can provide clear and convincing evidence that the possession of said drug is for the purpose of providing or otherwise distributing said drug to another individual or entity.
   
   
3. No member nation may prosecute, punish, or penalise any individual for their consumption of a psychoactive drug, so long as such consumption occurs in private and does not pose a clear, specific, and imminent danger to the health or safety of other individuals.
   
   
4. The confiscation of a psychoactive drug from an individual shall not be prohibited under this resolution. Any conviction, punishment, or sentence which violates the terms of this resolution must be immediately rescinded; and no member nation may commence, continue, or resume enforcement of any such conviction, punishment, or sentence. Political and administrative subdivisions of member nations must comply with this resolution as member nations.
   
   
5. Pizza without pineapple is hereby prohibited in every member nation.

Co-author: Greater Cesnica

Discuss.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: against due to WSA thing. WA funds should not go to propping up clinics in reckless capitalists with poor healthcare and welfare systems because the WA is permitting addiction worldwide through the resolution.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: against due to WSA thing. WA funds should not go to propping up clinics in reckless capitalists with poor healthcare and welfare systems because the WA is permitting addiction worldwide through the resolution.

"Nowhere does this mandate that the WA pay for these clinics. We have, however, explicitly clarified that member nations are responsible for funding the WSA program."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Tinhampton]

Joke proposals go in the joke proposal thread.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Joke proposals go in the joke proposal thread.

This is not a joke proposal.

[Floofybit]

Clause 3 basically states that drug use can be restricted if they cause harm to the public. Well, every recreational drug can cause harm to the general public in some shape or form, so we feel that this ruins the proposal. Which is a good thing, considering we are strictly against recreational drug use

[Jedinsto]

"Other than the loopholes pointed out by the delegation from Floofybit, we have no drawbacks with this resolution."

OOC: Absolutely based and full support.

[Nouvel Empire]

3. No member state may discriminate against, punish, penalise, or prosecute any individual for their consumption of a psychoactive drug. Yet, subject to World Assembly law, a member state may restrict the consumption of a psychoactive drug in a particular circumstance wherein the consumption of said drug would pose a clear, specific, and serious safety or health hazard to the general public.

Couldn't a member state consider, in good faith, that the consumption of drugs, outside the private sphere, could endanger the safety or health of the general public, in any case? (Although any form of drug already poses an inherent danger to the health of consumers)

4. The "World Service for Addiction" (WSA) is hereby established, and may construct a clinic (hereinafter a "WSA clinic") on request of a member nation in a location chosen freely by that member nation. Such a clinic shall provide easily accessible, safe, and free addiction recovery services to assist clients in mitigating or discontinuing a drug addiction. Member nations must also provide fully subsidised travel to a WSA clinic from areas from which no WSA clinic can be speedily accessed without substantial financial burden.


5. Each member nation in which a WSA clinic is present must provide monetary contributions to the WSA, which shall be assessed by the General Accounting Office based on a nation's ability to provide such contribution in accordance with its economic state, and the expenses incurred by WSA clinics present in that nation. Such mandatory contributions shall total no more or less than sufficient to cover the total expenses collectively incurred by all WSA clinics.

If the construction of clinics is voluntary and the financing of the WSA is entirely done by these voluntary countries (which must be sufficiently rich), the resolution does not do much and the WSA will quickly be in deficit.

6. No member state may punish, prosecute, or otherwise discriminate against an individual for attending any service provided by a WSA clinic. Yet, where an individual's drug addiction is likely to cause that individual to pose a serious health or safety risk to others, a member state may require that individual to attend services provided at a WSA clinic to mitigate said risk, subject to World Assembly law.

Same problem as for 3.

8.The World Assembly hereby declares victory in the war on drugs.

You mean defeat*.

[Juansonia]

"Member state" includes any political or administrative subdivision thereof.

"Specify that such inclusion is without limitation, or people will argue that 'Member state' does not, in fact, include member states."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

The "World Service for Addiction" (WSA) is hereby established, and may construct a clinic (hereinafter a "WSA clinic") on request of a member nation in a location chosen freely by that member nation. Such a clinic shall provide easily accessible, safe, and free addiction recovery services to assist clients in mitigating or discontinuing a drug addiction. Member nations must also provide fully subsidised travel to a WSA clinic from areas from which no WSA clinic can be speedily accessed without substantial financial burden.

Each member nation in which a WSA clinic is present must provide monetary contributions to the WSA, which shall be assessed by the General Accounting Office based on a nation's ability to provide such contribution in accordance with its economic state, and the expenses incurred by WSA clinics present in that nation. Such mandatory contributions shall total no more or less than sufficient to cover the total expenses collectively incurred by all WSA clinics.

"I recommend having administrative costs of the WSA covered by the general fund, but the expenses of each clinic covered by recipient nations."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

The World Assembly hereby declares victory in the war on drugs.

"Opposed due to this clause in particular, as the drugs have already won, and this is more akin to a postwar humanitarian effort than it is to a final push to victory."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

Clause 3 basically states that drug use can be restricted if they cause harm to the public. Well, every recreational drug can cause harm to the general public in some shape or form, so we feel that this ruins the proposal. Which is a good thing, considering we are strictly against recreational drug use

"Clause 3 is nowhere near that weak. Instead, it restricts said harm exception to clear, specific, and serious hazards to the health and safety of the general public. The public hazard posed by drug use in private is not sufficiently specific or serious to justify a total ban per the restrictions in clause 3, since one person's self-harm does not, in this case, have a significant chance of directly harming others."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

[Floofybit]

Clause 3 basically states that drug use can be restricted if they cause harm to the public. Well, every recreational drug can cause harm to the general public in some shape or form, so we feel that this ruins the proposal. Which is a good thing, considering we are strictly against recreational drug use

"Clause 3 is nowhere near that weak. Instead, it restricts said harm exception to clear, specific, and serious hazards to the health and safety of the general public. The public hazard posed by drug use in private is not sufficiently specific or serious to justify a total ban per the restrictions in clause 3, since one person's self-harm does not, in this case, have a significant chance of directly harming others."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

Then I continue my stance in AGAINST. Considering that you and other blatant evidence shows that drugs cause harm to the one's self, I do not believe I should be forced to legalize recreational drugs, especially because it is greatly against my and our nation's religion, and I value the lives of myself and others

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Clause 3 basically states that drug use can be restricted if they cause harm to the public. Well, every recreational drug can cause harm to the general public in some shape or form, so we feel that this ruins the proposal. Which is a good thing, considering we are strictly against recreational drug use

Couldn't a member state consider, in good faith, that the consumption of drugs, outside the private sphere, could endanger the safety or health of the general public, in any case? (Although any form of drug already poses an inherent danger to the health of consumers)

"Does all recreational drug use pose a 'clear, specific, and serious' hazard in health or safety to the general public (as, for example, drunk driving would)?"

If the construction of clinics is voluntary and the financing of the WSA is entirely done by these voluntary countries (which must be sufficiently rich), the resolution does not do much and the WSA will quickly be in deficit.

"Would you prefer that the General Fund fund it entirely instead?"

"Further, should a member nation not want to pay for the costs of a WSA clinic -- which, as explicitly said in the resolution, are determined based on "a nation's ability to provide such contribution" -- it would have to pay, on its own, for the costs of shipping individuals to WSA clinics at the nation's full expense. It would therefore seem more rational for a nation to allow a clinic to be constructed, and thus reduce the costs that nation faces."

6. No member state may punish, prosecute, or otherwise discriminate against an individual for attending any service provided by a WSA clinic. Yet, where an individual's drug addiction is likely to cause that individual to pose a serious health or safety risk to others, a member state may require that individual to attend services provided at a WSA clinic to mitigate said risk, subject to World Assembly law.

Same problem as for 3.

"We will make changes to address this, though we would also note that this does not authorise member states to do any more or less than requiring individuals to attend WSA addiction services -- it does not allow any other punishment of individuals for their drug use."

"Specify that such inclusion is without limitation, or people will argue that 'Member state' does not, in fact, include member states."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

"Done."

"I recommend having administrative costs of the WSA covered by the general fund, but the expenses of each clinic covered by recipient nations."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

""Done, for the time being."

"Opposed due to this clause in particular, as the drugs have already won, and this is more akin to a postwar humanitarian effort than it is to a final push to victory."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

You mean defeat*.

"Nope. The World Assembly will declare victory in the war on drugs."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Tinhampton]

If you are intent on pushing this forward: I do not know why addiction and rehab clinics should be controlled by the World Assembly rather than by member states and their units.

[Juansonia]

If you are intent on pushing this forward: I do not know why addiction and rehab clinics should be controlled by the World Assembly rather than by member states and their units.

"Perhaps it would be a good idea to expressly clarify that nations are free to provide their own treatment clinics independent of those established by the World Assembly."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

"Clause 3 is nowhere near that weak. Instead, it restricts said harm exception to clear, specific, and serious hazards to the health and safety of the general public. The public hazard posed by drug use in private is not sufficiently specific or serious to justify a total ban per the restrictions in clause 3, since one person's self-harm does not, in this case, have a significant chance of directly harming others."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

Then I continue my stance in AGAINST. Considering that you and other blatant evidence shows that drugs cause harm to the one's self, I do not believe I should be forced to legalize recreational drugs, especially because it is greatly against my and our nation's religion, and I value the lives of myself and others

"Are you claiming that I have consumed such drugs in a harm-causing manner, or is this because I implied that a public hazard is posed when I stated that such a hazard is insufficently serious and insufficently specific? If the latter, you are demonstrably wrong, as I am not blatant evidence. If the former, I would, at most, be a hyperbolised anecdote. Also, how is self-harm relevant to a discussion of legality? After all, it should be the right of every sapient adult to end their own life, so criminalising narcotics to mitigate deliberate self-harm is absurd. If you want to convince any sensible person that criminalisation of private consumption is a proper remedy, you need to demonstrate, in addition to the effectiveness of criminalisation, how consuming narcotics, in the privacy of one's own home, poses a severe, specific, and clear hazard to public health and safety. For the record, widespread violation of your religion's instructions is not a hazard."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

"Member state" means member nation or any political or administrative subdivision thereof.

"This revision runs into a problem which arguably has more severe repercussions - the fundamental difference between a nation and a state. While my original intent was simply to have 'without limitation, ' added after 'includes', I would now recommend, instead of defining Member state, to simply state that political and administrative subdivisions are subject to the same rights, duties, and restrictions as member states are subject to by this proposal"
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

[IceHoarderMkXI]

"Member state" means member nation or any political or administrative subdivision thereof.

"This revision runs into a problem which arguably has more severe repercussions - the fundamental difference between a nation and a state. While my original intent was simply to have 'without limitation, ' added after 'includes', I would now recommend, instead of defining Member state, to simply state that political and administrative subdivisions are subject to the same rights, duties, and restrictions as member states are subject to by this proposal"
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

"Done."

If you are intent on pushing this forward: I do not know why addiction and rehab clinics should be controlled by the World Assembly rather than by member states and their units.

"Having the WA construct these clinics makes it easier in practice to ensure that these clinics meet standards of health and safety than if member nations were given the responsibility of constructing these clinics themselves."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Floofybit]

After all, it should be the right of every sapient adult to end their own life, so criminalising narcotics to mitigate deliberate self-harm is absurd.

It should be the right of anyone to kill themselves?! So, you want to give people rehabilitation programs to get off drugs but you don't want to give people rehabilitation programs to let them live. I don't know about you, but I actually strive to let people live long happy lives. Why would you EVER let a loved one or someone you know kill themselves

[Excidium Planetis]

After all, it should be the right of every sapient adult to end their own life, so criminalising narcotics to mitigate deliberate self-harm is absurd.

It should be the right of anyone to kill themselves?! So, you want to give people rehabilitation programs to get off drugs but you don't want to give people rehabilitation programs to let them live. I don't know about you, but I actually strive to let people live long happy lives. Why would you EVER let a loved one or someone you know kill themselves

"Didn't, uh, the World Assembly already legalize assisted suicide?"

[Excidium Planetis]

"Having the WA construct these clinics makes it easier in practice to ensure that these clinics meet standards of health and safety than if member nations were given the responsibility of constructing these clinics themselves."

(OoC: posted on wrong account?)

IC:
"Given the, er, I don't want to say primitive exactly... maybe 'less advanced' level of technology possessed by the WA compared to some, uh, members of the Assembly, I would object to saying that health and safety standards would be better ensured by leaving the WA in charge of our clinics instead of our own professional m-medical AI."

[Juansonia]

After all, it should be the right of every sapient adult to end their own life, so criminalising narcotics to mitigate deliberate self-harm is absurd.

It should be the right of anyone to kill themselves?

"The right to death is part of the right to life. While either may be restricted in the name of a compelling interest, both are fundamental components of personal autonomy, and the state has a duty to respect said rights."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

So, you want to give people rehabilitation programs to get off drugs but you don't want to give people rehabilitation programs to let them live.

"I never stated the latter. Drug rehab, in most cases, is undertaken because patients want to end their addiction. Similarly, helplines and other programmes help those who, despite feeling suicidal urges, don't want to die. "
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

I don't know about you, but I actually strive to let people live long happy lives.

"If anything, that would describe me better than it describes you, because you actually strive to force people to live long, healthy, and happy lives. I want them to have a choice, which is the only way to let them live a happy life."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

Why would you EVER let a loved one or someone you know kill themselves?

"In the case of loved ones(and most people that I know), I respect them enough to let them exercise their autonomy. Allow me to ask you a question. Why would you ever force a loved one, or someone you know, to live a life that they are unwilling to live?"
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

--snip--

"Didn't, uh, the World Assembly already legalize assisted suicide?"

"I believe that GA#598 is what you are looking for, and what the delegation from Floofybit should review."- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

[Pangurstan]

Against for obvious reasons. There's no reason for the WA to run the clinics, and clause 3 prevents states from criminalizing drunk driving.

It should be the right of anyone to kill themselves?

"The right to death is part of the right to life. While either may be restricted in the name of a compelling interest, both are fundamental components of personal autonomy, and the state has a duty to respect said rights."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

So, you want to give people rehabilitation programs to get off drugs but you don't want to give people rehabilitation programs to let them live.

"I never stated the latter. Drug rehab, in most cases, is undertaken because patients want to end their addiction. Similarly, helplines and other programmes help those who, despite feeling suicidal urges, don't want to die. "
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

I don't know about you, but I actually strive to let people live long happy lives.

"If anything, that would describe me better than it describes you, because you actually strive to force people to live long, healthy, and happy lives. I want them to have a choice, which is the only way to let them live a happy life."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

Why would you EVER let a loved one or someone you know kill themselves?

"In the case of loved ones(and most people that I know), I respect them enough to let them exercise their autonomy. Allow me to ask you a question. Why would you ever force a loved one, or someone you know, to live a life that they are unwilling to live?"
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

"Didn't, uh, the World Assembly already legalize assisted suicide?"

"I believe that GA#598 is what you are looking for, and what the delegation from Floofybit should review."- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

pro-euthanasia people try to not be pro-suicide ghouls for 5 minutes challenge (impossible)

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Against for obvious reasons. There's no reason for the WA to run the clinics, and clause 3 prevents states from criminalizing drunk driving.

"Drunk driving does indeed pose a 'clear, specific, and serious safety or health hazard to the general public', so this would not prevent states from criminalising drunk driving."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Pangurstan]

Against for obvious reasons. There's no reason for the WA to run the clinics, and clause 3 prevents states from criminalizing drunk driving.

"Drunk driving does indeed pose a 'clear, specific, and serious safety or health hazard to the general public', so this would not prevent states from criminalising drunk driving."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

The safety exemption only allows members states to "restrict the consumption of a psychoactive drug," so nations can't discriminate against/punish drunk people by temporarily banning them from driving.

[Lounarei]

It should be the right of anyone to kill themselves?! So, you want to give people rehabilitation programs to get off drugs but you don't want to give people rehabilitation programs to let them live. I don't know about you, but I actually strive to let people live long happy lives. Why would you EVER let a loved one or someone you know kill themselves

"Didn't, uh, the World Assembly already legalize assisted suicide?"

"Wait, we did?" In an almost steadily concerned tone... "Excuse me I have to go make some calls--" As she gets up to exit the drafting room.
--Mésruu Kiimas, WA Ambassador to the Concordat of Lónaré

[Floofybit]

Why would you ever force a loved one, or someone you know, to live a life that they are unwilling to live?"

Why? A crappy life is better than no life. So many people have had terrible family lives, terrible work lives, terrible daily lives that would drive one into suicide, but they still achieved greatness. Who's to say that one's situation will not change for the better? Suicide is never the answer, and one who believes that suicide is a fundamental right does not truly love one another. As this and the assisted suicide document you showed, we continue to firmly stand against self harm and will attempt to repeal resolutions that attempt to assist self harm.

[Juansonia]

Why would you ever force a loved one, or someone you know, to live a life that they are unwilling to live?"

Why? A crappy life is better than no life.

"That may be true, but to refer to suicide-inducing conditions as 'crappy' is, at best, an attempt to severely downplay the situation."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

So many people have had terrible family lives, terrible work lives, terrible daily lives that would drive one into suicide, but they still achieved greatness.

"So many people have, despite living stable lives without suicidal thoughts, achieved nothing. Neither point is relevant to a discussion on individual autonomy."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

Who's to say that one's situation will not change for the better?

"Who is to say that it will get better, or that it won't get worse? Again, neither point is relevant."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

Suicide is never the answer

"Not even in situations where it has a demonstrable public benefit, such as what many call self-sacrifice?"
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

and one who believes that suicide is a fundamental right does not truly love one another.

"Those who prohibit suicide love their people the same way that an abusive partner loves their partner. That is, they love the idea of being with that person so much that they resort to threats of violence in order to prevent the abused from escaping. Actual lovers do not force each other to stay in a relationship, nor does a benevolent nation force its citizens to stay."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

As this and the assisted suicide document you showed, we continue to firmly stand against self harm and will attempt to repeal resolutions that attempt to assist self harm.

"That will be a challenge, as it was passed only 33 resolutions ago."- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

--snip--

pro-euthanasia people try to not be pro-suicide ghouls for 5 minutes challenge (impossible)[/spoiler]

"Why did you suggest that people cease to be people when they extend basic decency to a squeamish topic? I frankly don't see an intent better than a deliberate attempt to dehumanise those you disagree with. However, I am confident that you would not stoop to such a low. For the record, there are many pro-euthanasia people who wish to restrict the right to die to medical contexts, so your claim that all pro-euthanasia-choice people are pro-suicide-choice at least once per five minutes is demonstrably false."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"Following conversation with other ambassadors, I have made changes to what is now Section 4 such that the WSA's duty is now only the certification, rather than construction, of addiction services."

"We are glad that this proposal appears to indeed be perfect now."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States