[PASSED] Repeal "Drug Decriminalization Act"

[The Ice States]

Replacement. Please note that this effort is supported by the target author, who is also co-authoring the replacement. This is now GA #648.

As an example of the flaw as to presumptions for intent to distribute, see Singapore's "Misuse of Drugs Act", which makes three grams of cocaine or two grams of heroin sufficient to deem the intent to be to distribute (spoilered below...)

17. Any person who is proved to have had in his possession more than —

(a) 100 grammes of opium;
(b) 3 grammes of morphine;
(c) 2 grammes of diamorphine;
(d) 15 grammes of cannabis;
(e) 30 grammes of cannabis mixture;
(f) 10 grammes of cannabis resin;
(g) 3 grammes of cocaine;
(h) 25 grammes of methamphetamine;
(ha) 113 grammes of ketamine; or
(i) 10 grammes of any or any combination of the following:
(i) N, α-dimethyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine;
(ii) α-methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine; or
(iii) N-ethyl-α-methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine,

whether or not contained in any substance, extract, preparation or mixture, shall be presumed to have had that drug in possession for the purpose of trafficking unless it is proved that his possession of that drug was not for that purpose.

The World Assembly,

Respecting the goal of the resolution to decriminalise the simple possession of psychoactive drugs, with the criminalisation thereof being an inefficient policy proven to cause massive societal harm and punish victims, instead of actually reducing drug addiction and use,

Dismayed that the resolution's definition of a "drug" excludes any substance with "recognized medical purposes", a very broad criterion which includes many recreational drugs such as morphine or fentanyl, thus opening up recreational users of such drugs to the harms the resolution aims to prevent,

Further noting that 1b.i of the resolution does nothing to prevent member nations from setting a broad rebuttable presumption that any quantity of drugs is "for the purposes of monetary or material gain", with such presumptions usually being very difficult or impossible to rebut, further allowing member nations to de facto criminalise simple drug possession,

Believing that these problems significantly weaken the resolution's protections, such that they should be repealed and replaced with stronger legislation on the subject,

Repeals the "Drug Decriminalization Act".

Co-author: Imperium Anglorum

[The Ice States]

Drafts burnt for Americanised spelling.

The World Assembly,

Praising the goal of the resolution to internationally decriminalise the simple possession of drugs, with the criminalisation thereof being an inefficient policy proven to cause massive societal harm and punish victims, instead of actually reducing drug addiction and use,

Believing, therefore, that legislation on this matter ought to be comprehensive and effective in its goals,

Shocked that the resolution's definition of a "drug" excludes any "substance used for recognized medical purposes", thus excluding such drugs as morphine, fentanyl, or marijuana which can be both abused and used for recognised medical purposes,

Asserting that the simple possession of a drug should not be criminalised merely because that drug also happens to have a recognised medical use,

Repeals the "Drug Decriminalization Act".

[El Lazaro]

Against until the spelling is corrected to American English. Also, it appears the definition is simply clarifying that “drug” in the resolution refers to substances solely in contexts where they are illegal to use, and contrasts this to generally legal drugs or circumstances where the drug is legal to use. It is still decriminalizing illegal uses of situationally legal drugs, however.

[Potted Plants United]

Against until the spelling is corrected to American English. Also, it appears the definition is simply clarifying that “drug” in the resolution refers to substances solely in contexts where they are illegal to use, and contrasts this to generally legal drugs or circumstances where the drug is legal to use. It is still decriminalizing illegal uses of situationally legal drugs, however.

OOC: And this is why American use of "drug" to refer to legal medications is confusing as fuck.

Support in principle for the repeal.

[The Ice States]

Against until the spelling is corrected to American English.

Absolutely not.

Also, it appears the definition is simply clarifying that “drug” in the resolution refers to substances solely in contexts where they are illegal to use, and contrasts this to generally legal drugs or circumstances where the drug is legal to use. It is still decriminalizing illegal uses of situationally legal drugs, however.

I find it rather explicit that the resolution's exception applies to a "substance used for recognized medical purposes"; not to the use itself. Regardless of whether it was intentional, and even if your interpretation is indeed possible for member nations to take, nations seeking to criminalise drugs would merely have to follow the interpretation in the repeal.

[Greater Cesnica]

"We concede that our Delegation could have taken a more thorough, less faulty approach to drug decriminalization. We appreciate that this draft does not negate the authority of this Chamber to legislate on such matters. As such, we support this repeal, and the replacement led by the same authoring Delegation.

[The Ice States]

Bump. This will be submitted when the repeal by Excidium Planetis finishes vote.

[The Ice States]

Bumping again.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: a repeal is not needed to address the problem of 'morphine possession' being criminalised, as the resolution does not affect medical drugs at all. A companion resolution may be necessary, but this repeal is yet another one in a line of repeals for the sake of repealing. That said, in spite of this ridiculously weak argument we support anyways. The argument could be complete gibberish if it removes this gang-creating resolution and allows nations to return to normalcy, provided the replacement is not submitted of course.

[The Ice States]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: a repeal is not needed to address the problem of 'morphine possession' being criminalised, as the resolution does not affect medical drugs at all. A companion resolution may be necessary, but this repeal is yet another one in a line of repeals for the sake of repealing. That said, in spite of this ridiculously weak argument we support anyways. The argument could be complete gibberish if it removes this gang-creating resolution and allows nations to return to normalcy, provided the replacement is not submitted of course.

"Theoretically, yes a companion legislation could be drafted without this repeal. However, it is likely to be opposed on the basis that 577 ostensibly addresses drug decriminalisation, such that repeal and replace is preferible. It is also, for the sake of efficiency, preferible to have all legislation relating to drug decriminalisation in one resolution, rather than two, with one only intended as a band-aid fix for a flaw in the other. Also, you can rest assured that the replacement will be submitted."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: a repeal is not needed to address the problem of 'morphine possession' being criminalised, as the resolution does not affect medical drugs at all. A companion resolution may be necessary, but this repeal is yet another one in a line of repeals for the sake of repealing. That said, in spite of this ridiculously weak argument we support anyways. The argument could be complete gibberish if it removes this gang-creating resolution and allows nations to return to normalcy, provided the replacement is not submitted of course.

"Theoretically, yes a companion legislation could be drafted without this repeal. However, it is likely to be opposed on the basis that 577 ostensibly addresses drug decriminalisation, such that repeal and replace is preferible. It is also, for the sake of efficiency, preferible to have all legislation relating to drug decriminalisation in one resolution, rather than two, with one only intended as a band-aid fix for a flaw in the other. Also, you can rest assured that the replacement will be submitted."

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: How do you know that for sure? Can you name literally anyone that would oppose a 'Medical Drugs Act' solely because hard drugs had already been decriminalised? Also, it is certainly NOT preferable to have cough syrup and heroin roped into the same resolution. There is nothing wrong with another detailed resolution that would much more efficiently solve the problem of member nations supposedly banning medical marijuana possession, especially since the two topics of hard drugs and medical drugs have significant differences. An omnibus will sacrifice needed distinctions and details to make a resolution that either encroaches too much or is easy to dodge, which would hinder your overall policy goal much more than the existence of this resolution.

[The Ice States]

"Theoretically, yes a companion legislation could be drafted without this repeal. However, it is likely to be opposed on the basis that 577 ostensibly addresses drug decriminalisation, such that repeal and replace is preferible. It is also, for the sake of efficiency, preferible to have all legislation relating to drug decriminalisation in one resolution, rather than two, with one only intended as a band-aid fix for a flaw in the other. Also, you can rest assured that the replacement will be submitted."

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: How do you know that for sure? Can you name literally anyone that would oppose a 'Medical Drugs Act' solely because hard drugs had already been decriminalised? Also, it is certainly NOT preferable to have cough syrup and heroin roped into the same resolution. There is nothing wrong with another detailed resolution that would much more efficiently solve the problem of member nations supposedly banning medical marijuana possession, especially since the two topics of hard drugs and medical drugs have significant differences. An omnibus will sacrifice needed distinctions and details to make a resolution that either encroaches too much or is easy to dodge, which would hinder your overall policy goal much more than the existence of this resolution.

"What substantial difference in policy is there between a resolution which decriminalises the possession of cocaine or LSD, and one which decriminalises the possession of heroin or fentanyl?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Tinhampton]

Kevin Mitchell, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: I was told by Alex Smith to attend to this debate with the intention I talk to ANSC about something else... not this. But I'll talk about this anyway. Firstly, why do you argue that criminalisation does not succeed at "reducing drug addiction" when it is very likely that your co-author's proposal - literally on Reducing Addiction - will pass by the time this repeal does? And secondly, what is the benefit of allowing people to hold "morphine or fentanyl" for recreational purposes, as opposed to forbidding them?
The Tinhamptonians support your proposal in its most basic element. Unfortunately, we do not condone the arguments made. I will not be able to convince you or McCooley otherwise.

Delegate-Ambassador Smith: (Don't tell him, but he was actually pencilled in for a meeting with Ambassador Stubbe... that's why he's third-in-line.)

[The Ice States]

"Missions who have not yet noticed the target's allowance for broad presumptions of intent to distribute should be able to debate this flaw with the argument's addition to the repeal. Imperium Anglorum is also now a co-author."

Kevin Mitchell, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: I was told by Alex Smith to attend to this debate with the intention I talk to ANSC about something else... not this. But I'll talk about this anyway. Firstly, why do you argue that criminalisation does not succeed at "reducing drug addiction" when it is very likely that your co-author's proposal - literally on Reducing Addiction - will pass by the time this repeal does? And secondly, what is the benefit of allowing people to hold "morphine or fentanyl" for recreational purposes, as opposed to forbidding them?
The Tinhamptonians support your proposal in its most basic element. Unfortunately, we do not condone the arguments made. I will not be able to convince you or McCooley otherwise.

"Criminalisation does not succeed at 'reducing drug addiction' as it makes persons fearful to seek help for addiction, as they may be prosecuted. It also has the effect of perpetuating stigma against drug addicts, which further has the effect of making persons fearful to seek help. Further, it simply does not serve as a substantial deterrent against being addicted to drugs. Accordingly, the benefit of decriminalisation in general is what makes it beneficial and necessary for simple possession of 'morphine or fentanyl' to be decriminalised."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Kenmoria]

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “I would like to, uh, support this proposal-” The gnome holding the tablet through which Smith is displayed drops it, and the next few minutes of the speech are entirely inaudible. The gnome’s usual competence and perfection falls short of trying to find a quite small object among the rows and rows of seating, much like a phone down the back of a sofa. “-That’s why it has to be supported.” Smith seems oddly proud of himself, finally looking at the camera to see the reaction.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Fullest support.

[Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands]

Both of the 'flaws' can be fixed without a repeal.

#1: I would word this very carefully. GA#124 'Essential Medications Act' allows access to recreational drugs for medical purposes, which will include morphine and marijuana. Also consider that resolution when drafting your replacement, because there may be issues with contradiction.

#2: I don't agree that this is an issue. Whether or not a nation sets this presumptuous limit or not, the intent to distribute and profit from the drugs must be there. In the eyes of the IAO, they will of course see through such a farce if there's no solid evidence to back up the nation's claims that X is a drug dealer. Thus, I don't see anyone logically using this loophole to try and dodge the resolution.

[The Ice States]

Both of the 'flaws' can be fixed without a repeal.

#1: I would word this very carefully. GA#124 'Essential Medications Act' allows access to recreational drugs for medical purposes, which will include morphine and marijuana. Also consider that resolution when drafting your replacement, because there may be issues with contradiction.

This is not what the repeal says. The target seems to allow member nations to criminalise recreational possession of drugs. Also, would you care to explain how my replacement is illegal?

#2: I don't agree that this is an issue. Whether or not a nation sets this presumptuous limit or not, the intent to distribute and profit from the drugs must be there. In the eyes of the IAO, they will of course see through such a farce if there's no solid evidence to back up the nation's claims that X is a drug dealer. Thus, I don't see anyone logically using this loophole to try and dodge the resolution.

The IAO has access to no more evidence than a member nation has in whether a person's possession of a drug is, in fact, with intent to distribute. Therefore, if a presumption for intent to distribute can be proven wrong by the IAO, it would also be rebutted in a member nation's court of law. Otherwise, the resolution does not make it clear that the burden lies on the member nation to positively demonstrate that the possession is, indeed, with intent to distribute, which would amount to the IAO presuming member nations guilty until proven innocent.

[Wallenburg]

Dismayed that the resolution's definition of a "drug" excludes any substance with "recognized medical purposes", thus allowing member nations to criminalise the simple possession of such drugs as morphine or fentanyl as they can be both abused and used for recognised medical purposes,

This is technically true, but I'm not sure whether it is sufficiently close to the subject matter of the target to have relevance. It is comparable to arguing to repeal GAR #39 "The Right to a Lawful Divorce" because it allows member states to ban cohabitation by recently divorced individuals. Technically true, but there's nothing about it that prevents the WA from legislating on that area, either. Can you make an argument for the relevance of your claim?

[The Ice States]

Dismayed that the resolution's definition of a "drug" excludes any substance with "recognized medical purposes", thus allowing member nations to criminalise the simple possession of such drugs as morphine or fentanyl as they can be both abused and used for recognised medical purposes,

This is technically true, but I'm not sure whether it is sufficiently close to the subject matter of the target to have relevance. It is comparable to arguing to repeal GAR #39 "The Right to a Lawful Divorce" because it allows member states to ban cohabitation by recently divorced individuals. Technically true, but there's nothing about it that prevents the WA from legislating on that area, either. Can you make an argument for the relevance of your claim?

Is allowing the recreational possession of drugs like fentanyl or morphine not relevant to a resolution wanting to decriminalise the recreational possession of drugs?

[Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands]

Also, would you care to explain how my replacement is illegal?

Potentially, your proposal's mandate that no 'punishment, penalise, prosecute' may impinge on the nation's allowance to enforce permits to obtain medical drugs. You'll also like to know that I did not declare your proposal illegal, I simply said to check.

The IAO has access to no more evidence than a member nation has in whether a person's possession of a drug is, in fact, with intent to distribute. Therefore, if a presumption for intent to distribute can be proven wrong by the IAO, it would also be rebutted in a member nation's court of law. Otherwise, the resolution does not make it clear that the burden lies on the member nation to positively demonstrate that the possession is, indeed, with intent to distribute, which would amount to the IAO presuming member nations guilty until proven innocent.

Except it can't be rebutted in a court of law. If you violate the legal limit of cocaine possession in Nation X, you've broken the law no matter what your intentions are and will be punished. However, the IAO does not have such presumptions. Thus, when they see that Nation X has been jailing people without an actual intent to distribute, they'll declare them noncompliant.

Is allowing the recreational possession of drugs like fentanyl or morphine not relevant to a resolution wanting to decriminalise the recreational possession of drugs?

Yes. And it can be covered by a separate resolution. A repeal is not needed.

[The Ice States]

Also, would you care to explain how my replacement is illegal?

Potentially, your proposal's mandate that no 'punishment, penalise, prosecute' may impinge on the nation's allowance to enforce permits to obtain medical drugs. You'll also like to know that I did not declare your proposal illegal, I simply said to check.

The phrase "subject to past World Assembly law still in force" will be appended to the enacting clause of that proposal.

The IAO has access to no more evidence than a member nation has in whether a person's possession of a drug is, in fact, with intent to distribute. Therefore, if a presumption for intent to distribute can be proven wrong by the IAO, it would also be rebutted in a member nation's court of law. Otherwise, the resolution does not make it clear that the burden lies on the member nation to positively demonstrate that the possession is, indeed, with intent to distribute, which would amount to the IAO presuming member nations guilty until proven innocent.

Except it can't be rebutted in a court of law. If you violate the legal limit of cocaine possession in Nation X, you've broken the law no matter what your intentions are and will be punished. However, the IAO does not have such presumptions. Thus, when they see that Nation X has been jailing people without an actual intent to distribute, they'll declare them noncompliant.

I don't know how to respond to this other than that this is not how it usually works. In Singapore (the example cited in the OP), the limits apply unless "it is proved that [the person's] possession of that drug was not for that purpose [intent to distribute]". Likewise, in California it is a permitted defense against charges of intent to distribute to demonstrate that the intent was personal use. In New Zealand "the burden of proof lies on [the defendant]" to show that the possession was not with intent to distribute, if the drug was possessed at a high enough quantity for such a presumption to be made.

If the target argued that member nations would set non-rebuttable presumptions of intent to distribute, your defense would be correct. However, the repeal's text quite clearly speaks only about rebuttable presumptions (the type discussed in the above paragraph).

Is allowing the recreational possession of drugs like fentanyl or morphine not relevant to a resolution wanting to decriminalise the recreational possession of drugs?

Yes. And it can be covered by a separate resolution. A repeal is not needed.

Technically, sure, but why have a second resolution as a band-aid solution for a flaw in the other, when they can just be combined into one resolution? I really do not see the difference between a resolution decriminalising LSD or cocaine, and one decriminalising fentanyl or even meth.

Edited to fix typos.

[Chipoli]

Stefan Savych and the Chipolian delegation: "Full support. The original resolution effectively does nothing, and we hope replacement resolution will be swift and effective. "

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Support, though will oppose the replacement.

[The Ice States]

"With the outcome of the previous vote to repeal this target, we have submitted this. We understand that some missions may be fatigued from just having had to debate a previous repeal of this same target, but a pro-decriminalisation repeal such as this one is necessary to get rid of such flawed legislation once and for all. In addition, we remind missions that this has well over a month until it gets to vote, so missions which oppose this repeal due to the replacement should consider that there is still a long time in which the replacement can be worked on before submission."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.