[Draft]Freedom to Use Nicotine

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

Freedom to Use Nicotine

Category: Recreational Drug Use
Strength: Legalize

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that some citizens, subjects and/or residents of member states choose to ingest nicotine through various means,

Observing that in most cases use of nicotine does not pose grave social harm,

Aware that different means of ingesting nicotine pose different levels of threat to health,

Hereby:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
A. Nicotine Product: any product which contains nicotine with quantities sufficient to be psychoactive, and is not intended for purposes other than ingesting nicotine;
B. Tobacco Product: any nicotine product physically containing the leaves and/or stems of the plants from the genus Nicotiana, such items include but are not limited to smokeless tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, and pipe tobacco;
C. Vapor Product: any nicotine product which is used through the process of vaporization of a carrier substance and does not involve combustion of the carrier substance, such as electronic cigarette fluid;
D. Associated Product: any non-nicotine product, or non-tobacco product which is used in association with the acts of vaping or smoking, such items include but are not limited to, pipes, lighters, tampers, ash trays and vaping devices;
E. Smoking: the act of burning a tobacco product for the purposes of inhaling the smoke thereof, in order to ingest nicotine;
F. Vaping: the act of vaporizing a carrier liquid nicotine product without burning it for the purposes of ingesting nicotine, I.E. as in an electronic cigarette;
G. Smokeless Tobacco: any tobacco product whose use does not require the act of smoking or vaping in order to ingest nicotine, such products include but are not limited to chewing tobacco, oral snuff, nasal snuff and snus;

2. Requires member states to permit the ownership, sale and use of nicotine products, tobacco products, vapor products, and associated products by adult citizens, subjects and/or residents;

3. Permits member states to regulate, tax and/or restrict to adults nicotine products, tobacco products, vapor products and associated products as is deemed necessary and appropriate;

4. Permits member states to regulate nicotine products designed for and intended for medical use as they would any other medical drug or device;

5. Permits member states to regulate or restrict advertisements for nicotine products as deemed necessary and appropriate;

6. Allows member states to promote nicotine abstinence and/or harm reduction strategies in anti-smoking campaigns, if applicable, as deemed necessary and appropriate.

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

Reserved for edit notes

[Essu Beti]

Iksana shrugs. "We're fine with tobacco, but not the precedent this sets. Essu Beti would be completely for it if it didn't open the way for proposals that across-the-board legalize other drugs."

[NeoOasis]

Isn't nicotine already legal, or is there a GA Resolution that has banned it? It seems fairly redundant, and I'd argue going into the territory of government overreach.

Why not expand it to marijuana and other drugs as well? Seems a bit bizarre to enshrine nicotine usage within this document.

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

"Theoretically speaking, any international law which legalizes use of a substance could be used as justification to legalize other substances. That being said, I would imagine that in most cases nicotine products and associated products are already legal in member states." Ser Dawrin Stone said. "I don't see where this would prohibit member states from regulating the us of, sale of, taxation of, or prohibition of other drugs."

[Essu Beti]

Isn't nicotine already legal, or is there a GA Resolution that has banned it? It seems fairly redundant, and I'd argue going into the territory of government overreach.

Why not expand it to marijuana and other drugs as well? Seems a bit bizarre to enshrine nicotine usage within this document.

"What, other drugs too? My nation isn't having any of that. Marijuana and other drugs are illegal in Essu Beti and will continue to be illegal no matter how much the layabouts try to sneak it in."

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

Isn't nicotine already legal, or is there a GA Resolution that has banned it? It seems fairly redundant, and I'd argue going into the territory of government overreach.

Why not expand it to marijuana and other drugs as well? Seems a bit bizarre to enshrine nicotine usage within this document.

"At present, there is no resolution prohibiting or regulating the use of nicotine. As such it would fall under national legislation. The purposes of this draft is to legalize the recreational use of nicotine across the board. As to marijuana, we would not oppose legalizing that either."

[Thermodolia]

Ambassador I feel that this proposal isn't worth the WA's time. Drug laws are more of a national problem not an international or supernational one.

[NeoOasis]

Ambassador I feel that this proposal isn't worth the WA's time. Drug laws are more of a national problem not an international or supernational one.

I'd have to agree on this matter. I feel that drug matters are best left up to other nations as some may have flat out banned it on the issues of health reasons. Much as I like how the proposal is written, I'm not sure we need this kind of superfluous law.


Though reading over it again, I do take two major issues with it if it were to come to vote.

>Aware that different means of ingesting nicotine pose different levels of threat to health.
I feel that replacing threat with "risk" to health would work better in this case.


Also not sure if you should look at replacing ingesting nicotine with consuming. Please take note as inhaling is not ingesting, and ingesting smokeless tobacco is not recommended. (Snus is a trademarked name of a product and may be breaking in game stuff/rules/character?)

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

Ambassador I feel that this proposal isn't worth the WA's time. Drug laws are more of a national problem not an international or supernational one.

I'd have to agree on this matter. I feel that drug matters are best left up to other nations as some may have flat out banned it on the issues of health reasons. Much as I like how the proposal is written, I'm not sure we need this kind of superfluous law.


Though reading over it again, I do take two major issues with it if it were to come to vote.

>Aware that different means of ingesting nicotine pose different levels of threat to health.
I feel that replacing threat with "risk" to health would work better in this case.


Also not sure if you should look at replacing ingesting nicotine with consuming. Please take note as inhaling is not ingesting, and ingesting smokeless tobacco is not recommended. (Snus is a trademarked name of a product and may be breaking in game stuff/rules/character?)

OOC: By and large I agree, however, I don't doubt that there are those who wish to impose drugs prohibitions through the WA as well so it seems prudent to at least have drafts on hand. I believe I told someone else where that when it comes to proposals you'll draft ten before you get one at vote, and of ten of those, maybe one will make it.

I'll definitely see about replacing threat with risk and consume with ingest.

As for the word snus, it is not a trademarked word. It is the Swedish word for snuff, it would be like saying tampon is a trademarked word and violates the RL reference rule in a proposal that regulates feminine hygiene products.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus

[NeoOasis]

As for the word snus, it is not a trademarked word. It is the Swedish word for snuff, it would be like saying tampon is a trademarked word and violates the RL reference rule in a proposal that regulates feminine hygiene products.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus

I withdraw my complaint on that specific issue. Looks like I've learned something new today after all.

[Kitsco]

Several reasons as to why nicotine should be banned from public places... The several health concerns caused by tobacco out weighs the benefits of citizens using it. Chewing tobacco, has direct links to gum diseases. Cigarettes, lung cancer, gum diseases. Not to mention nicotine is an addictive drug with next to no medical benefits. Such as Cocaine, heroin, meth, all of these pose serious health risks and concerns not just to the individual taking in said substance, but the families surrounding the individual. I do believe this would be a simple no..

[Christian Democrats]

5. Permits member states to regulate or restrict advertisements for nicotine products as deemed necessary and appropriate;

How would this clause not violate Resolution 30, Freedom of Expression?

[Uan aa Boa]

OOC: By and large I agree, however, I don't doubt that there are those who wish to impose drugs prohibitions through the WA as well so it seems prudent to at least have drafts on hand. I believe I told someone else where that when it comes to proposals you'll draft ten before you get one at vote, and of ten of those, maybe one will make it.

If you're concerned about the prospect of a future resolution outlawing these products then you should propose a blocker resolution that reserves to each nation the decision on the legality or otherwise of drugs. There's no call to pre-empt an attack on national sovereignty by means of an attack on national sovereignty.

[Bears Armed]

"You're presuming that Nicotine has comparable effects in all sapient species, then?"

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

[Ledaj]

I would like to respond to the concern expressed by the respected representative of Christian Democrats:

5. Permits member states to regulate or restrict advertisements for nicotine products as deemed necessary and appropriate;

How would this clause not violate Resolution 30, Freedom of Expression?

I agree that in its current wording the quoted portion of the proposal could reasonably be construed to apply to advertisements made by individuals as well as organizations. However it could also be construed to address the presumably much more common advertisements by organizations only, not advertisements made by individuals. The proposal could be amended to make this distinction clear.

The above argument is based on my interpretation of GAR #30, which may be sadly outdated due to my dearth of knowledge relating to legal precedent relating to this resolution. However, based on my reading, the text of the resolution itself only protects the free speech rights of 'people' and 'individuals'. I would interpret this as not protecting the rights of organizations.

Therefore I recommend to the author of this proposal that the quoted portion be clarified so as to ensure it does not contradict GAR #30, assuming that my interpretation of GAR #30 is correct.

-Ronald Helmwsorth, Delegate of Ledaj to the General Assembly.
Edit: Fixed typo

[Essu Beti]

"You're presuming that Nicotine has comparable effects in all sapient species, then?"

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

Iksana shrugs and flicks his tail. "To be fair, if we banned everything that might have an adverse effect on someone, we'd have to ban everything. I wouldn't be surprised if there was someone allergic to water here. And for nicotine, I'm pretty sure that if your biology is sensitive to it to the point that you get high and become absolutely useless for work, your biology is sensitive enough that it'll just kill you."

[Separatist Peoples]

"So nations can still tax nicotine products at a rate of 1000%? No complaints, then."

[Christian Democrats]

I would like to respond to the concern expressed by the respected representative of Christian Democrats:

How would this clause not violate Resolution 30, Freedom of Expression?

I agree that in its current wording the quoted portion of the proposal could reasonably be construed to apply to advertisements made by individuals as well as organizations. However it could also be construed to address the presumably much more common advertisements by organizations only, not advertisements made by individuals. The proposal could be amended to make this distinction clear.

The above argument is based on my interpretation of GAR #30, which may be sadly outdated due to my dearth of knowledge relating to legal precedent relating to this resolution. However, based on my reading, the text of the resolution itself only protects the free speech rights of 'people' and 'individuals'. I would interpret this as not protecting the rights of organizations.

Therefore I recommend to the author of this proposal that the quoted potion be clarified so as to ensure it does not contradict GAR #30, assuming that my interpretation of GAR #30 is correct.

-Ronald Helmwsorth, Delegate of Ledaj to the General Assembly.

Resolution 30 says that "all people" have a right to express themselves. In the preceding clause and in a subsequent clause, the resolution mentions "individual[s], group[s] or organization[s]." It seems to me that the term "all people" is supposed to cover all people -- natural or artificial. A business, church, or labor union, therefore, has the same free expression rights as a businessman, cleric, or laborer.

[Essu Beti]

"Businesses, churches, and labor unions aren't people though. Can a business go to school? Can a church get a job? Can a labor union go to jail?"

[Ledaj]

Resolution 30 says that "all people" have a right to express themselves. In the preceding clause and in a subsequent clause, the resolution mentions "individual[s], group[s] or organization[s]." It seems to me that the term "all people" is supposed to cover all people -- natural or artificial. A business, church, or labor union, therefore, has the same free expression rights as a businessman, cleric, or laborer.

Sir,
The distinction that I see between the resolution's reference to 'people/individuals' and 'individuals, groups or organizations' is as follows:
The resolution protects the speech of people and individuals, not individuals, groups or organizations.
The resolution limits people and individuals' right to free speech by prohibiting them from defaming individuals, groups or organizations.
Whether you had already taken note of this distinction, and formed the above opinion regardless, I am unaware, however I wished to explain the above as my justification for my differing interpretation of GAR#30.
Thank you for helping me to clarify the contemporary interpretation of this resolution.

-Ronald Helmwsorth, Delegate of Ledaj to the General Assembly.

[Christian Democrats]

The resolution protects the speech of people and individuals

Exactly. The resolution protects the speech of people and individuals. People, therefore, must mean something different from individuals. If the terms were supposed to be synonymous, then only one of them would have been used (people or individuals), and "individual[s], group[s] or organization[s]" would have said "people, group[s] or organization[s]."

Do you think it would be legitimate under Resolution 30 for a nation to prohibit labor unions from endorsing labor parties?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Labour_parties

A labor union is not an individual, but it is a person as that term is ordinarily used in legal contexts.

Ditto with a tobacco company.

[Araraukar]

Exactly. The resolution protects the speech of people and individuals.

"People", however, usually refers to the multiple of individual sapient creatures, not organizations.

[Ledaj]

Delegate Helmsworth's eyes receded behind his eyelids as he focused his memory. Finally, he seemed to come to a conclusion, and walked to the corner of the room where the GA resolution compendium sat. Flipping open the dusty, neglected pages, Helmsworth found the full text of GAR#30.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... s/start=29
"Respected delegate,
I believe that the resolution never provides rights to 'people and individuals', therefore the resolution does not imply that these are separate categories.
I would agree that the resolution is unclear:
'Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;
Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;' (GAR#30)
These two lines do not designate whether they are both referring to two different groups - 'people' and separately, 'individuals' - or to one group by two names. I believe it could be reasonably interpreted in either way. However regardless of how this is interpreted, I would argue that nowhere in GAR#30 does the author suggest that 'people' refers to any others than individual sapient beings."
Helmsworth looked at the floor for a full thirty seconds, as if he had forgotten what he was to say. Finally he closed the resolutions compendium and looked up, a clearer look across his visage.
"Therefore to answer your question, sir, I would claim that under GAR#30, governments are allowed to regulate a Labor Union's right to endorse a political party. This is because the act never clearly protects the rights of 'people' meaning organizations, and never clearly separates the term 'people' from the term 'individuals' which clearly does not include organizations."
-Ronald Helmsworth, delegate of Ledaj to the General Assembly

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

5. Permits member states to regulate or restrict advertisements for nicotine products as deemed necessary and appropriate;

How would this clause not violate Resolution 30, Freedom of Expression?

OOC:
I will have to review GAR#30; however, the intention behind section 5 is to permit member states to prohibit advertiments by corporations or companies which produce nicotine and/or tobacco products as defined by this proposal. For example, a member state may wish to prohibit cigarette advertisements on television and/or radio, as many RL countries do.