[DEFEATED] Drug Abuse Amelioration Act

[Bongo Johnson]

The Bongo Johnson delegation feels that, while the Incorporated States of Bongo Johnson have similar laws on the books, this issue is not necessarily something that merits a General Assembly decree - memberstates would be better served drafting national legislature catered specifically to the interests of that nation rather than attempt a "one size fits all" resolution.

[Zubrowczka]

Can I give some constructive feedback on the proposal?

It sucks
1.) a.) It doesn't delineate between caffeine and black tar heroin
b.) vague enough to allow ECT
2.) Moot
3.) a.) No guidelines on intent to use vs intent to deliver
b.) Weak and nonbinding
4.) a.) Vague
b.) Vague
c.) Moot (unless you added some sort of DWI-esque added charge)
d.) Moot given it's not going to be their first possession with intent to use at any point ever
5.) a&b.) Should be a separate issue, and doesn't provide any sort of penalty

Also the whole concept is miserable

[Kenmoria]

(OOC:

Can I give some constructive feedback on the proposal?
It sucks

I believe the concept is a good one, and the execution is fair. I don’t see why there is such a push against this proposal, but can probably guess it’s down to people misunderstanding the legislative text.

1.) a.) It doesn't delineate between caffeine and black tar heroin

That doesn’t matter, since the proposal doesn’t legalise or criminalise either, merely restrict possible punishments and put mandates on labelling. There shouldn’t be an issue with banning punitive sentences for caffeine users nor requiring ingredients to be clearly stated.

b.) vague enough to allow ECT

I don’t think electroconvulsive therapy is ‘scientific’.

2.) Moot

That is what is commonly called a blocker clause, as it blocks future GA legislation on the subject.

3.) a.) No guidelines on intent to use vs intent to deliver

This is not accurate in relation to the proposal text. Clause 3a specifically mentions ‘the sole intent of using the recreational drugs’ in its text, thus excluding intent to sell.

b.) Weak and nonbinding

There is nothing wrong with a non-mandatory clause; they are very commonly used.

4.) a.) Vague
b.) Vague

How are they vague? The two clauses seem precise enough to me.

c.) Moot (unless you added some sort of DWI-esque added charge)

These latter two clauses of 4 are intended to be clarificative, not to provide additional content.

d.) Moot given it's not going to be their first possession with intent to use at any point ever

The World Assembly has a collective population in the trillions according to game mechanics and at least the octillions according to roleplay, so it is not too unlikely a scenario.

5.) a&b.) Should be a separate issue, and doesn't provide any sort of penalty

I think the topics work well together, though I do acknowledge here there are valid reasons for thinking that they don’t. However, penalties for this are decided by the Administrative Compliance Act, which will fine member nations wherein there are noncompliant businesses.)

[Coconut Palm Island]

While Coconut Palm Island supports the spirit and intent of this legislation, we must vote against it. The King, specifically, feels that the act will coerce people into treatment. We believe treatment is not effective unless entered voluntarily. Also, our Constitution bans the government from regulating what citizens' do with their own bodies-- this explicitly includes consumption of narcotics.

We do, however, support the work to lessen penalties for first time users. However, that is not how addiction works-- one cannot be "scared straight" after a first offense, and relapse is literally a symptom of the disease of substance abuse disorder. We would prefer legislation that:

1) Makes treatment available for everyone who voluntarily enters.
2) Focuses more on outpatient treatment options, such as medication assisted therapy. Noting that inpatient rehabilitation often doesn't promote long-lasting recovery.
3) Protects users, whether it is their 1st offense or their 100th.
4) Allows users to get safe, properly labeled drugs from the government of a nation, or a corporation so authorized by the government.

[Araraukar]

3) Protects users, whether it is their 1st offense or their 100th.
4) Allows users to get safe, properly labeled drugs from the government of a nation, or a corporation so authorized by the government.

OOC: These won't make it through the WA-wide vote. I mean, first-timer leniency with specified "nations can decide if drugs are illegal or not" didn't (though I think that last bit could be made even clearer because obviously it was misunderstood at least a couple of times).