[DEFEATED] Repeal "Drug Decriminalization Act"

[Altizena]

The delegation of the Allied States of Altizena votes in favor of the move to repeal the Drug Decriminalization Act. In agreement with the Stating section of the resolution proposed by Excidium Planetis, this is not a matter that should involve WA intervention on either end of the issue. Every nation possesses their own stance and methods for control/distribution of substances within their own territories, which our delegation believes that GAR#577 does not allow.

The Drug Decriminalization Act itself recognizes the rights of individual WA members to set their own rules:

Reaffirms the right of member states to set internal policy regarding drug trafficking, drug manufacturing, illicit drug possession, and the legal distribution and production of drugs, subject to past or future World Assembly resolutions.

However, it also states that all WA members must follow the basic rules set in this resolution:

Requires that member states , within the bounds of any past World Assembly resolutions;
decriminalize the act of simple drug possession and initiate a review process to re-evaluate the cases of those imprisoned and/or convicted of the act of simple drug possession

Altizena urges the World Assembly to overturn GAR #577, so that every member would regain their own right to choose whether or not to decriminalize substances. We are hoping that this would become a matter left up to separate members and regions- not the WA as a whole- so that every member can better determine what fits the unique beliefs and needs of their nation.

- Delegation of Altizena

Post Statement: Altizena recognizes the effort and passion on all sides of the issue- great points from both nations- Excidium Planetis and Greater Cesnica -who submitted resolutions.
Thanks for reading my little blurb, and happy voting, everyone!

[Ultrackia]

As a nation both in favor of decriminalization of drugs, and deeply intrested in the possibility of the WA as an early stage of a one world government (once sufficently revolutionary forces are in control of course), we must strongly oppose this resolution

[Tinhampton]

The following tag:template campaign is being sent by The Ice States to encourage supportive delegates to vote against the repeal:

Greetings!

I'm telegramming you because you appear to be voting for "Repeal 'Drug Decriminalization Act'". I would like to strongly urge you to reconsider your vote, and either withdraw your support, or change your vote to be in opposition.

The repeal makes two arguments: firstly, that the target is easily avoidable, as it allows member nations to "conside[r] even a small quantity of a given substance to be "for monetary gain" or...conside[r] simple possession to be with malice", and thus impose "potentially severe criminal penalties". Secondly, and more critically, it asserts that drug decriminalisation is "not [a] matte[r] of international law", and that the resolution "exist[s] solely to exert the WA's influence on member nations without regard for their individual situations". This forms the primary argument of the repeal -- ie national sovereignty.

The problem with this argument is that such a heavy-handed approach as penalising persons for their recreational drug possession has never worked in practice to actually reduce drug use or addiction. Meanwhile, where drug decriminalisation has been tried it has consistently yielded positive results. For example, after its decriminalisation of drugs, "Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana." [1]

In addition, there is a fundamental flaw with the approach of penalising persons for drug possession: the only individuals likely to be harmed as a result of simple drug possession is the possessor or user. This makes them a victim, rather than a culprit. Imprisoning persons for drug possession therefore represents an approach of penalising victims, which no member nation should be allowed to take; further, it is unlikely to actually deter persons from consuming or being addicted to drugs. The benefits are minimal, while the harms are maximal; nor has the criminalisation approach actually functioned anywhere it has been attempted.

While the World Assembly would technically still maintain the ability to decriminalise simple drug possession, the precedent that the World Assembly believes that nations should be allowed to punish victims in a wild goose chase is not one which should be enshrined into World Assembly law. The target certainly has a number of legitimate flaws; but these particular arguments should not be enshrined into World Assembly law.

Thanks,
~The Ice States/Magecastle,
14x WA author.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20090427145 ... 46,00.html

Since midnight BST, Creeperopolis (The League, 272 votes), Dawsinian (Wintreath, 114 votes), Ghazi-Rahman Ammar (Dar al Islam, 8 votes), and some smaller delegates have flipped to against. The proposal currently trails by 1,426 votes.

[Excidium Planetis]

"We do note, however, our rejection of the argument in the 'Arguing' clause. While possession of a certain quantity of drugs (even, we suppose, a relatively small quantity) could be circumstantial evidence that the possessor's purpose was to sell drugs for monetary gain, we do not think it would be a good faith interpretation of GAR #577 to say that mere possession of any quantity could establish purpose to sell as a matter of law. Implicit in GAR #577 is the ability to defend against drug possession charges on the grounds that the drugs - in whatever quantity - were not for sale or other monetary gain. For example, even if a person had fifteen kilos of raw uncut heroin, under GAR #577 they would still be able to defend against a criminal possession charge on the grounds that the drugs were for personal (or, I guess, charitable) use. It's the so called 'bulk-buyer' or 'Costco' defense."

"Similarly, we think 'malicious intent' can only be reasonably understood to require the state to prove a specific intent to hurt others or cause harm. Member Nations could not reasonably deem any and every possession to be with malicious intent; they would need actual evidence of the specific thing the possessor intended to do with the drugs."

- Deputy Ambassador Roweina

OOC:
(Marked OOC because I refer to GenSec)

While you may not find this line of argument convincing, it is nevertheless a reasonable reading of the target resolution. A majority of GenSec (3 out of 5) marked the repeal as legal prior to it going to vote, and as the Honest Mistake rule prohibits lying in repeals, I believe that is generally sufficient to say that the argument made is truthful.

Indeed, the argument was borrowed from Imperium Anglorum in his blog post Resolutions That Don't Do Anything, where IA points out that malice doesn't specifically mean "intent to harm others", it merely means there was "intent [to do bad]". When a criminal act is regarded to be committed with malice, it means the criminal had intended to commit the crime prior to committing it, not that they intended to harm someone, specifically. So the planned purchase of illegal drugs would be with malice, that is they intended to buy the drugs.

[Midlona]

The Federal Republic of Midlona strongly supports this resolution.

This resolution would repel General Assembly Resolution #577 "Drug Decriminalization Act." GAR. #577 is problematic for numerous reasons and deserves to be rendered null and void. While Midlona has already decriminalized the possession of marijuana, GAR. #577 actively harms public safety and is a gross infringement on national sovereignty from an international organization that has no business legislating such matters.

First, the language and justification for the text rests on a politically biased worldview and contested statistics. It reads like the paper of an undergraduate ideologue who is ranting against their parents at dinner. Whether its broadly generalizing an array of effective and tailored drug policies as "failures" or slandering the motivations of law enforcement officers, this resolution fails to account for the sincere and deeply rooted policy debate over how a country should regulate drugs and narcotics (GAR. #577 does not even mention the word "narcotic" once). But, of course, the "answer" in that debate depends on each country's public mood, political goals, culture, religion, and other contextual circumstances. Daftly proposing a uniform solution to such an issue is a fool's errand and beyond the dignity of the World Assembly.

That leads to Midlona's second contention: The World Assembly is not the correct institution to advance such broad-sweeping legislation on such a fact-specific, important, and controversial political and social issue. As if mandating the placement of a stamp or some other trivial decision, this resolution requires member states "decriminalize the 'simple' act of drug possession" (GAR. #577, 3(a)). This would apply to all currently illegal drugs and narcotics. The severe, life-altering consequences of such an action should be crystal clear. This provision alone justifies the repel of GAR. #577. Midlonaian citizens do not stand to benefit from more cocaine, heroin, or MDMA floating around in their communities. In no way does the increase in availability of drugs and narcotics that cause countless deaths across Midlona serve the public interest.

On the other hand, Midlona agrees that the sentencing for low level offenders should be tempered and reasonable. Our government provided for such policies in the Law Minister's "Memorandum on the Legalization of Marijuana". However, the Federal Republic of Midlona must not be forced to expend judicial and administrative resources on a review of all drug-related cases and sentences that were handed down in a nation that already benefits from superb political freedoms and a fair, working drug enforcement policy. Granting, otherwise unwarranted, clemency or amnesty for a inmate's actions that were illegal and improper when committed is an affront to the rule of law and principles of justice. Each inmate had their case adjudicated –fairly and justly– in a court of law. Their guilt was determined by a jury of their peers, unless they specifically requested a trail by judge. If there were any mitigating circumstances present in the defendant's life or in the circumstances of their offense, they were taken into consideration and accounted for in the sentencing process. So long as the government of Midlona intends to rightfully criminalize harmful, dangerous, and highly addictive substances, these cases and sentences are lawful, just, and will be rightfully executed.

Last, the definitions provided in GAR. #577, for terms like "simple drug possession" and "drug manufacturing", are too ineffective to hold up to judicial scrutiny in a variety of drug-related crimes. By defining "simple drug possession" in the negative (defining it by what it is not), GAR. #577 requires a highly limited and strict interpretation of what qualifies as simple drug possession. Provisions like 1(b)(2) provide no real insight into what a court of law is to recognize as "simple" possession compared to "complicated" possession.

Imagine Bob, with consent, gives his friend Sally 3.5 grams of cocaine while they are both at a party. Sally, wanting to have fun, asked Bob for cocaine. Bob, a great friend but also an avid cocaine user, begrudgingly gives Sally the last bit of cocaine he had. Sally thanks him and goes and ingests the cocaine with her friends. This clear instance of distribution would not be so clear according to GAR #577. A defendant's attorney could easily argue that no trafficking/distribution occurred. GAR. #577 requires malicious intent or monetary/material gain for trafficking (i.e. distribution) to have occurred. Here, neither occurred. Bob had no malicious intent; he was helping out his friend and genuinely wanted Sally to have a good time at the party. Bob also did not gain anything from his distribution. He was really looking forward to using that last bit, but sacrificed that pleasure to make his friend happy. If anything, he incurred a material detriment. The only thing he could have possibly gained was good will with a friend, which is far from a "material benefit."

The point is: GAR. #577 has serious textual and structural flaws that render most drug enforcement that goes beyond "simple possession" unworkable and potentially illegal.

For all of these reasons, the Federal Republic of Midlona must vote in support of this resolution. GAR. #577 must be repealed. We strongly encourage all member states to help in this effort.

[Ranshao Dehuli]

I ain’t readin allat but the law sounds like shit

[Kenmoria]

I ain’t readin allat but the law sounds like shit

(OOC: Kindly consult GA #122: Read the Resolution Act. Anyway, the very short version of this proposal is that targeted resolution allowed some loopholes, and it targeted an area of legislation which the repeal argues should be left to member-nations.)

[Therimenjas]

The matter of individual states rejecting decriminalization via a careful reading of the law is inherently a matter of bad faith interpretation of the law. It is clearly the intention of the law targeted for repeal that decriminalization should proceed.

Furthermore, the law targeted creates an international framework for drug decriminalization, reducing friction between member states with differing laws on drug possession. This strengthens international cooperation to suppress the dangerous black market in recreational drugs, reducing the potential issue whereby nations with relatively lax laws become sources of drugs.

[The Ice States]

"Repeal "Drug Decriminalization Act"" was defeated 11,074 votes to 4,404.

Good riddance.

[Midlona]

The matter of individual states rejecting decriminalization via a careful reading of the law is inherently a matter of bad faith interpretation of the law. It is clearly the intention of the law targeted for repeal that decriminalization should proceed.

Furthermore, the law targeted creates an international framework for drug decriminalization, reducing friction between member states with differing laws on drug possession. This strengthens international cooperation to suppress the dangerous black market in recreational drugs, reducing the potential issue whereby nations with relatively lax laws become sources of drugs.

We'll repel this badly written resolution one day.