by First Nightmare » Sat Nov 30, 2024 11:24 pm
by The Overmind » Sun Dec 01, 2024 12:01 am
by Tesseris » Sun Dec 01, 2024 12:04 am
The Overmind wrote:Opposed in principle. Unilateral substance bans create niche markets for organized crime to carve out power with, and punish people with addictions, without actually addressing the source of addiction or substantially reducing the use of the unilaterally banned substance. The effects of such carceral approaches also disproportionately affect the working class, the impoverished, and people with disabilities. A proposal that perhaps has its heart in the right place, but is demonstrably doomed to create issues that don't already exist without solving the ones that do already exist.
God is not our king, and Humanity will win!
by First Nightmare » Sun Dec 01, 2024 3:32 am
The Overmind wrote:Opposed in principle. Unilateral substance bans create niche markets for organized crime to carve out power with, and punish people with addictions, without actually addressing the source of addiction or substantially reducing the use of the unilaterally banned substance. The effects of such carceral approaches also disproportionately affect the working class, the impoverished, and people with disabilities. A proposal that perhaps has its heart in the right place, but is demonstrably doomed to create issues that don't already exist without solving the ones that do already exist.
by Bilancorn » Sun Dec 01, 2024 3:36 am
by Cerespasia » Sun Dec 01, 2024 3:39 am
CERES IS BACK!
And I want some more..!
NSStats executed via full auto magdump from M55B Battle Rifle.
by First Nightmare » Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:04 am
by Fanvm Tax » Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:07 am
by Russian Brotherhood » Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:09 am
by First Nightmare » Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:13 am
Fanvm Tax wrote:Support, people should do fentanyl instead.
by Okona » Sun Dec 01, 2024 11:14 am
Bilancorn wrote:Opposed as it will only increase the black market of tobacco, as well as leaving many workers without jobs, after the closure of plantations and industries related to tobacco. If you want a smoking ban, do it in your own nation, but dont force it on us and other nations.
by Tinhampton » Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:02 pm
by The Overmind » Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:41 pm
Tinhampton wrote:Opposed. But would this also not be illegal for contradicting GA#657 "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" (a resolution which I ironically also oppose)?
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Dec 01, 2024 7:10 pm
Tinhampton wrote:Opposed. But would this also not be illegal for contradicting GA#657 "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" (a resolution which I ironically also oppose)?
by Simone Republic » Sun Dec 01, 2024 8:39 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Tinhampton wrote:Opposed. But would this also not be illegal for contradicting GA#657 "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" (a resolution which I ironically also oppose)?
The core argument of Old Hope's proposal is that smoking harms bystanders (second hand smoke, tar inhalation, etc). Having member nations restrict it falls within the exception provided in GA 657 s 3 which permits member nations to "prosecute, punish, or penalise any individual for their consumption of a psychoactive drug [if it poses] a clear, specific, and imminent danger to the health or safety of other individuals".
by First Nightmare » Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:02 pm
The Overmind wrote:Tinhampton wrote:Opposed. But would this also not be illegal for contradicting GA#657 "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" (a resolution which I ironically also oppose)?
Although I'm not persuaded that banning a method of substance use doesn't introduce the same problems as banning the substance itself when that method is the primary or only means of the use of that substance, I'm not sure that it runs afoul of GA#657, which, if I'm reading it right, does leave open this loophole. Even banning the only method by which a substance is used, or primarily used, doesn't fall afoul of the good faith mandate of GA#654 "The Civil Charter Of The World Assembly" because that mandate only applies to member nations, and not the legislative intent or effects of future GA proposals/resolutions.
by Dushina » Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:29 pm
by The Overmind » Sun Dec 01, 2024 9:53 pm
First Nightmare wrote:The Overmind wrote:Although I'm not persuaded that banning a method of substance use doesn't introduce the same problems as banning the substance itself when that method is the primary or only means of the use of that substance, I'm not sure that it runs afoul of GA#657, which, if I'm reading it right, does leave open this loophole. Even banning the only method by which a substance is used, or primarily used, doesn't fall afoul of the good faith mandate of GA#654 "The Civil Charter Of The World Assembly" because that mandate only applies to member nations, and not the legislative intent or effects of future GA proposals/resolutions.
First, smoking is harmful to bystanders.
Second, whilst it may be a prominent means of using a substance it is not the only means for using a substance - to our knowledge (e.g. tobacco has many smokeless consumption methods). So no, this isn't bad faith trying to ban a substance by banning its only method of consumption - that's incorrect.
by Yelda » Sun Dec 01, 2024 10:07 pm
Simone Republic wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:The core argument of Old Hope's proposal is that smoking harms bystanders (second hand smoke, tar inhalation, etc). Having member nations restrict it falls within the exception provided in GA 657 s 3 which permits member nations to "prosecute, punish, or penalise any individual for their consumption of a psychoactive drug [if it poses] a clear, specific, and imminent danger to the health or safety of other individuals".
I personally dislike smoking (and smokers) and I think the "harms bystanders" argument has legs because of secondhand smoke. The rest will not because of GA#657.
by First Nightmare » Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:08 am
Dushina wrote:What exactly is meant by, "Saddened that many member nations have not the unsafe consumption method of smoking," in this case? I've read this proposal over a number of times, yet I am still confused by that line.
If you could go into more detail on that front, it'd be highly appreciated.
Opposed -- a ban on specific varieties of smoking does not attack the root of the problem; the tobacco usage itself.
Bilancorn wrote:Opposed as it will only increase the black market of tobacco, as well as leaving many workers without jobs, after the closure of plantations and industries related to tobacco. If you want a smoking ban, do it in your own nation, but dont force it on us and other nations.
The Overmind wrote:First Nightmare wrote:First, smoking is harmful to bystanders.
Second, whilst it may be a prominent means of using a substance it is not the only means for using a substance - to our knowledge (e.g. tobacco has many smokeless consumption methods). So no, this isn't bad faith trying to ban a substance by banning its only method of consumption - that's incorrect.
You have a habit of being defensive without reading. Please take the time to reread my defense of your proposal's legality.
by First Nightmare » Tue Dec 03, 2024 9:58 am
by First Nightmare » Sat Dec 07, 2024 4:42 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Lord Dominator, Skaladoria, The Ice States, The United Royal Islands of Euramathania
Advertisement