09-28-2005, 09:06 PM
Thanks to you both for your comments. The fact that many nations object on grounds that they shouldn't be told how to run their countries is precisely why this makes the perfect human rights test case. If the right to freedom cannot pass, how can any other right be sanctioned by the UN? The right to know what is in the food you eat? I mean no offense, but that has less to do with international issues than punishments for drug offenses. Look at RL foreign policy. The main labeling issue on the international agenda is GMO, which isn't even addressed by the resolution. Drug policy and extradition, meanwhile, are both huge issues in foreign affairs. Food labeling is also ridiculously unimportant in relation to not being incarcerated. [As a sidenote, the people of Lazy days have clearly voiced their demand for specific labeling of any good sold in the country. These comments only reflect the act of forcing other countries to establish similar laws.]
As far as being international, the drug trade (both recreational and medicinal) is one of the largest industries in the world. I'm pretty sure it's much much larger than agricultural trade. But regardless of that, the right to be free from unwarranted imprisonment is a much more established and sought after right to enforce on other nations (which is what a NSUN resolution on human rights is, forcing other countries to do something they don't want to do) than is forcing other countries to put the right languages and nutritional information on their products and to not misuse organic and fresh.
I don't want to make this a practical argument about legalization, because that matter is essentially settled. There are plenty of reasons to make certain drugs illegal, but they have nothing to do with making society better. The justification for a law is a lot different than the actual affects of a law. Proponents of criminalization can claim anything they want. It doesn't change the facts; namely, that drug laws are inconsistently applied, hypocritical, ignorant of science, and do more harm than good. They are extremely immoral. Study alcohol prohibition in the United States if you simply refuse to believe the facts.
This resolution does not prevent a country from banning alcohol or Vicadin or whatever. It simply makes it illegal to lock someone up for drinking alcohol or taking Vicadin or growing marijuana and so on.
Respectfully submitted,
Special Commission on Human Rights in Lazy days
As far as being international, the drug trade (both recreational and medicinal) is one of the largest industries in the world. I'm pretty sure it's much much larger than agricultural trade. But regardless of that, the right to be free from unwarranted imprisonment is a much more established and sought after right to enforce on other nations (which is what a NSUN resolution on human rights is, forcing other countries to do something they don't want to do) than is forcing other countries to put the right languages and nutritional information on their products and to not misuse organic and fresh.
I don't want to make this a practical argument about legalization, because that matter is essentially settled. There are plenty of reasons to make certain drugs illegal, but they have nothing to do with making society better. The justification for a law is a lot different than the actual affects of a law. Proponents of criminalization can claim anything they want. It doesn't change the facts; namely, that drug laws are inconsistently applied, hypocritical, ignorant of science, and do more harm than good. They are extremely immoral. Study alcohol prohibition in the United States if you simply refuse to believe the facts.
This resolution does not prevent a country from banning alcohol or Vicadin or whatever. It simply makes it illegal to lock someone up for drinking alcohol or taking Vicadin or growing marijuana and so on.
Respectfully submitted,
Special Commission on Human Rights in Lazy days