10-09-2005, 02:37 PM
Lazy daysOct 8 2005, 10:16 PM The people of Lazy days believe they have successfully demonstrated the gross inconsistency by which the claim to national sovereignty is applied. The essential complaint by respondents about this hypothetical resolution is that it in effect forces countries to legalize drugs (it doesn't, by the way; there are a wide variety of punishments besides jail time, not the least of which is the act of being convicted of a drug crime itself). The very fact that people claim this is really about legalizing drugs reveals just how absurd it is to claim as a human rights issue the right to know what is in the food people eat. [/quote]
No, you're missing the point. We have a category for recreational drugs in the UN, and that's where this resolution belongs in the current way it's written. This is a different issue from whether we agree with the point or not; it's something the mods will punish you for and we're trying to help you prevent that. It also has nothing to do with national sovereignity; in fact, though I doubt a majority will agree with me in the whole NSUN, I'd be for legalizing drugs.
Also, if I follow the reasoning of your explanation, then what's the point of this resolution? People can't be put in jail for drug use etc, but the death penalty is still an option. Or forced treatment. Both worse than jail. So what are you trying to accomplish?
Quote: When the people of Lazy days objected to the labeling resolution because it forced some countries to do things they don't want to do, they were politely and not so politely told their place; namely, that they should leave the UN if they wanted to argue something so backward and pass? as the right for national leaders to judge for themselves the best course of action for their country. With a very simple and straightforward resolution, one that addresses a far more important human rights issue than whether something is organic or not, it has been clearly demonstrated that in fact national sovereignty is alive and kickin'.[/quote]
Resolutions based purely on National Sovereignity rarely get a majority. This is because it's silly to join up the UN voluntarily and then complain that the UN shouldn't tell you how to run your country. The UN is either pointless or tells you how to run your country. But that's another discussion.
No, you're missing the point. We have a category for recreational drugs in the UN, and that's where this resolution belongs in the current way it's written. This is a different issue from whether we agree with the point or not; it's something the mods will punish you for and we're trying to help you prevent that. It also has nothing to do with national sovereignity; in fact, though I doubt a majority will agree with me in the whole NSUN, I'd be for legalizing drugs.
Also, if I follow the reasoning of your explanation, then what's the point of this resolution? People can't be put in jail for drug use etc, but the death penalty is still an option. Or forced treatment. Both worse than jail. So what are you trying to accomplish?
Quote: When the people of Lazy days objected to the labeling resolution because it forced some countries to do things they don't want to do, they were politely and not so politely told their place; namely, that they should leave the UN if they wanted to argue something so backward and pass? as the right for national leaders to judge for themselves the best course of action for their country. With a very simple and straightforward resolution, one that addresses a far more important human rights issue than whether something is organic or not, it has been clearly demonstrated that in fact national sovereignty is alive and kickin'.[/quote]
Resolutions based purely on National Sovereignity rarely get a majority. This is because it's silly to join up the UN voluntarily and then complain that the UN shouldn't tell you how to run your country. The UN is either pointless or tells you how to run your country. But that's another discussion.