[Antrium]

Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: Jey

Description: The UN,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many citizens of UN states wish to consume recreational drugs for many purposes,

AFFIRMING that all people have a right to their own body,

CONSIDERING that responsible recreational drug use harms only the individual user,

BELIEVING that criminalization of recreational drugs is an ineffective and unjust deterrent,

RECOGNIZING that responsible cultivation and preparation of certain plant-based drugs for personal consumption does not create public health hazards,

SEEKING to legalize consumption of these plant-based drugs where it does not involve direct physical harm to others,

1.DEFINES as recreational drugs for the purpose of this resolution: Amanita muscaria, Cannabis, Coffee, Ergot, Kava, Mescaline-containing cacti, Psilocin- and psilocybin-containing fungi, Qat, Salvia divinorum, Tea, Tobacco,

2.LEGALIZES in UN states the possession, cultivation, and preparation of said drugs, given these activities do not directly and physically harm others,

3.LEGALIZES in UN states the consumption of said drugs on private property, with the owner's consent, and public property, with the appropriate authorities' consent,

4.STRONGLY URGES states to illegalize the practice of deceiving or coercing others into using said drugs, except when administered legally for medicinal purposes by an authorised individual,

5.PERMITS member states to:

I)Place age restrictions on the activities described in Articles 2 and 3, to a maximum of the national age of majority,

II)Restrict individuals under the influence of said drugs from operating vehicles and heavy/dangerous machinery, pursuing occupational labor, or performing any acts in which being under the influence of said drugs could immediately, directly, physically harm others,

III)Give law enforcement authorities the right to detain - at their discretion but subject to other applicable laws and with the utmost respect for individual freedom of expression and conscience - any individual or group under the influence of said drugs who:

a)Cause significant public disturbance, with the intent or effect of causing physical injury, property damage, or severe distress to others,

b)Put others at significant risk of physical injury,

6.ESTABLISHES the UN Drug Commission to:

I)Monitor the medical safety of said drugs,

II)Advise on further issues concerning recreational drug laws,

III)Call for the seizure or destruction of known contaminated recreational drugs,

7.AFFIRMS that this resolution affords intoxicated persons who physically harm others no protection from prosecution and sentencing under applicable laws,

8.NOTES this resolution does not cover the administration of said drugs for medicinal purposes by health workers,

9.URGES all states to further relax their drug laws, by expanding the definition of recreational drugs to other substances, and creating a legal framework under which they may be legally procured,

10.REQUESTS that states support organizations and initiatives for voluntary rehabilitation of those affected by drugs, education on responsible drug use, and prevention of illegal and harmful acts resulting from drug use,

11.URGES states to ensure that their populations have easy access to scientifically accurate, value-neutral information concerning the effects of drug use, and that suppliers of said drugs are not allowed to make false claims about them.

Co-Authored by: _Myopia_

[Fonzoland]

A worthy proposal, with goals we share. However, we do not see the misguided bans on drugs in other UN member nations as being a serious restriction of human rights. As such, we do not believe the UN has the right to restrict their sovereignty on this matter.

If there was a risk of other international legislation on drugs being passed, we would support this effort. That risk is very limited, so we are happy with a legal void. Against.

[Lawtonia]

Naming specific drugs and defining them as the recreational drugs is not the way to go, all it does is narrows down what can be called a recreational drug.

If this proposal were to pass It would be preferable for it to be based on the legalisation of Naturally Occuring substances which are not only used for recreation but are used for religious and cultural practices and are not as large a crime and health problem as synthetic drugs and trafficking.

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

It seems to me that this list should include alcohol, if it includes coffee, tea, tobacco, and cannabis...

J-T stands against. There has not been enough evidence to show that some of these drugs should only be classified as "Recreational". The list is far too restrictive. Many of these drugs also cause physical harm to others, especially tobacco (unless you would be restricted from smoking where others are present, which is too hard to enforce, or would ban smoking it, which doesn't seem to be the point).

This also does not legalise the sales of drugs, only the cultivation. Could this mean you can only grow your own? I don't see this happening with most consumers... and governments could still restrict access through sales bans. It "URGES" the creation of methods to legally procure them, but it doesn't demand it.

I feel this infringes too far on NatSov. Absolutely not supporting this.

[Fonzoland]

Quote: It seems to me that this list should include alcohol, if it includes coffee, tea, tobacco, and cannabis...[/quote]

The author intentionally left alcohol out, as the production of alcohol involves significant (and potentially dangerous) processing. All the drugs listed are plants which require little or no processing.

Quote: J-T stands against. There has not been enough evidence to show that some of these drugs should only be classified as "Recreational". The list is far too restrictive. Many of these drugs also cause physical harm to others, especially tobacco (unless you would be restricted from smoking where others are present, which is too hard to enforce, or would ban smoking it, which doesn't seem to be the point).

This also does not legalise the sales of drugs, only the cultivation. Could this mean you can only grow your own? I don't see this happening with most consumers... and governments could still restrict access through sales bans. It "URGES" the creation of methods to legally procure them, but it doesn't demand it.[/quote]

To be clear:
The proposal forces you to legalise growing, producing, carrying, and consuming in private places.
You are still allowed to ban buying, selling, and consuming in public property. If you do ban it, then users would only be able to access self-grown products, and use them in their homes.

Quote: I feel this infringes too far on NatSov. Absolutely not supporting this.[/quote]

Undoubtedly it does.

[Lawtonia]

I feel that alcohol and tobacco are adequately covered under other forms of legislation. Naturally occuring drugs should not be listed as science is constantly discovering new species of plants and finding new medicinal and recreational uses of them. If we lock into specific drugs then it leaves a big grey area if we discover others.

Rather than looking at legalizing specific recreational drugs we should look at which drugs are used recreationally - that includes medicinal/prescription drugs and then decide which ones should be decriminilised for personal use and for possession.

This is a really big issue with so many angles - it cant be summed up in one simplified resolution.

[Groot Gouda]

I will vote for this, despite the narrow definition.

[The Dominion of BigRedCat]

1. Recreational drug use and drug control should be left to each nation.

2. As the use of drugs for recreational purposes is not a human right and therefore not an area of concern for the UN.

3. Drug related criminal activities have an impact on international security, econonic and political relations, which are areas of concern for the UN. None of those aspects are addressed in this resolution beyond limited de-criminalization, which should be done at the discretion of each nation.


We do not support this.

[Groot Gouda]

The Dominion of BigRedCatFeb 19 2006, 02:20 PM 1. Recreational drug use and drug control should be left to each nation.
[/quote]
Recreational drugs should be left to each individual. It's their body, not the government's.

Quote: 2. As the use of drugs for recreational purposes is not a human right and therefore not an area of concern for the UN.[/quote]

The sovereignity over one's own body is very much a human right, privacy is a human right, and therefor this is a UN concern.

Quote: 3. Drug related criminal activities have an impact on international security, econonic and political relations, which are areas of concern for the UN.  None of those aspects are addressed in this resolution beyond limited de-criminalization, which should be done at the discretion of each nation.[/quote]

Drug related criminal activities are there because nations make drugs criminal. If they're traded legally like alcohol is now, you'll see much less criminal activity. Cars are used in criminal activity, airplanes are, yet we don't outlaw them.

In short: what I want to put in my body is my, and only my, concern. Not the government's. If I want to get drunk, I get drunk. If I want to get stoned, I get stoned. As long as I don't bother other people, stay out of my business.

[The Dominion of BigRedCat]

Quote: 
The sovereignity over one's own body is very much a human right, privacy is a human right, and therefor this is a UN concern.
[/quote]

We do not agree.

Personal sovereignty is lent to the state via social contract. The amount of personal sovereignty retained by the individual varies from people to people and over time and circumstance. We believe that a nation's sovereignty is derived from it's people. The extent to which a people wish to invest sovereignty in their nation will vary from nation to nation. The UN historically supports national self determination exepting flagrant abuses of national agression and human rights.

A government could be said to be violating the human rights of it's citizens by not meeting their needs or preventing them from reasonably meeting their own needs. Recreational drug is use a want and not need. Human wants are unlimited. We do not belive that the UN's proper role is to fulfill unlimited human wants.

Quote: 
In short: what I want to put in my body is my, and only my, concern. Not the government's. If I want to get drunk, I get drunk. If I want to get stoned, I get stoned. As long as I don't bother other people, stay out of my business.
[/quote]


Perhaps, but that is an issue that should be decided on a nation by nation basis, in our opinion.

[Grosseschnauzer]

I have a problem with the inclusion of coffee and tea in the resolution.

Those are not generally considered to be "drugs."

The entire scheme of the resolution's framework as applied to coffee and tea is nonsensical. While there are cultural and religious traditions in some places against the use of either coffee or tea, or both, these classifications predate scientific treatment of the compounds found naturally occuring in coffees and teas. Coffee consumption is a tradition of the schnauzerlands, although we're too cold a climate to grow coffee and teas. This proposal has the poential of disruption of our traditions based upon this mis-classification in the proposal.

Accordingly, we are AGAINST the resolution as it currently reads.

[Fonzoland]

GrosseschnauzerFeb 20 2006, 12:19 AM I have a problem with the inclusion of coffee and tea in the resolution.

Those are not generally considered to be "drugs."

The entire scheme of the resolution's framework as applied to coffee and tea is nonsensical. While there are cultural and religious traditions in some places against the use of either coffee or tea, or both, these classifications predate scientific treatment of the compounds found naturally occuring in coffees and teas. Coffee consumption is a tradition of the schnauzerlands, although we're too cold a climate to grow coffee and teas. This proposal has the poential of disruption of our traditions based upon this mis-classification in the proposal.

Accordingly, we are AGAINST the resolution as it currently reads. [/quote]
I am sorry, but I don't get your point. It is well established that caffeine is a drug, and it does not bar consumption in any way.

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

Quote: Personal sovereignty is lent to the state via social contract. [/quote]

This is highly debatable. The social contract theory has a lot of holes, and besides, there are many forms of it. I do not believe that this is a viable reason to infringe on personal sovereignty. To say that the people decide how much sovereignty to devolve to the government is problematic because many government systems were made before the current participants were born, and without the input of a majority of their constituents. Therefore, I don't think this argument holds water. While this is somewhat tangental to the main discussion, I believe it applies.

On the other hand, I don't think it is up to the UN to decide this, either. I agree that it is each individual nation's decision, and their members. If a truly democratic decision is to be reached that respects personal sovereignty, an impersonal body like the UN is not the place to do it.

I maintain my opposition to this bill; it infringes too strongly on NatSov. While I accept the counterarguments that Fonzoland made to my earlier statement (though I still have reservations about the problem of trafficking), this remains a strong enough concern for me to maintain my opposition.

Edit: I do believe coffee and tea should be included in this resolution, as it is not the drinks as such, but caffeine, that is at issue here. Perhaps the way they were included is problematic, but their inclusion itself is not.

[The Dominion of BigRedCat]

Jonquiere-TadoussacFeb 20 2006, 02:20 AM Quote: Personal sovereignty is lent to the state via social contract. [/quote]

This is highly debatable. The social contract theory has a lot of holes, and besides, there are many forms of it. I do not believe that this is a viable reason to infringe on personal sovereignty. [/quote]
Aside from force, how else do govenments derive authority but by the consent of the governed?

[Fonzoland]

Jonquiere-TadoussacFeb 20 2006, 02:20 AM I maintain my opposition to this bill; it infringes too strongly on NatSov. While I accept the counterarguments that Fonzoland made to my earlier statement (though I still have reservations about the problem of trafficking), this remains a strong enough concern for me to maintain my opposition. [/quote]
Note that they weren't really counterarguments, merely clarifications from someone who followed the drafting debate. I am with you on NatSov.

[Grosseschnauzer]

There are naturally grown coffee beans and tea leaves that are considered naturally decaffinated, so the premise of the resolution is in fact, flawed.

[Fonzoland]

GrosseschnauzerFeb 20 2006, 03:33 AM There are naturally grown coffee beans and tea leaves that are considered naturally decaffinated, so the premise of the resolution is in fact, flawed. [/quote]
Still, if they are harmless, surely legalising them presents no problems...

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

The Dominion of BigRedCatFeb 19 2006, 07:37 PM Jonquiere-TadoussacFeb 20 2006, 02:20 AM Quote: Personal sovereignty is lent to the state via social contract. [/quote]

This is highly debatable. The social contract theory has a lot of holes, and besides, there are many forms of it. I do not believe that this is a viable reason to infringe on personal sovereignty. [/quote]
Aside from force, how else do govenments derive authority but by the consent of the governed? [/quote]
Apathy. How many people actually make an effort to change their governments? No, this doesn't really derive consent, but most of that which is considered acceptance is apathy. Why do you think so many young people don't vote.

I also wouldn't rule out the use of force even in a liberal democracy. In any developed country, if you try to change the government (even an unjust one) through methods outside the current system, you become a traitor. They use force to hold down rebellions, even though countries such as France and the US became liberal democracies through rebellions.

Again, I admit this is tangental to the issue at hand, and I apologise if anyone feels I've wasted their time with this. I just feel that the social contract is an invalid and nonexistant model, created by philosophers as an abstract device, but having no bearing on the way societies are really organised.

[Groot Gouda]

The Dominion of BigRedCatFeb 20 2006, 12:44 AM Quote: 
The sovereignity over one's own body is very much a human right, privacy is a human right, and therefor this is a UN concern.
[/quote]

We do not agree.

Personal sovereignty is lent to the state via social contract. [/quote]
I disagree. You're born free. After that, other people and governments take some freedom away, but they can only do so if the individual consents in that, or other people's freedom needs to be protected. There is no social contract, just mutual agreeing.

Quote: The amount of personal sovereignty retained by the individual varies from people to people and over time and circumstance.  We believe that a nation's  sovereignty is derived from it's people.  The extent to which a people wish to invest sovereignty in their nation will vary from nation to nation.  The UN historically supports national self determination exepting flagrant abuses of national agression and human rights. 

A government could be said to be violating the human rights of it's citizens by not meeting their needs or preventing them from reasonably meeting their own needs.    Recreational drug is use a want and not need.  Human wants are unlimited.  We do not belive that the UN's proper role is to fulfill unlimited human wants.[/quote]

Not unlimited, but it should also not be limited too much. Quite aside from all the other advantages of legal drugs (less crime, less use, more responsible use, more opportunities for education), it's fundamentally about freedom. My body is my responsibility. If I want to use drugs, why should a government have any business with that? What makes a government more suitable to decide about that than me myself?

Quote: Quote: 
In short: what I want to put in my body is my, and only my, concern. Not the government's. If I want to get drunk, I get drunk. If I want to get stoned, I get stoned. As long as I don't bother other people, stay out of my business.
[/quote]


Perhaps, but that is an issue that should be decided on a nation by nation basis, in our opinion.[/quote]

How can a nation decide about that? It should be decided on a person-to-person basis. A government needs only be concerned when it's causing negative side-effects for other people (eg drink-driving).

National government is the wrong level to decide on this. UN level too, but this resolution puts it out of UN and national hands and gives it to the people.

[The Dominion of BigRedCat]

Quote: 
I disagree. You're born free. After that, other people and governments take some freedom away,
[/quote]

I never said that you were not born free. If I had made that assumption then the individual would have no sovereignty to lend and government would have no basis but force.

As far as taking freedom, then that is deriving authority by force. If by consent, or apathy (nods to Jonquiere-Tadoussac) then that is lending (as one can never theoretically give sovereignty) sovereignty. When this is done actively or passively is not germaine.


Quote: 
but they can only do so if the individual consents in that,  or other people's freedom needs to be protected. There is no social contract, just mutual agreeing.
[/quote]

Mutual Agreement? Gee, that would be a sort of . . . social contract?

Quote: 
How can a nation decide about that? It should be decided on a person-to-person basis.
[/quote]

Election? Referendum? Ballot Initiative? Plebicite?

Quote: 
A government needs only be concerned when it's causing negative side-effects for other people (eg drink-driving).
[/quote]

Like the social impact of legalization? That talking about nothing more than scale, rather than perogative.

Quote: National government is the wrong level to decide on this. UN level too, but this resolution puts it out of UN and national hands and gives it to the people.
[/quote]

How is it NOT in national hands without this resolution passing?

Further, marijuana legalization is one of our NS issues. In the Dominion of BigRedCat, we have opted to legalize it.


Legalization of recreational drug is something than many people feel passionate about on both sides of the issue. I don't happen to care all that much either way. For the most part I find the issue silly. I will say that this has been an interesting discussion on national vs personal sovereignty and on how the authority of government is derived. =)

[Eisophca]

Ceorana votes AGAINST.

If we had angels in our police force, we could support this tentatively, because it gives us the power to crack down on most bad uses of drugs that harm other people.

However, we don't. In fact, it receives almost no funding. Many people will get drugs, legally, on their own property, and then smuggle them into public property to coerce others to try them. Yes, we can outlaw coercing, but we won't be able to enforce it very well, because we actually have to see them in the act of coercing, which may take only a few seconds. If we could outlaw drugs altogether, we can crack down on it at any time: before, during or after the coercing takes place.

[Groot Gouda]

The Dominion of BigRedCatFeb 21 2006, 05:43 PM Quote: 
How can a nation decide about that? It should be decided on a person-to-person basis.
[/quote]

Election? Referendum? Ballot Initiative? Plebicite? [/quote]
That's not personal. That's a majority deciding for the rest, but my neighbours are in no position to decide on what I put into my body.

Quote: Quote: 
A government needs only be concerned when it's causing negative side-effects for other people (eg drink-driving).
[/quote]

Like the social impact of legalization? That talking about nothing more than scale, rather than perogative.[/quote]

Yes, well, obviously it's going to be safer if drugs are legal, but unfortunately not all governments make that decision.

Quote: Quote: National government is the wrong level to decide on this. UN level too, but this resolution puts it out of UN and national hands and gives it to the people.
[/quote]

How is it NOT in national hands without this resolution passing? [/quote]

It is in national hands, and some nations abuse that to deny people their rights. This resolution bypasses governments and lets people decide.

[The Dominion of BigRedCat]

Quote: It is in national hands, and some nations abuse that to deny people their rights. This resolution bypasses governments and lets people decide.[/quote]


I see your point. I just happen to disagree with you on this issue =) The debate was good. It just goes to show that intellectually honest people of goodwill can have differences of opinion.

[Fonzoland]

The Dominion of BigRedCatFeb 21 2006, 06:32 PM I see your point. I just happen to disagree with you on this issue =) The debate was good. It just goes to show that intellectually honest people of goodwill can have differences of opinion. [/quote]
And it confirms the reasons why I chose this region to live. The level of debate here is so much higher than in jolt...

[Antrium]

This proposal is now at vote.

I'll plan on casting the region's vote on Tuesday night (Central Time)