We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Democratic Liberal Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2084
Description[?]:
| This bill seeks to amend existing National Health Legislation, specifically Article Two: http://aiglesrv.no-ip.info:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=8157 This act was passed seven years ago, legalising hard drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine. The SDLP believe that the existing legislation should be amended to recriminalise these substances, and to restrict legally available drugs to those that occur naturally, ie. cannabis (including hybrid breeds of sativa and indica, commonly known as "skunk") and magic mushrooms (more specifically, the active ingredients within them; psilocybin and psilocin). Regulations put in place by the previous act such as licensing, a government watchdog, punishment for DUI and locations for acceptable usage will be unchanged by this bill. Guideline sentences for infringement of the law will be community service for persistent minor offenders and rehabilitation for heavy drug users (this includes addicts). Major suppliers (not street corner dealers) would receive moderate jail time. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The recreational drug policy.
Old value:: There are no laws regulating what citizens can put into their bodies.
Current: All naturally occurring drugs are legal.
Proposed: All naturally occurring drugs are legal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:09:21, July 20, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | I can't criminalize drug use. It will cause more problems then it will help. |
| Date | 02:13:59, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | If the regulations are unchanged then why mess with the current law that 's been in place for seven years? |
| Date | 02:59:05, July 20, 2005 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | Criminalization leads to many more problems. If legalized, these drugs fall under the jurisdiction of the government and can therefore be monitored, regulated, etc. A fine RL example would be the United States' ill-fated War on Drugs, which has ultimately been a colossal failure. Not only are drugs as readily available in that nation as they ever have been, but countless taxpayer dollars are wasted in the futile attempt to keep these substances out of the country. Where their is demand, there will always be a market. |
| Date | 03:07:11, July 20, 2005 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | *there, excuse me. |
| Date | 03:30:06, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | I agree with CSP. Criminalizing drugs causes a blackmarket culture which creates gangs and other undersirables. The drug war is the biggest waste of time and money ever spent in the US, amd what has it gotten us? Super potent crystal meth, potent heroine that costs $5 dollard a bag and more cocaine inthis country then 20 years ago. And dont forget the 4 million Americans locked up in jail for drug offenses. Its a waste of time. |
| Date | 10:01:14, July 20, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | Another point is that if the hard drugs are shown to be dangerous to the health then they can be banned by the aforementioned watchdog under the current legislation. Only if they are not dangerous would they be legal at present and there would be no reason for this bill! |
| Date | 19:50:40, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | @LPU: "It will cause more problems then it will help" How can restricting open supply of heroin, which can be instantly addictive, cause more problems than it will help? "If the regulations are unchanged then why mess with the current law...?" The point we're making is that the bill would not remove the watchdog, DUI offences etc. but would simply redefine which drugs are legal. "Criminalizing drugs causes a blackmarket culture which creates gangs and other undesirables" Legalising drugs causes an excessive burden on the health service from ODing hard drug users, medium-to-long term rehabilitation for addicts and increased anti-social behaviour and crime in order to fund a user's habit. Criminilisation does not cause the emergence of gang culture. Demand does that, and the most effective way of reducing demand (not necessarily existing demand, but certainly future demand from new users) is to make the supply, possession and consumption of hard drugs an illegal activity. "Dont forget the 4 million Americans locked up in jail for drug offenses. Its a waste of time." On this one we agree, which is why we support a policy of community service for persistent minor offenders and rehabilitation for heavy drug users (this includes addicts). Major suppliers (not street corner dealers) would receive moderate jail time, say around 5 years. We have altered the proposal to reflect this. More to follow! |
| Date | 20:22:04, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | @UB: "If the hard drugs are shown to be dangerous to the health then they can be banned by the aforementioned watchdog" Current legislation is very clear, there is NO LAW regulating what citizens can or cannot put into their bodies. If this is the case, and let's face it, the entirety of any drug legislation revolves around the relevant proposal, how can any recreational drug be banned, no matter how harmful it may be. |
| Date | 21:15:45, July 20, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | We cannot support this; there are many benefits to decriminalisation. 1. By allowing government moderated, clean heroin on prescription to addicts we can ensure that they are weaned off the habits, and that no other chemicals are present in the drug. This makes it safer, reduces the risk of overdose and will save lives. 2. By decriminalising drugs and havin gthem moderated by the government, drugs gangs who peddle their wares throughhout the world will be dramatically reduced. 3.No victim - no crime. Recriminalising drugs use leads to an increase in punishments to otherwise innocent people: victims of drugs. Don't victimise them, help them! We are for the decriminalisatio of all drugs; believing this helps towards a safer society and saving lives. |
| Date | 22:07:06, July 20, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | If you want to put it like that then the whole of the bill description contradicts the proposal - and it is not the only bill to do so. |
| Date | 22:28:03, July 20, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | National Health Legislation: Article 2, Recreational Drug Usage. - Wouldn't it have been a better title if it had been: National Health Legislation: Article 2, Recreational Drug Usage, Ammendment. ? |
| Date | 22:29:01, July 20, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | Why it came out like that, I have no idea... ^ ^ |
| Date | 23:30:32, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | Actually the cases of drug users over dosing decrease because the drug is much purer and cleaner, Also drug users are more likely to use moderation when they know they can obtain the drug legally. |
| Date | 23:40:16, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | Well it seems clear that this isn't going to get passed, which is a shame as it is not the varying purity or unmoderated use of hard drugs that is the problem, but the existence of these drugs in the first place. I'll put it to vote anyways. |
| Date | 00:00:45, July 23, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | Apologies to all, I just read the Hobrazia messages re: the LPU's trip, unfortunately after putting this to vote. Obviously there's nothing I can do now, unless we all abstain? Would such a group abstention have no effect on the election? |
| Date | 01:15:47, July 23, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Hard Drug Recriminalisation Act |
| Message | Unknown, though a single missed vote shouldn't have any realy effect, so I would recommend voting any way. I also have no idea what happens to legislation with a none vote...? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 33 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 161 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 206 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, it is the responsibility of players to ensure the candidate boxes on their Party Overview screens are filled in with appropriate names. If a player is allotted seats in a Cabinet bill and has not filled in names for the relevant candidate position, then the program will automatically fill in the positions with names which might not necessarily be appropriate for the Cultural Protocols. |
| Random quote: "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." - Plato |