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: Drug Moderation Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Freedom and Solidarity Alliance
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 2102
Description[?]:
| Aware of the complexity of balancing individual freedoms with the public good, Being long-standing supporters of individual responsibility for one's act, Having concluded that many of the drugs currently legal in Ikradon are simply too addictive for users to be able to exerce their free will regarding their consumption, Believing in addition that the current distinction between "natural" and "artificial" drugs is irrelevant to the danger of their use, especially regarding the many drugs using natural-occuring elements chemically processed in one way or an other, The FSA proposes that only drugs considered reasonably safe by the Ikradonian Academy of Medecine, and in particular cannabis, be authorised on Ikradonian territory. The FSA further proposes that users addicted to more dangerous drugs be offered free rehabilitation cures, and that prison sentence for drug-related crimes be limited to people involved in its trade or production on a non-artisanal level. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The recreational drug policy.
Old value:: All naturally occurring drugs are legal.
Current: Recreational drug use is forbidden.
Proposed: The use of cannabis is legal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:27:19, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Drug Moderation Act |
| Message | The PLP believes, and is surprised that a libertarian party does not, that people should generally have the right to determine what they put in their own body. We believe in the naturally occuring division, as it limits the extremes to which chemists might go to find addictive chemicals to gain addicts. However, we would sooner completely allow all drugs than to limit the legality of recreational drugs to marijuana alone. |
| Date | 00:26:15, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Drug Moderation Act |
| Message | While the FSA is definitely libertarian-inspired, it remains pragmatic about it. As much as we may believe in individual responsibly and free will, we are realist enough to recognise that a drug addict has little of either left. As for the natural/chemical differentiation, we believe it makes about as much sense scientifically that the infamous "exotic"/"ordinary" distinction made between pets in Ikradonian law. OOC: I would prefer a "legalise soft drugs" option, but since there is none I've chosen the cannabis one as the closest to it. I can't think of any other common drug I would want legalised anyway. |
| Date | 00:54:45, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Drug Moderation Act |
| Message | OOC: None of the options is perfect for me, either. My ideal option might be somewhat similar to current wild animal ownership law, something like: "The government maintains a small list of extremely dangerous drugs that are illegal. All other naturally occurring drugs are legal." The 'naturally occurring' part there is to prevent designer drugs from being made that are almost, but not exactly, the same as a drug on the extremely dangrous drug list. I'd basically want all but the very worst drugs to be legal, ideally. The current law comes the closest to my intent of the available options, although I recognize that naturally occurring does not always equate to safer. I know that many highly addictive drugs become the focus of a person's life because their illegality makes them so different to obtain that they do, in fact, become enslaved to the drug. Legality and the resulting freedom from worrying about how to attain one's fix leads to the drug being a much more controllable part of life. Tobacco/nicotine is as addictive as cocaine, but smokers don't become enslaved to their habit, as they know they can always walk into a store and buy the stuff. |
| Date | 08:57:10, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Neoretropostmodernist Party | To | Debating the Drug Moderation Act |
| Message | I introduced the original bill and was asked to include all naturally-occuring drugs by two of the major parties at the time. My personal preference is just allowing cannabis as even if something is natural, it can still be dangerous. |
| Date | 09:07:19, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Drug Moderation Act |
| Message | However, isn't the danger up to the user to decide whether or not to risk? Making a drug illegal automatically increases its danger, as addicts have to worry about their next fix. We say to let people decide for themselves, as long as they hurt no one else. The naturally occurring substances limitation is acceptable to combat designer drugs; but if we were to go one way or the other on it, I'd rather just say all substances are legal as long as you hurt no one else. |
| Date | 14:17:14, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Underappreciated Party of Ikradon | To | Debating the Drug Moderation Act |
| Message | The UPI believes that by outlawing naturally occurring drugs we run the risk of expanding and driving much more dangerous drugs to be produced by putting them on the same side of the divide. While we appreciate that just because something is natural doesn't make it safe, we still must vote against this proposal. (OOC: I think "natural" was probably the most objective thing that could be come up with. "Soft" is very subjective, natural...not as subjective.) |
| Date | 15:34:10, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Freedom and Solidarity Alliance | To | Debating the Drug Moderation Act |
| Message | OOC: I would have liked something like "Drugs classified as "soft" by the Academy of Medecine are legal". And yes, "natural" is less subjective, but it also has no point ;) |
| Date | 23:09:35, August 27, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Drug Moderation Act |
| Message | OOC: I take "naturally occurring" to be taken by the game to mean "softer than others," even though there is not such a perfect correlation in real life. I do think there is some correlation, but definitely plenty of exceptions. To me, I take our current law to be closest in spirit to what I would like, which is that a few highly dangerous and addictive drugs are illegal but for the most part the risks of drug use are borne by the user at his or her choice. The current law in the game does not use the wording I'd have chosen, but it's closest of the available proposals to my position and to the position I want my party to take (which do on occasion differ). |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 16 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 393 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 20 |
| Random fact: Character names must appear plausible and should consist of at least a first name and a surname. Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented |
| Random quote: "Because democracy is not a spectator sport." - 2004 Democratic campaign slogan |