Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: December 5460
Next month in: 00:53:02
Server time: 15:06:57, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (4): Arusu-Weareback | HopesFor | Interstellar. | Paulo Nogueira | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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 Liberalization Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Progressive Liberal Party

Status[?]: passed

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: May 2586

Description[?]:

An Act to remove the governmental ban on the consumption of psychoactive substances.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date21:06:15, June 01, 2008 CET
From Progressive Liberal Party
ToDebating the Drug Liberalization Act
MessageWe the Progressive Liberals have been shocked by the recent ban imposed on the use of recreational drugs, since a clear majority of Senators support people's freedom to do as they please with their bodies. Thus, we want to go one step further than the recently overturned law, which delegated the authority over recreational drugs to the Cantons, and clearly affirm the value we cherish most: freedom.

Date03:34:11, June 02, 2008 CET
From Justice League of Cildania
ToDebating the Drug Liberalization Act
MessageAgreed, hear hear.

Date11:40:24, June 02, 2008 CET
From NWO Social-Special
ToDebating the Drug Liberalization Act
MessageI will not support this.

Date14:49:49, June 02, 2008 CET
From Communist Party (marxist-deleonist)
ToDebating the Drug Liberalization Act
MessageThe people of Cildania shouldn´t be drug addicts!

Date15:36:20, June 02, 2008 CET
From Justice League of Cildania
ToDebating the Drug Liberalization Act
MessageOf course they "shouldn't", but that is a moral statement, and if the drug users aren't hurting anyone, you haven't the right to push your moral code on them.

Date19:36:18, June 02, 2008 CET
From Progressive Liberal Party
ToDebating the Drug Liberalization Act
MessageFirst, the governmental ban on drugs does not remove the market; laws just put a curtain between people and reality. Second, if the drug "business" moves so much money, why give it to the criminals? Third, when drugs are accepted, they can be at least partially regulated, their quality checked and certified, etc. This should be as far as the government can do: what people put in their bodies is their call, as long as they don't harm others. Of course, this argument crumbles a bit when it comes to people using the public health service, paid by all, to recover from drug addiction, but it still stands.

Date19:48:56, June 02, 2008 CET
From Communist Party (marxist-deleonist)
ToDebating the Drug Liberalization Act
MessageBut they would harm others! They would go into criminality, they will steal and kill just to get their drugs!

There would also be syrenges on the streets.

Date20:05:08, June 02, 2008 CET
From Cildanian Workers Coalition
ToDebating the Drug Liberalization Act
MessageWhilst we applaud the PLP's stance on liberty - we can not endorse this

Date22:21:15, June 02, 2008 CET
From Cildanian Nationalist Party
ToDebating the Drug Liberalization Act
MessageDrug addicts burden society, and the only way that is fair to those who do not use them is if Drug addicts and users were segregated from the rest of society where they would do no harm to others.

Date22:55:34, June 02, 2008 CET
From Progressive Liberal Party
ToDebating the Drug Liberalization Act
Message[quote=Communist Party (marxist-luxemburgist)]But they would harm others! They would go into criminality, they will steal and kill just to get their drugs![/quote]

The scenario you describe is a consequence of the marginalization of the drug "market": as it is monopolized by criminals and banned by the state, prices are sky-high and quality goes under the ground. Thus, addicts often become delinquents themselves, resorting to thievery and mugging in order to get their dose. This situation would be greatly corrected if drugs were part of the normal, legal market.

As an example, caffeine and alcohol are both psychoactive drugs (quite legal indeed), and we still have to see someone killing for a cup of coffee, even though there are _legions_ of caffeine addicts. Alcohol, on the other hand, causes permanent damage to some organs, just like other (illegal) drugs, while still being legal. Why this discrimination? Banning heroin but not alcohol or nicotin is highly contradictory.

Last, but not least, we'd like to reaffirm the obviousness that the state can only control legal businesses. Thus, a dose of heroin bought on a pharmacy would have had its quality checked, while another one coming from narcotraffic would certainly be of inferior quality, mixed with more dangerous substances in order to increase its addictivity, etc.

Vote for a non-contradictory approach to both freedom and protection! Vote YES on the DLA!

Date01:08:14, June 03, 2008 CET
From Cildanian Workers Coalition
ToDebating the Drug Liberalization Act
Messageso why can't the state introduce methadone as opposed to hard drugs?

Date01:32:45, June 03, 2008 CET
From Progressive Liberal Party
ToDebating the Drug Liberalization Act
MessageIt can, indeed, as a medical treatment or as a simple drug. There are no "soft drugs", and as we already mentioned; caffeine, alcohol and nicotine can be as addictive and (except for the first one) as long-term destructive as the substances you term "hard drugs".

The point we're trying to make is that the State has no special moral authority to impose restrictions on what people can put into their bodies, as long as they don't harm others _with that action_. Citizens elect _us_ to serve _them_, the power, ruling and governing is just a side effect. Everyone should be free to make their moral choices, once again, as long as they don't "morally choose" to kill other people, etc. And if the paths they choose take them to self-destruction, then so be it (though even at that point they'll have the help of both the State and charities).

All in all, the role of the State should be to _inform_ and maybe provide a last-resort safety net; not to be the overmind of the country and treat all citizens like minors. With freedom comes responsibility, and note that security does not always grow with freedom. As a politician of another world once put it, those who trade a bit of the latter for the former do not deserve either one and will end up losing both.

Date15:22:52, June 03, 2008 CET
From Cildanian Workers Coalition
ToDebating the Drug Liberalization Act
Message*OOC - MY GOD this place has changed - It is a good deal more sensible and closer fought than it used to be **

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 111

no
    

Total Seats: 64

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Real-life places should not be referenced in Particracy.

    Random quote: "Corruption is the nightmare that keeps democracy a dream." - Anonymous

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 79