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 Restriction Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Red Eye 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: July 2160
Description[?]:
| We believe people are free to put put any natural occuring substance into their bodies,But manufactured substances that are made specifically to be drugs have no place in society unless they are concluded to have positive effects with minimal dimunitive effects which are then subjected to be deemed phamecuetical. |
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: Recreational drug use is regulated by local governments.
Proposed: All naturally occurring drugs are legal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:49:21, December 23, 2005 CET | From |  Liberty Party | To | Debating the Drug Restriction Act |
| Message | We enjoy a good beer and since beer is a manufactured substance made specifically to be a drug (we are not talking about non-alcoholic beer) we oppose this bill. We take the same position on any chemical compound which can be enjoyed by a rational individual whether it be caffeinated coffee, etc. Aside from any issues of individual liberty, criminalising drugs is bad economics (prosecuting a drug war is expensive and doomed to failure), bad health policy (addicts are able to get cleaner and safer drugs when they are legal, e.g., heroine) and so on. In short, even if we conclude that 'manufactured substances' are bad, it still does not follow that criminalising them is the solution (indeed, the evidence is strongly contra-indicative). |
| Date | 11:32:41, December 23, 2005 CET | From | Popular Party of Trigunia | To | Debating the Drug Restriction Act |
| Message | We should think more about the health of our people and less about the money |
| Date | 15:52:51, December 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Drug Restriction Act |
| Message | We agree, and locations that treat drug abuse as a health problem rather than a legal problem have far better results in both reducing addiction and reducing the health effects of drugs (consider places like Holland and Vancouver, BC). There is no great controversy in observing that black market illicit drugs are often cut with other dangerous substances and have wildly inconsistent dosage strengths. In contrast, where drugs are legal, the dosages are controlled, the quality is higher, etc. Since we know that people are going to take drugs regardless, and as the PPT point out, we should be worried primarily about health, legalisation remains the only rational option. Having said that, we think that trying to ignore the monetary aspect is counterproductive. While it may make you seem really nice and caring to have the 'money doesn't matter' attitude, the reality is very different. Health care costs money. There is only a finite amount of money in the country at any given time. Every Rabol you spend on finding, arresting, trying and jailing a drug addict is a Rabol you no longer have to spend on health. Every Rabol you don't raise on sales taxes on drugs (because you've made them illegal and hence de facto exempt from tax) is Rabol you don't have to spend on health care. |
| Date | 20:59:11, December 23, 2005 CET | From | Red Eye Party | To | Debating the Drug Restriction Act |
| Message | Drug control has been statistically lower in countries without the drug war. But who said anything about that? Speeding is illegal but do we prosecute a war on that? no. There by no means must be war. And theres also nothing to say there shall be no taxes. a number of American States have a tax on the cannabis,even though it is illegal. |
| Date | 23:20:43, December 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Drug Restriction Act |
| Message | "Speeding is illegal but do we prosecute a war on that? no. There by no means must be war." That depends on which country you are living in. Motorists in certain countries feel extremely persecuted by the obsession of the state in punishing motorists for speeding, despite the fact that otherwise similar countries where there are no speeding restrictions (e.g., German autobahns vs British motorways) have little or no difference in accident rate. Indeed for any Britons reading, your comparison is highly relevant - the state invests tremendous energy in punishing motorists while achieving no improvement in road safety. Similarly criminalising drugs, and then pursuing those involved in drugs through the law is costly and achieves no improvement in security or health. In any event, war is simply a difference of degree. Presumably you don't dispute that you want to criminalise certain drugs, thereby driving them underground, thereby necessarily reducing tax revenues (or do you think that the states that apparently have taxes on cannabis are raising huge revenues from those stupid enough to admit to breaking the law by paying the tax). You necessarily reduce the quality of the drugs, leading to worse health problems; you necessarily reduce the likelihood that addicts will seek treatment, leading to worse health problems; you necessarily raise prices because you mess with supply and thereby increase crime (and you have less revenue therefore can afford less police to deal with that crime). It doesn't matter whether you 'call' it a war on drugs, once the State criminalises drugs and invests state money and time in pursuing it, you create a war. I wasn't alive in the 20s and 30s, so I don't know whether they called Prohibition a 'war' on alcohol, and frankly it doesn't matter. It had the effect of creating a war. |
| Date | 01:45:24, December 24, 2005 CET | From | Red Eye Party | To | Debating the Drug Restriction Act |
| Message | " In any event, war is simply a difference of degree. " Again i point out that,in the united states,speeding is illegal and we prosecute no war. "do you think that the states that apparently have taxes on cannabis are raising huge revenues from those stupid enough to admit to breaking the law by paying the tax. " The tax is applied when the citizen is caught with the drugs,and is used effectively in many counties in the states that have them. "You necessarily reduce the quality of the drugs," that depends purely on the illegal status of it,theres many different way things are illegal. "you necessarily reduce the likelihood that addicts will seek treatment, " An addict must want to quit,and i positively know the legal status has little to no effect on that decision. " you necessarily raise prices because you mess with supply and thereby increase crime " Drugs brainwash you,alcohol included, You have an altered mental state,that can easily become idenified with stress relief,which if it is,can quickly lead to positive reinforcement. the makings of an addict. As a part of our beliefs though,Naturally occuring substances have no right to be controlled by us. But the minute people begin making drugs,and simply for profit,regardless of addictive qualitys,it becomes the states probelm,we must keep the evils in line,not allow them freedom the same as all others. |
| Date | 04:54:58, December 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Drug Restriction Act |
| Message | "The tax is applied when the citizen is caught with the drugs,and is used effectively in many counties in the states that have them." I'm not sure how you have concluded on the effectiveness of the approach, but regardless, surely you accept that under that system people are only taxed when they get caught? What percentage of drugs taken by people lead to an arrest? I imagine it cannot be very high otherwise the US wouldn't have such an obvious drug problem (since all the drug users would be sans drugs (confiscated) and sans money (taxed) all the time). "that depends purely on the illegal status of it,theres many different way things are illegal." Not really, whenever the drug is sold on the black market, there is necessarily no quality control; whenever the drug is sold on the open market, quality control is possible (at the option of the State). How many ways are there for drugs to be illegal? Either they are criminal, in which case there is only a black market or they are decriminalised (i.e., no crime for possession of small amounts, dealing still illegal) in which case there is only a black market or they are legal in which case there is an open market. "An addict must want to quit,and i positively know the legal status has little to no effect on that decision." While I don't dispute the first part of your statement, and I'm sure that your *personal* *experience* is that the legal status had little or now effect on that decision; there is nonetheless overwhelming evidence from areas where the legal attitude is less punitive (I'm thinking particularly of places like Vancouver and Holland, as I mentioned before) that a more open social climate does lead to more people seeking treatment. I'm not suggesting that no addicts seek treatment when it is illegal and all addicts will seek treatment if it is legal, but I am suggesting that for many people (not all) who want to quit, seeking treatment is much easier where the drug is legal. "Drugs brainwash you,alcohol included, You have an altered mental state,that can easily become idenified with stress relief,which if it is,can quickly lead to positive reinforcement. the makings of an addict." Firstly, this does not actually answer my point that you quoted. While we completely agree that some people become addicted to drugs, including alcohol, it is by no means certain that all drugs will cause all people to become addicted. If it was true, everyone who has ever had a beer would be an alcoholic. And for many drugs, as for alcohol, it is wildly disproportionate to stop everyone using because some people will be addicted. While it may be true that something like crack is overwhelmingly addictive, there are no shortage of casual users of ecstasy, LSD, cocaine who are not addicted in the way that an alcoholic, say, is. "But the minute people begin making drugs,and simply for profit,regardless of addictive qualitys,it becomes the states probelm" No it doesn't. I understand that, as a socialist, you believe that most things are issues for the state to control, but just because you believe it doesn't make it true. So really, you could say 'the minute people begin making drugs,and simply for profit,regardless of addictive qualitys,we believe it becomes the states probelm' (i.e., opinion not fact). History does not suggest that state intervention (certainly not the specific intervention of criminalising drugs) has ever been a positive force for public health. Also, I think your statement is a little over-simplistic. You yourself observe that alcohol can be addictive and I'm pretty confident that brewers are working for a profit, but you are presumably not proposing criminalising beer. "we must keep the evils in line" Your policy is counterproductive to your own stated aim - alcoholic beverages are fairly safe because they are legal and so subject to major quality control restrictions - the drink has to specify the alchol content, and that has to be consistent. This is something that can ONLY be possible if alcohol is legal. Alcohol was much more dangerous during prohibition because there was no regulation of quality. The same is true of drugs - the biggest danger of drugs is their inconsistent quality which can only be resolved if it is legal. By and large people don't overdose because they are idiots, they overdose because the product they take today is a different strength and composition to what they took yesterday. You absolutely cannot keep 'the evils' in line when the only suppliers are underground suppliers, you can only keep them in line when they are operating in the open. So the real question is, do you really want to keep them in line or do you just want to flex your authoritarian muscles and sound tough on drugs? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 259 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 195 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 46 |
| Random fact: Whilst the use of non-English languages can be appropriate for nation names, party names, constitutional titles and other variables, English is the official language of communication in the game. All descriptive texts and public communications should be in English or at least appear alongside a full English translation. |
| Random quote: "When women are depressed, they either eat or go shopping. Men invade another country. It's a whole different way of thinking." - Elaine Boosler |