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: Chemical Autonomy Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: LibCom 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: March 2076
Description[?]:
| The legality of recreational drug use will be a matter for local governments to decide. This will be accompanied by an education campaign highlighting both the dangers and the benefits of various drugs, and a quality control scheme whereby citizens can have the purity of their drugs assessed. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The recreational drug policy.
Old value:: Recreational drug use is forbidden.
Current: All naturally occurring drugs are legal.
Proposed: Recreational drug use is regulated by local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:35:09, July 01, 2005 CET | From |  Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | while it may appear to be the libertarian option to follow, we will quickly show how in no way is this the right approach. many Drugs create chemical dependencies in the people who use them. As a result it becomes a physical need for the body to have the drug. if the person is poor and cannot afford the drugs then they will often commite crimes in order to obtain enough money to suppor their addiction. this is common knowledge and verifiable fact. consequently; as a government we must ask ourselves what is important and what our primary job is. quickly we realize that we are here to protect people. Hobbes wrote about it in the "Leviathan" and so have the political philosophers after him. ultimately drugs cause so much harm that they outweigh the "rights2 argument associated with them. as to the education program, we support that fully, drug awareness is an important part of preventing drug abuse. but regardless of education, in many cases all it takes is one mistake to become addicted to the drug. furthermore, drugs are also associated with a huge number of medical ailments. ultimately drug addicts will need medical support and if they have no money to do that it may be the government that has to pay for it. it is hugely expensive to support a nation with so many drug related afflictions and ultimately is more expensive than paying law enforcement, attorneys and educators to stop drug abuse. |
| Date | 16:09:17, July 01, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | Many of the medical and social problems associated with addiction are in fact caused by prohibition. The risks involved in the black market lead to poor quality drugs being sold at high prices. The poor quality causes massive medical problems, while the high prices lead the addict to commit crimes in order to fund their habit. Easy availability of drugs and the quality control scheme outlined in the bill would go a long way toward addressing these problems. While addiction is itself a problem, we'd rather see a large number of healthy addicts than a small number of sick criminal junkies. As for the assertion that "in many cases all it takes is one mistake to become addicted", this is simply nonsense. No drug is addictive in a single dose - it takes multiple doses over several days, at the very least. |
| Date | 08:44:02, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | Both nicotine and alcohol are addicitive, but adults may freely use them. Caffeine is, mole for mole, more potent and addicitive than cocaine, yet any child can consume it. Doctors can prescribe addictive pain killers, sleep medication and stimulants, and never mind the various psychotropics that are available to treat depression or anxiety. There are already a host of drugs on the market that are addicitve and build up dependancies, are we going to ban them as well? If we can allow responsible adults to consume alcohol and nicotine, children to consume caffeine, and doctors to prescribe powerful psychotropic substances, why can't we generally allow substances to be consumed for recreation? People can become addicited to anything, food, sex, television, so if the FRP is really concerned with addiction there is a much longer list of more common addictions they should address first. That said, we would prefer to see this issue left up to local governments, to allow communites to establish their own standards for drug use. |
| Date | 16:39:09, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | We would like to see an age requirement on this bill. We agree with LevP and would prefer local laws governing this. |
| Date | 21:09:20, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | Local laws here. |
| Date | 01:00:45, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | We adamantly oppose this bill. Firstly, in reference to the libcom comment: "No drug is addictive in a single dose - it takes multiple doses over several days, at the very least." that is simply not true, drugs such as heroin and crack can create chemical dependencies after the first try. check the facts for yourself. as for the other comments about lower costs, better regulation and cleaner drugs. We argue that while some drugs may go some way towards becoming cheaper and cleaner, it also means that they will become more readily available. In reference to arguments about nicotine, alcohol and caffeine. We see validity in what levp says, but what levp conveniently forgets to mention is that the quantities needed for each chemical to cause major damage is relatively high. a single pill of speed can cause death, for example. a glass of wine will not, neither will coffee. alcohol is certainly a potent drug that can lead to many accidents, which is why we limit it to adults and promote sensible drinking. and alcoholics are naturally stopped from drinking as much as possible. but the damage caused by alcohol is nothing compared to the fatalities incurred simply through ingestion of drugs such as speed, crack, heroine or a slew of others. furthermore, there is documented evidence that shows that not only can those drugs be fatal *even in the smallest doses* but they also have a number of long term side affects that occur much more easily than the effects of constantly drinking alcohol. for example, permanent brain damage, the loss of motor functions, seizures, inability to digest food, insomnia, withdrawal pains. and one of the biggest affects of the illegal drugs is that they ultimately prevent people from working or doing simple tasks without the help of the drug they take. it is unsafe for an employee in a construction company, a doctor, a nurse, a truck driver to use drugs because it alters their mental functions. just like getting drunk the night before work can affect your ability to work, so can taking illegal drugs. except, unlike alcohol, the negative side effects of these drugs don't go away after just one time, they can last for days or even weeks. and to offset those side effects usually requires taking another hit of the drug, which ultimately leads to addiction. we would like to finish be stating simply that through the process of a thought experiment it is easy to show that all the claims of cleaner, more regulated, cheaper drugs is irrelevant compared to the huge number of downsides associated with legal drugs that are unsafe regardless of *how clean* they are. and as for the libertarian argument, it is shot through the foot; the damage that drugs cause do not only affect the user, they affect the people around them too, either through violence, the pain of watching a loved one slowly lose their mental functions or because they have to pay for the medical bills to help them recover from an addiction that leaves them incapable of working, feeding themselves of functioning as a normal human being. |
| Date | 01:38:38, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | as another argument (there are just so many) we would like to point out that those who are the most at risk (as ever) are children and young adults who are still in school. even if we make the law allow only adults to take the drugs, children will still manage to acquire them, which will hurt their education and as a result their futures. we have all had the experience of knowing someone who was able to get cigarettes or alcohol from a shopkeeper without even having their ID checked. simply becuase the child looked older than he or she was. with easier access to those drugs, we are unleashing worlds of pain upon people who are even more susceptible to the damaging affects of recreational drugs. |
| Date | 23:34:38, July 03, 2005 CET | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | We would be content to leave this to local governments as a compromise, but we submit that full legalistaion would provide an enormous source of tax revenue. The release of such funds for education and health with the added bonus of an inevitable reduction in rime easily offsets and outweighs the rerettable increase in dependency and health problems. This isn't hopeless idealism. It's hard-nosed pragmatism. |
| Date | 01:24:35, July 04, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | The FRP should consider sacking their advisors, as they are woefully ill-informed. Certainly some drugs can produce early signs of dependence after a single dose, but addiction (defined by the presence of withdrawal symptoms) takes a good deal longer. Ready availability of drugs doesn't necessarily lead to greater use, and is particularly unlikely to lead to an increased incidence of addiction. (ooc: Switzerland's the obvious example here.) Legalisation, along with the proposed quality control, will eliminate the dangers the FRP refers to. None of the drugs mentioned comes close to alcohol or tobacco in terms of health risk when they are clean and the dosage is known. The FRP is evidently not familiar with the numerous cases of doctors and nurses who have remained healthy and continued to carry out their duties while addicted to opiates, including world-renowned surgeons. This clearly demonstrates the benefits of easy access to good quality drugs as opposed to having to pay inflated black-market prices for drugs of unknown purity, contaminated with all manner of potentially toxic substances. Nevertheless, leaving this to local governments would be acceptable. |
| Date | 14:45:51, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | we continue to say no to this bill. libcom should actually do research on the matter of addiction problems. and libcom should have its collective brains bonked against a wall because they must be insane to promote the idea that surgeons have full mental capacity while under the effects of drugs such as mushrooms or crack. alcoholics cannot function normally without acohol for breakfast and even then they are not fully functional mentally, the affects of drugs *even when clean* still reduce the mental capabilities of those who use them and are potentially fatal. not to mention it must such a wonderful experience to be a child with a mother or father who habitually takes heroine, mushrooms or other hallucinagens. we can see the headlines now : "Heroine addict mother mistakes child for wild dog, kills with kitchen knife" we will not put the citizens of this country under such a risk. |
| Date | 15:37:43, July 04, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | Since it's clear that the FRP's knee-jerk opposition isn't about to change, we've gone with the consensus of those willing to compromise and changed the proposal to allow local governments to set their own regulations. Moving to vote. |
| Date | 17:51:39, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | It can hardly be called knee jerk, its like saying "let's make it legal for everyone to shoot themselves in the foot with a gun, oh and lets have local governments regulate it too. as a compromise" |
| Date | 18:08:49, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Party | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | Interesting proposition. We are in favor of exploring the regulation and taxation of marijuana with local government control. However, we draw the line at the broader definition of "recreation drugs". Unless the bill can be modified to include marijuana only, then we must vote no. |
| Date | 18:58:23, July 04, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | As far as we're aware, it's not illegal to shoot yourself in the foot, yet most people have enough common sense not to do it. Is it really so irresponsible to credit people with some judgement? EM, cannabis is legal already, for medicinal purposes. This covers any drugs that could be used recreationally. |
| Date | 19:31:06, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | "Is it really so irresponsible to credit people with some judgement?" These words will come back to haunt you. |
| Date | 20:08:42, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Party | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | LibCom - I guess we (EM) are splitting hairs on this. We would like to see recreational use of cannabis legalized. But cannabis only. |
| Date | 13:25:53, July 05, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | "As far as we're aware, it's not illegal to shoot yourself in the foot, yet most people have enough common sense not to do it. Is it really so irresponsible to credit people with some judgement?" its not a matter of judgement its the fact that once you start shooting yourself in the foot, you can't stop shooting. |
| Date | 15:03:48, July 05, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Chemical Autonomy Act |
| Message | How ironic that the FRP claims to be "founded on the belief that the people are the best judges of how they want to live their lives." |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 84 | ||||||||
| no | Total Seats: 16 | ||||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If you want to leave Particracy, please inactivate yourself on your user page to save the moderation team some time. |
| Random quote: "The European Union and environmental advocacy groups use global warming hysteria to advance their own special agendas. The European Union recognizes any significant reduction in CO2 emissions by the United States will significantly reduce its economic output, thereby bringing it closer to the inferior output of European nations. Environmental advocacy groups work to stifle economic and industrial progress wherever they find it to inhibit the successful advancement of peoples in developing nations, inevitably making mankind a second class citizen of planet Earth." - Dr. Jay Lehr |