[Passed] GA Resolution: World Psychoactive Drugs Act

[Lenlyvit]

General Assembly Resolution

World Psychoactive Drugs Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5

Believing that drug criminalisation, as previously declared by this chamber, has been an ineffective policy, which, instead of actually reducing drug addiction and use, punishes victims and causes harm to society writ large,

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to past World Assembly law still in force.

1. In this resolution, a "psychoactive drug" is a substance consumed recreationally in order to induce psychoactive effects.

2. No member nation may prosecute, punish, or penalise any individual for their possession of a psychoactive drug, except where

a. said drug is used, and can be successfully used, to incapacitate another individual as to facilitate the commission of violence against that individual, and the individual possessing said drug is demonstrably aware that they are possessing said drug; or

b. that member nation can provide clear and convincing evidence that the possession of said drug is for the purpose of providing or otherwise distributing said drug to another individual or entity.

3. No member nation may prosecute, punish, or penalise any individual for their consumption of a psychoactive drug, so long as such consumption occurs in private and does not pose a clear, specific, and imminent danger to the health or safety of other individuals.

4. The confiscation of a psychoactive drug from an individual shall not be prohibited under this resolution. Any conviction, punishment, or sentence which violates the terms of this resolution must be immediately rescinded; and no member nation may commence, continue, or resume enforcement of any such conviction, punishment, or sentence. Political and administrative subdivisions of member nations must comply with this resolution as member nations.

Co-author: Greater Cesnica

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[icethousand]

As the author, I am obviously in support. Although I am not an XKI WA member.

To summarise my reasoning for this proposal elsewhere, drug criminalisation policies do not target only sellers and distributors of drugs -- although those that do are specifically not prevented by this proposal, as per Section 2. As said in the preamble, as soon as someone is targeted for using drugs, that is necessarily a "punishing victims" approach, even if the justification is a (in my opinion rather flimsy) "for your own good". If someone is addicted to meth, why is that an offense which merits being tossed in jail for? How does it "protect" a heroin addict to be placed in a prison cell for years, regardless of the state of their addiction? The answer is that it plainly doesn't, and thus should be prohibited.

As stated in the preamble, besides the flaws as to how drug criminalisation is implemented in real life, and regardless of how it is imposed, "drug criminalisation...has been an ineffective policy, which, instead of actually reducing drug addiction and use, punishes victims and causes harm to society writ large".

[Pantso]

The Republic of Pantso was prepared to recommend a vote Against, however in light of the reasoned argument presented by icethousand we intend to vote For and propose that other members and the XKI delegate do likewise. A nation concerned for the well-being and health of its citizens will serve them better through education, treatment, and legislation that attacks drug problems at the source rather than jailing the victims.

[Jabberwocky]

So you want to criminalize the criminilization of psychoactive drugs? Start with a definition of psychoactive drugs. Then, let each nation decide for itself.

[Vivolkha]

Firmly Against this resolution in all of its forms.

Clause 1 doesn't define psychoactive drugs at all, by not defining "psychoactive".

Clause 3 is self-contradicting. There is no such thing as recreational drug consumption that is harmless to others, full stop. This, in turn, also invalidates the arguments of Clause 2 (Clause 2a's definition is problematic in its restrictiveness even in a vacuum).

Vivolkha will never support any WA resolution following this proposal's principle in any form for the reasons stated above.

[icethousand]

Vivolkha, Jabberwocky, the term "psychoactive" is left undefined as it is relatively clear; the more relevant part of the definition is the "recreationally" qualifier.

As to Section 3, there exists a qualifier that the danger "clear, specific, and imminent" precisely to prevent this kind of abuse; asserting the existence of some vague hypothetical danger at some point in the future is not sufficient. Do you believe this qualifier to be sufficient?

[Vivolkha]

Apr 18, 2023 14:41:35 GMT -5 icethousand said:

Vivolkha , Jabberwocky , the term "psychoactive" is left undefined as it is relatively clear; the more relevant part of the definition is the "recreationally" qualifier.

As to Section 3, there exists a qualifier that the danger "clear, specific, and imminent" precisely to prevent this kind of abuse; asserting the existence of some vague hypothetical danger at some point in the future is not sufficient. Do you believe this qualifier to be sufficient?

How is psychoactive so "clear"? 

As for Section 3, the qualifier is sufficient for the intention of the resolution, but that doesn't change the fact that we are opposed to that same qualifier. Asserting the existance of hypothetical danger to others should be sufficient, in the sense that recreational use of drugs always implies danger to others and society at large, (and the self, though criminalization doesn't address that properly) in some way, shape or form. However, reforming Clause 3 to address our concerns would, in practice, render the resolution moot - which is why we are categorically opposed to it.

[icethousand]

Apr 19, 2023 6:49:13 GMT -5 Vivolkha said:

Apr 18, 2023 14:41:35 GMT -5 icethousand said:

Vivolkha , Jabberwocky , the term "psychoactive" is left undefined as it is relatively clear; the more relevant part of the definition is the "recreationally" qualifier.

As to Section 3, there exists a qualifier that the danger "clear, specific, and imminent" precisely to prevent this kind of abuse; asserting the existence of some vague hypothetical danger at some point in the future is not sufficient. Do you believe this qualifier to be sufficient?

How is psychoactive so "clear"?

It isn't subjective enough to be open to substantive abuse or to make interpretation ambiguous; an ordinary medical dictionary, for instance, provides the definition of "affecting the mind or behavior". This is an objective characteristic which can be relatively easily evaluated -- I don't see how you can argue that something affects the mind or behaviour when it obviously doesn't; or that something which obviously does such as meth or heroin has no such effect. A definition of "psychoactive" therefore seems unnecessary.

As for Section 3, the qualifier is sufficient for the intention of the resolution, but that doesn't change the fact that we are opposed to that same qualifier. Asserting the existance of hypothetical danger to others should be sufficient, in the sense that recreational use of drugs always implies danger to others and society at large, (and the self, though criminalization doesn't address that properly) in some way, shape or form. However, reforming Clause 3 to address our concerns would, in practice, render the resolution moot - which is why we are categorically opposed to it.

Fair enough, in that case it appears that our differences are largely philosophical.

[Vivolkha]

Apr 20, 2023 15:14:04 GMT -5 icethousand said:

Apr 19, 2023 6:49:13 GMT -5 Vivolkha said:

How is psychoactive so "clear"?

It isn't subjective enough to be open to substantive abuse or to make interpretation ambiguous; an ordinary medical dictionary, for instance, provides the definition of "affecting the mind or behavior". This is an objective characteristic which can be relatively easily evaluated -- I don't see how you can argue that something affects the mind or behaviour when it obviously doesn't; or that something which obviously does such as meth or heroin has no such effect. A definition of "psychoactive" therefore seems unnecessary.

Our concern is that psychoactivity lies in a spectrum, depending on the degree of alteration of behavior and consciousness. At some point the line must be drawn where the psychoactive effects are minimal enough for the substance to not be considered controlled under WA law (and it's far easier to prove that a substance is psychoactive than it is to prove it's not). As an example, the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs doesn't even bother defining psychoactivity, instead defining "drugs" as "any of the substances in Schedules I and II" which are then provided with no justification.

Apr 20, 2023 15:14:04 GMT -5 icethousand said:

As for Section 3, the qualifier is sufficient for the intention of the resolution, but that doesn't change the fact that we are opposed to that same qualifier. Asserting the existance of hypothetical danger to others should be sufficient, in the sense that recreational use of drugs always implies danger to others and society at large, (and the self, though criminalization doesn't address that properly) in some way, shape or form. However, reforming Clause 3 to address our concerns would, in practice, render the resolution moot - which is why we are categorically opposed to it.

Fair enough, in that case it appears that our differences are largely philosophical.

Certainly. It seems that we're in the minority in this, though.