Osheiga wrote:

However, I’m not sure this is a dealbreaker because there’s nothing wrong with the text of this resolution, it’s just something additional I would want to see added and because of that I would feel weird going full-on against this. So I’m voting for, and hoping someone more courageous than me can write something up about that in the future :)"

But, it is urgent that we address what was NOT covered:

We strongly encourage the safe, careful use of drugs and do believe there should be additional legislation to foster rehabilitation and safe use in clinics to reduce the rate of overdose.

We recognize that, when one has to buy drugs from an illegal source, quality is impacted - and it may be laced or fake, greatly decreasing safety. It also creates a lucrative black market with no regulation at all.

Thus, we hope an industry of legal, taxable, regulated drugs is on the horizon."

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Moreover, the sine qua non relationship between decriminalisation and effective substance abuse treatment programmes also goes entirely unremarked on. Decriminalisation without treatment just brings all the actual harms that drugs cause: violent crime, assault, robberies for money, property theft, destruction, hospital bills, deaths, etc. Treatment without decriminalisation doesn't work at all. The two must go together. Someone said in the GA forum that they could go in separate resolutions, which is missing the point: the two must go together for them to work, separating them and opening the possibility of one being enacted without the other opens member nations to the risk a worse outcome than doing nothing. And this could have been avoided at little if any cost to the author. It doesn't help that there is no public draft or indication of any such supplement.”