by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

4

DispatchBulletinCampaign

by The Official Account of 10KI WA Secretariat. . 24 reads.

GA “Drug Decriminalization Act” Voting Overview


Current Proposal: Drug Decriminalization Act

Overview

Proposal:
This resolution seeks to decriminalize the act of drug possession for personal use, while urging member nations to pardon individuals imprisoned from drug possession.

Opinions:

For:

Osheiga wrote:"My only problem with this is how it doesn’t address the implementation of addiction services or anything healthcare-related which could be dangerous if nations do not have effective means of catching traffickers/smugglers of dangerous and potentially deadly substances and if they are easily available in large quantities for anyone already addicted.

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 :)"

Grand Pato wrote:"The people of Grand Pato firmly support the decriminalization of drug possession everywhere, and we believe the Drug Decriminalization Act is a step in the right direction, deserving of our vote.

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."

Against:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:“I'm frankly confused as to why this was rushed to submission. The point which Abacathea raised, as to treating all drugs equally, regardless of whether they are dangerous or not, is a good one. The wording of the proposal's definition "simple drug possession" with "malicious intent" doesn't make any sense. Intent to do what? When the word "malicious" is used in law, it literally means "intent" or "recklessness". If we take "malicious intent" to really mean "intent to harm", which I think was what was intended, nothing stops member nations just creating rebuttable presumptions that possession of some drug is with intent to harm the self or others. Similarly, member nations could create rebuttable presumptions of intent to distribute with tiny quantities (the most famous example being Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act). Both massively reduce the efficacy of the proposal in seeking its goals. A tighter wording is sorely needed.

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.”

Qvait wrote:“First, let me be clear that I support the intent of this proposal. However, the failure of the proposal to mention or provide treatment and rehabilitative services for addiction and the nonexistence of a companion proposal to that effect is a dealbreaker for me. Had either of these two conditions been met, I would have supported this proposal, and it is unfortunate that neither of them has been. As such, I have voted against this proposal and encourage others to do the same.”

RawReport