Talk Elections

Sponsor: Senator TNF

I'm concerned - does this legalize drunk driving? And if you stab a guy while on PCP, should you be allowed to take PCP again whenever you want?

Mind altering substances could mean many, many, things.

We'll certainly need more specifications here. Obviously, someone shouldn't be able to get behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated without being subjected to punishment.

[/quote]

That probably sums up most of the concerns just expressed, because it still allows for regulation of drug use in public.

Senator TNF, are you friendly or hostile to Senator TNF's amendment :P?

You don't have to ask that if I'm the one introducing the amendment.

I think I have to ask you that.

The Vice President is a stickler for the rules and exact wording, it seems.

Well, I know that what I am doing is probably irritating, but I have been elected "President of the Senate", so I have to be a respectful member of the senate and to follow the rules. Maybe I take my job too seriously, but I believe that respecting the rules is really a necesssity. Why? Because I wouldn't want some legislations I would have administred to be struck down by the court because of a problem with the rules. That will probably never happen, and  I don't want to take the risk.


I know I'm annoying by doing that, but I will continue to do that.

Well, senatorsn you have 24 hours to object.

The presumption is that the sponsor wouldn't offer an amendment that he found hostile to the intent of the legislation he drafted, unless he were to state otherwise for sake of wanting a vote on it for some reason. :P

Considering recent events, safe play is probably the best. I used to worry that Nappy or someone would sue over a process he didn't like and Nappy was always one to take it to the edge. I recall one time he and VP Duke got into it something awfull...

Speaking as Attorney General, this could potentially be a constitutional nightmare. Barring how broad "mind-altering substances" can be, the "abridging this right" is open to interpretation as to whether there can be no regulation of any kind on recreational drugs or if federal and regional governments can regulate products (or even create a situation where use is legal or decriminalized but production and dealing is illegal, which some propose as a solution). In addition, the "nor any involuntary rehabilitation program prescribed by a court of law" should be clarified as pertaining to the use of recreational drugs--otherwise you have just banned rehabilitation programs from being part of a sentence for other criminal acts.

In addition, given, again, how broad the spectrum of "mind-altering substances" is (from the mostly safe LSD/some psychedelic mushrooms/marijuana to Krokodil or crystal meth), it would perhaps be more prudent to cover the statuses of them under law rather than a sweeping constitutional amendment.

This proposition is way too broad. Please be more specific in what intoxicants you wish to legalize.

Tangentially related, I plan to have drug use and DUI statistics soon enough.

I support full decriminalization of recreational use, of course, but I also support some regulations, like what people are talking about. Driving while sky high would not be acceptable, so I don't think it would be too tough to add something that says, "This shall not be construed to disallow regulations."

Without any objection, senator TNF's amendment passes.
[/quote]
()

So, where is this at present?

I don't really think this is the sort of right worth putting in the constitution, but if it is we really, really need to define what mind altering substances means.

I also believe this proposition is too broad (and as many of you know I am not very supportive of legislation that removes restrictions in regards to drugs), and more than that, I believe that even if some "mind alterning substances" could be allowed in private (like the marijuana example provided by the Attorney General), this approach just leads us into further disorder in this issue and the potential legalization of dangerous hard drugs.

Are we ready for a final vote here? I am hessitant to motion for it in case TNF wants to amend it further.

[/quote]

Hopefully that clears it up a bit more.

Drug use stats are posted.

Windjammer?

Ooops sorry,
Senators, you have 24 hours to object.

Without any objection,
Senator TNF's amendment has been adopted.
()

I don't think there's much more to add here. I would like to proceed to a final vote on the legislation.

A final vote is now open. Please senators, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.
(Well, given there are only 8 senators right now, I guess the quorum for the 2/3 third majority isn't the same, I will check).

Aye

Aye

Nay.

Nay

And, yeah, 2/3 remains 2/3, so this needs 6 votes out of 8 possible to pass.

Back when Clarence resigned from the Senate, the amendment to abolish the Death Penalty passed 6/9 and was sent to the regions where it was ratified, so yea.

Abstain

I think people have the right to do what they want with themselves as long as the rights of another are not afflicted by it. That said, I worry that this would hinder the ability of gov't to protect those said rights of another from such affliction based on the awkward almost two step wording (one step forward, half step back).

Abstain. I'm all for mind-altering substances (most of them, at least), but I don't think we need to put them up there with free speech and freedom of religion. That could have unforeseen negative consequences.

Adam is the only one left who hasn't vote, no?

Yep,
But there isn't a clear majority. Considering 2 new senators will soon be elected, I prefer to wait.

Abstain

Abstain.

For many of the same reasons as Alfred.

The moderate heroism is strong in this thread.

Is not thinking the right to use cocaine is equal to free speech "Moderate Heroism" now? Are you a Fake Leftist if you don't support giving everyone free access to meth?

I tend to think that yes, the right to do what you want with your own body is a right of equal importance to free speech.

The results of the vote:
Aye (2): Senator bore, Senator TNF
Nay (2): Senator Tyrion, Senator Lumine
Abstain (5): Senator Goldwater, Senator North Carolina Yankee, Senator Alfred  F. Jones, Senator Spiral, Senator Cynic

This amendment has failed to pass the senate.
I, Windjammer, president of the senate, certify these results are accurate.
()