IDS 1: Liberalization Act of 2013 (Passed)

[Velasco]

I can't vote clause 2. I believe gambling, lotteries, etcetera, must be regulated.

I'm all for the decriminalization of drug consumption, but providing that there is a market regulation, with control by the State on the drug distribution (specially in case of the heroine, amphetamine, MDMA, morphine, Opium, cocaine...), not to encourage consumption but to have a quality control on the drug vending for domestic consumption and preferably accompanied with detoxification therapy and medical examination. Also to fight the drug trafficking, or at least not encouraging it. As for marijuana and cannabis, there must be a limit for what is considered private consumption.

Being realistic, nude sunbathing should be practiced in nudist beaches, disallowing clothed people from them, as far as possible. No issue with topless in beaches, but I think streaking is a subject that concerns local authorities.

It means that, if you're suing a guy who hit you (in an auto accident), you may have the money you get from it reduced if you don't wear a helmet (the thinking being that your injuries wouldn't be as severe if you had worn a helmet). It's designed to incentivize helmet-wearing.

I think it's a non sense allowing motorcycle riders not to wear helmets and then saying that you want to encourage their use. Helmets should be obligatory when you are riding a motorcycle and optional for cyclists.

Seatbelts must be obligatory in motor vehicles (car, trucks and all the like).

Clause 7 is unacceptable to me because of this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, I'm in favour to determine an age of consent.

[Velasco]

Hash amendments on clause 3 plus the new clauses (from 8 to 12) address most of my concerns, so if we are going to vote on the rebuilt text, likely my vote will be affirmative.

It banned their obligation. You got it.

Anyway, on Hash's amendment, I'd say age for possessing or purchasing pornography should be the same as age of consent, no reason to have two ages. So 16 for both seems right.

I'm more or less neutral on here, since I'm not a great fan of the effects of pornography in the sexual education of young people who, on the other hand, have unlimited access across the Internet. The only way to counteract pornography's effects is to introduce a suitable program of sexual education in schools, adapted to the different ages, because evidently the physical and hormonal development is in very different phases at the 10 and at the age of 15.

[Velasco]

What would be the purpose of the control board? Would it actually restrict sales of the drug or would it just add another layer of government to do exactly what Sjoyce wanted in the first place?

Basically it's a question of public health, the board control would ensure the quality of the stuff. OTOH, it could reduce profits for drug traffickers. Most of the deaths caused by drugs are due to adulteration. Also, with a control board a medical control would be easier, as well encouraging people to follow therapies for drug addiction.

[Velasco]

As PiT pointed in another place, this bill might enter in conflict with previous legislation. I think passing the improved version of this bill would be a good chance to clarify and to have a more comprehensive body of law, so I'm going to introduce little amendments.

On drug policy, clause 3:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Comprehensive_Drug_Reform_Initiative_(Southeast)

On the age of consent, clause 8:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Age_of_Consent_Bill

On pornography, there is a "Pornography Leniency Bill" (issued in 2010) establishing a series of fines, which is not bad at all, and an "Anti Child Pornography Act" with another series of fine punishments. I'll put the links for the consideration of my fellow legislators:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Pornography_Leniency_Bill_(take_two)

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Anti-Opebo_Act

The title of the last bill was modified via amendment.

[Velasco]

What are we going to do? Voting on Dereich and Hashemite amendments separately? The friendly and the unfriendly ones?

A question for Dereich, why seatbelts in cars and no helmets in motorcycles?

[Velasco]

Voting will last 24 hours or until all have voted

[] Aye
[] Nay
[] Abstain

Which amemendment are we voting?

[Velasco]

Oh, well. Aye on the amendment.

[Velasco]

Aye.

Really?

By the way, Dereich, if you are concerned about drug standards, I don't know why don't you suppress the drug clause of the original bill instead of the control board alone.

Nay.

[Velasco]

Aye.

If this bill does pass, I would rather have the Control Board administration than completely unregulated drug laws. So a lesser of two evils vote.

You should have voted nay, then. Dereich's amendment supresses the control board, but not the SJoyce's clause on drug possesion.

[Velasco]

OK, now this makes sense. Let's do it again

Nay.

[Velasco]

Aye.