SENATE BILL: The "Cocaine Should Still be Illegal" Act (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Mr. X

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We are in the current month amongst non-TNF bills, though that probably won't last long.


X, you have 24 hours to start speaking.


Also, just in case we get lucky. I ask unanimous consent to waive the cloture and minimum debate times, Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First questions for myself and for everyone.

What is the current status of cocaine? Legal or decriminalized?

And what is the textbook defintion of the difference, since there was some confusion over that last time as I recall?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The law proposed for repeal does not make cocaine fully legal.  It merely decriminalizes the possession and use of cocaine, and not the sale and distribution.  It's actually a rather moderate law in terms of drug legality compared to Atlasian policy on some other drugs, and I do not support its repeal.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

@ PPT North Carolina Yankee: Cocaine use by individuals over the age of 18 was decriminalized by the law I am trying to repeal.  If something is legal than it is permitted by law, whereas decriminalization means eliminating all criminal penalties for it.  I also object to your motion, nice try   I might be alright with this motion later on though if the debate starts going in circles after a bit.


@ Everyone (but also partly a response to Senator Shua): I am not advocating a return to the failed era of the old War on Drugs where our jails were clogged with drug addicts and where drug policies were little more than a tool for dog whistle politics.  In my opinion, any responsible drug policies must balance treatment and rehabilitation with punishment.  I think the Rehabilitation and Reasonable Penalties Act of 2014, which is a vital part of my drug reform package, is proof of that (as well as my willingness to try to find a compromise on this since the penalties I proposed were already more lenient than I'd have liked).  As I've said before, I'd be happy to hear any suggestions from my colleagues about how these bills could be improved.  History has proven won't solve this problem with a purely punitive approach.  That being said, I think the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.  At the very least, there should be criminal penalties for the use of the worst hard drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroine.  

While the politically popular position might be that we should just leave people to their own devices where drugs like cocaine, heroine, and methamphetamine are concerned, the reality is that these are extremely dangerous and addictive substances that cannot be used safely, regardless of the dose or form.  We aren't talking about marijuana (which sounds like it is relatively harmless, compared to most drugs) or alcohol (which is fine as long as you are responsible about how much and how often you drink it).  Cocaine causes nothing except pain and suffering (both for addicts and those around them) and causes both physical and emotional death.  Even if one believes things like LSD should be decriminalized, as far as drugs go, cocaine is among the worst of the worst.

While treatment and rehabilitation are important and need to be a part of our nation's drug policies, criminal penalties (at least for drugs like cocaine) should be on the table as well.  I'm not advocating a return to the dark days of three strikes laws and private prisons lobbying for laws that will put more people in jail.  However, I do believe that just as criminal penalties alone are not the answer, neither is complete decriminalization. There is a balance between the two extremes and it is that balance that we should be looking for.

[TNF]

I am totally opposed to this bill and I will vote against it.

[tmthforu94]

I am totally opposed to this bill and I will vote against it.

Would you be open instead to amending this to allow for the possession and sale of cocaine and place a sin tax on it? I could probably get behind that.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Don't we already tax cocaine heavily? I recall favoring a higher tax than the Labor delegation when we passed the drug bill a few months ago.

[tmthforu94]

Don't we already tax cocaine heavily? I recall favoring a higher tax than the Labor delegation when we passed the drug bill a few months ago.

I will have to review that law - I am familiar with what you are talking about. 46-11 only decriminalizes it, it doesn't allow for it's sale, which would make taxing it pointless.

[Talleyrand]

I am totally opposed to this bill and I will vote against it.

Would you be open instead to amending this to allow for the possession and sale of cocaine and place a sin tax on it? I could probably get behind that.

This is a fairly decent idea. What sort of rates could be acceptable on this sin tax?

[TNF]

Cocaine isn't taxed because the sale of cocaine is not legal. The use and possession of it is, but not the sale.

[Napoleon]

The law should stand and the fact that people are misunderstanding what it does says a lot more about them than the actual law.

[Goldwater]

So, let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Currently, it's illegal to sell cocaine but not to possess it. This bill, if it passes, would also make it it illegal to possess it. Am I correct?

[President Tyrion]

So, let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Currently, it's illegal to sell cocaine but not to possess it. This bill, if it passes, would also make it it illegal to possess it. Am I correct?

Yes. Here's the bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Was the law you cite changed at all by the comprehensive legislation we passed a few months ago?

[President Tyrion]

Was the law you cite changed at all by the comprehensive legislation we passed a few months ago?

No. Cocaine was exempted from that legislation because this law was on the books.

[TNF]

Was the law you cite changed at all by the comprehensive legislation we passed a few months ago?

No. It just confirmed the existing status with regard to cocaine.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Was the law you cite changed at all by the comprehensive legislation we passed a few months ago?

No. It just confirmed the existing status with regard to cocaine.

So if this law being repealed here were repealed, Cocaine would remain decrminalized regardless correct?

Was the law you cite changed at all by the comprehensive legislation we passed a few months ago?

No. Cocaine was exempted from that legislation because this law was on the books.

Why wasn't it just consolidated into such if the aim was for a comphrensive law, with this one being repealed? length?

[TNF]

As far as I understand it, if the bill is repealed, cocaine will still remain legal thanks to the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 2013.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Was the law you cite changed at all by the comprehensive legislation we passed a few months ago?

No. It just confirmed the existing status with regard to cocaine.

So if this law being repealed here were repealed, Cocaine would remain decrminalized regardless correct?

Was the law you cite changed at all by the comprehensive legislation we passed a few months ago?

No. Cocaine was exempted from that legislation because this law was on the books.

Why wasn't it just consolidated into such if the aim was for a comphrensive law, with this one being repealed? length?

I should note that repealing this law removes one of the major legal roadblocks to re-criminalizating cocaine.  The other bill Senator TNF speaks of could be repealed and/or amended afterward.

[President Tyrion]

Cocaine, as far as I can see, was not mentioned in the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 2013.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Was the law you cite changed at all by the comprehensive legislation we passed a few months ago?

No. It just confirmed the existing status with regard to cocaine.

So if this law being repealed here were repealed, Cocaine would remain decrminalized regardless correct?

Was the law you cite changed at all by the comprehensive legislation we passed a few months ago?

No. Cocaine was exempted from that legislation because this law was on the books.

Why wasn't it just consolidated into such if the aim was for a comphrensive law, with this one being repealed? length?

I should note that repealing this law removes one of the major legal roadblocks to re-criminalizating cocaine.  The other bill Senator TNF speaks of could be repealed and/or amended afterward.

If we were to repeal 46.11, we ought to deal with the relevant portions of the other law at the same time so the status of the drug is clear.

[TNF]

Actually, Tyrion is correct. The Comprehensive Drug Reform Act does not mention cocaine, which means that if this bill is passed, cocaine will once again become illegal. I ask the Senate reject this bill outright.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would it be appropriate, if this bill lacks the votes to pass on the merits to amend it so that whilst repealing said law, the contents get rolled into the comprehensive act at the very least?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Would it be appropriate, if this bill lacks the votes to pass on the merits to amend it so that whilst repealing said law, the contents get rolled into the comprehensive act at the very least?

What do you mean?