SENATE BILL: The Common Sense Drug Reform Act of 2014 (Tabled)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Mr. X

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to begin advocating for this.

[TNF]

"Common Sense" is in the eye of the beholder, obviously. I ask the Senate to defeat yet another step in the wrong direction on drug policy, as exemplified by this bill.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

F.L. 31.10 decriminalizes (among other things) amphetamines, LSD, Peyote, MDMA, and GHB (a common date rape drug).  We shouldn't be decriminalizing extremely dangerous and in some cases, highly addictive drugs such as these.  I understand that some people believe there is a principle to stand on regarding what people can do with their bodies.  However, I think some folks may be losing sight of the fact that many of the drugs Atlasia has decriminalized are extremely dangerous and often highly addictive substances.  We should be trying to reduce drug use and fight the drug epidemic with sensible legislation that balances treatment and punishment, not passing laws that will only give current addicts easier access to these substances and likely lead to many new addicts as well. 

[Oakvale]

LSD, peyote and MDMA are neither "extremely dangerous" nor "highly addictive".

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

GHB as a date rape drug should probably be illegal outright, but in the case of LSD and peyote there's no serious health risk either short or long-term. And yeah, we should base these sorts of laws on empirical evidence and societal impact rather than what one perceives to be "common sense".

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

LSD, peyote and MDMA are neither "extremely dangerous" nor "highly addictive".

I'll give you peyote and perhaps even LSD, but while MDMA is not as dangerous or addictive as something like cocaine or heroine, it is still both a dangerous drug and an addictive one.  That said, I'm open to amending this law rather than repealing it outright.

[Oakvale]

MDMA is far safer than horse riding, which is as far as I'm aware perfectly legal, and there's no evidence that it's addictive. An addiction to MDMA would be physiologically implausible since your brain can only produce so much serotonin in a given period.

There's no objective data I know of that proves any causal link between psychosis and LSD use. True, if you take acid every day for a year you'll probably start to lose your grip on reality but most things are dangerous when taken in excess and we don't ban them out of some quasi-moralist nanny state impulse.

[President Tyrion]

Yeah, there is literally no substantial, peer-reviewed proof that MDMA, LSD, and Peyote are even remotely addictive. Their American Schedule classifications were haphazard at best.

The large issues are that these drugs have been swept under the rug for so long that: 1) Scientists have found it difficult to run statistically appropriate tests to determine the veracity of the claims in the Schedule classifications and 2) Various misconceptions have come about vis a vis their use.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Here is the statute: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Comprehensive_Drug_Reform_Act

For some of these substances it doesn't make sense to me that we would remove all restrictions when so many legitimate and safer medications still require a prescription.  I think this bill may be worth amending, but not outright repeal unless we incorporate some of it into another bill.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

After some consideration, I think amending the bill would probably make more sense.  I'll have a significantly amended version of this up either later today or tomorrow.

[TNF]

The bill is fine as it is. No need to change it, handwringing drug warrior nonsense to the contrary.

[Goldwater]

I am curious to see the amended version. I would vote against his bill in it's current form.

[President Tyrion]

I would unequivocally support more regulation on behavior in public, as well as regulation on the medical side of things.

[Napoleon]

This is...anything but common sense. Also, these things are less addictive than energy drinks and less harmful than antidepressants.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Even if some of these substances were dangerous, how does this justify imprisoning the users rather than cracking down on the dealers?  Also, GHB has some good medical purposes as an anesthetic, so banning it outright wouldn't be the best idea.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Amendment

The Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 2013 shall be amended to read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Fortunately, I don't think GHB was ever decriminalized.

[Goldwater]

So, legally, LSD would be on the same level as heroin? That makes no sense to me...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So, legally, LSD would be on the same level as heroin? That makes no sense to me...

If LSD specifically is the deal-breaker, then I suppose we can keep that decriminalized

[Goldwater]

So, legally, LSD would be on the same level as heroin? That makes no sense to me...

If LSD specifically is the deal-breaker, then I suppose we can keep that decriminalized

It's not really that LSD specifically is the deal-breaker, I guess I should have been more clear. It doesn't make sense to me that both LSD and MDMA, which were both considered soft drugs in the original bill, are now being bumped to the same level as all of the hard drugs except ketamine. What exactly is the reasoning behind that?

[TNF]

I object to this insane amendment and this utterly insane piece of frivolous legislation.

[Napoleon]

So, legally, LSD would be on the same level as heroin? That makes no sense to me...

If LSD specifically is the deal-breaker, then I suppose we can keep that decriminalized

It's not really that LSD specifically is the deal-breaker, I guess I should have been more clear. It doesn't make sense to me that both LSD and MDMA, which were both considered soft drugs in the original bill, are now being bumped to the same level as all of the hard drugs except ketamine. What exactly is the reasoning behind that?

There's no obvious reasoning behind any part of this amendment. Absolutely none of X's proposed changes to FL 31.10 are based in evidence, nor are his arguments to date founded on anything other than conjecture and moralizing.

His "common sense" arguments are so out of orbit that I couldn't even find anecdotal evidence to support them. There is either something in the water or Ohio has a truly impressive propaganda machine.

[TNF]

So, legally, LSD would be on the same level as heroin? That makes no sense to me...

If LSD specifically is the deal-breaker, then I suppose we can keep that decriminalized

It's not really that LSD specifically is the deal-breaker, I guess I should have been more clear. It doesn't make sense to me that both LSD and MDMA, which were both considered soft drugs in the original bill, are now being bumped to the same level as all of the hard drugs except ketamine. What exactly is the reasoning behind that?

There's no obvious reasoning behind any part of this amendment. Absolutely none of X's proposed changes to FL 31.10 are based in evidence, nor are his arguments to date founded on anything other than conjecture and moralizing.

His "common sense" arguments are so out of orbit that I couldn't even find anecdotal evidence to support them. There is either something in the water or Ohio has a truly impressive propaganda machine.

X has presented no real evidence that any of these drugs are dangerous. It's all emotional moralizing.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

X, you know that's an amendment to 58.7, right, not 31.10?   

We really need to combine and simplify these bills at some point, whatever we do. It makes no sense to have a bill that's called "Comprehensive" but deals with fewer drugs than a previous bill, with some overlap, but leaves both bills in effect.