NE1: North East Drugs Act

[DKrol]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Debate will last for 72 hours, ending at 3:00PM on Wednesday, May 27th.

Clyde1998, you have 32 hours to advocate for your bill.

[Clyde1998]

I think the Northeast should have laws regulating drugs - categorising them by harmfulness.

The bill will create three categories of drugs - A, B and C, with C being the least harmful. I've listed a few for each category - based off of the UK list (feel free to debate where some of these drugs should be categorised). The bill includes the legalisation of cannabis.

No person will be allowed to be arrested for carrying a personal supply of any drug, under this proposal, but a person can be arrested for continuously supplying illegal drugs.

[DKrol]

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I feel that it is necessary to amend the bill as I have proposed for a simple reason: Safety. The Section 3 as the Bill was written opens up a dangerous precedent. We cannot have people walking down Main Street high on crack - It's part of the government's duty to ensure the safety of its people and being on crack is not safe.

I have also proposed to removed the legalization of cannabis because of the lack of scientific evidence supporting the notion that it is completely harmless, especially in the long term.

[free my dawg]

Oh boy. I have a lot to say about this bill once I get home.

Needless to say, for anyone who knows me personally, I am very fiercely opposed to this bill, and especially the amendment proposed by DKrol.

[Blair]

I thought drug reform had been dealt with years ago?

[Clyde1998]

I'll wait for some more comments before accepting any amendments.

I thought drug reform had been dealt with years ago?

I couldn't see anything, but if there is a previously passed bill feel free to post it - so we can compare it.

I have to say, I'm surprised that this bill has been jumped on first out of the two that I'm sponsoring at the moment... I thought the other one would be more controversial...

[Blair]

Well here's what I've dug out.... I've spend so much time looking through old laws. We really need to have a central statue place where people can work out what's going on-drug reform, healthcare and education are areas where most people (me included) don't know what's been done, what hasn't be done and what's been repealed. As Jimmy Carter would say there's a real malaise

The Northeast appears to have struck off all criminal penalties for the sale of Heroin and drugs seen below. So this law would be increasing the penalties, massively

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Likewise, here's the senate bill (it's a tad long) https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=180101.0

I've quoted part of it, which shows the widespread liberalization

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Dr. Cynic]

I swear, I thought I was a member of an Assembly that already dealt with drug liberalization. I don't know if there's anything on the wiki about it, but I remember it being done.

[Prince of Salem]

A fine for carrying a personal amount of Diazepam?

[free my dawg]

Normally I would “ayy lmao” at this bill and walk it on, but this is the one issue I consider not to be a laughing matter, and this is my pet issue.

Representative Clyde's bill, to put it bluntly, is the antithesis of what I've been fighting for in my career as a Representative, and exactly what I've fought to defend as governor. As I've said to multiple people, drug reform one of my most passionate issues, and I've made it clear that the one thing that I will not tolerate in this region is a second War on Drugs. The Northeast Drugs Act does exactly that: it punishes people for victimless crimes and making their own decisions, and it imprisons people who are trying to make a living.

First of all, it establishes a drug schedule that flies in the face of science. It's fairly common sense that (at the very least) DMT, LSD, and psilocybin mushrooms aren't as equally dangerous to public health or humans as methamphetamine, heroin, and crack, and are much less harmful to society than date rape drugs. They are impossible to overdose on, and deaths from the former drugs can be prevented through supervision. Since a scheduling system must be created, I believe that it should be determined through the two acts we already passed: Class A drugs were legalized by the Drug Liberalization Act, and Class B drugs were legalized by the Criminal Justice Modernisation Act. This helps separate harmful or more addictive drugs from those that are less addictive.

Not even mentioning the fact that the legalese is quite twisted - even to a greater extent that Representative Altsomn says:

*No charges are created, or classified by this bill. It is left up to the people.
*No definition of a personal amount.
*It only allows for cannabis to be sold in pharmacies, making this policy more regressive than real-life laws (which allow for dispensaries).
*There is no exception for medicinal use, allowing fines for blanket possession (which allows people who are prescribed drugs like Valium and Adderall to be fined).

Lastly, it, once again, criminalizes the possession or use of these drugs, and allows for imprisonment of drug dealers. This is a failed approach that I view as unacceptable. As I've said before, making our societal problems punishable by law doesn't make the problems go away – it just drives the problem underground. However, unlike texting while driving, which simply drives people to be more sneaky behind the wheel, it creates a much deadlier problem – a monopoly for cartels.

I helped fight for the legalization of all drugs (and defended it) to break this vicious cycle. At this stage, businesses have a control of drug supplies in the Northeast. Legal opportunities to sell legal goods – just like the average corner store. Usually, you have dispensaries, and sometimes, you have the average individual venture. However, the market can provide one thing that cartels can't – a safe, well-inspected product that isn't cut or spiked with any other drugs. This is why any sort of re-criminalization of any drug in the Northeast shall be the hill that my administration shall die on.

[Clyde1998]

Normally I would “ayy lmao” at this bill and walk it on, but this is the one issue I consider not to be a laughing matter, and this is my pet issue.

Representative Clyde's bill, to put it bluntly, is the antithesis of what I've been fighting for in my career as a Representative, and exactly what I've fought to defend as governor. As I've said to multiple people, drug reform one of my most passionate issues, and I've made it clear that the one thing that I will not tolerate in this region is a second War on Drugs. The Northeast Drugs Act does exactly that: it punishes people for victimless crimes and making their own decisions, and it imprisons people who are trying to make a living.

The current laws are far too relaxed on the subject - we can't have people on the streets high on heroin (as an example). Especially given that the main way to get high from heroin is through injections - there's a major STD risk.

I think the main question has to be - why do these people making a living out of drugs in the first place? There must be a major issue with the education system and job opportunities that forces people into selling drugs. We should look at those issues - we shouldn't just legalise drugs just because people make a living out of them.

First of all, it establishes a drug schedule that flies in the face of science. It's fairly common sense that (at the very least) DMT, LSD, and psilocybin mushrooms aren't as equally dangerous to public health or humans as methamphetamine, heroin, and crack, and are much less harmful to society than date rape drugs. They are impossible to overdose on, and deaths from the former drugs can be prevented through supervision. Since a scheduling system must be created, I believe that it should be determined through the two acts we already passed: Class A drugs were legalized by the Drug Liberalization Act, and Class B drugs were legalized by the Criminal Justice Modernisation Act. This helps separate harmful or more addictive drugs from those that are less addictive.

I've already said that the list included in the bill is open for debate - and was based off of the current list in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugs_controlled_by_the_UK_Misuse_of_Drugs_Act

If you are able to suggest a more appropriate list, then feel free.

You can overdose, easily, on the latter three that you mentioned, by the way. Most of which if taken with other drugs or alcohol.

Not even mentioning the fact that the legalese makes no charges to be brought up, and no classification for these charges exists. It is under the judge's discretion to name it a misdemeanor or a felony, which leads to some obvious problems. I'd like to note that the legal wording only allows for cannabis to be sold in pharmacies, making this policy more regressive than real-life laws (which allow for dispensaries). It also does not allow for any sort of medical permits, and simply allows fines for blanket possession (which allows people who are prescribed drugs like Valium and Adderall to be fined).

To clear up - Dispensaries (I had to Google what they are) are what I'd call a Pharmacy. What you'd call a Pharmacy is a Chemist's in the UK.

Diazepam (marketed as Valium) should only be prescribed by a doctor and I'll propose an amendment based on that tomorrow, as certain drugs should only be obtained via a prescription.

Adderall is illegal in the UK - in all situations - so that's why it's on my list. In fact, I believe Canada and the USA are the only countries in the world were it's legal.

See previous comments for drug categorising

Lastly, it, once again, criminalizes the possession or use of these drugs, and allows for imprisonment of drug dealers. This is a failed approach that I view as unacceptable. As I've said before, making our societal problems punishable by law doesn't make the problems go away – it just drives the problem underground. However, unlike texting while driving, which simply drives people to be more sneaky behind the wheel, it creates a much deadlier problem – a monopoly for cartels.

It may push the problems under ground, but a majority of people would stop. I believe illegal drug use in the developed world is less than 1% of the population, compared to alcohol at around 80-90%. We could then focus on stopping the supply into the country, rather than just saying - 'if it's illegal, we'll have a problem with underground selling'.

I helped fight for the legalization of all drugs (and defended it) to break this vicious cycle. At this stage, businesses have a control of drug supplies in the Northeast. Legal opportunities to sell legal goods – just like the average corner store. Usually, you have dispensaries, and sometimes, you have the average individual venture. However, the market can provide one thing that cartels can't – a safe, well-inspected product that isn't cut or spiked with any other drugs. This is why any sort of re-criminalization of any drug in the Northeast shall be the hill that my administration shall die on.

My job is to protect the citizens of the Northeast. If I allowed people to be dependent on certain drugs, some of which could easily kill you or cause harm to others indirectly, then I wouldn't be doing my job.

There must be some form of drug laws in the Northeast.

[windjammer]

Preparing the popcorns, risks to be fun to watch.

[free my dawg]

Normally I would “ayy lmao” at this bill and walk it on, but this is the one issue I consider not to be a laughing matter, and this is my pet issue.

Representative Clyde's bill, to put it bluntly, is the antithesis of what I've been fighting for in my career as a Representative, and exactly what I've fought to defend as governor. As I've said to multiple people, drug reform one of my most passionate issues, and I've made it clear that the one thing that I will not tolerate in this region is a second War on Drugs. The Northeast Drugs Act does exactly that: it punishes people for victimless crimes and making their own decisions, and it imprisons people who are trying to make a living.

The current laws are far too relaxed on the subject - we can't have people on the streets high on heroin (as an example). Especially given that the main way to get high from heroin is through injections - there's a major STD risk.

I think the main question has to be - why do these people making a living out of drugs in the first place? There must be a major issue with the education system and job opportunities that forces people into selling drugs. We should look at those issues - we shouldn't just legalise drugs just because people make a living out of them.

I agree. That's why I sponsored, pushed, and passed the Amendment to the Public Intoxication Act, closing the loophole of people shooting up on the streets. Personally, I believe in the freedom of people to establish a business, and participate in the market. I actually have a bill in the works giving loans to people in low-income areas who want to start their own dispensaries, giving people a way to get out of the streets and into the middle class.

It's also worth noting that the assertion of an STD risk from heroin that rises from its decriminalization is blatantly false. In fact, multiple scientific studies say that a more liberal drug policy would actually decrease the spread of STDs.

I've already said that the list included in the bill is open for debate - and was based off of the current list in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugs_controlled_by_the_UK_Misuse_of_Drugs_Act

If you are able to suggest a more appropriate list, then feel free.

You can overdose, easily, on the latter three that you mentioned, by the way. Most of which if taken with other drugs or alcohol.

Nobody's denying you can overdose on meth and heroin. You can. I was actually saying that DMT, LSD, and mushrooms cannot be overdosed on. There are no recorded LSD overdose deaths, and the lethal dosage for LSD for humans is 10 milligrams, while the average dose of LSD you can get on the street is 50 micrograms. The lethal dosage for DMT is 6600 grams (or 6.6 grams), compared to the usual dosage of 60mg. The lethal dose for psilocybin is about 1680 grams, or more than three pounds of mushrooms at 1% potency, to overdose. Expecting a human to eat more than three pounds is a tad ridiculous. To overdose, it would take way too much time and way too much money, so an LSD/DMT/shrooms overdose would be only theoretical.

To clear up - Dispensaries (I had to Google what they are) are what I'd call a Pharmacy. What you'd call a Pharmacy is a Chemist's in the UK.

Diazepam (marketed as Valium) should only be prescribed by a doctor and I'll propose an amendment based on that tomorrow, as certain drugs should only be obtained via a prescription.

Adderall is illegal in the UK - in all situations - so that's why it's on my list. In fact, I believe Canada and the USA are the only countries in the world were it's legal.

This is mostly philosophical, and covered in my final point in the message you quoted.

It may push the problems under ground, but a majority of people would stop. I believe illegal drug use in the developed world is less than 1% of the population, compared to alcohol at around 80-90%. We could then focus on stopping the supply into the country, rather than just saying - 'if it's illegal, we'll have a problem with underground selling'.

That's a complete and utter misrepresentation of my point. What I said was if it's illegal, it creates a monopoly for illegal selling. If it's legal, it gives people a safe place to get drugs. If it's legal, you won't have to worry about other, more victim-driven crimes overlapping into drug dealing or drug usage. If it's legal, it takes away the stigma of addicts being skeevy, dirty people who are law-breaking citizens, and encourages them to get help and go to rehab. If it's legal, it allows illegal businesses to become legal small businesses. If it's legal, it gives people a way out of the lower class, and it leads to more investment in our inner cities. We'll never stop the supply of drugs into Atlasia - so why not change who supplies them?

My job is to protect the citizens of the Northeast. If I allowed people to be dependent on certain drugs, some of which could easily kill you or cause harm to others indirectly, then I wouldn't be doing my job.

There must be some form of drug laws in the Northeast.

And my job is to represent and help the citizens of the Northeast as well as I can. If I allowed organizations like the Sinaloa Cartel to control the drug supply in the world, I wouldn't be doing my job. If I allowed gangs to control the drug trade in the Northeast, I wouldn't be doing my job. If I wanted people to consume unsafe, unknown products, I wouldn't be doing my job. If I wanted to throw dealers in prison instead of giving them (and their communities, by extension) a legal avenue out of poverty, I wouldn't be doing my job.

If I signed the Northeast Drugs Act as is, I wouldn't be doing my job.

[Dr. Cynic]

Honestly, I stand by the Governor's arguments. I don't support this bill and I view it as entirely the wrong step to take with regards to the drug trade. Better to be legalized and controlled than illegal and rampant. Clyde's arguments fail to persuade.

[Poirot]

Prison sentence is for suppliers of drugs (not users) only and possible after a third offence so I don't think this bill is very harsh.

[Prince of Salem]

This bill definitely goes too far on fines and bans. Way too far. I could offer an amendment, but first a formal statement should be made on DKrol's.

[free my dawg]

Prison sentence is for suppliers of drugs (not users) only and possible after a third offence so I don't think this bill is very harsh.

That's the thing - I oppose any sort of illegalization, let alone prison sentences.

The issue of drugs will be the hill that my administration dies on.

[Clyde1998]

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I feel that it is necessary to amend the bill as I have proposed for a simple reason: Safety. The Section 3 as the Bill was written opens up a dangerous precedent. We cannot have people walking down Main Street high on crack - It's part of the government's duty to ensure the safety of its people and being on crack is not safe.

I have also proposed to removed the legalization of cannabis because of the lack of scientific evidence supporting the notion that it is completely harmless, especially in the long term.

Based on what's been said by the other representatives, probably not friendly.

I offer this proposal to ensure some sort of protection for our citizens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DKrol]

As the amendment was made the author, I've ruled it as friendly. The bill has been amended.

[pikachu]

In it's current form, I don't support Clyde's bill because I don't support punishing people who possess drugs in any way.

[Dr. Cynic]

I still don't see a reason to change the current law.

[Prince of Salem]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd rather have very strong regulations rather than downright prohibitions though.

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd rather have very strong regulations rather than downright prohibitions though.

Fair enough, I guess this is going to be the only way we could get something through...

(Amendment friendly)

[DKrol]

We will now move to a 48 hour vote on the bill, as amended by Rep. Altsomn Stmarken.

Aye

[Clyde1998]

Aye