SENATE BILL: End the Global War on Drugs Resolution (Passed)

[Maxwell]

Point is, if we are going around trying to criminalize things based on how deadly things are, alcohol is high on the list, and we all know how prohibition goes. I don't want to see my beautiful nation of Atlasia go through that again.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I think this is an area where compromise can be reached.  I think we all recognize the dangers of excessive drug and alcohol consumption, and I don't think anyone would object to increasing the availability of health and addiction treatment centers for the poor folks who need it.  Maybe we can develop a plan to work with poor communities, both urban and rural, and faith-based organizations to reach out to a broader range of people.

[Napoleon]

Your chart even says "too much alcohol".  Good Lord.

My chart is the equivalent of yours. Are you going to "Good lord" yourself?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Your chart even says "too much alcohol".  Good Lord.

My chart is the equivalent of yours. Are you going to "Good lord" yourself?

Ben's chart says "Side effects of chronic use of cocaine."  Your chart says "Too much alcohol can affect your health."  There is a difference.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Oh, how I've missed the senate.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Oh, how I've missed the senate.

Run Duke, run!

[Napoleon]

Your chart even says "too much alcohol".  Good Lord.

My chart is the equivalent of yours. Are you going to "Good lord" yourself?

Ben's chart says "Side effects of chronic use of cocaine."  Your chart says "Too much alcohol can affect your health."  There is a difference.

Chronic use is too much.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Your chart even says "too much alcohol".  Good Lord.

My chart is the equivalent of yours. Are you going to "Good lord" yourself?

Ben's chart says "Side effects of chronic use of cocaine."  Your chart says "Too much alcohol can affect your health."  There is a difference.

Actually, you can argue they mean essentially the same thing. Napoleon is correct when he makes the claim that there is little difference between abusing alcohol or cocaine on your body.

What should be the focal point of this argument is the addictive nature of cocaine versus alcohol and whether a person has a higher propensity to get addicted to one or the other. Whoever wins that argument will win this war.

[Napoleon]

Your chart even says "too much alcohol".  Good Lord.

My chart is the equivalent of yours. Are you going to "Good lord" yourself?

Ben's chart says "Side effects of chronic use of cocaine."  Your chart says "Too much alcohol can affect your health."  There is a difference.

Actually, you can argue they mean essentially the same thing. Napoleon is correct when he makes the claim that there is little difference between abusing alcohol or cocaine on your body.

What should be the focal point of this argument is the addictive nature of cocaine versus alcohol and whether a person has a higher propensity to get addicted to one or the other. Whoever wins that argument will win this war.

The WHO actually examined this in 1995 with a global study but the full report was never published because the United States threatened to withdraw all funding from the organization (the report did not support the police state drug control policies we have put behind us in Atlasia).

I am trying to give the Senators the benefit of the doubt but I can't help but feel these stances are the product of a sheltered life and a lifetime's worth of propaganda. Cocaine can be addictive. That applies to alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, caffeine, fast food, spending money, posting on forums, watching porn, having sex, jogging, gambling, watching TV, and really almost any other human activity. Most cocaine users in the US and Europe are ages 18-25. They mostly go to school and work. They aren't criminal junkies. They aren't driving around under the influence killing people (cocaine actually increases your focus, it would possibly make one a better driver but regardless we have kept that illegal).

I grew up in a wealthy area where many started using cocaine as young as 15. I don't think anecdotal evidence is sufficient but I only remember one kid from high school and maybe three from college that developed a habit they couldn't control. I've met over one hundred alcoholics. I've seen alcoholism destroy families. Some people have problems but most just want to party- that applies to all the substances we are discussing. Without proof, why should we start throwing people in jail? Why not wait until they actually commit a real crime before destroying their lives?

Oh, cocaine isn't legal, it will ruin your life. Why don't you spend some time in prison or useless government rehab center where you can't earn money, go to school or raise your kids? That will help you greatly! Sheesh.

[Adam Griffin]

Just leaving this here at the request of Senator Ben. I'll have some more stats later:

Cocaine Usage (16 Years & Older)

Past Month: 0.7%
Past Year: 1.6%
Ever: 15.7%

Heroin Usage (16 Years & Older)

Past Month: 0.1%
Past Year: 0.3%
Ever: 1.4%

Methamphetamine Usage (16 Years & Older)

Past Month: 0.3%
Past Year: 0.5%
Ever: 5.1%

Drug-related Deaths (2012)

Opioid-related Deaths: 13,458
Methamphetamine-related Deaths: 16,820
Cocaine-related Deaths: 1,247
Alcohol-related Deaths: 20,737
Tobacco-related Deaths: 92,752

Total Drug-related Deaths: 197,380

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Your chart even says "too much alcohol".  Good Lord.

My chart is the equivalent of yours. Are you going to "Good lord" yourself?

Ben's chart says "Side effects of chronic use of cocaine."  Your chart says "Too much alcohol can affect your health."  There is a difference.

Actually, you can argue they mean essentially the same thing. Napoleon is correct when he makes the claim that there is little difference between abusing alcohol or cocaine on your body.

What should be the focal point of this argument is the addictive nature of cocaine versus alcohol and whether a person has a higher propensity to get addicted to one or the other. Whoever wins that argument will win this war.

The WHO actually examined this in 1995 with a global study but the full report was never published because the United States threatened to withdraw all funding from the organization (the report did not support the police state drug control policies we have put behind us in Atlasia).

I am trying to give the Senators the benefit of the doubt but I can't help but feel these stances are the product of a sheltered life and a lifetime's worth of propaganda. Cocaine can be addictive. That applies to alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, caffeine, fast food, spending money, posting on forums, watching porn, having sex, jogging, gambling, watching TV, and really almost any other human activity. Most cocaine users in the US and Europe are ages 18-25. They mostly go to school and work. They aren't criminal junkies. They aren't driving around under the influence killing people (cocaine actually increases your focus, it would possibly make one a better driver but regardless we have kept that illegal).

I grew up in a wealthy area where many started using cocaine as young as 15. I don't think anecdotal evidence is sufficient but I only remember one kid from high school and maybe three from college that developed a habit they couldn't control. I've met over one hundred alcoholics. I've seen alcoholism destroy families. Some people have problems but most just want to party- that applies to all the substances we are discussing. Without proof, why should we start throwing people in jail? Why not wait until they actually commit a real crime before destroying their lives?

Oh, cocaine isn't legal, it will ruin your life. Why don't you spend some time in prison or useless government rehab center where you can't earn money, go to school or raise your kids? That will help you greatly! Sheesh.

If I had to take a side on this, I think, with inconclusive proof how addictive cocaine is vis a vis alcohol, and after incorporating the GM's data into my opinion, I would oppose recriminalizing it. That doesn't mean I like cocaine or that I don't think it isn't dangerous, but there isn't enough conclusive proof to warrant a step as major as recriminalizing it.

And how about all of this? I still can hang with the senate! It's like 2011 all over again!

[Sbane]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

[Sbane]

I am willing to keep an open mind, but you guys who want to fight drugs really need to keep things in perspective. We already allow some very horrible drugs like Alcohol and Tobacco in society because we feel that the consequences of banning them will be greater than the harm they are causing themselves and society. I know you guys are only trying to do what you feel is right, and want to protect people, but a drug war has negative externalities. If we won't fight alcohol due to that, then why should we fight against cocaine?

[MaxQue]

Well, the goal should be to move from a drug strategy to a addiction strategy.
Some substances which aren't illegal nor are proposed to be recriminalized (tobacco, alcohol, medical drugs like Oxycodon, even things like solvants or gaz used in really poor areas to get fixes).

This is a complicated problem and we should be way of any simple solution.

Not a senator yet, there is a lot of bills about it in the queue and I'm pretty sure than this Senate won't manage to do all of it in the coming week.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I am willing to keep an open mind, but you guys who want to fight drugs really need to keep things in perspective. We already allow some very horrible drugs like Alcohol and Tobacco in society because we feel that the consequences of banning them will be greater than the harm they are causing themselves and society. I know you guys are only trying to do what you feel is right, and want to protect people, but a drug war has negative externalities. If we won't fight alcohol due to that, then why should we fight against cocaine?

To answer your question, Senator, I will need to turn to RL for a moment.  I would argue that a ban on nicotine (although this could change within the next 20-30 years, probably not though), marijuana, and especially alcohol would be fundamentally less effective than legalizing the drugs, but for simplicity's sake I'll stick to those three for now.  I could probably be persuaded that this is also the case with some other drugs.  The reason for this is that, for better or worse, those drugs have not been truly stigmatized the way that drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin have been.  Most cultures in America generally view drinking alcohol, rightly or wrongly, as a relatively mild vice, if that (alcoholism is another story, but that is specifically drinking to excess, most Americans wouldn't argue that there is no safe way to drink alcohol).  Additionally, even members cultures whose members aren't supposed to drink (usually religions), would not say that they wouldn't be friends with someone or could never respect someone purely because he/she has a couple of drinks every now and then.  The situation is, for better or worse, fundamentally different with alcohol and that is ignoring the most important difference (drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine are far more addictive than alcohol and cannot be safely used). 

The situation with marijuana is similar, but with two key differences.  The first is that it is far less dangerous than alcohol (it is not addictive and far less damaging to an individual's health).  The second is that for quite a few generations of older Americans, it is still very stigmatized in a way that it is not for younger generations.  This will change and the ban will become less and less effective overtime and it will eventually become less stigmatized and legal in most of the U.S., for better or worse.  It is inevitable, but the shift won't be complete until several generations die out.  Given the inevitability of the situation, a ban makes less and less sense with each passing day (legalize and tax the holy hell out of it, I say). 

The situation with nicotine is a bit more complex.  It was never stigmatized during much of the country's history and then was sort of where alcohol is now for quite a while.  It also has strong support in the South for economic reasons and that is probably the main reason that the Christian right never went on a crusade against it.  Additionally, because it was not really stigmatized at all for so much of the country's history, powerful interest groups and corporations have emerged to lobby for pro-nicotine policies.  While the trend is towards greater stigmatization, the historical lack of stigmatization of nicotine, the economic stake that one of the core constituencies of the Christian right has in tobacco-farming, the power and wealth of the tobacco industry and its allies, and the fact that it is still not stigmatized the way cocaine, heroin, meth, etc have been all make it very unlikely that a ban on nicotine use would be any more effective than prohibition.  Even LSD wasn't illegal, IIRC, until folks started using it in the 60s and it created such a backlash/became so stigmatized that it was banned.  Even for LSD, which is infinitely less stigmatized than cocaine, there was still a gigantic backlash compared to how the public currently views nicotine, let alone alcohol. 

However, drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, have been (for better or worse) stigmatized to the point that a ban can work.  They are considered horrible things with no redeeming value whatsoever by most cultures in America (and by most Americans).  Despite Senator Napoleon's claims to the contrary, pretty much everyone agrees that there is no safe way to use the three aforementioned drugs.  Rightly or wrongly, society's general consensus is clearly that they are all far more directly dangerous than alcohol.  Additionally, they are infinitely more addictive than alcohol, this is simply a fact.  Insisting that alcohol is more addictive than cocaine is like insisting that 2+2=5: you can shout it until you've got no air left in your lungs, but that won't make it true.  Anyway, because the stigmatization has long existed in just about every culture in America for so long (among Americans), how dangerous and addictive the drugs are, etc, criminalizing drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc is still be more effective than de-criminalizing them.  It isn't a perfect solution, but I highly doubt that there is one.  Instead, we have to pick the best (or least bad) option, that's just the hand humanity has been dealt regarding this issue.  Thoughts?

[Napoleon]

I have a thought- why don't you bring in some actual evidence instead of red herrings like 2+2=5 that have nothing to do with the subject. All we have heard from you is that these are fundamentally evil substances and are so stigmatized. Cocaine is so stigmatized that 1/6 Atlasians have used it, I guess we should build enough prisons to fit all of them, right?

Why don't you download the 75 page WHO study from WikiLeaks and read it, actual scientific research, instead of repeating the same baseless, untrue, uninformed talking points?

*bangs head against brick wall repeatedly*

Anyway, its time we move forward and ignore the illogical, unsubstantiated reaction of the few.

I motion to invoke cloture and end debate.

[Sbane]

I am willing to keep an open mind, but you guys who want to fight drugs really need to keep things in perspective. We already allow some very horrible drugs like Alcohol and Tobacco in society because we feel that the consequences of banning them will be greater than the harm they are causing themselves and society. I know you guys are only trying to do what you feel is right, and want to protect people, but a drug war has negative externalities. If we won't fight alcohol due to that, then why should we fight against cocaine?

To answer your question, Senator, I will need to turn to RL for a moment.  I would argue that a ban on nicotine (although this could change within the next 20-30 years, probably not though), marijuana, and especially alcohol would be fundamentally less effective than legalizing the drugs, but for simplicity's sake I'll stick to those three for now.  I could probably be persuaded that this is also the case with some other drugs.  The reason for this is that, for better or worse, those drugs have not been truly stigmatized the way that drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin have been.  Most cultures in America generally view drinking alcohol, rightly or wrongly, as a relatively mild vice, if that (alcoholism is another story, but that is specifically drinking to excess, most Americans wouldn't argue that there is no safe way to drink alcohol).  Additionally, even members cultures whose members aren't supposed to drink (usually religions), would not say that they wouldn't be friends with someone or could never respect someone purely because he/she has a couple of drinks every now and then.  The situation is, for better or worse, fundamentally different with alcohol and that is ignoring the most important difference (drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine are far more addictive than alcohol and cannot be safely used). 

The situation with marijuana is similar, but with two key differences.  The first is that it is far less dangerous than alcohol (it is not addictive and far less damaging to an individual's health).  The second is that for quite a few generations of older Americans, it is still very stigmatized in a way that it is not for younger generations.  This will change and the ban will become less and less effective overtime and it will eventually become less stigmatized and legal in most of the U.S., for better or worse.  It is inevitable, but the shift won't be complete until several generations die out.  Given the inevitability of the situation, a ban makes less and less sense with each passing day (legalize and tax the holy hell out of it, I say). 

The situation with nicotine is a bit more complex.  It was never stigmatized during much of the country's history and then was sort of where alcohol is now for quite a while.  It also has strong support in the South for economic reasons and that is probably the main reason that the Christian right never went on a crusade against it.  Additionally, because it was not really stigmatized at all for so much of the country's history, powerful interest groups and corporations have emerged to lobby for pro-nicotine policies.  While the trend is towards greater stigmatization, the historical lack of stigmatization of nicotine, the economic stake that one of the core constituencies of the Christian right has in tobacco-farming, the power and wealth of the tobacco industry and its allies, and the fact that it is still not stigmatized the way cocaine, heroin, meth, etc have been all make it very unlikely that a ban on nicotine use would be any more effective than prohibition.  Even LSD wasn't illegal, IIRC, until folks started using it in the 60s and it created such a backlash/became so stigmatized that it was banned.  Even for LSD, which is infinitely less stigmatized than cocaine, there was still a gigantic backlash compared to how the public currently views nicotine, let alone alcohol. 

However, drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, have been (for better or worse) stigmatized to the point that a ban can work.  They are considered horrible things with no redeeming value whatsoever by most cultures in America (and by most Americans).  Despite Senator Napoleon's claims to the contrary, pretty much everyone agrees that there is no safe way to use the three aforementioned drugs.  Rightly or wrongly, society's general consensus is clearly that they are all far more directly dangerous than alcohol.  Additionally, they are infinitely more addictive than alcohol, this is simply a fact.  Insisting that alcohol is more addictive than cocaine is like insisting that 2+2=5: you can shout it until you've got no air left in your lungs, but that won't make it true.  Anyway, because the stigmatization has long existed in just about every culture in America for so long (among Americans), how dangerous and addictive the drugs are, etc, criminalizing drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc is still be more effective than de-criminalizing them.  It isn't a perfect solution, but I highly doubt that there is one.  Instead, we have to pick the best (or least bad) option, that's just the hand humanity has been dealt regarding this issue.  Thoughts?

The argument you are making is that even if these drugs are not that much more dangerous than alcohol, they are already stigmatized so the ban can work, so let's do it. That is a horrible, horrible argument, you do realize that, don't you? It is completely unconvincing.

Meth and Heroin are more addictive than alcohol. Crack probably is too. Cocaine on the other hand, and other opiates are probably about at the same level. The more I think about it, the more I like where the law is right now. We don't sell this stuff in stores, but we don't crack down on it and in the process ruin lives, usually in poorer communities.

Your argument may actually work in real life, because the government has convinced the idiotic populace that these drugs are oh so much more dangerous than alcohol. I think I can buy that when it comes to sticking heroin in your veins or smoking meth, but most other drugs just are not dangerous when compared to alcohol, and not more addictive either. In Atlasia, we have a more educated and less ignorant populace, thus we can actually pass drug laws based on logic and reason and not get punished for it. I will still keep an open mind, but I think Governor Scott's approach of focusing on making sure we are getting help to those who are dealing with addiction, whatever the substance or habit it may be (could even be porn), is a better approach than militarizing our society.

Here is a nifty chart:

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'd like to remind everyone that the subject of this resolution is international drug policy. I don't mean to suggest that our domestic drug control strategy is irrelevant, but this discussion does seem to be getting tangential.

By my count, five Senators have said that they favor or are likely to favor passage this resolution: Sbane, Napoleon, Snowstalker, Matt and myself. Ben, Mr. X, NCYankee, and Hagrid have established that they will not support withdrawing from these three treaties. Since it appears that this resolution has no hope of winning the support of the necessary two-thirds majority of the Senate, I move for a final vote.

I object

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I am willing to keep an open mind, but you guys who want to fight drugs really need to keep things in perspective. We already allow some very horrible drugs like Alcohol and Tobacco in society because we feel that the consequences of banning them will be greater than the harm they are causing themselves and society. I know you guys are only trying to do what you feel is right, and want to protect people, but a drug war has negative externalities. If we won't fight alcohol due to that, then why should we fight against cocaine?

To answer your question, Senator, I will need to turn to RL for a moment.  I would argue that a ban on nicotine (although this could change within the next 20-30 years, probably not though), marijuana, and especially alcohol would be fundamentally less effective than legalizing the drugs, but for simplicity's sake I'll stick to those three for now.  I could probably be persuaded that this is also the case with some other drugs.  The reason for this is that, for better or worse, those drugs have not been truly stigmatized the way that drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin have been.  Most cultures in America generally view drinking alcohol, rightly or wrongly, as a relatively mild vice, if that (alcoholism is another story, but that is specifically drinking to excess, most Americans wouldn't argue that there is no safe way to drink alcohol).  Additionally, even members cultures whose members aren't supposed to drink (usually religions), would not say that they wouldn't be friends with someone or could never respect someone purely because he/she has a couple of drinks every now and then.  The situation is, for better or worse, fundamentally different with alcohol and that is ignoring the most important difference (drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine are far more addictive than alcohol and cannot be safely used). 

The situation with marijuana is similar, but with two key differences.  The first is that it is far less dangerous than alcohol (it is not addictive and far less damaging to an individual's health).  The second is that for quite a few generations of older Americans, it is still very stigmatized in a way that it is not for younger generations.  This will change and the ban will become less and less effective overtime and it will eventually become less stigmatized and legal in most of the U.S., for better or worse.  It is inevitable, but the shift won't be complete until several generations die out.  Given the inevitability of the situation, a ban makes less and less sense with each passing day (legalize and tax the holy hell out of it, I say). 

The situation with nicotine is a bit more complex.  It was never stigmatized during much of the country's history and then was sort of where alcohol is now for quite a while.  It also has strong support in the South for economic reasons and that is probably the main reason that the Christian right never went on a crusade against it.  Additionally, because it was not really stigmatized at all for so much of the country's history, powerful interest groups and corporations have emerged to lobby for pro-nicotine policies.  While the trend is towards greater stigmatization, the historical lack of stigmatization of nicotine, the economic stake that one of the core constituencies of the Christian right has in tobacco-farming, the power and wealth of the tobacco industry and its allies, and the fact that it is still not stigmatized the way cocaine, heroin, meth, etc have been all make it very unlikely that a ban on nicotine use would be any more effective than prohibition.  Even LSD wasn't illegal, IIRC, until folks started using it in the 60s and it created such a backlash/became so stigmatized that it was banned.  Even for LSD, which is infinitely less stigmatized than cocaine, there was still a gigantic backlash compared to how the public currently views nicotine, let alone alcohol. 

However, drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, have been (for better or worse) stigmatized to the point that a ban can work.  They are considered horrible things with no redeeming value whatsoever by most cultures in America (and by most Americans).  Despite Senator Napoleon's claims to the contrary, pretty much everyone agrees that there is no safe way to use the three aforementioned drugs.  Rightly or wrongly, society's general consensus is clearly that they are all far more directly dangerous than alcohol.  Additionally, they are infinitely more addictive than alcohol, this is simply a fact.  Insisting that alcohol is more addictive than cocaine is like insisting that 2+2=5: you can shout it until you've got no air left in your lungs, but that won't make it true.  Anyway, because the stigmatization has long existed in just about every culture in America for so long (among Americans), how dangerous and addictive the drugs are, etc, criminalizing drugs like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc is still be more effective than de-criminalizing them.  It isn't a perfect solution, but I highly doubt that there is one.  Instead, we have to pick the best (or least bad) option, that's just the hand humanity has been dealt regarding this issue.  Thoughts?

The argument you are making is that even if these drugs are not that much more dangerous than alcohol, they are already stigmatized so the ban can work, so let's do it. That is a horrible, horrible argument, you do realize that, don't you? It is completely unconvincing.

Meth and Heroin are more addictive than alcohol. Crack probably is too. Cocaine on the other hand, and other opiates are probably about at the same level. The more I think about it, the more I like where the law is right now. We don't sell this stuff in stores, but we don't crack down on it and in the process ruin lives, usually in poorer communities.

Your argument may actually work in real life, because the government has convinced the idiotic populace that these drugs are oh so much more dangerous than alcohol. I think I can buy that when it comes to sticking heroin in your veins or smoking meth, but most other drugs just are not dangerous when compared to alcohol, and not more addictive either. In Atlasia, we have a more educated and less ignorant populace, thus we can actually pass drug laws based on logic and reason and not get punished for it. I will still keep an open mind, but I think Governor Scott's approach of focusing on making sure we are getting help to those who are dealing with addiction, whatever the substance or habit it may be (could even be porn), is a better approach than militarizing our society.

Here is a nifty chart:

That's not the argument I made, I'd expect such misrepresentation and straw-man tactics from Senator Napoleon, but this is very disappointing, as I thought you were interested in having a real debate.  I was answering your question about why criminalization of cocaine, heroin, meth, etc is more effective than a ban on alcohol, nicotine, or marijuana would be.  Cocaine is far more addictive than alcohol and far more dangerous, but by all means keep insisting 2+2=5   If you just misinterpreted my post, sorry for the tone, but otherwise this is very disappointing.

[Sbane]

Please provide evidence that cocaine is far more addictive and dangerous than alcohol. The evidence that I have seen shows that it is a bit more addictive, but not really more dangerous at all. Many sources are saying it is less dangerous. Feel free to prove me wrong. Heroin and Meth do seem to be clearly more addictive and dangerous, but even then we have to examine what is the correct policy to deal with who do become addicted.

The argument that I got from you is that since society accepts the use of nicotine and alcohol, it would not make sense to make them illegal. But since Cocaine has been stigmatized by society, it makes sense to make it illegal? I don't think any rational policy making would take into account what drug is stigmatized by society or not but rather if the detrimental effects of its use in society outweighs the damage caused to people by the drug war. And it's not just users being put in jail, but just take a look at the level of violence in American cities. 90% of that is attributable to the drug war. If we institute policies that bring that back, there is a very high bar of risk that has to be met. Whether or not something is stigmatized by society does not even close to cutting it. It's not even worth discussing.

If you feel like I am misconstruing your argument, feel free to restate it. First of all, if you are arguing that Cocaine is much more dangerous and addictive than alcohol, you need to prove it. Second of all, if you concede that Cocaine is a bit more addictive and causes about the same level of harm to users, you will not convince me by saying that since Cocaine is stigmatized and it would be easier to ban it, that we should actually go ahead and do it.

[Maxwell]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Honestly, that just seems kind of vindictive. Just vote against it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I think there is more than enough evidence to make an informed decision on this bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator X's "amendment" should be disregarded by the PPT under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 4 of the Senate's Rules, Regulations, Procedures.

I won't be regarding or disregarding anything in this bill for obvious reasons. I mean if I can fill a gap with a vote or something, then fine, but this is Duke's slot  and this is his mess to sort out procedurally thus.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules,_Regulations,_and_Procedures

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since Napoleon motioned for Cloture all subsequent actions including Nix's call for a final vote and the amendment proposed by jdb's are out of order. Said amendment may only be considered once cloture has been rejected. Also jdb's "objection" is completely out of order and irrelevant to the situation at hand.

So Duke, you need to start a vote on cloture, the rules for which are above. Once two thirds has voted in the affirmative, it may be ended and a final vote commenced. Should at any point four or more Senators vote against the said Motion, it can be declared as being failed. If any of this contradicts some clause not in the above sections, I apologize, I don't have the full text in front of me right now and it has been a while since I have done this.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Honestly, that just seems kind of vindictive. Just vote against it.

It isn't vindictive, I just don't approve of a productive debate being prematurely cut-off.