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

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Because Napoleon motioned for cloture before Senator X offered his amendment, pursuant to the rules above, we need to vote on cloture before we consider his amendment.

So, senators, please vote aye, nay or abstain on the motion for cloture.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I urge this body to vote in the affirmative.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

NAY

[Napoleon]

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.

There was nothing productive about the debate and the sponsor requested it.  Anything that will be said has already been said and if you consider your amendment "productive debate" then we are in for a treat these next four months.

Aye on cloture.

[Sbane]

Aye.

The debate going on is about a bill that isn't even being debated right now. We can continue the conversation when that comes to the floor.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Aye

[Sopranos Republican]

AYE

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Cloture passes 6-2. It has been 24 hours.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is no such time limit that I am aware of on these votes and 6 is not 2/3rds of 10 unless Clarence or somebody resigned. So the vote is still on Mr. Veep.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

There is no such time limit that I am aware of on these votes and 6 is not 2/3rds of 10 unless Clarence or somebody resigned. So the vote is still on Mr. Veep.

I fixed it. I am doing the best I can given my circumstances. My exams will be over tomorrow and I promise to stop sounding like a circuit court judge.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

I apologize for my absense, but I will be making comments soon. Whether it'll be here or somewhere else seems to be up in the air.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I’ve sat quietly here for a while not because I’ve been lazy, but because I haven’t exactly known how to address this issue. It seems like people who believe in a balanced approach are being accused of “ruining lives” by sending people to jail for “victimless crimes.” I think we need to take a step back here and recognize three things, each in the context of the others:

1)   The role of government is to protect its citizens
2)   The state should not be in the business of regulating individuals’ behaviour
3)   These substances destroy individuals, families, and communities

Balancing these things is important, even though it’s difficult to do. So the first thing I want to say is, no one is interested in ruining lives—we’ve just got different interpretations regarding how we balance our roles as policymakers. For me, I’m inclined to believe that our current drug laws don’t do enough when it comes to protecting our citizens. To bring things back around to international drug policy, I also believe that rejecting these treaties would symbolize a failure on the part of the Atlasian government to stand up for life amongst some of the world’s most vulnerable populations (those being children and the poor).

If we look at the substances themselves, it’s pretty clear that hard drugs like cocaine and heroin are dangerous. I’ll start by talking about the physical consequences, but I don’t want us to forget the social consequences, either. Looking at physical symptoms, cocaine use can lead to cardiovascular damage, brain damage, and a host of psychological conditions. In terms of cocaine overdoses each year, I’ll provide the following figure:



More people overdose on cocaine than alcohol each year. I know it’s easy to say “alcohol is just as bad” (I recognize that my infographic only really speaks to ODs, so it’s possible that alcohol’s far-reaching consequences do kill more people per year), but either way, we should look at these drugs in context. That line for cocaine is pretty big, but it’s been estimated that only around 2.1 million Atlasians are regular cocaine users. The number of alcohol-related deaths is also high, but that’s to be expected, as a whopping 75% of Atlasians are regular users. So if you look at deaths relative to each drug’s base of users, it’s pretty obvious that cocaine is, objectively, the more dangerous drug.  Plus, looking at how easy it is to become addicted to cocaine versus alcohol, the numbers speak for themselves: The risk of becoming dependent on cocaine within ten years of first using the drug is about 16%; only 5-6% of drinkers are alcoholics. It should also be noted that the addiction rates are much, much higher for people who inject or smoke cocaine.

If we are seriously interested in protecting our citizens, we need to keep these drugs off the streets. I’ve read up on this issue, and I think the numbers that I’ve provided above show that the legalization of alcohol isn’t exactly arbitrary. A line needs to be drawn somewhere between “free to consume” and “dangerous to overall health,” and I think putting the line somewhere past alcohol (and marijuana!) is a good idea. Additionally, there are a lot more cultural ties to alcohol than to these harder drugs, and, straight-up, that fact is important in the semantics of drawing a line of acceptability—whether you think it’s an unfair standard or not. I guess the central question that proponents of this amendment are posing is “why bother having a line at all?” Honestly, I believe it’s because the lives we could be saving are worth it. Someone in this thread made the argument that “a drug war has negative externalities”—and I agree. Let’s not forget though that these drugs have negative externalities too. The thing is, we want to stop the spread of cocaine and heroin, and the only way to do it is to show that there are consequences for using these substances. Obviously I’d like law enforcement and the justice system to train their focus on dealers and traffickers, but, I’m sorry, you are a part of the problem if you’re a user. Sure, we can keep sentences short and emphasize rehabilitation, but punishing people who use drugs is part (a small part) of the corrective process. In no way does decriminalizing these drugs serve to get these substances off our streets and away from our kids. Plus, as it stands, more than 95% of the cocaine cases sent to federal courts in the United States involve trafficking of the drug—not recreational use. “Innocent” people don’t get locked up under this system.

Anyhow, I know I’ve invoked a lot of normative political thought here, but I think normative politics matter. Let’s punish dealers and traffickers so that we can keep people from using these destructive substances. Let’s provide help for people who have become dependent on them while still sending the message that it’s not okay to resort to heroin or cocaine (the example they set could actually prevent someone from being in the same place ten years down the road). Let’s limit the power of cartels internationally. Maybe I’m enforcing my own moral standard much like we’ve seen from others in the dog debate—I don’t know. The difference is, this issue is about real people with real problems. If we can protect people from these problems, we’ll all be better for it.

I realize I’m not going to convince anyone, but I think it’s unfair to leave Senators X and Ben hanging. This is where I stand, and I absolutely do not think it makes me heartless or unreasonable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Cloture is still one vote short of either passing or failing at this point.

I want to restate that I plan to vote no on the final vote, as I stated earlier.

[Sbane]

Hagrid, from that graph it looks like Alcohol currently has more OD deaths than Cocaine. And as you admit, it doesn't take into the cumulative effects of binge drinking over a long period of time.

As for addiction, there are two things about that study I should point out. First of all, cocaine and crack cocaine (including injectable formulations) are included in that study. Of course a smokeable version of a drug will be more addictive (smoking Marijuana is more addictive than eating it, for example). If people were injecting alcohol, we would see higher addiction there as well. In addition, it is not at all unreasonable to assume that those who are using Cocaine in our current atmosphere are much more prone to addiction than others. That would tend to increase the rate of addiction with Cocaine use as well.

In the end I feel that the responsibility of government is to provide accurate education to citizens, including the risks of different types of formulations, but leave it up to adults to make decisions for themselves. They need to take personal responsibility for themselves and use drugs responsibly.

You think that trying to take drugs off the street is actually working. That is completely delusional thinking (saying this with as much respect as possible). All it accomplishes is pushing up the price of the drug. Sure, you intercept a lot of it, but the more you step up enforcement and increase interception, the more drugs will be produced and sold at a higher price. Demand does not go down with that policy,since it is highly inelastic, and criminals will find a way to supply it to them at a higher price. The only way we will ever be successful is by lowering demand.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We are still 6-3 on this.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Aye

[MaxQue]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I appreciate your response, Senator Sbane. I’d just like to expand on some of the points you brought up and go a little bit deeper into my thinking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I may be missing something, but alcohol is blue and cocaine is purple. Wouldn’t that put the overdose deaths higher for cocaine?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You’re right, and I’m not disputing it, but I don’t think it’s good to throw around all these “if this; if that” scenarios. The fact is, people aren’t injecting alcohol and people are injecting cocaine. That’s the current drug landscape, and I don’t think it’s going to change any time soon. So it’s with that current landscape in mind that I talk about addiction rates. More people are getting addicted to cocaine, and the drug can be pretty darn dangerous to those folks who have a dependency. Alcohol, on the other hand, is being enjoyed safely, and we’re only seeing large numbers of problems associate with alcohol use because so many people partake in it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with you when you say we need to be providing accurate education, but it seems like the sentiment in this chamber is that programs like DARE don’t work. If you ask me, these programs are worthwhile. On top of DARE, we should seriously consider putting money into a better media campaign. I’ve seen some terrible shock commercials against cigarette smoking, and I’ll tell ya—they’re pretty effective. Throwing people in jail isn’t enough. We need to show people what these drugs can do.

That said, I still disagree with the second part of that last quote. I’m all for personal responsibility, but when that leeway can be used to collectively hurt society or make victims out of vulnerable people (I’m talking about the children who eventually turn to drugs because they know nothing else, or the kids who are left without parents because of ODs), it’s a different story. Obviously we disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with parts of what you’ve said, but I also disagree with a lot of it. Driving up the price of these drugs isn’t going to get people to stop buying them. That’s totally fair—addiction is addiction. But I think you’re overestimating things a bit, and I can’t help but feel like it was to your detriment that you brought up this point—it wasn’t on my radar before, and I think it actually helps my argument. Dealers won’t lose clients if the prices are ridiculous. But I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that existing buyers will make more infrequent purchases in their attempts to make less cocaine go further. Also, the higher prices will deter first time users like teenagers, and that’s what we really want here. If we’ve got an effective education campaign, a justice system that encourages deterrence, and ridiculously priced drugs, who’s going to want to buy into that? We do intercept a lot of drugs (well, who knows what things are actually like in Atlasia), and to let things slide would be a step backwards. Since we’ve already taken that backwards step though, I’m with Senator X—let’s choke these things out now before they become a fixed and permissible part of society.

[Napoleon]

Why do we need to show people what "these drugs" can do, but we aren't going to show fast food making people obese, grotesque and diabetic or automobiles smashed in with limbs hanging out? Or are only drugs bad?

Anyway maybe my eyes are bad but the blue looks larger than the purple on that graph.

Also a little reality check- first time users aren't purchasing anything so the price would have literally zero impact. People get it for free from their friends, no one is like "hmm, I want to try this. Let me find some creep I font know and pay him a bunch money for it".

And I don't know how you define "permissible" wrt society but with about 20% admitting to having tried it and who knows how many are silent, I would argue that's pretty mainstream.

[Sbane]

I may be missing something, but alcohol is blue and cocaine is purple. Wouldn’t that put the overdose deaths higher for cocaine?

I think you are reading it wrong. The total number of OD's is 25 out of 100,000 people for all drugs involved. And the portion of the OD's of each drug is being shown by each color, so there are more OD's due to alcohol than Cocaine (but it doesn't indicate the rate for either drug). I mean, the way you are interpreting the chart would mean that Cannabis, LSD , Mescaline and Mushrooms are causing the most OD's, which is completely ridiculous. And yes, that does mean that most OD's are due to improper use of prescription drugs. That does happen too often.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with you when you say we need to be providing accurate education, but it seems like the sentiment in this chamber is that programs like DARE don’t work. If you ask me, these programs are worthwhile. On top of DARE, we should seriously consider putting money into a better media campaign. I’ve seen some terrible shock commercials against cigarette smoking, and I’ll tell ya—they’re pretty effective. Throwing people in jail isn’t enough. We need to show people what these drugs can do.

DARE is only ineffective if it lies to kids. DARE actively lies to kids currently. It tells them that Marijuana increases the risk of a heart attack four times. Now, this may be technically true, but so does running a mile! So should kids not run a mile anymore? Is DARE being aimed towards 80 year olds with heart problems? So why are they misinforming kids? And once kids figure out that they were lied to about Marijuana, wouldn't they think they were lied to about harder drugs as well? And in this case, I think we have to be honest that snorting Cocaine just isn't as bad as smoking crack. And we can't pretend that snorting coke once is going to addict you to it because that is just not true. Crack is much more addictive though, and we should try and restrict the use of that formulation.

Completely agree with you about the Cigarette ads though. That is the approach we should take, and that is not the approach you or Senator X are proposing. As you probably know, smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal, yet usage has gone way down due to the media campaign against it. That is what we need with harder drugs, not making them some forbidden fruit for young people to desire. Unfortunately, you and other drug warriors completely disregard human psychology.

But I think you’re overestimating things a bit, and I can’t help but feel like it was to your detriment that you brought up this point—it wasn’t on my radar before, and I think it actually helps my argument. Dealers won’t lose clients if the prices are ridiculous. But I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that existing buyers will make more infrequent purchases in their attempts to make less cocaine go further. Also, the higher prices will deter first time users like teenagers, and that’s what we really want here.

No, you don't seem to fully understand economic theory. If prices are high, people will look for substitution products that are cheaper. Thus, someone doing coke who can't afford it, will look to crack cocaine! Someone who can't afford to just smoke opium, will want to inject heroin! The rules of economics don't stop when dealing with drugs. They are just as relevant when talking about the price of bread as it is when talking about the price of drugs, and what sort of substitution products may be used.

Also, as Napoleon pointed out, higher prices don't deter new users. They get it for free the first few times. Then they buy it when they are hooked and will pay whatever price is asked. Or they will go for the substitution products like crack which will get them more bang for their buck.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye (7): Averroës Nix, Kalwejt, MaxQue, Napoleon, NC Yankee sbane and Snowstalker
Nay (3): benconstine, HagridoftheDeep and jdb
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Clarence (successor voted)
Succcessor upheld vote (1): Matt from VT

With eight votes in the affirmative, cloture can be declared as passed and a final vote thus opend by the VP.

[Napoleon]

Mr X voted Nay, but the outcome remains unchanged.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

This bill is up for a final vote, my friends

Please vote aye, nay or abstain