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

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

[Napoleon]

Aye

[Kaine for Senate '18]

nay

[Sbane]

Aye

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Aye

[MaxQue]

Aye

It serves no use to be a part of a convention we don't plan to respect.
All those who voted nay, do you plan to criminalize pot and send buyers to jail? Because that's exactly what that convension forces us to do so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Aye

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It appears that this will be a sad, sad day for Atlasia.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

That depends on how Yankee votes.

Good point

[MaxQue]

It appears that this will be a sad, sad day for Atlasia.

So, you want to put pot users in jail?
It's what the conventions force us to do.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It appears that this will be a sad, sad day for Atlasia.

So, you want to put pot users in jail?
It's what the conventions force us to do.

I am not necessarily opposed to withdrawing from the conventions, but only when there is an alternative actually in place.  Replace and repeal, not repeal and replace!

[MaxQue]

It appears that this will be a sad, sad day for Atlasia.

So, you want to put pot users in jail?
It's what the conventions force us to do.

I am not necessarily opposed to withdrawing from the conventions, but only when there is an alternative actually in place.  Replace and repeal, not repeal and replace!

Well, Atlasia can't write a convention alone and I don't than the SoEA has said than other countries were open to the idea.

An alternative might not be an option.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It appears that this will be a sad, sad day for Atlasia.

So, you want to put pot users in jail?
It's what the conventions force us to do.

I am not necessarily opposed to withdrawing from the conventions, but only when there is an alternative actually in place.  Replace and repeal, not repeal and replace!

Well, Atlasia can't write a convention alone and I don't than the SoEA has said than other countries were open to the idea.

An alternative might not be an option.

Then we can renegotiate it. 

[MaxQue]

It appears that this will be a sad, sad day for Atlasia.

So, you want to put pot users in jail?
It's what the conventions force us to do.

I am not necessarily opposed to withdrawing from the conventions, but only when there is an alternative actually in place.  Replace and repeal, not repeal and replace!

Well, Atlasia can't write a convention alone and I don't than the SoEA has said than other countries were open to the idea.

An alternative might not be an option.

Then we can renegotiate it. 

I personnaly never heard about renegotiating conventions, but I'm not an expect in international law.
Anyways, the fact than we signed that convention and refuse to respect it removes all legiminity to our name on the convention and badly hurt the legitimacy of it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It appears that this will be a sad, sad day for Atlasia.

So, you want to put pot users in jail?
It's what the conventions force us to do.

I am not necessarily opposed to withdrawing from the conventions, but only when there is an alternative actually in place.  Replace and repeal, not repeal and replace!

Well, Atlasia can't write a convention alone and I don't than the SoEA has said than other countries were open to the idea.

An alternative might not be an option.

Then we can renegotiate it.  

I personally never heard about renegotiating conventions, but I'm not an expect in international law.
Anyways, the fact than we signed that convention and refuse to respect it removes all legiminity to our name on the convention and badly hurt the legitimacy of it.

It would be even worse for our credibility to simply withdraw after doing all of that and not even bother to propose an alternative.  But don't take my word for it, I'd strongly encourage you to take a look at Secretary of State/SoEA Polnut's press release on this issue if you have not already done so.  We should renegotiate or propose a new treaty.  I am not dead-set against withdrawing from the treaties and conventions effected by this bill.  However, as I said earlier, I strongly believe that with things like this we must take a "replace and repeal, not repeal and replace" approach.  It is sort of like how IRL you know the Republicans aren't serious when they claim that they want to replace the Affordable Care Act with something better because they want to scrap it first and think of a replacement later.  Just to be clear, I'm not comparing anyone to the congressional Republicans nor am I implying any of my distinguished colleagues aren't serious about this issue.  I'm only trying to give a RL example of why a "replace and repeal" approach is necessary.  If you get rid of something without first figuring out what will replace it, there's no guarantee anything will actually end up replacing it and maybe that is what some of my fellow Senators want.  However, I would like to hear from supporters of this bill what their specific alternative proposals are and thus far I have not heard any.  I'd also request that the motion for a final vote be withdrawn if that is still possible because it is suddenly becoming clear to me that there may still be important issues relating to this bill that haven't be adequately covered (it seems like a productive discussion about the actual bill might be starting to develop and I'd hate to see that brushed aside just so we can have the vote a few days earlier).  

Some Senators' minds may be made up, but I can honestly say that I am still keeping an open mind.  I could see myself voting for this bill in the future, but not without an alternative in place or at least some very specific replacement proposals from supporters of the bill.  I'm especially interested in hearing what, if anything, Senator Sbane, Senator Averroes Nix, Senator MaxQue, Senator Napoleon, etc (as well as President Marokai if he doesn't plan to veto this bill) would support as a replacement for the treaties and conventions mentioned in this piece of legislation.

[MaxQue]

The differences between Republican Healthcare and an internation convention is than it takes years to agree on a convention and there is too much countries still supporting the regressive approch than I'm not even sure there is a majority of countries in the world willing to replace that convention by a new one.

I don't have any proposal and I don't this is body has the job of proposing international agreements. We ratify them, but there are usually negiociated by governments behind closed doors, not in legislative bodies.

A clean-cut renunciation will sent a much clearer message than just saying "We want to renegiociate". We want to, but there is a lot of countries which don't. Perhaps we would have more information if the SoEA did survey the ground, instead of trying to do our job.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The resolution was amended following Polnut's statement to encourage the administration to begin negotiating a new framework. That's really all that the Senate is empowered to do.

And I don't mean to be snide, but you pretty clearly are comparing us to Congressional Republicans:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference between these two situations is that the Senate cannot replace this treaty its own, as both Max and I have now noted. International treaties are not written by the legislature of any particular nation, nor should they be. The administration needs to work through its diplomatic agents to craft a proposal that's acceptable to other nations and in accord with Atlasian law.

Fair enough, although my intent was not to compare you to congressional Pubs, it was merely to point out the problems with a "repeal and replace" approach.  I am aware the Senate can't write new treaties, but you could lobby the Marokai administration to do so before introducing a bill like this.  The change you mentioned significantly improved the bill, but it is simply not the right time.

[MaxQue]

The resolution was amended following Polnut's statement to encourage the administration to begin negotiating a new framework. That's really all that the Senate is empowered to do.

And I don't mean to be snide, but you pretty clearly are comparing us to Congressional Republicans:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference between these two situations is that the Senate cannot replace this treaty its own, as both Max and I have now noted. International treaties are not written by the legislature of any particular nation, nor should they be. The administration needs to work through its diplomatic agents to craft a proposal that's acceptable to other nations and in accord with Atlasian law.

Fair enough, although my intent was not to compare you to congressional Pubs, it was merely to point out the problems with a "repeal and replace" approach.  I am aware the Senate can't write new treaties, but you could lobby the Marokai administration to do so before introducing a bill like this.  The change you mentioned significantly improved the bill, but it is simply not the right time.

Why other nations would bother to renegociate it, if it seems than we like the current treaty enough to stay within?

Drugs are a taboo subjects in politics around the world. Us leaving the treaty will make news and open the debate in other countries.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So we have a little over four days left.

Keep talking people, we got plenty of time left to go.

Senate X, have we not already repealed/replaced as opposed to replaced/repealed, when all those drugs were legalized and or decriminalized?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So we have a little over four days left.

Keep talking people, we got plenty of time left to go.

Senate X, have we not already repealed/replaced as opposed to replaced/repealed, when all those drugs were legalized and or decriminalized?

I'm trying to change that regarding some drugs   And in any event, just because we started down the repeal and replace path doesn't mean we have to keep going about this the wrong way.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay lets talk full faith and credit of the country.

What is worse at this point then in terms of relations with other countries. Is having broken the agreement but avoiding officially reneging better or worse than officialy breaking the agreement in this manner at this juncture? Which one makes it easier to negotiate a replacement protocol or convention for these issues?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

Maybe I already voted, I dunno. My phone is crap.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So we have a little over four days left.

I'm a bit confused by Senate procedure; why is that the case? Do treaties have to pass by 2/3rds in Atlasia and does this fall into that category?