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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hagrid you voted first.

Aye (6): Averroës Nix, Kalwejt, MaxQue, Nappy, sbane, Snowstalker
Nay (3): Ben, HagridoftheDeep, and jdb
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote Yet (1): NC Yankee

I haven't seen any answers to my questions. They have probably been answered before but in the context of longer and other arguments. I would strongly encourage both sides to provide concise answers on these matters, because if you don't there is no telling how crazy Yank is going to vote on this tomorrow.

I don't know for sure whether 2/3rds is required to pass a rejection of a treaty, I would just assume that it it does, since that is required for ratification of treaties by the Constitution.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As you wish, PPT North Carolina Yankee

I would argue that it is worse to officially renege on our commitments the way this bill would since if it passes we'll have no credibility to renegotiate a new treaty if we withdraw from the conventions and treaties mentioned in the bill.  It will be interpreted by the rest of the world as us essentially saying "We don't like these treaties that we agreed to anymore so change it to our liking or we'll ignore all of them."  We will come across as arrogant if we do this and will be in a much weaker position should we request that the treaties be renegotiated.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I do think 2/3 is required to reject a treaty that we are already a part of. So yeah, this all rests on Yankee's shoulders.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am beginning to lean towards Aye here, people.

Absolute last chance to convince me one way or the other. X, you still haven't articulate complains against this that don't already apply to the present situation, just as much if not even more so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

This bill has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It looks like I have an hour left, so I’ll engage in your questions, Yankee. The crux of Senator Nix’s argument is that we’re somehow sending the message that we don’t take international law seriously by being signatories of the treaty (or whatever it is) and ignoring its pledges. I disagree, because the spirit of the treaty matters. Whether we’re interested in liberalization or not, I think we can all agree that these substances are problematic—for individuals, for communities, and for government. Drugs kill, and so does the violence associated with the industry. We need to address these problems somehow, and it’s going to take an international effort.

These agreements were a part of that effort. To so abruptly disengage from these agreements—which were the culmination of long, co-operative negotiations—would send a terrible message. Let’s renegotiate in good faith first before we back out. We’re Atlasia—these agreements are worth piss all without having us at the table (for our size and our power). Officially denouncing these efforts would spell the failure of these international measures that so many sovereign nations agreed on—even if it’s just a change in optics. It tells the world that we aren’t serious about addressing the drug problem (and that is how it will look). I don’t see how this bill would put us in a position of strength to win more nations over to what is apparently “our side.”

[MaxQue]

We’re Atlasia—these agreements are worth piss all without having us at the table (for our size and our power).

Kyoto Protocol worked without us.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You think the Kyoto Protocol worked?

[MaxQue]

You think the Kyoto Protocol worked?

No, but did the War on Drugs worked either?

Kyoto Protocol was theorically in application even if Atlasia did not signed it. And what is better, countries which signed it but didn't applied any measures to respect or a country like Canada which withdrew from the Protocol?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's technically in application, sure, but it won't "work" because the United States showed that they have zero interest in even discussing any change that would "seriously harm the economy of the United States" (see the Byrd-Hagel Resolution). The United States accounts for something like 36% of GHG emissions, so to have the country not ratify the treaty is pretty detrimental to the whole process, and, I'd argue, to future negotiations. I'd group Canada's situation in with America's here, because both signed and then disengaged. Either situation is bad news.

I'm arguing that it's better to stay the course than to show that you've got no interest in the issue, as Canada and the United States have done with Kyoto. What we're doing here with these drug agreements is will be the same: "Hey all... we're not interested!" We can go into future negotiations with no power if we show that we're willing to be partners.

Anyhow, it's too late now. Oh well.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

This bill passes with 2/3 of the senate.