Ban International Trafficking

[Gulliver]

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution, a "recreational drug" as a chemical substance whose primary purpose is to act upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary or permanent changes in perception, mood, consciousness and/or behavior,

AWARE that member nations may not wish to outlaw drugs,

OBSERVING that trafficking of drugs across borders may lead to large untaxed amounts of money being poured from one nation to another,

NOTING that drug trafficking between nations may lead to conflict due to differences in drug laws of member nations,

FURTHER NOTING that drug trafficking in many instances directly funds terrorism and illegal weapon trade,

CONCLUDING that cutting down on international drug trafficking will benefit all nations involved economically and socially,

THEREFORE HEREBY MANDATING all member nations to follow this resolution that is:

§1 ENACTING that nations put immediately into effect laws imposing a fine, imprisonment, or other such forms of correctional action that are allowed by the UN upon drug traffickers.

§2 DEFINING international drug traffickers as any individuals who are caught involved in the international:

-Buying
-Selling
-Otherwise exchanging in any form

of drugs that were not legally passed through the borders of the nations involved.

§3 URGING member nations to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do not follow similar courses of action.

§4 ADVISING each member nation to consider imposing sanctions on nations who do follow similar courses of action, but fail to present their choice of correctional action as sufficient and fitting for the crime committed.

REITERATING, finally, that member nations who do carry out legal drug trade will be able to continue to do so.

[Delfos]

I at some point agree there should be restrictive legislation on this, but I think it's wrong to submit it like this or to define everyone involved as criminal, specially when he's urging to put sanctions in effect against nations that do not comply.

AGAINST

[Zimmerwald]

AGAINST.

[Delfos]

yay

[Templarios]

For

Thats 2 each so far

[Grand Duke of Virselia]

 For.

[Allama]

§2 DEFINING international drug traffickers as any individuals who are caught involved in the international:

-Buying
-Selling
-Otherwise exchanging in any form

of drugs that were not legally [sic] passed through the borders of the nations involved.

We're talking about "banning" something that's already illegal (if it's legally passed, it's legally passed - nothing changes here), then imposing sanctions on countries that don't follow up on their own justice systems?  Is this a joke? 

AGAINST

[Myroria]

Against - it's not a government's duty, let alone the UN, to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body.

[Grand Duke of Virselia]

We're talking about "banning" something that's already illegal (if it's legally passed, it's legally passed - nothing changes here), then imposing sanctions on countries that don't follow up on their own justice systems?  Is this a joke?

 Well, the nations involved may have different legislation on the issue:

NOTING that drug trafficking between nations may lead to conflict due to differences in drug laws of member nations,

 Apart from that, some countries in real life don't follow up on their own justice systems precisely on this matter for different reasons, some of which might be suggested from the sentences below. Look at the case of Afghanistan, for instance (it exemplifies the first statement).

OBSERVING that trafficking of drugs across borders may lead to large untaxed amounts of money being poured from one nation to another,

FURTHER NOTING that drug trafficking in many instances directly funds terrorism and illegal weapon trade,

[Allama]

The fact is, this doesn't actually change anything.  All this proposal does is encourage Country A to employ sanctions when Country B doesn't stop people from bringing drugs that are outlawed across their shared borders.  Country A already has that option, so it doesn't need to be encouraged; nations do this sort of thing all the time.

If drug Q is illegal in Country A, Country B should stop them; not passing this proposal does not make the traffickers' actions any less illegal.  If something already against the law, why should we force nations to pass new laws making it extra illegal?

If drug Q is legal in Country A, Country B does not have to stop anyone carrying it; this doesn't make transporting legal drugs suddenly illegal.

I simply don't see the point in needlessly complicating things.