Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 19, 2017 20:56:16 GMT -6
The 110100100 Act WHEREAS It is the right of all persons to be free, andWHEREAS Government exists to protect that right, andWHEREAS Freedom is all too often taken away for no good reason, andWHEREAS When a crime has no ill effect on anyone besides the person who committed it, it should not be a crime, andWHEREAS By now you probably realize that I am indeed talking about marijuana, andWHEREAS I have never smoked and I never will, andWHEREAS That is a personal choice, andWHEREAS I should not make personal choices for people other than myself, andWHEREAS The government definitely shouldn't make personal choices for anyone, andWHEREAS I, or most people, have never been negatively impacted by someone else smoking marijuana, andWHEREAS There is more reason to ban alcohol or cigarettes due to negative externalities than marijuana, and everyone agrees we shouldn't ban those, andWHEREAS That is because when Prohibition was tried in the United States, it was an utter and spectacular failure that led to an increase in alcohol consumption and the rise of organized crime, andWHEREAS We learned this lesson with alcohol, but few have seemed to learn that drug cartels are fueled by drug control laws, and
WHEREAS While drug laws don't succeed in stopping people from doing drugs or in stopping drug cartels, they do succeed in imprisoning thousands of people who didn't hurt anyone besides themselves, and in ensuring that now they will be unable to find a job after their release thanks to their criminal record, if you count that as success, which most people wouldn't, and
WHEREAS Even if you overlook the huge moral quandary that arises, it is still a huge waste of money, since the government has to pay to enforce the laws and imprison all of these people, and
WHEREAS That's not even considering all of the productivity lost when people are sitting around in jail for no good reason and then still can't work after their release, and WHEREAS I started this string of whereases with high-minded language about liberty for multiple reasons, andWHEREAS One reason was to show that support for cannabis legalization can be defended from base principles, and that not everyone who thinks it should be legalized is a stoner, andWHEREAS Another reason is to show that you don't have to be "socially liberal" in the macro-political world to support this cause, andWHEREAS It's not really a secret that I am generally more conservative in macro-politics than most Talossan citizens, andWHEREAS Nonetheless I still strongly support cannabis legalization, andWHEREAS Our Giant Friendly Neighbor continues to move in the right direction on this issue, andWHEREAS Let's give them a nudgeTHEREFORE subsection A.1.6, which currently reads: is amended to read: Noi urent q’estadra så:Ian Plätschisch (MC-MRPT, Minister of the Interior) Munditenens Tresplet (MC-FreeDem)
|
|
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial
Batetz las maes, perf. —— Freelance glheþineir (I only accept Worthless Internet Points™ as payment)
Posts: 448
Talossan Since: May 12, 2014
|
Post by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on Oct 20, 2017 6:05:00 GMT -6
Wait. Aren't 14-year-olds legally adults in Talossa? You want to legalise the consumption of cannabis for 14-year-olds? Tsk tsk.
|
|
Iac Marscheir
Citizen of Talossa
yak marsh air
Posts: 782
Talossan Since: 12-3-2016
Baron Since: Qet Miestra tent zirada.
|
Post by Iac Marscheir on Oct 20, 2017 6:49:44 GMT -6
Yeah, technically, that means that, while I wouldn't be allowed to give the cannabis to my 13-year-old sister, I'd be allowed to party like it's 1969 whenever I want. I'm not saying that's a bad thing... Just pointing out a fact. ·)_·)
Also, I figured out why the act name is 110100100.
On another note, the child would have to get the grass from somewhere. The text in the law implies that the kid would get the fine as explained in proposed clause 23.2. I think that, if it can be determined with reasonable certainty where or who the ganja came from, the fine should be placed on them. Otherwise, give the kid a warning if you can't find the supplier.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 20, 2017 7:42:20 GMT -6
Wait. Aren't 14-year-olds legally adults in Talossa? You want to legalise the consumption of cannabis for 14-year-olds? Tsk tsk. I had considered that. I could have said it was legal for all Talossans 18 years of age or older, but introducing two ages of majority into the law would be sloppy IMO. If we have one, we should stick with it (I think it's similarly weird that the US age of majority for everything except alcohol is 18 but for alcohol it's 21). Also, just because it would be legal doesn't mean it would be advisable. I don't think that anyone besides people with medical problems should ever use cannabis, but I shouldn't get to decide that for everyone. Governments should not be in the business of saving people from themselves.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 20, 2017 7:59:25 GMT -6
On another note, the child would have to get the grass from somewhere. The text in the law implies that the kid would get the fine as explained in proposed clause 23.2. I think that, if it can be determined with reasonable certainty where or who the ganja came from, the fine should be placed on them. Otherwise, give the kid a warning if you can't find the supplier. I changed 23.2 to take your suggestions into account, see if you like it. The prosecution of the adults responsible would already be taken care of under 23.1
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 20, 2017 8:18:00 GMT -6
There is scientific evidence that consumption of THC until the age of 25 can damage the development of the brain. Seeing how in Talossa, 14-year-olds are adults, we could legalise cannabis as a “drug for the elders” – you know, kind of a Talossan rite of passage into “elderhood” (counted from the Talossan age of legality).
|
|
|
Post by Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on Oct 20, 2017 8:28:42 GMT -6
Hummm... how do you define medical reasons? Say you have back pain and instead of going to the doctor, you decide to self medicate. There is obviously no medical record or proof that you are doing it for medical reasons, however you are doing it for condition you are treating yourself. Where would that leave you if this was enacted?
|
|
Iac Marscheir
Citizen of Talossa
yak marsh air
Posts: 782
Talossan Since: 12-3-2016
Baron Since: Qet Miestra tent zirada.
|
Post by Iac Marscheir on Oct 20, 2017 10:02:43 GMT -6
Require a prescription? That doesn’t impinge on free use by adults, but still provides medical exemptions to potential offenses.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 20, 2017 15:36:37 GMT -6
There is scientific evidence that consumption of THC until the age of 25 can damage the development of the brain. Seeing how in Talossa, 14-year-olds are adults, we could legalise cannabis as a “drug for the elders” – you know, kind of a Talossan rite of passage into “elderhood” (counted from the Talossan age of legality). This brings up an important question: what does an age of majority really mean? The range of activities that adults can do in, I believe, all jurisdictions, is much broader than what children can do. That obviously makes sense. Children are stupid (I for one will definitely admit to being stupid as a child and wholly incapable of making important decisions for myself). Therefore, the state has an interest in preventing children from doing things which are harmful to themselves, since children don't really understand what they are doing (as opposed to adults, who the state should give more freedom to since adults must be assumed to be able to make decisions on their own). I definitely agree with you that science says THC is bad for your brain development until age 25 (and indeed it is still bad for you after that). That is not the question. The question is whether or not the state should ban it. Whether the state trusts its citizens to take on the risks. That is what the age of majority is for; the age at which the government considers someone to be capable of considering the risks of what they are doing. The only privilege which being of Talossan majority age currently bestows is the right to vote and hold public office in Talossa. Since there are many people aged 14-17 who are both interested in and capable of doing that, 14 is a fine age of majority in Talossa, and one that I have fought to keep on multiple occasions. Perhaps, however, people age 14-17 cannot be trusted with making a decision about drugs. Perhaps 14 is OK when a government of (sorry to say) not much importance is at stake, but 14 is not OK for deciding whether or not to consume cannabis. That would be a quite reasonable position to take. Unfortunately, it would necessitate creating multiple ages of majority, but I am starting to think that would not be a big deal. I am not on board, however, with banning cannabis for everyone under the age of 25 if that is what you are suggesting. Surely people younger than that are able to make decisions for themselves.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 20, 2017 15:40:26 GMT -6
Hummm... how do you define medical reasons? Say you have back pain and instead of going to the doctor, you decide to self medicate. There is obviously no medical record or proof that you are doing it for medical reasons, however you are doing it for condition you are treating yourself. Where would that leave you if this was enacted? Check out the new 23.1
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Oct 20, 2017 17:13:11 GMT -6
I would dearly love someone to go to the GTA and commit civil disobedience against the Cestour government of Wisconsin on this issue.
|
|
Iac Marscheir
Citizen of Talossa
yak marsh air
Posts: 782
Talossan Since: 12-3-2016
Baron Since: Qet Miestra tent zirada.
|
Post by Iac Marscheir on Oct 20, 2017 20:45:15 GMT -6
I would dearly love someone to go to the GTA and commit civil disobedience against the Cestour government of Wisconsin on this issue. Ah, girl, wrong song.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 21, 2017 9:20:41 GMT -6
So... For the sake of argument, how do we go about enforcing this? Also, is it limited to physical Talossa or are we abrogating the cannabis rights if Talossans who live in jurisdictions that have more favorable cannabis law?
Alternatively, what if we just made it so the law of the physical jurisdiction in which you live shall dictate your rights to cannabis, with Talossa taking no position?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 25, 2017 11:09:56 GMT -6
So... For the sake of argument, how do we go about enforcing this? Also, is it limited to physical Talossa or are we abrogating the cannabis rights if Talossans who live in jurisdictions that have more favorable cannabis law? Alternatively, what if we just made it so the law of the physical jurisdiction in which you live shall dictate your rights to cannabis, with Talossa taking no position? This law would be enforced in the same way all of our other criminal laws are enforced, by our (in reality nonexistent) police force. This law would apply to everyone within the physical territory of Talossan and to no one without. Talossa failing to take a position on this issue would call into question the seriousness of Talossa's claim to physical jurisdiction. As it stands now, cannabis is criminal, so if we simply repealed that part of the Wisconsin legal code from el Lexhatx, cannabis would become legal since there would be no law banning it. I'm not sure how "taking no position" would even work, given that within the Kingdom cannabis must be either legal or illegal.
|
|
Iac Marscheir
Citizen of Talossa
yak marsh air
Posts: 782
Talossan Since: 12-3-2016
Baron Since: Qet Miestra tent zirada.
|
Post by Iac Marscheir on Oct 25, 2017 11:57:42 GMT -6
Well, if the Kingdom were to take no position, then it would be presumed legal with no regulation (since there are no provisions as to the treatment of cannabis), which could be dangerous. Which, incidentally, is why there should be a position, and the one in this bill is the one I support.
|
|