Repeal Cannabis Act 2015


  • Commission

    The Cannabis Act was enacted in April of this year. Due to significant unpopularity I propose that this act (included below) is formally repealed.
    Debate starts now and ends at 00:15GMT on the 28th October 2015 when voting starts and lasts until 00:15GMT on the 31st October 2015.

    European Cannabis Act

    Authored by Ralph Jaevons, Acwellan Devoy, John Walters

    Article I
    Section I: Purpose and Definitions.

    1. This Act legalizes cannabis, commonly known as marijuana, for recreational and medical use, throughout all member states of the European Union.
    2. This Act replaces expensive and ineffective prohibition, seeking to improve quality of life while also raising revenue and reducing crime for member states and their citizens.
    3. Definitions:
    4. Cannabis: a preparation of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a recreational drug and/or as medicine.
    5. Dispensary: a licensed store or clinic where cannabis is sold for personal consumption.
    6. Grow: A licensed facility where cannabis is grown for commerical use, such as, but not limited to, supplying dispensaries.
    7. National Possession Age: The minimum age, equivalent to national age of majority, a person must be in order to legally acquire, possess, transport, use, and/or sell cannabis.
    8. Hash Oil: A resin mix of cannabinoids obtained from the cannabis plant via solvent extraction.
    9. THC: Tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.
    10. Cannabis Authority: Any level of government or formal body with the power to regulate cannabis. Includes, but is not limited to, national governments, local governments, committees, and cannabis-specific regulatory agencies.Article II
      Section I: Regulations for Personal Use
    11. Adults over the National Possession Age in their nation of residence may legally possess cannabis for their own personal use.
    12. A minimum of 1 gram must be permitted by national governments, a maximum at their own discretion.
    13. Adults over the National Posssession Age in their nation of residence may grow cannabis plants on private property, and similarly possess, transport, and/or use all the marijuana from the plants they grow.
    14. National and local laws must permit the growing of a minimum of 6 plants, at least 3 of which can be mature, on private property, a maximum at cannabis authority discretion.
    15. Cannabis grown for personal use may not be sold or resold.
      Hash oil may not be extracted for personal use.
    16. Up to 30 grams of cannabis per transaction may be given as a gift to any other adult over the National Possession Age in their nation of residence, across the European Union.
    17. National and local laws regarding public consumption of other drugs, including but not limited to alcohol and tobacco, shall be adapted to include the consumption of cannabis, where applicable.
    18. Similarly, driving under the influence of cannabis should be equated to local and national laws regarding driving under the influence of alcohol, where applicable. This act does not limit cannabis authorities from enacting their own policies in these particular areas, so long as the possession of cannabis for personal use in private remains legal.Section II: Regulations for Commercial Use
    19. Adults over the National Possession Age in their nation of residence may operate cannabis-related businesses, including but not limited to, dispensaries, paraphenalia, and grow operations.
    20. Cannabis authorities may impose residency restrictions in their respective municipalities for starting, owning, and/or investing in cannabis-related businesses.
    21. Cannabis-related businesses may only operate with a proper license, granted by cannabis authorities. The granting of this license shall be determined by factors in line with those of similar industries. These include, but are not limited to, the presence of a viable business plan, secure physical premises meeting local zoning codes, and standard health and safety regulations.
    22. Cannabis authorities may regulate how many licenses may be awarded in their respective municipalities.
    23. A license to operate a cannabis-related business may be revoked should the business fail to meet the standards set by cannabis authorities.
    24. The rate of taxation, and its collection, regarding cannabis-related businesses and/or transactions, shall be the responsibility of cannabis authorities.
    25. Cannabis-related businesses may extract hash oil in accordance with national and/or local zoning and safety regulations.
      Hash oil may be used in the production of edible marijuana products. Cannabis authorities may regulate what types of edible products are allowed and how much THC they may contain.
      Edible marijuana products must be manufactured in child-proof packaging and be clearly distinguishable from non-marijuana products.
    26. Cannabis authorities may require edible product manufacturers to submit samples for routine testing, ensure uniform batch dosages, and regulate package quantity limits.Section III: Regulations for Medical Use
    27. Cannabis may be prescribed by licensed doctors or physicians to treat medical conditions or symptoms of medical conditions.
    28. Cannabis authorities may require a separate ID system for users of medical cannabis.
    29. Cannabis authorities may permit separate dosage and/or quantity regulations for medical cannabis products.
    30. Dispensaries that carry recreational cannabis products must also carry medical cannabis products.Article III
      Section I: Cannabis in Public
    31. Cannabis authorities may regulate whether cannabis may be consumed in public, on public transportation, and/or on public property, and under what conditions.
    32. Cannabis products being transported must be sealed or otherwise unopened, when applicable.
    33. Private businesses and/or landowners are not obligated to allow recreational cannabis use and/or possession on their premises.
    34. Private businesses and/or landowners are obligated, within reason, to allow medical cannabis use and/or possession on their premises, in accordance with a user?s valid prescription and ID.Article IV
      Section I: Enforcement
    35. Once passed, the European Cannabis Act shall take effect on April 20th, 2015.
    36. Member states shall have 6 months to harmonize their existing drug laws with this Act, to setup regulatory bodies, and to setup licensing.
    37. Regardless of existing drug laws, legalization and decriminalization of cannabis shall take effect on April 20th, 2015.
    38. Misuse or refusal to follow this Act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.Debate starts NOW and ends 20th MARCH 1200 GMT
      Voting on Amendments ends 22nd MARCH 1200 GMT
      Voting on the final bill ens 26th MARCH 1500 GMT




  • Angleter will support this repeal, on the same grounds that it supported the repeal of the Nuclear Weapons Act. This Act was and is a shameless reach into the member-states' internal affairs, and paved the way for the likes of the Nuclear Weapons Act. There were and are no convincing cross-border arguments for this Act; only the insistence that cannabis legalisation will be good for us. That much may be so, but we can and should be able to decide that for ourselves. A failure to recognise this basic principle will only serve to undermine the region in the future.

    Peter Montfort


  • Commission

    On the same grounds that my Angleteric colleague supports repeal of this legislation, the United Kingdom will also vote to repeal this legislation.

    Councillor Rushanara Ali

    Councillor for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland



  • I am afraid I must disagree with my British and Angleteric colleagues, the entire point of being in a union is that we work together for mutual benefit. The Davishirian Councillor's notion of being in a union and choosing to act as an individual is complete nonsense. As we saw earlier, it was Davishire that worked on the abolition of capital punishment, and we complied because that is what it means to be in a union, so it seems rather hypocritical now when we see a bill such as this. The Cannabis Act is important because it serves to benefit us all, it allows us to ease trade amongst our nations, eases tourism by ensuring that EU residents can know what recreational options are available to them and saves us vast amounts of Euros policing cannabis which is far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. Therefore I must stand my ground an insist that the Act be followed and that Davishire complies.

    Eloise Murray

    Councillor for the Constitutional Monarchy of Miraco


  • Moderator

    I agree with Councillor Murray and stand wholeheartedly against this repeal. I'm sure that the benefits of the legalization of cannabis could be further and more elaborately outlined, but I believe it has already been eloquently explained in the initial Cannabis Act debate.

    However, I do find this discussion on national sovereignty to be interesting. I don't think national sovereignty is some sort black-and-white and perfectly outlined object that can be contained within parameters. It is a means of national power this is constantly being increased and decreased, not just by the EU, but by corporations, institutions, agreements and individuals. I do realise that the powers of the EU could diminish the sovereignty of nations within the EU, but to demonize it for reaching into the internal affairs of its member states is to demonize it completely. Councillor Ali and Montfort probably realise that their respective countries have already lost sovereignty simply by joining the EU, and they hopefully understand both the benefits and drawbacks of doing so. Similarly, I assume they understand the whole reason why we have a European Union and what it aims to achieve. Obviously I don't think any member state is quite willing to surrender all political sovereignty to the EU, but some must be given up in order to reap the benefits of its laws and institutions. If the UK or Angleter aren't willing to give up some sovereignty or hand any political power over to the Council, then perhaps the EU is just not for them. I'm particularly surprised by Councillor Ali's euroscepticism and that of the Labour government, but that's for them to decide, not me. I realise however that some legislation entrenches on sovereignty more than others, and some may be beneficial, while others may be harmful. But that is for us to decide, and for us to decide where where that line of sovereignty stands. That is the whole point of the Council. We are supposed to deem what is acceptable and what is not. Is giving up sovereignty worth this, or is it not? That is what we are constantly asking in this chamber.

    That's why I find the comparison of the Cannabis Act to the Nuclear Weapons Act to be puzzling and what I disagree with. Sure, they both effect sovereignty - like everything in the EU. However, the scope of the Cannabis Act is not even close to that of the Nuclear Weapons Act. Cannabis cannot destroy and kill this entire planet several times over again in a matter of seconds. Nuclear weapons are not being possessed and sold by millions of Europeans all across the region everyday. The ban on nuclear weapons affects national sovereignty by a far greater margin than that of cannabis. Cannabis cannot decide the security, independence or power of your nation nearly like nuclear weapons can. A ban on nuclear weapons can certainly be seen as a massive smash against national sovereignty, but not nearly in the same way as cannabis can be. I certainly don't think the legalizing of cannabis has anything to do with the ban on nuclear weapons, so I doubt it was a precursor either.

    It is perfectly logical and rational to decide that some loss of sovereignty for greater good is acceptable, while a greater loss of sovereignty for less benefit may be unacceptable. Opposing the Nuclear Weapons Act on the basis of sovereignty, and then supporting the Cannabis Act on different grounds does not at all make you a hypocrite. I hope that Councillor Ali and her government consider this, and reexamine their position on the matter.


  • ECoJ

    I must agree with the two Councillor before me, there is no need for this repeal - it is our duty to protect the people of Europe! Don't turn your back on it just to gain a popularity vote.


  • Commission

    I do not believe that people are being protected by this act. This act is incredibly unpopular in Davishire and with other governments too and considering many see this as a minor matter there is no real need for the European Union to legislate on it.


    Cllr Sir Boris Johnson CEDM


  • ECoJ

    If it was not legislated on a Regional Level it would be much harder to prevent drug trafficking, and to enable those nations who with to ensure the safety of their people to be able to do so, we must not let one nation reduce the integrity of the protection of our people.

    Councillor James Tournay


  • ECoJ

    Inimicus wholeheartedly supported the introduction of this act, and gladly voted in favour of it. I believe it not only brings benefits to the people's safety - contrary to what the Davishirian councillor has said - by keeping cannabis out of drug dealers' hands, but it also generates tax revenue and decreases cannabis usage. The fact that, just because Davishire doesn't like a piece of legislation, they first have to propose a gazillion amendments, and then principally refuse to follow the bill (something which my government has actually been preparing an ECoJ case for) doesn't mean it has to be repealed. You're a member of the club, and there are rules that come with being one. If you don't like the majority of the club's rules, you leave. It's as simple as that. But there's no opt-out package. Inimicus will vote against this repeal and encourage other members to do so.

    Ralph Jaevons, Councillor for Inimicus


  • ECoJ

    Although I completely agree with you Councillor Jaevons, I don't believe it was the best idea to bring up a case against Davishire, as in some ways that could be seen as a threat if the repeal is successful - Not that I disagree with your argument I just wanted to point that out.


  • ECoJ

    I would say to the Councillor from Poretos that no such case has been made as of yet. Moreover, we are discussing the Davishirian Cllr's proposal here, and not matters of the ECoJ.

    Ralph Jaevons


  • ECoJ

    Thank you Councillor for that clarification, my apologies I just thought that should be settled before anything came of it in the chamber.

    Furthermore I would also like to withdraw my previous comments and be in favour of the Repeal, I have noticed my own mis-reading of the bill because honestly I did not believe any such bill as the legalisation of a substance would have been passed - Please excuse my ignorance and respect my complete shock that this passed initially: I hope my arguments now make more sense considering I have furthermore checked the legislation presented before us, with the current arguments of:

    - Increase Security for all Nation on the matter of Substances which will cause harm to the populations of these nations

    - Protect our most vunerable citizens from seeing the lack of government response to this issue as a go ahead, which can lead to loss of life, and other emotional and physical harms.

    - The belief that the tax revenue gained is far less than the working hours lost by those unfit for work due to emotional and physical harm and the strain it puts on our health services in which it is clear the tax cost is greater than the tax increase.

    - However I do not support it on the grounds that it is a "shameless reach into member-states' internal affairs" and I hope other nations join with me into seeing the case for the act and not the powers of the European Council and I further urge members who are in disagreement with the repeal due to the argument I disagree with, as just stated, to still vote FOR the repeal of this act due to the effects on our people.


  • Commission

    "It does not change a huge amount with regards to drug traffiking, if anything it creates problems. For example in Miraco it may be legal to possess 1g of this drug whilst in the UK it may be legel to possess 10g of this drug, this just means that Miraco has to spend a significant amount of money on ensuring that people entering the country from the UK are not in possession. This is the type of legislation that should be dealt with in national parliaments.

    It must also be noted that it was not I, but the late Sir Eric who introduced the Capital Punishment Act back in March. Personally I agree that that is also a matter for national parliaments.


  • Commission

    To reply to my Inquistan counterpart...the Labour Government in the United Kingdom had nothing to do with my decision. It is a decision of mine to stand on principle. I can assure him that while the Government of the United Kingdom has no problem giving up certain degrees of freedoms to be a part of Europe, I disagree with them on the matter of principle. If we are up in arms about the Nuclear Weapons Act, then this one (which was just as contentious) should be repealed. Again, that is not the Government's opinion but my own.

    Councillor Rushanara Ali

    Councillor for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland


  • Commission

    One argument that has been said in the past and I will repeat now is why do those nations who support the legalisation of cannabis want to bring everybody else along with them? Any governments would have been free, if they had wished, to allow the possession and use of cannabis. Why did they feel it necessary to bring other nations along with them especially when they were so unhappy with the chain of events?



  • Pacifist Cowards has had decriminalised drug use for many years now, cannabis in particular has been available to be sold by a responsible licence holder for decades (under the same principle as alcohol/tobacco).We voted against the Cannabis Act when it first came to pass, and we are supporting its repeal now. Though this may seem like a strange position to take, the Cowardly government feels it is justified in its stance for several key reasons.

    Firstly, the imposition of cannabis onto nations unwilling, unprepared or unable to put in the infrastructure to support it seems a gross abuse of this Council's power to act in a way that is beneficial to all Europeans. We understand not all nations have the infrastructure to provide cannabis for sale in large quantities, or have the support networks in place to allow for a sea change in government policy to be enacted without significant pushback from certain elements of society.

    Secondly, whilst we firmly believe in the rights of individuals to make up their own mind in a responsible way about drug use in any form, the cause of decriminalisation is actually hampered by the imposition of laws onto sovereign states. The War on Drugs being waged by some members of this region will not be softened or wound down by the arbitrary application of Council laws on certain substances. Instead, the populations of nations must decide for themselves whether the current policy of their governments vis a vis drug criminalisation and enforcement is sustainable or not.

    Thirdly, the existence of already legal cannabis and material for its cultivation and growth have led to a situation where a law passed by this Council has directly benefited certain nations financially at the expense of unwilling nations who have been forced to accept it. The legal weed industry in some nations has seen tremendous booms as start-ups, entrepreneurs, and ordinary citizens alike have flocked to be the first to spread the "green revolution" to their own shores. Whilst it is an inevitable part of this Council that laws passed here will benefit some nations over others, the way this law was passed and the consequences of its passing make the financial losses of certain member states harder to swallow, and in turn make the safe decriminalisation of drug use and the end of a prohibitively expensive and discriminatory War on Drugs less likely.


  • ECoJ

    Framptonia will be voting in favour of the repeal of the European Cannabis Act, for the same reasons that my predecessor voted against the Act in the first instance.

    I personally am in favour of the legalisation of Cannabis and live in the Framptonian Republic of Kesteven where personal possession has been legal for several years. That was a decision taken by the democratically elected Senate of Kesteven. In the neighbouring Framptonian Republic of New Holland, the democratically elected Senate has repeatedly refused to legalise cannabis and the legislation required to bring the EU Cannabis Act into force in that Republic was only passed with great difficulty.

    The decision in New Holland not to legalise cannabis had been made by the Senators elected by the local population. The decision to impose the legalisation upon the Republic was made by the European Council, a Council of Ministers with no democratic accountability to the people of New Holland. The European Council operates on a democratic basis, but it isn't a European Parliament and is only a quasi democratic body. Totally undemocratic nations get an equal vote in the Council with those of a more democratic nature. If we are to claim to be a democratic institution, we must allow the democratic bodies of our individual nations to make decisions appropriate to their level of authority. The legalisation of cannabis was something which should never have been brought before the Council.

    Councillor Murray wishes for standardisation of laws across the region, so that tourists from Miraco will know without having to undertake research, the amount of cannabis they are allowed to hold in their possession. This has to be the most fatuous reasons for an introduction of legislation that I have ever heard. We are separate nations, with different cultures and values. It is perfectly acceptable for different nations to have different laws on the same matter, providing that those laws are legislated and administered in a fair manner. If Miraco wants all the other nations of the EU to adopt its laws, so that Miracoons (OOC not sure what natives of Miraco are called, please feel free to correct me) do not have to adopt to the laws of foreign states when they are on holiday, then I would suggest that rather than forcing its laws on Republics like New Holland, it should simply adopt the laws of New Holland.

    This quite simply is an area where we do not require standardisation and the imposition of the EU Cannabis Act onto the democratic institutions of member nations by the unelected Council is shameful.

    Miss Stephanie Hughes - EU Councillor


  • Mass Effect RP

    "A rather sad day for the Council, isn't it? A nation that childishly refused to implement legislation it didn't agree with is now, just as it is legally obligated to comply, seeking the repeal of that legislation. Now, I'm all for repealing bad legislation, such as the Nuclear Weapons Act the Council voted on earlier. However, the reasons behind these two repeals are completely different. One was done to remove a genuine obstacle to further cooperation and disarmament between member states. This, on the other hand, is simply a last ditch effort by a government desperate to have its way, and to hell with everything else.

    "Councillor Johnson has had six months to propose a repeal for this legislation, which he hasn't taken advantage of despite his opposition to the bill. He only proposes it now because the harsh realities of being in a democratic union of countries has hit home. Rather than accept the democratic mandate of this Council, Davishire has instead chosen to be in open and proud breach of this act for the last week and has shown the rest of the region over the summer that its government is nothing less than immature. I can't think of any other instance in the region's history when one nation has thrown such a hissy fit over such a trivial matter.

    "This repeal treats this Council and its democratic values with complete contempt. Should it be passed, the precedent will be set. It doesn't matter what the law says, a country can do whatever the hell it likes and just push a repeal through of the legislation that says it can't, citing national sovereignty. For example, say the Duxburian Union had ignored the amendment to the Nuclear Proliferation Act which set up the ENAA. Say it had sold nuclear weaponry to any nation it liked, regardless of EU rules, because it wasn't their place to dictate Duxburian foreign policy. Say it then had the idea of simply repealing the legislation stopping it from doing that, in order to save face and avoid a messy court case. Would we as the Council let them do that? Of course not. This repeal is no different in its motives.

    In short, the argument presented by Councillor Johnson that the act infringes too far on national sovereignty is not at all the government of Davishire's true reasoning behind this proposal. Indeed, we've already seen consensus in this chamber that even that argument is moot. The real reasoning is simple. One member state with a history of treating the EU with contempt is trying a different, more subtle approach. If the real issue was national sovereignty or the Act's benefit to Europeans then this repeal would merit some discussion. As it is, however, it makes a mockery of this Council and I urge my colleagues to stop it.

    Speaker John Walters



  • I’d first like to call on my fellow Councillors to join me in welcoming Cllr. Reeves to this Chamber, and applauding the former Cllr. Ali on her years of service to her nation and this region.

    This repeal is not, or at least should not be, about Davishire and its failure to comply with this legislation. What has been proposed here today is nothing more than a repeal of an Act, and we should judge that proposition on its merits. Four other nations, in addition to former Cllr. Ali, have expressed support for this repeal. I hope that more join us. If the Speaker and Cllr. Jaevons would join us too and vote for this repeal if, say, I were proposing this repeal, or if Davishire were to suddenly start complying with the Act, then I’d suggest that they save us all a lot of time and effort and vote for it now.

    Some Councillors, thankfully, are actually defending the Act on its own terms. But, as when this Act was proposed in the first place several months ago, their arguments fall short. Cllr. Firoux makes the point that nuclear weapons are a much graver matter than cannabis – and that much is true, but does that not mean that nuclear weapons are a much more valid candidate for European infringement on national sovereignty than cannabis? This region should and does – even sans the excessive NWA, straight outta Europolis [Montfort pauses for laughter] – regulate those things that can make and break the destiny of entire nations at a European level. That is reasonable. It should not do the same for cannabis, nor for meat or alcohol or dairy or coca leaf. That is micromanagement. And what’s more, it provides a justification for all other sorts of micromanagement.

    Cllr. Firoux says that we should decide where and when national sovereignty starts and stops, and I agree. I am arguing that we decide that this Act ventures well into the realm of what should be left to individual nations. Many of the arguments we have seen defending it, both today and several months ago, work along the lines that it’ll be good for us – honest! It’ll raise your tax revenues – honest! It’ll curtail drug dealers – honest! It’ll decrease cannabis usage – honest! It’ll apparently boost tourism as Europeans stop staying home each year for fear of not knowing the easily-Googled laws on cannabis (and nothing else, presumably) in each possible destination – honest! It’ll boost trade, despite there being precisely zilch in the Act prohibiting nations from banning or tariffing imports and exports of cannabis – honest!

    Though some of these arguments seem especially spurious, ultimately, you pays your money and you takes your choice. But each nation should be able to decide these things for themselves. Ultimately, there is no remotely convincing cross-border argument for this Act. Nobody started from the premise of ‘how can we boost European trade and tourism’, or ‘how can we lift the burden on our police services’, or whatever – if they did, they’d have come up with some considerably better ideas. No, these are and always have been red herrings used to ram through this bizarre, arbitrary piece of legislation. For the good of the region, this Act needs to go. It needs to be rolled up, lit, and smoked until nothing remains of it.


    Peter Montfort


  • group:cid:2:privileges:mods:members

    Once again the right wing throw their toys out the pram and seek to constantly challenge progress. This is no the second attempt to bring the EU backwards because the time they hope will suit them. Repeal this bill and I will bring it to the floor again for introduction repeatedly until passes again.Councillor Johnson is only bringing bout this repeal as he was planning to disrespect out laws and expect to get away scot free, but when threatened with court action he has hastily organised an attempt at the eleventh hour to get around it. This is purile cynical politics. I say him and other dissenters you dont like it? then leave the EU. You all use national sovereignty every argument why do you bother participating in the European project? You are doing this to purely assert a right wing authority an dominance on the rest of Europe. We are on the edge of a legislation loop where everything ever passed will now be slung through council for repealing by a boisterous belligerent right wing. This must be stopped now! This is merely a trap by the right wing nations to ensure we can blamed for all of the problems in their own nations. If we reppeal this act expect prohibition tomorrow. If this continues I call upon other progressive parties to present counter legislative efforts. We haven't yet seen the impact of this legislation and haven't been able to measure it to present a fully researched case because the right don't want us to for fear we are correct in our ways showing them for the archaic puritans they are.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.