These reforms modernize drug policies to reduce harm, align with public health evidence, and promote personal freedom while enhancing regulation and taxation for community benefit.
| Law | Previous | Proposed | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alcohol Regulation |
Strict regulation (age 21; high excise; retail 10:00–20:00; public drinking banned)
|
Liberal policy (age 18; moderate tax; late opening permitted; public zones allowed)
|
|
| 2 | Depressants Policy |
Full prohibition; possession criminalised, prison for repeat offences
|
Legal, licensed, regulated retail
|
|
| 3 | Marijuana Policy |
Medical-only (prescription/caregiver card; licensed dispensaries)
|
Legalization (age 21; licensed retail; THC tax; roadside impairment tests)
|
|
| 4 | Psychedelics Policy |
Full prohibition; possession criminalised, prison for repeat offences
|
Legal, licensed, regulated retail
|
|
| 5 | Tobacco & Vaping Regulation |
Heavy restrictions (plain packaging; indoor ban; age 21; advertising banned)
|
Light regulation (age 18, designated smoking areas, health warnings)
|
Party
The Liberals champions a free and open Zorath — where individuals are trusted to make their own choices, markets are free to innovate, and every culture and belief is welcome under a secular state. We believe prosperity comes from liberty, not control, and that a diverse
Core pillars
Minister of Finance · Age 36
Once a factory worker turned viral social media crusader, Samuel Vaughan became a household name after leading a historic labor strike that forced corporate giants to the negotiating table, blending working-class grit with a firebrand’s unshakable idealism.
Live tally across each chamber. Weighted by seats held.
For: 577 / 577 seats (100.0%)
Against: 0 · Abstained: 0 · Not voted: 0
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democrats (D) | 0 | Yes | We do support but recommend a tweak in which would still heavily restrict on 5 and 3. |
| Liberal Proposer | 577 | Yes | No reason given |
| The Homeland Union | 0 | Yes | we support this law, but we dont agree on anything and changes will be needed in the future. |
| Empty seats | 250 | Not voted |
For: 15 / 15 seats (100.0%)
Against: 0 · Abstained: 0 · Not voted: 0
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democrats (D) | 0 | Yes | We do support but recommend a tweak in which would still heavily restrict on 5 and 3. |
| Liberal Proposer | 15 | Yes | No reason given |
| The Homeland Union | 0 | Yes | we support this law, but we dont agree on anything and changes will be needed in the future. |
For: 348 / 348 seats (100.0%)
Against: 0 · Abstained: 0 · Not voted: 0
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democrats (D) | 0 | Yes | We do support but recommend a tweak in which would still heavily restrict on 5 and 3. |
| Liberal Proposer | 348 | Yes | No reason given |
| The Homeland Union | 0 | Yes | we support this law, but we dont agree on anything and changes will be needed in the future. |
For: 0 / 1 seats (0.0%)
Against: 0 · Abstained: 0 · Not voted: 1
Every vote must state a public reason. Most recent first.
“we support this law, but we dont agree on anything and changes will be needed in the future.”
“We do support but recommend a tweak in which would still heavily restrict on 5 and 3.”