[PASSED] Ban on the Administration of Unwanted Substances

[WayNeacTia]

"So chemical weapons are now illegal? For that matter, now pepper spray is illegal as well. Hell if we interpret it to the letter of the law, so are bullets. So effectively one resolution by the letter of the law, has completely outlawed war. Isn't it wonderful that bleeding hearts seem to be the majority these days?"

Wayne

"Ambassador, I believe that you are failing to interpret the resolution in good faith."

No, I'm pretty sure I'm not. WA convention has always been, THE LAW DOES, WHAT THE LAW SAYS. Any Old Guard member can tell you that. It truly is a shame they decide to vote for such an overreach, but meh....."

Wayne

[Maowi]

"So chemical weapons are now illegal? For that matter, now pepper spray is illegal as well. Hell if we interpret it to the letter of the law, so are bullets. So effectively one resolution by the letter of the law, has completely outlawed war. Isn't it wonderful that bleeding hearts seem to be the majority these days?"

Wayne

"I believe this would depend on what you would classify as the "administration" of a substance. Does one soldier "administer" a bullet to another?"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"So chemical weapons are now illegal? For that matter, now pepper spray is illegal as well. Hell if we interpret it to the letter of the law, so are bullets. So effectively one resolution by the letter of the law, has completely outlawed war. Isn't it wonderful that bleeding hearts seem to be the majority these days?"

Wayne

"I believe this would depend on what you would classify as the "administration" of a substance. Does one soldier "administer" a bullet to another?"

"I'm sorry, lieutenant, but I can't open fire on that enemy position without a valid prescription..."

[WayNeacTia]

"I believe this would depend on what you would classify as the "administration" of a substance. Does one soldier "administer" a bullet to another?"

"I'm sorry, lieutenant, but I can't open fire on that enemy position without a valid prescription..."

"Still waiting for someone to point out where the word administer is defined in this disaster. If one is to pass a resolution of this magnitude, one could have used a few extra words to define the actual crux of the resolution. In my opinion, a colorable interpretation of this quagmire, pretty much bans war unless you want to throw rocks and hit people over the head with clubs. I eagerly await the repeal."

Wayne

[WayNeacTia]

OCC: Also I have to hand it to Morover. He has successfully managed to neuter NAPA with a single resolution. After all, pretty sure there isn't anyone out there who would consent to be "administered" a lethal dose of gamma radiation. So we can have nuclear weapons, but we can't use them at all. Great job!

[Wallenburg]

Given the various contradictions that arise from a broad interpretation of "administration", it is necessary to adopt a narrow interpretation.

[WayNeacTia]

Given the various contradictions that arise from a broad interpretation of "administration", it is necessary to adopt a narrow interpretation.

There is no interpretation. The law does that the law says.

[Separatist Peoples]

Given the various contradictions that arise from a broad interpretation of "administration", it is necessary to adopt a narrow interpretation.

There is no interpretation. The law does that the law says.

OOC: Thats the opposite of how law works. Language isn't without nuance that requires interpretation.

[WayNeacTia]

There is no interpretation. The law does that the law says.

OOC: Thats the opposite of how law works. Language isn't without nuance that requires interpretation.

But not how the WA works. It has always been "The law does, what the law says".

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Thats the opposite of how law works. Language isn't without nuance that requires interpretation.

But not how the WA works. It has always been "The law does, what the law says".

OOC: And what the law says is a matter of interpretation. A field with dozens of competing views, methods, and techniques.

Its an asinine trope that doesn't bear out with any actual legal interpretation. Just because the community spent a good long while pretending it did didn't make it true.

[WayNeacTia]

But not how the WA works. It has always been "The law does, what the law says".

OOC: And what the law says is a matter of interpretation. A field with dozens of competing views, methods, and techniques.

Its an asinine trope that doesn't bear out with any actual legal interpretation. Just because the community spent a good long while pretending it did didn't make it true.

Well lucky for us, we have you on the Supreme Cou........ Gensec to show us the true path to virtue. After all if we didn't have the "arbiters of interpretation" showing us the true path to glory, can you imagine the carnage?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: And what the law says is a matter of interpretation. A field with dozens of competing views, methods, and techniques.

Its an asinine trope that doesn't bear out with any actual legal interpretation. Just because the community spent a good long while pretending it did didn't make it true.

Well lucky for us, we have you on the Supreme Cou........ Gensec to show us the true path to virtue. After all if we didn't have the "arbiters of interpretation" showing us the true path to glory, can you imagine the carnage?

Ooc: yes, fortunate indeed. You should thank us more often. If the tired old phrase that the law does what the law says is still floating around among new players, clearly we are still needed to explain the proper way of it. Especially to defend an interpretation that is so facially absurd that good faith has a restraining order on it.

[Araraukar]

If the tired old phrase that the law does what the law says is still floating around among new players

OOC: Usually, when the phrase is used, it's also accompanied with the explanation of what's the problematic bit and why it's problematic. EDIT: If Chester wants to read the resolution as banning him from using nuclear or chemical weapons, let him. One less nation likely to grab weapons of mass destruction in IC.

[Separatist Peoples]

If the tired old phrase that the law does what the law says is still floating around among new players

OOC: Usually, when the phrase is used, it's also accompanied with the explanation of what's the problematic bit and why it's problematic. EDIT: If Chester wants to read the resolution as banning him from using nuclear or chemical weapons, let him. One less nation likely to grab weapons of mass destruction in IC.

OOC: I'm right there with you on that.

[False Dichotomy]

OOC: Wayne's deciding to make a hassle of an otherwise rather good resolution, so I thought I'd clear it all up. Having looked it up¹, the most suitable definition is "Dispense or apply (a remedy or drug)".

This whole charade regarding a passed resolution is ultimately pointless, as Wayne is wrong.

---

¹ https://www.lexico.com/definition/administer (please note that the Oxford Learner's Dictionaries provide a similar result)

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: Thats the opposite of how law works. Language isn't without nuance that requires interpretation.

But not how the WA works. It has always been "The law does, what the law says".

I am a big proponent of the law doing exactly as its says, but your interpretation is asinine. There is zero need to define administer. It is a normal word, not a term of art. Take two minutes with a dictionary

Administer (v):

1. manage and be responsible for the running of (a business, organization, etc.)
2. dispense or apply (a remedy or drug)
3. deal out or inflict (punishment).
4. (of a priest) perform the rites of (a sacrament, typically the Eucharist)
5. direct the taking of (an oath).
6. give help or service.

Only one of those makes any sense if substituted in to the resolution. Substitute the definitions and the line reads:

Subject to other World Assembly Legislation, bans the dispensing or application of any drug[s], medication[s], or other substance[s ...]

Not even an unholy of union of RBG and John Roberts could do enough violence to the meaning of words to fit bullets or a hydrogen bombs into that. One does not dispense or apply bullets or bombs, never mind the fancy Latin ejusdem generis consideration of trying to shoehorn them into equivalence with a drug or medication.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I'm still a fan of the phrase "the law does what the law says". It saddens me to see it disembiggened in this uncromulent fashion.

[WayNeacTia]

If the tired old phrase that the law does what the law says is still floating around among new players

OOC: Usually, when the phrase is used, it's also accompanied with the explanation of what's the problematic bit and why it's problematic. EDIT: If Chester wants to read the resolution as banning him from using nuclear or chemical weapons, let him. One less nation likely to grab weapons of mass destruction in IC.

I will quote an interesting tidbit by Desmosthenes and Burke:

Administer (v):

1. manage and be responsible for the running of (a business, organization, etc.)
2. dispense or apply (a remedy or drug)
3. deal out or inflict (punishment)
4. (of a priest) perform the rites of (a sacrament, typically the Eucharist)
5. direct the taking of (an oath).
6. give help or service.

I highlighted the relevant part there. Chemical weapons can not cannot be used by WA members, as they are "inflicting" harm upon personnel that obviously did not consent. Same goes for nuclear weapons, as radiation is being "inflicted" upon people who did not consent. There is no stipulation in the resolution that exempts warfare. Further to that, most chemical weapons contain substances that if we look are classified as drugs. These are dictionary definitions. I am not making this stuff up.

OOC: I'm still a fan of the phrase "the law does what the law says". It saddens me to see it disembiggened in this uncromulent fashion.

Well it seems we are the minority these days. The "Arbiter of Right" has flat out told us that is not the case any longer.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Usually, when the phrase is used, it's also accompanied with the explanation of what's the problematic bit and why it's problematic. EDIT: If Chester wants to read the resolution as banning him from using nuclear or chemical weapons, let him. One less nation likely to grab weapons of mass destruction in IC.

I will quote an interesting tidbit by Desmosthenes and Burke:

Administer (v):

1. manage and be responsible for the running of (a business, organization, etc.)
2. dispense or apply (a remedy or drug)
3. deal out or inflict (punishment)
4. (of a priest) perform the rites of (a sacrament, typically the Eucharist)
5. direct the taking of (an oath).
6. give help or service.

I highlighted the relevant part there. Chemical weapons can not cannot be used by WA members, as they are "inflicting" harm upon personnel that obviously did not consent. Same goes for nuclear weapons, as radiation is being "inflicted" upon people who did not consent. There is no stipulation in the resolution that exempts warfare. Further to that, most chemical weapons contain substances that if we look are classified as drugs. These are dictionary definitions. I am not making this stuff up.

OOC: I'm still a fan of the phrase "the law does what the law says". It saddens me to see it disembiggened in this uncromulent fashion.

Well it seems we are the minority these days. The "Arbiter of Right" has flat out told us that is not the case any longer.

OOC: I like "Arbiter of Right". I think I'll keep that one. I like it better than Psychic Vampire on my list of lame insults from sullen players. Though IA already has dibs on Globalist Dog bits.

At any rate, D&B quoted the statutory canon that would certainly disabuse this notion: ejusdem generis. And the whole act canon. Probably about half of the ones I know off the top of my head can be used to wreck this.

That doesn't stop you from so interpreting it, of course. Members are certainly allowed to take stronger steps than those prescribed by the WA unless specifically barred. But I struggle to see how it would be a good faith interpretation to suggest other nations violate this law by using nuclear weaponry. And it would be a nonstarter as a legality challenge.

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: I like "Arbiter of Right". I think I'll keep that one. I like it better than Psychic Vampire on my list of lame insults from sullen players.

Wasn't meant to be an insult. You are obviously the paramount authority on WA Law, as no one else form GenSec aside from Banana, let alone the author has decided to say their peace.

At any rate, D&B quoted the statutory canon that would certainly disabuse this notion: ejusdem generis. And the whole act canon. Probably about half of the ones I know off the top of my head can be used to wreck this.

And since when has this ever been a thing? WA laws are meant to be simple so any layman can comprehend them. If you want to do things this way, go ahead and create you own game LawyerStates. It's alright, you can use the name. I am not making any statutory claims to it.

That doesn't stop you from so interpreting it, of course. Members are certainly allowed to take stronger steps than those prescribed by the WA unless specifically barred. But I struggle to see how it would be a good faith interpretation to suggest other nations violate this law by using nuclear weaponry. And it would be a nonstarter as a legality challenge.

Don't plan on challenging it, I plan on attempting to repeal it. Given that it didn't pass the largest of majorities in history, I think there is a reasonable chance people will see the ineptitude of it, and want it gone.

[Morover]

You are obviously the paramount authority on WA Law, as no one else form GenSec aside from Banana, let alone the author has decided to say their peace.

OOC:
I just know how to choose my battles. You're 100% free to interpret the resolution as you're doing - I just have no idea why you'd do so when there's a much more reasonable interpretation that is far less restrictive.

Also, it's "piece," not "peace."

[Separatist Peoples]

Wasn't meant to be an insult. You are obviously the paramount authority on WA Law, as no one else form GenSec aside from Banana, let alone the author has decided to say their peace.

Oh, good. I don't have to break out the hat then.

And since when has this ever been a thing? WA laws are meant to be simple so any layman can comprehend them. If you want to do things this way, go ahead and create you own game LawyerStates. It's alright, you can use the name. I am not making any statutory claims to it.

Laypeople can understand them. They aren't that hard.

Of course, I don't have to make my own game for this, since that's the way this game operates. GenSec operates to interpret the rules and, as needed, GA proposals. We do that using rigorous analytical processes, some of which happen to have pretty Latin names.

As Sciongrad is fond of saying, this is an intellectual game. It has some complicated bits to it. People who wish to get the most out of it have to do some mental legwork every now and then.

Don't plan on challenging it, I plan on attempting to repeal it. Given that it didn't pass the largest of majorities in history, I think there is a reasonable chance people will see the ineptitude of it, and want it gone.

Excellent. Have at it. I believe in you!

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I'm still a fan of the phrase "the law does what the law says". It saddens me to see it disembiggened in this uncromulent fashion.

Well it seems we are the minority these days. The "Arbiter of Right" has flat out told us that is not the case any longer.

OOC: As it happens, I agree with the Arbiter of Right's interpretation of how this law does what it says.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

At any rate, D&B quoted the statutory canon that would certainly disabuse this notion: ejusdem generis. And the whole act canon. Probably about half of the ones I know off the top of my head can be used to wreck this.

Subject to other World Assembly Legislation, bans the dealing out or inflicting of any drug[s], medication[s], or other substance[s ...]

Not the canon I would use for that. I would stick with my dirty civil law version of insert the definition proferred and if it is gramatically or semantically nonsensical, then go back and try again. Dealing out or inflicting makes little to no sense with drugs and medications as the direct object (and would sound even more ridiculous if I translated it). I mentioned ejusdem generis as a limitation as to what "other substances" might mean.