New WA Categories [Admins Preferably]

[Unibot II]

Let's step outside the box for a second. How about new approaches? The only one that comes instantly to my mind for "Global Health" is

• Globalize - increase national healthcare at the expense of tax burden
• Nationalize - reduce healthcare expenditures and bump political freedoms
• Privatize - reduce governmental healthcare with a corresponding bump in insurance industry* and a slight rise in personal freedoms

* ^{hey - it's outside the box, isn't it?}

I'm not intending this to be the only possible approach. Come up with some variants or additions if you want. Also, take a look at the OP of this thread and see which box each of the listed medical resolutions might fit in. Maybe that will give you ideas that I missed.**

** ^{since I did this with no research.}

Sorry when you say, Globalize, what do you mean?

[Connopolis]

Let's step outside the box for a second. How about new approaches? The only one that comes instantly to my mind for "Global Health" is

• Globalize - increase national healthcare at the expense of tax burden

What exactly do you mean by Globalize?

Nationalize - reduce healthcare expenditures and bump political freedoms

How does this do either? When you use the term "reduce", are you referring to the WA, or member-states? If it's the latter, expenditures would increase; I'd assume nationalizing would imply more funding. Also, where do political freedoms come in?

Privatize - reduce governmental healthcare with a corresponding bump in insurance industry* and a slight rise in personal freedoms

I'm not challenging the idea - I like it, to be quite frank - I'm just concerned about the effects.
How does this increase personal freedoms? Wouldn't it increase economic freedom? Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm basing this off of an assumption.

[Frisbeeteria]

Sorry when you say, Globalize, what do you mean?

I was thinking in terms of proposals that crossed national boundaries, such as GAR#31 World Health Authority, GAR#41 Access to Lifesaving Drugs, GAR#53 Epidemic Response Act, and GAR#143 Permit Male Circumcision. I'm assuming all of those planned on crossing national boundaries to achieve their goals.

Nationalize would be mandated health care changes, still proposed for the greater good, but managed entirely within the nation. GAR#54 Dignified End of Life Choices, GAR#124 Essential Medication Act and GAR#128 On Abortion would be examples.

Privatize would fit best on proposals like GAR#49 Stem Cells for Greater Health, where the state isn't necessarily doing or funding the research

A new proposal like GAR#97 Quality in Health Services or GAR#141 Institutional Psychiatry Act, could be written to fall under Nationalize or Privatize depending on where the author thought the funding should come from.

[Frisbeeteria]

are you referring to the WA, or member-states?

100% of all WA expenditures are carried by the member nations. All increases and decreases are based on national stats.

I'm not proposing that this idea is ready out of the box. I spent perhaps 10 minutes on the whole concept. In retrospect, it's obvious that both Nationalize and Globalize would add healthcare expenditures to the nation. (edit: Actually, it's not obvious. A case could be made that Globalize impacts freedoms without debiting payments from the nations.) What would change beyond that (some flavor of freedoms, perhaps) is up for discussion.

Finally, feel free to come up with a variant that will somehow reduce national healthcare expenditures. I'm having trouble visualizing anything that the nanny-state WA would consider passing, but perhaps one of you can come up with something. (Edit: Perhaps a Global version that spends money and another one that just makes you do stuff you don't want to do.)

Final edit: Here's a better breakdown. Still very open for discussion.

Category: Health and Medicine
Area affected

1. Initiatives: A resolution to improve global health at the expense of economic freedoms.
2. Projects: A resolution to improve national health and wellness funded by the public sector
3. Research: A resolution to enhance health and medicine funded by the private sector

¹ formerly Globalize ² formerly Nationalize ³ formerly Privatize

*snip

Totally missed Unibot's edits where he made pretty much the same Areas of Effect. My impacts are different, though.

[Unibot II]

Initiatives: A resolution to improve global health at the expense of economic freedoms.

Projects: A resolution to improve national health and wellness funded by the public sector

I think the obvious "bad consequences" of either category are reversed here. Consider this:

Initiatives: A resolution to improve global health at the expense of developed member-nations.

Projects: A resolution to improve national health and wellness at the expense of economic freedoms.

---

I also don't think this is going to work I'm afraid..

Research: A resolution to enhance health and medicine funded by the private sector

... all of the Research resolutions have been public sector studies. I don't think forcing them arbitrarily to be private sector studies now is going to fly.

I think instead of forcing the artificial construction of a privatization category or something like that which appeals to conservative voters.. but realistically will never be used, we should make categories to fit resolutions that exist now. The reality is the opposite of the nanny-state isn't even privatization in any form when it comes to the World Assembly, conservative soverignists settle with weaker "research" bills that don't intrude on their private health-care system. Medical research is thus popular in both the WA and the RLUN; it's a safe bet to attract both sides of the ideological cleavage.

I recommend..

Research: A resolution to expand bureaucracy to research and study health and medicine.

Thus the downside of these research bills is always government size increases with a new committee or think-tank. I believe government size is a statistic in game.

Anyways, I also recommend some name changes; Initiatives and projects isn't a very clear distinction. I'd still recommend my earlier suggestions : Foreign Aid and Development (or Humanitarianism?), Healthcare, Research.

Thus the category I propose is:

Category: Health and Medicine
Area affected

1. Foreign Aid and Development : A resolution to improve global health at the expense of developed member-nations.
2. Healthcare : A resolution to improve national health and wellness at the expense of economic freedoms.
3. Research: A resolution to expand bureaucracy to research and study health and medicine.

[Frisbeeteria]

Category: Health and Medicine
Area affected

1. Foreign Aid and Development : A resolution to improve global health at the expense of developed member-nations.
2. Healthcare : A resolution to improve national health and wellness at the expense of economic freedoms.
3. Research: A resolution to expand bureaucracy to research and study health and medicine.

Those are good title choices, but I'm not agreeing with the reversal. Here's how I break down the game effect. I've also got one more: Standards.

1. Foreign Aid and Development : Shares the wealth internationally via a small expansion of basic government, primarily but not necessarily just Healthcare. Probably causes a small loss in economic freedoms, since we're forcing nations to help their neighbors. GAR#31 World Health Authority, GAR#41 Access to Lifesaving Drugs and GAR#53 Epidemic Response Act would fall here.
2. Healthcare : Mandates an expansion of a specific area of government healthcare services. These are classic unfunded mandates, so there has to be a tax increase to match. GAR#97 Quality in Health Services and GAR#141 Institutional Psychiatry Act belong here.
3. Research: Agree with "Expand bureaucracy to research and study health and medicine." Funding comes from the government but can be performed by a mix of public and private sector through grants and tax incentives, much like most of the developed world now. I'd therefore fund it in equal parts via the government departments of "Commerce & Industry" and "Healthcare". Of our current batch, GAR#49 Stem Cells for Greater Health is the only one I see fitting here.
4. Standards: This is a tricky one. This is where we shove unpalatable choices down the throats of our citizens without necessarily raising their taxes. I think the best fit is a drop personal freedoms, because we're making requirements that override personal moral, cultural, and religious beliefs. GAR#54 Dignified End of Life Choices, GAR#143 Permit Male Circumcision, GAR#124 Essential Medication Act and GAR#128 On Abortion all belong here.

[Unibot II]

Okay here's a question, I always thought economic freedoms reflected individuals inside of your countries freedom to "do" business in a nation; not the freedom of the government to "do" business with other nations. Therefore I saw Healthcare would reduce economic freedoms on issues like Health Insurance, whereas global health programs would probably not reduce the freedom of Multinational Corporations to provide charity but may reduce the ability to financially exploit these sick people in undeveloped countries. Therefore I was arguing the main consequence of Global Health is always redistribution of wealth whereas the main consequence of National Health is always a reduction of privatization.

Research: Agree with "Expand bureaucracy to research and study health and medicine." Funding comes from the government but can be performed by a mix of public and private sector through grants and tax incentives, much like most of the developed world now. I'd therefore fund it in equal parts via the government departments of "Commerce & Industry" and "Healthcare". Of our current batch, GAR#49 Stem Cells for Greater Health is the only one I see fitting here.

There's actually several "Research" proposals have been passed by the WA, um.. Mousebumbles's International Drug Education is the classic example, possibly Food and Drug Standards, Universal Clinical Trials Act, Medical Research Ethics Act.. potentially others. I think your suggestion sounds fine.

How'll about Medical Ethics for the last one? Or Bioethics? As a title. But I'm not so sure any of those resolutions you quoted actually hurt personal freedoms since euthanasia, drug-taking, circumcision and abortion are all still personal choices. However it could be seen as a political freedoms kicker in conservative nations.

[Frisbeeteria]

Reductions in economic freedoms reflect the fact that your tax dollars are being redirected away from your choices on how to spend them. Foreign aid does that. It works equally well whether you're talking about a citizen's freedom or the nation's collective freedom. I was using it in the collective sense. It's a tricky freedom for me - I'm hoping to get [violet]'s take on the choice.

The way I figure effect 2, the requisite increase in taxes reflects in some ways on economic freedoms, but I don't want to double-punish nations for choosing that effect. A tax hike ought to be enough, and we don't really have an appropriate industry to punish. (Door-to-Door Insurance Sales? Nah.)

As for Standards, I don't like that title either. I think the terms Medical Ethics and Bioethics are too narrow for an Area of Effect, but I'm open to new suggestions. "Ethics" almost makes it, but not quite.


I found a 2009 topic in the hidden modspace where we discussed this very topic. We'd made it about halfway to this point, so I'm hoping my bump to that thread with the new suggestions in THIS thread will speed up a decision.

As for the possible research topics, I based my research on the OP in this thread. So if you want to slap somebody for incomplete research, slap Connopolis.

[Unibot II]

Reductions in economic freedoms reflect the fact that your tax dollars are being redirected away from your choices on how to spend them. Foreign aid does that. It works equally well whether you're talking about a citizen's freedom or the nation's collective freedom. I was using it in the collective sense. It's a tricky freedom for me - I'm hoping to get [violet]'s take on the choice.

The way I figure effect 2, the requisite increase in taxes reflects in some ways on economic freedoms, but I don't want to double-punish nations for choosing that effect. A tax hike ought to be enough, and we don't really have an appropriate industry to punish. (Door-to-Door Insurance Sales? Nah.)

Speak with [violet], I'm still not sold that the small redistribution of wealth isn't the major "effect" of global health projects. I'm not sure I understand the economic freedoms statistic.

As for Standards, I don't like that title either. I think the terms Medical Ethics and Bioethics are too narrow for an Area of Effect, but I'm open to new suggestions. "Ethics" almost makes it, but not quite.

Bioethics actually covers a very wide category of medical and health issues:

Abortion
Animal rights
Artificial insemination
Artificial life
Artificial womb
Assisted suicide
Biocentrism
Biopiracy
Biorisk
Blood transfusion
Body modification
Brain-computer interface
Chimeras
Circumcision
Cloning
Confidentiality (medical records)
Consent
Contraception (birth control)
Cryonics
Disability
Eugenics
Euthanasia (human, non-human animal)
Exorcism
Faith Healing
Feeding tube
Gene theft
Gene therapy
Genetically modified food
Genetically modified organism
Genomics
Great Ape Project
Human cloning
Human enhancement
Human experimentation in the United States
Human genetic engineering
Iatrogenesis
Infertility treatments
Life extension
Life support
Lobotomy
Medical malpractice
Medical research
Medical torture
Mediation
Moral obligation
Moral status of animals
Nanomedicine
Organ donation
Organ transplant
Pain management
Parthenogenesis
Patients' Bill of Rights
Placebo
Political abuse of psychiatry
Population control
Prescription drugs (prices in the US)
Procreative beneficence
Professional ethics
Psychosurgery
Quality of Life (Healthcare)
Quaternary prevention
Recreational drug use
Reproductive rights
Reprogenetics
Sex reassignment therapy
Sperm and eggs (donation)
Spiritual drug use
Stem cell research
Suicide
Surrogacy
Three-parent babies
Transexuality
Transhumanism
Transplant trade
Vaccination controversy
Xenotransfusion
Xenotransplantation
Yoga

Medical Ethics is a narrower category, a professional category of ethics (like Business ethics) that is concerned with professional conduct and nursing ethics.

I think "Ethics" altogether as a subcategory of Health and Medicine would probably cover everything you had imagined because when nations have a problem with passing Abortion resolutions for example; this is an issue of the World Assembly making an ethical claim that the voting member-nation does not share. The *bad* consequence of ethical claims is always that the World Assembly's ethical values are imposed on member-states.

Ethics: A resolution to establish international standards and values in health and medicine.

Here's the problem with Ethics as a category; there is a lot of overlap between Healthcare and Ethics, because generally a Healthcare proposal makes groundbreaking ethical claims as well as mandates quality of Healthcare. Here's the distinction I'm making: Healthcare is focused on the deprivatization of health services in member-nations and the improvement of quality of health services whereas Ethics is focused on ethic decisions in Health and Medicine. A major distinction is made when we simply say that whether to privatize services is not an ethical, so much as a political decision.

Then I would group the following resolutions into our categories so far:

Foreign Aid and Development : A resolution to improve global health at the expense of economic freedoms.

World Health Authority, Access to Life-Saving Drugs, Epidemic Response Act, Food and Drug Standards Reduction of Abortion Act,

Healthcare : A resolution to improve national health and wellness funded by the public sector.

Quality in Health Services, Medical Standards in Prisons, Institutional Psychiatry Act.

Research: A resolution to expand bureaucracy to research and study health and medicine.

International Drug Education, Freedom in Medical Research.

Ethics: A resolution to establish international standards and values in health and medicine.

Essential Medication Act, On Abortion, Patient's Rights Act, Stem Cells For Greater Health, Organ and Blood Donations Act, Medical Research Ethics Act, Universal Clinical Trials Act, Dignified End of Life Choices.

A proposal especially makes it into the Healthcare category when the *quelm* with the resolution isn't so much what you're being asked to be provided (an ethical problem) so much as how much and how you're being asked to provide something (a political problem that features the same nanny-state flufflies vs. conservative toughies dichotomy). Whereas the problem that delegations usually have with Abortion or Recreational Drug Usage issues isn't so much that the nation now how to provide services it's, you know, FETUSES ARE PEOPLE TOO and DRUGS ARE BAD FOR DA SOUL etc. There's generally a lot of foraging through the wilderness of bioethics before we can sit down and write a decent healthcare proposal on those practices; for example, the Institutional Psychiatry Act builds on the Patient's Rights Act.

[Glen-Rhodes]

For what it's worth, the World Assembly isn't a state, so nothing is 'foreign' to it. Foreign Aid should be called International Aid, if that idea is ever implemented.

[Frisbeeteria]

For what it's worth, the World Assembly isn't a state, so nothing is 'foreign' to it. Foreign Aid should be called International Aid, if that idea is ever implemented.

Agreed, though I'm tempted to drop "Development" simply for space reasons. The box in the WA table may not be big enough for that whole mouthful.

And I'm now convinced on Bioethics too. I'll make appropriate changes in my proposal.

I've already pointed [violet] to this thread. Whether she has time to review it or not is a different question.

[Connopolis]

1. Foreign Aid and Development : Shares the wealth internationally via a small expansion of basic government, primarily but not necessarily just Healthcare. Probably causes a small loss in economic freedoms, since we're forcing nations to help their neighbors. GAR#31 World Health Authority, GAR#41 Access to Lifesaving Drugs and GAR#53 Epidemic Response Act would fall here.
2. Healthcare : Mandates an expansion of a specific area of government healthcare services. These are classic unfunded mandates, so there has to be a tax increase to match. GAR#97 Quality in Health Services and GAR#141 Institutional Psychiatry Act belong here.
3. Research: Agree with "Expand bureaucracy to research and study health and medicine." Funding comes from the government but can be performed by a mix of public and private sector through grants and tax incentives, much like most of the developed world now. I'd therefore fund it in equal parts via the government departments of "Commerce & Industry" and "Healthcare". Of our current batch, GAR#49 Stem Cells for Greater Health is the only one I see fitting here.
4. Standards: This is a tricky one. This is where we shove unpalatable choices down the throats of our citizens without necessarily raising their taxes. I think the best fit is a drop personal freedoms, because we're making requirements that override personal moral, cultural, and religious beliefs. GAR#54 Dignified End of Life Choices, GAR#143 Permit Male Circumcision, GAR#124 Essential Medication Act and GAR#128 On Abortion all belong here.

Red: Edits
Blue: Comments
Green: Concerns
Strike: Removed text

Foreign International Aid and Development : Shares the wealth internationally via a small expansion of basic government, primarily but not necessarily just Healthcare. Probably causes a small loss in economic freedoms, since we're forcing nations to help their neighbors. GAR#31 World Health Authority, GAR#41 Access to Lifesaving Drugs and GAR#53 Epidemic Response Act would fall here.



My concern here is that foreign aid shouldn't really effect the economies of member-states, let alone universally decrease it. So, perhaps, instead of hurting economic freedom, it should increase the general health and life expectancy of member-states' citizens. Also, GAR#41 would fit better under Medical Liberties (Standards/Bioethics), as opposed to Foreign Aid and Development.




Healthcare : Mandates an expansion of a specific area of government healthcare services. These are classic unfunded mandates, so there has to be a tax increase, as well as spending on public healthcare to match. GAR#97 Quality in Health Services and GAR#141 Institutional Psychiatry Act belong here.



I think the point of both of the aforementioned resolutions was to increase healthcare availability - therefore, funding for public healthcare should definitely be a result of resolutions under this category.



Research: Agree with "Expand bureaucracy to research and study health and medicine." Funding comes from the government but can be performed by a mix of public and private sector through grants and tax incentives, much like most of the developed world now. I'd therefore fund it in equal parts via the government departments of "Commerce & Industry" and "Healthcare". Of our current batch, GAR#49 Stem Cells for Greater Health is the only one I see fitting here.



Looks good!



Standards: Medical Liberty This is a tricky one. This is where we shove unpalatable choices down the throats of our citizens without necessarily raising their taxes. I think the best fit is a drop personal freedoms, because we're making requirements that override personal moral, cultural, and religious beliefs. GAR#54 Dignified End of Life Choices, GAR#143 Permit Male Circumcision, GAR#124 Essential Medication Act and GAR#128 On Abortion all belong here.



I just can't see any of those resolutions decreasing civil rights. To the contrary, I see them as broadening personal liberties by allowing a wider variety of medical procedures to the citizens of member-states. As such, if anything, these resolutions should increase general health, life-span, and civil rights.

International Aid and Development: A resolution to improve global health at the expense of economic freedoms.
Passed Resolutions: GAR#31 - World Health Authority, GAR#53 - Epidemic Response Act

_{Uni described this category perfectly, so I've used his description.}

Global Healthcare: A resolution to improve general health and wellbeing, funded by the public sector.
Passed resolutions: GAR#97 - Quality in Health Service, GAR#140 - Institutional Psychiatry Act, GAR#161 - Medical Standards in Prison

Research: A resolution to increase funding for medical research and studying health and medicine.
Passed Resolutions: GAR#103 - International Drug Education, GAR#171 - Freedom in Medical Research

Medical Liberties: A resolution to expand the availability of medical procedures.
Passed Resolutions: GAR#41 - Access to Life-Saving Drugs, GAR#49 - Stem Cells for Greater Health, GAR#141 - Permit Male Circumcision, GAR#128 - On Abortion, GAR# 54 - Dignified End of Life Choices, etc.

[Frisbeeteria]

My concern here is that foreign aid is designed to help the economies of member-states - not universally decrease it. So, perhaps, instead of hurting economic freedom, it should increase the general health and life expectancy of member-states' citizens.

The thing about freedoms is that every increase for one person is a decrease for somebody else. My right to swing my fist is interrupted by your right to leave your nose where it is. What these scales do is assign a relative balance to those rights as a national aggregate. Defining that balance is the tricky part. That said, it's a given in NationStates that every plus must have a balancing minus. You have to pay for better health with something, and here it's usually taxes (through government growth) or freedoms.

As for the requested gimme on general health, I was treating it like it was assumed. All these options will have some impact on general health. Also, it doesn't really matter which resolutions belong in which categories. I'd be surprised if [violet] wanted to edit the existing table of GA Resolutionis with the new categories. I was only using them as examples.

as well as spending on public healthcare to match

Implied in the first sentence and therefore redundant. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I just can't see any of those resolutions decreasing civil rights.

See above for The Price Of Freedoms speech.

[Connopolis]

The thing about freedoms is that every increase for one person is a decrease for somebody else. My right to swing my fist is interrupted by your right to leave your nose where it is. What these scales do is assign a relative balance to those rights as a national aggregate. Defining that balance is the tricky part. That said, it's a given in NationStates that every plus must have a balancing minus. You have to pay for better health with something, and here it's usually taxes (through government growth) or freedoms.

As for the requested gimme on general health, I was treating it like it was assumed. All these options will have some impact on general health. Also, it doesn't really matter which resolutions belong in which categories. I'd be surprised if [violet] wanted to edit the existing table of GA Resolutionis with the new categories. I was only using them as examples.

Noted. I see your point now.

Implied in the first sentence and therefore redundant. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

My bad - also noted.

See above for The Price Of Freedoms speech.

I'm still convinced that:

a) The resolutions that you mentioned don't really fit under this category (in my opinion),
b) Another category, such as my recommended "Medical Liberties" should be added, along with bioethics - almost as if they were the inverses of one another.

Of the two options, I'd definitely like to hear input on the latter, because I do like the idea of a bioethics or standards category.

[Unibot II]

Why would Ethics and Medical Liberties be inversions? Bioethics isn't "affirmative" or "negative" -- it's a branch of ethical philosophy. Hopefully our liberties are ethical liberties.

Here's why we should avoid using civil rights as an effect for Ethics...

Let's say I have a proposal banning Colon Cleansing. It would go under the Bioethics category and even though the category serves for advances too (liberalizations of abortion, euthanasia).. the idea is that the banning of Colon Cleansing will improve health and wellbeing. Therefore Bioethics can ban or liberalize procedures fairly flexibly without civil rights as an effect.

Moral Decency and Bioethics would different as categories, because the banning of medical procedures has to be done with the idea of promoting health and wellbeing which is a very narrow category of Moral Decency proposals.. which also does stuff like banning turbans, the Qur'an and failing to pass at vote.

I think the Secretariat would rule that Pro-life resolutions would still need to affirm the personhood of fetuses before using the Ethics category; just like it was previously ruled CD couldn't pass a Pro-Life bill as a Human Rights bill until fetuses were affirmed as persons.

[Mousebumples]

Quick, general question:

[*]Standards: This is a tricky one. This is where we shove unpalatable choices down the throats of our citizens without necessarily raising their taxes. I think the best fit is a drop personal freedoms, because we're making requirements that override personal moral, cultural, and religious beliefs. GAR#54 Dignified End of Life Choices, GAR#143 Permit Male Circumcision, GAR#124 Essential Medication Act and GAR#128 On Abortion all belong here.[/list]

EMA is, essentially, a medical marijuana proposal that was amended from referring to marijuana as it was pointed out to me that marijuana may actually be toxic to some beings/cultures in the WA.

I understand that this is all theoretical, but does the development of a Standards-like healthcare subcategory mean that Medical Marijuana, etc., legislation would no longer be covered under the Recreational Drug Use category? Because that just seems ... very different from the now. Not necessarily bad, but definitely not a change that I expected when this proposal was first made a few months ago.

*goes back to lurking in the thread*

[Unibot II]

Quick, general question:

[*]Standards: This is a tricky one. This is where we shove unpalatable choices down the throats of our citizens without necessarily raising their taxes. I think the best fit is a drop personal freedoms, because we're making requirements that override personal moral, cultural, and religious beliefs. GAR#54 Dignified End of Life Choices, GAR#143 Permit Male Circumcision, GAR#124 Essential Medication Act and GAR#128 On Abortion all belong here.[/list]

EMA is, essentially, a medical marijuana proposal that was amended from referring to marijuana as it was pointed out to me that marijuana may actually be toxic to some beings/cultures in the WA.

I understand that this is all theoretical, but does the development of a Standards-like healthcare subcategory mean that Medical Marijuana, etc., legislation would no longer be covered under the Recreational Drug Use category? Because that just seems ... very different from the now. Not necessarily bad, but definitely not a change that I expected when this proposal was first made a few months ago.

*goes back to lurking in the thread*

I don't think recreational drugs was the right category for it anyway; if you're taking something for medicinal purposes.. it's not a recreational drug, it's a medicinal drug.

[Mousebumples]

I don't think recreational drugs was the right category for it anyway; if you're taking something for medicinal purposes.. it's not a recreational drug, it's a medicinal drug.

First, I'll remind you of the mod ruling in the debate thread. Flib said recreational drug use was the appropriate category for it, so I think you are incorrect in your views on the "right category" for that resolution.

Second, I'll note that the point of the resolution in question was to make it clear that drugs that were "traditionally" used for recreational purposes may have a cross-benefit, medically speaking. The resolution was geared towards ensuring that such drugs were made available for appropriate medical use. You address the resolution in question as if it's benefits had already been established in all WA member states, which was certainly not the case.

Anyhow, my question wasn't meant to be a threadjack to talk about my resolution. I was more wondering if that would involve the "changing category" of my resolution (in the case of a theoretical WA disbandment and the need to resubmit under our next Governing Authority). The recreational drug use category is hardly used anymore (although I do still enjoy the stoner proposals of "Legalize weed, man. It's awesome." I must admit ), and I'm not certainly that such a "recategorization" would be a good thing.

(Mind you, no firms decisions made here as of yet. Just .... considering things for the moment.)

[Frisbeeteria]

Anyhow, my question wasn't meant to be a threadjack to talk about my resolution. I was more wondering if that would involve the "changing category" of my resolution (in the case of a theoretical WA disbandment and the need to resubmit under our next Governing Authority).

Any thought of a "theoretical WA disbandment" should be disabused by Maxchat 6.

<@SalusaSecondus> Glen-Rhodes CONSIDERING THE POPULARITY OF "BLOCKERS" AND RESOLUTIONS THAT COVER WIDE ARRAYS OF ISSUES, IF THE WORLD ASSEMBLY WERE TO RUN OUT OF THINGS TO LEGISLATE, WOULD IT BE RESET?
<@MaxBarry> Boy is the previous-official Libyan flag boring
<@MaxBarry> lol
<@MaxBarry> This question is designed to get me hate mail
<@SalusaSecondus> Sorry...
<@Reploid_Productions> Not like we can count on a C&C from a real World Assembly like we had for the UN-to-WA reset!
<@MaxBarry> Okay, so this is a reference to the transition from the old United Nations to the World Assembly
<@Reploid_Productions> *C&D even
<@MaxBarry> When we basically decided to start afresh with a new organization
<+Glen-Rhodes> Well, some people _do_ say the UN thing was just a ploy for a reset. :P
<@MaxBarry> and possibly did not completely understand the downside of that for a goodly number of committed players
<@MaxBarry> I would never do another reset like that
<@Flibbleites> Yay! I won't have to pass the NAPA again!
<@MaxBarry> If things stagnated, I would look at messing with the structure, to allow legislation to flow more freely somehow
<@MaxBarry> There are plenty of things you could do: subcouncils, a panel of elected nations, etc
<+Glen-Rhodes> Not sure if I can ask another question, but might one of those changes be additional categories?
<@MaxBarry> Yep, of course
<@MaxBarry> But I would want to allow new ways of dealing with what we have, rather than throwing it all out and saying, "Okay, go!"
<+Glen-Rhodes> Well hopefully we never stagnate, but it good to know that thing would be changed if we do!
<@MaxBarry> Thanks for your question G-R!
<+Glen-Rhodes> Your welcome!

Now, back on topic please.

Before I run off again, I'll mention that I've entered adding the Medical category in the admin's enhancement tracking system, and included a link to this thread. Even if this topic drifts down the list, the contents are firmly lodged in our admins' hands.

[Unibot II]

I don't think recreational drugs was the right category for it anyway; if you're taking something for medicinal purposes.. it's not a recreational drug, it's a medicinal drug.

First, I'll remind you of the mod ruling in the debate thread. Flib said recreational drug use was the appropriate category for it, so I think you are incorrect in your views on the "right category" for that resolution.

Although I think it was wrong for the Secretariat to focus on simply pot since your definition is wider than that, I'll cede that by definition any substance being legalized by your proposal is expected to be banned or prohibited in many nations. So fine, recreational drugs as a category works; generally a substance is either banned because it is harmful or it used as a recreational drug... if its being used for medicinal purposes, it must be the latter than. :/

[Glen-Rhodes]

For what it's worth, 'recreational drug use' is an oddly specific category, anyways. The last time we were seriously discussing changes to categories, the consensus was that those kinds of categories should be phased out.

[Augustus Este]

For what it's worth, 'recreational drug use' is an oddly specific category, anyways. The last time we were seriously discussing changes to categories, the consensus was that those kinds of categories should be phased out.

Yah. I'm not really sure about what categories should be added, but if you are going to remove some the Gambling category should definitely be considered.

[Krioval]

Would it be worth considering cracking the Social Justice category itself into subcategories? Normally, I hate the idea of single-strength resolutions, but I could easily envision things like:

Social Justice - Healthcare
Social Justice - Basic Welfare
Social Justice - Safety Regulation
.
.
.

For research funding, maybe it could be under Advancement of Industry or Education and Creativity?

[Unibot II]

Would it be worth considering cracking the Social Justice category itself into subcategories? Normally, I hate the idea of single-strength resolutions, but I could easily envision things like:

Social Justice - Healthcare
Social Justice - Basic Welfare
Social Justice - Safety Regulation
.
.
.

For research funding, maybe it could be under Advancement of Industry or Education and Creativity?

I think the idea is that "Social Justice" never made sense as a title for what we were using it for -- health & medicine is it's own distinction category over Social Justice which in RL usage is more about poverty and inequality than it is health and medicine.

[Krioval]

Would it be worth considering cracking the Social Justice category itself into subcategories? Normally, I hate the idea of single-strength resolutions, but I could easily envision things like:

Social Justice - Healthcare
Social Justice - Basic Welfare
Social Justice - Safety Regulation
.
.
.

For research funding, maybe it could be under Advancement of Industry or Education and Creativity?

I think the idea is that "Social Justice" never made sense as a title for what we were using it for -- health & medicine is it's own distinction category over Social Justice which in RL usage is more about poverty and inequality than it is health and medicine.

I consider improved healthcare to be under the purview of social justice. Also, it could be a useful umbrella term. Feel free to suggest something else by all means, but I agree with Fris that a Healthcare category is too limited.