NATION

PASSWORD

[SUBMITTED] Minors and Recreational Drugs

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Remove ads

User avatar
New Min
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 158
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Min » Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:26 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:
New Min wrote:(3) Bans the use of drugs by minors when:
(3.1) the drugs are not used to cure a disease after consulting a doctor and having his permission,
(3.2) or when the drugs are not being used as part of a drug rehabilitation program.
(3.3) The usage of non-dangerous drugs in non-dangerous amounts is excluded from the ban.
"Part three should be revised in its entirety. Currently Three-one only allows for male doctors to give permission, a permission that itself is problematic since most doctors in no meaningful way 'permits' their patients to take drugs but rather recommends or administers drugs. Three-two would read 'Bans the use of drugs by minors when or when the drugs are...' since it follows from Three, but is constructed as a run-on sentence from Three-one by mistake. Three-three has the added flaw of negating itself in a curious fashion due to the same issue. Since the clause is banning use of drugs, Three-three bans the usage of non-dangerous drugs and excludes them from the ban as well for good measure.
I seriously suggest you rework the definitions so you do not have to attempt at these work-arounds, and subsequently revise this part."

I know, but I can not think of any ways how to define drugs without banning things like caffeine, do you have any suggestions?
MINISTER OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS
of The People's Republic of The Communist Bloc

Central Committee member
Justice on The People's Tribunal

User avatar
Kenmoria
Minister
 
Posts: 3271
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:35 am

New Min wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:"Part three should be revised in its entirety. Currently Three-one only allows for male doctors to give permission, a permission that itself is problematic since most doctors in no meaningful way 'permits' their patients to take drugs but rather recommends or administers drugs. Three-two would read 'Bans the use of drugs by minors when or when the drugs are...' since it follows from Three, but is constructed as a run-on sentence from Three-one by mistake. Three-three has the added flaw of negating itself in a curious fashion due to the same issue. Since the clause is banning use of drugs, Three-three bans the usage of non-dangerous drugs and excludes them from the ban as well for good measure.
I seriously suggest you rework the definitions so you do not have to attempt at these work-arounds, and subsequently revise this part."

I know, but I can not think of any ways how to define drugs without banning things like caffeine, do you have any suggestions?

(OOC: If no definition works for you, there is always the possibility of designating a committee to decide what drugs are farmful. Given committees are assumed to be completely infallible, this method works well when actually defining things won't.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 472
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Attempted Socialism » Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:58 am

New Min wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:"Part three should be revised in its entirety. Currently Three-one only allows for male doctors to give permission, a permission that itself is problematic since most doctors in no meaningful way 'permits' their patients to take drugs but rather recommends or administers drugs. Three-two would read 'Bans the use of drugs by minors when or when the drugs are...' since it follows from Three, but is constructed as a run-on sentence from Three-one by mistake. Three-three has the added flaw of negating itself in a curious fashion due to the same issue. Since the clause is banning use of drugs, Three-three bans the usage of non-dangerous drugs and excludes them from the ban as well for good measure.
I seriously suggest you rework the definitions so you do not have to attempt at these work-arounds, and subsequently revise this part."

I know, but I can not think of any ways how to define drugs without banning things like caffeine, do you have any suggestions?
"No, our delegation will not help with this project. Personally, I remain unconvinced that this sort of ban will even work, and if it did, whether it would have a positive impact is also questionable. Furthermore, if you can not find a definition that works as the drafting delegation, why should we step in to help with our employee resources?"
Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?

User avatar
New Min
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 158
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Min » Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:46 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
New Min wrote:I know, but I can not think of any ways how to define drugs without banning things like caffeine, do you have any suggestions?

(OOC: If no definition works for you, there is always the possibility of designating a committee to decide what drugs are farmful. Given committees are assumed to be completely infallible, this method works well when actually defining things won't.)

Do you think the current version is good enough (I have used your Committee idea)?
MINISTER OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS
of The People's Republic of The Communist Bloc

Central Committee member
Justice on The People's Tribunal

User avatar
Kenmoria
Minister
 
Posts: 3271
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:32 pm

New Min wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: If no definition works for you, there is always the possibility of designating a committee to decide what drugs are farmful. Given committees are assumed to be completely infallible, this method works well when actually defining things won't.)

Do you think the current version is good enough (I have used your Committee idea)?
The wording could be tightened up slightly; there is no need to put "drugs that are dangerous when used recreationally" and the full name of the committee every time they appear.
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
New Min
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 158
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Min » Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:57 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
New Min wrote:Do you think the current version is good enough (I have used your Committee idea)?
The wording could be tightened up slightly; there is no need to put "drugs that are dangerous when used recreationally" and the full name of the committee every time they appear.

I have fixed the problem. Do you believe it is ready now, and if it is, do you want to be named as a co-author? Because if you want, I am willing to do that.
MINISTER OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS
of The People's Republic of The Communist Bloc

Central Committee member
Justice on The People's Tribunal

User avatar
Kenmoria
Minister
 
Posts: 3271
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:25 pm

New Min wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:The wording could be tightened up slightly; there is no need to put "drugs that are dangerous when used recreationally" and the full name of the committee every time they appear.

I have fixed the problem. Do you believe it is ready now, and if it is, do you want to be named as a co-author? Because if you want, I am willing to do that.
Drafts normally take weeks or months before submitting, one of the biggest problems people make is submitting their proposal too quickly. Other people haven't yet had the chance to comment on your draft, so I recommend waiting a while before submission. I also am happy to not be named as co-author, I haven't really done that much for the proposal.
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11800
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:52 am

OOC: Isn't "Defines 'dangerous drugs' as substances qualified as "drugs that are dangerous when used recreationally" by the Recreational Drugs Committee." basically same as "defines dangerous drugs as drugs that are dangerous"? Also, is there any reason you can't use WAFDRA from GA #64 as your committee?
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 472
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Attempted Socialism » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:59 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Isn't "Defines 'dangerous drugs' as substances qualified as "drugs that are dangerous when used recreationally" by the Recreational Drugs Committee." basically same as "defines dangerous drugs as drugs that are dangerous"? Also, is there any reason you can't use WAFDRA from GA #64 as your committee?

OOC: Technically recreationally is a limiter on when it has to be dangerous. So a drug could be dangerous in other situations than recreationally and be legal - say drugs that makes the user a hazard in traffic or at work. It also means that a drug that is dangerous recreationally, say morphine or chemo-therapeutic drugs, but not dangerous while administered by a doctor, would be labelled 'dangerous' (Though it is not banned in such circumstances - it's just an empty label in that case).
Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11800
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:41 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: It also means that a drug that is dangerous recreationally, say morphine or chemo-therapeutic drugs, but not dangerous while administered by a doctor, would be labelled 'dangerous'.

OOC: ...my mind screeched to a halt at that. Chemo-therapy is definitely dangerous even when administered by a doctor (it kills a lot of cells it's not meant to), nor can I imagine any way in which those drugs might be used recreationally.

In fact, that whole thing raises the question of what's meant by "recreationally"? If you're self-medicating off-label (a lot of prescription medications are used off-label by doctors too, because of beneficial side-effects that weren't anticipated by the medication producers - see many epilepsy preventing drugs and bipolar), does that count as recreational? A person who is hooked on a painkiller might be using it anymore just to stave off the nasty effects that stopping taking it would cause - are they using it recreationally if they're not getting a buzz out of it?
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Minister
 
Posts: 3271
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:29 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Isn't "Defines 'dangerous drugs' as substances qualified as "drugs that are dangerous when used recreationally" by the Recreational Drugs Committee." basically same as "defines dangerous drugs as drugs that are dangerous"? Also, is there any reason you can't use WAFDRA from GA #64 as your committee?
(OOC: The difference is that a committee (which should probably be WAFDRA) is involved, so has the final say on what is considered dangerous, rather than a member state.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 472
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Attempted Socialism » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:49 am

Araraukar wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: It also means that a drug that is dangerous recreationally, say morphine or chemo-therapeutic drugs, but not dangerous while administered by a doctor, would be labelled 'dangerous'.

OOC: ...my mind screeched to a halt at that. Chemo-therapy is definitely dangerous even when administered by a doctor (it kills a lot of cells it's not meant to), nor can I imagine any way in which those drugs might be used recreationally.

In fact, that whole thing raises the question of what's meant by "recreationally"? If you're self-medicating off-label (a lot of prescription medications are used off-label by doctors too, because of beneficial side-effects that weren't anticipated by the medication producers - see many epilepsy preventing drugs and bipolar), does that count as recreational? A person who is hooked on a painkiller might be using it anymore just to stave off the nasty effects that stopping taking it would cause - are they using it recreationally if they're not getting a buzz out of it?
OOC: Er, yeah that chemo bit was probably a brainfart. I don't know what happened there. Still, it seems you got the point even if one example was terrible.
I think your point about delineating recreation is excellent and deserves an answer during drafting.
Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11800
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:16 am

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: The difference is that a committee (which should probably be WAFDRA) is involved, so has the final say on what is considered dangerous, rather than a member state.)

OOC: If a committee is given the ultimate power on what to include (it could easily add, say, caffeine on the list), there should be some checks on its power. Basically a checklist the committee has to go through to declare something dangerous.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Minister
 
Posts: 3271
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:31 am

Araraukar wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: The difference is that a committee (which should probably be WAFDRA) is involved, so has the final say on what is considered dangerous, rather than a member state.)

OOC: If a committee is given the ultimate power on what to include (it could easily add, say, caffeine on the list), there should be some checks on its power. Basically a checklist the committee has to go through to declare something dangerous.

(OOC: Whilst that would be true in real life, in the World Assembly, committees are stated to be pretty much infallible. Since they do everything they are tasked to do perfectly, adding caffeine just wouldn't happen.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2871
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:48 am

Kenmoria wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: If a committee is given the ultimate power on what to include (it could easily add, say, caffeine on the list), there should be some checks on its power. Basically a checklist the committee has to go through to declare something dangerous.

(OOC: Whilst that would be true in real life, in the World Assembly, committees are stated to be pretty much infallible. Since they do everything they are tasked to do perfectly, adding caffeine just wouldn't happen.)


OOC: I'm with Ara on this one. I can easily see an unchecked international committee looking at caffeine and giving a thumb down.
Principal-Agent & Master of Duck Recipes, Anarchy
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11800
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:52 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: I'm with Ara on this one. I can easily see an unchecked international committee looking at caffeine and giving a thumb down.

OOC: At least here (Finland) caffeinated drinks can't be legally sold to children under 15 years old - but even 15 years olds are under the age of majority (which is 18), so I can definitely see something like the proposal causing issues.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
New Min
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 158
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Min » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:07 pm

First of all, I have used WAFDRA in the resolution instead of creating a new resolution. Also, I believe I read that a committee in NS is pretended to be perfect, which means they wouldn't add caffeine to the list of dangerous drugs. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
MINISTER OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS
of The People's Republic of The Communist Bloc

Central Committee member
Justice on The People's Tribunal

User avatar
Tinfect
Senator
 
Posts: 4400
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Tinfect » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:41 pm

New Min wrote:I believe I read that a committee in NS is pretended to be perfect, which means they wouldn't add caffeine to the list of dangerous drugs. (Correct me if I'm wrong)


OOC:
Thing is, they wouldn't be unjustified in doing so.
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM. This nation does not represent my actual political beliefs.

Imperium Central News Network: Grand Praetor declares Class 3 National Crisis in first public appearance | Intelligence orders immediate investigation into Military Oversight Decommission Protocol | Diplomatic Oversight announces informal Military Alliance with 'Oblong Collective' |  Indomitable Bastard #283

Nation stats have no power here!

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8059
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:39 pm

If we really believe that all committees are perfect, then we should really just eliminate national governments and have the WA directly administer all territories. Because they make the best and most perfect decision, every time.

Author: 1 SC and 21 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Kenmoria
Minister
 
Posts: 3271
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:52 am

"Clause 5 should, I believe, prohibit minors from buying drugs rather than just being in a store that might sell drugs in an age-restricted section. Also, consider adding something about not being able to sell drugs to minors."
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Currently centre-right on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts our democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
New Min
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 158
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Min » Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:09 pm

I have tried to fix the issues with the proposal, please let me know if anything should be changed.
MINISTER OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS
of The People's Republic of The Communist Bloc

Central Committee member
Justice on The People's Tribunal

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11800
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:08 pm

New Min wrote:(4) Bans the use of drugs by minors when:
(4.1) the substance is a dangerous drug,
(4.2) and the substance is used for a different reason than either curing a disease or rehabilitating from a drug addiction.

OOC: I'd make 4.2. read more something to the tune of "other than medical reasons", because there are incurable diseases and conditions/disorders (I already mentioned epilepsy and bipolar before, so they work as examples again; they can't be cured) out there.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 472
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Attempted Socialism » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:42 pm

New Min wrote:(2) Defines 'dangerous drugs' as substances qualified as "drugs that are dangerous when used recreationally" by the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA).

(3) Mandates that the World Assembly Food and Drug Regulatory Agency (WAFDRA) decides which substances should be considered "drugs that are dangerous when used recreationally."
(3.1) Requires the WAFDRA to only consider substances that can seriously damage a sapient being's body, even when used in a small amount, to be "drugs that are dangerous when used recreationally."

(4) Bans the use of drugs by minors when:
(4.1) the substance is a dangerous drug,
(4.2) and the substance is used for a different reason than either curing a disease or rehabilitating from a drug addiction.
"It seems this resolution would still potentially outlaw substances like caffeine. In pill form it is addictive and can harm a sapient being's body, in the form of coffee it is boiling hot and can cause serious burns when ingested. If you make selling coffee or caffeine pills to minors an illegal offense in the Solidarity Movement, this government will fall. While banning coffee may be far-fetched, the truth is we can't be sure this resolution does not do so. Meanwhile, caffeine pills are the only known way caffeine has been seriously harmful, to the point of being lethal, to humans. Would that be banned? That does seem likely to us. We are concerned that this resolution does not adequately define the harm to be avoided, and leaves it up to a committee to rule on substances that we have no issues with, with little option of recourse. For that reason, we remain opposed."
Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?

User avatar
New Min
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 158
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Min » Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:49 am

Araraukar wrote:
New Min wrote:(4) Bans the use of drugs by minors when:
(4.1) the substance is a dangerous drug,
(4.2) and the substance is used for a different reason than either curing a disease or rehabilitating from a drug addiction.

OOC: I'd make 4.2. read more something to the tune of "other than medical reasons", because there are incurable diseases and conditions/disorders (I already mentioned epilepsy and bipolar before, so they work as examples again; they can't be cured) out there.

I hope I have fixed the problem now.
MINISTER OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS
of The People's Republic of The Communist Bloc

Central Committee member
Justice on The People's Tribunal

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11800
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Jun 17, 2018 11:24 am

OOC: Clause 5 now forbids people from bringing their children with them into a pharmacist, when they themselves go get medication not prescribed to the children. So are you seriously mandating that toddlers be left outside the store in a, say, shopping mall?
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

PreviousNext

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Angora Guanaco

Remove ads