[Draft]Freedom to Use Nicotine

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

"You're presuming that Nicotine has comparable effects in all sapient species, then?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

"Would it be safe to assume that your species does not consume any plants from the nightshade family? Nicotine is present in more plants than just tobacco, in fact nicotine is present in detectable quantities in the following vegetables: eggplant, tomatoes, and related species. "

OOC:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/29318 ... -nicotine/

It should be noted though that "dietary nicotine" while present typically doesn't survive the digestion process in most sapient species. Which is why I defined nicotine products as being products specifically for consuming nicotine. I don't want to classify eggplants and tomatoes in any regulatory category remotely similar to cigarettes or chewing tobacco.

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

OOC: By and large I agree, however, I don't doubt that there are those who wish to impose drugs prohibitions through the WA as well so it seems prudent to at least have drafts on hand. I believe I told someone else where that when it comes to proposals you'll draft ten before you get one at vote, and of ten of those, maybe one will make it.

If you're concerned about the prospect of a future resolution outlawing these products then you should propose a blocker resolution that reserves to each nation the decision on the legality or otherwise of drugs. There's no call to pre-empt an attack on national sovereignty by means of an attack on national sovereignty.

OOC:

That may be a better option, but it would likely be deemed an obvious blocker, and thus illegal. I'm less concerned about prohibition efforts against cocaine, opiates and et cetera.

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

"So nations can still tax nicotine products at a rate of 1000%? No complaints, then."

Ser Dawrin Stone: "Taxation on nicotine products, or any other product for that matter, is a national prerogative in our view. As such, if the nation of Separatist Peoples wish to tax nicotine products at an absurdly high rate, that would be their business. Dragonslund has abolished all taxes except for a national tithe (it is a 10% flat tax on all income from land, labor, and capital), so we would not be taxing nicotine products or any other product."

[Uan aa Boa]

If you're concerned about the prospect of a future resolution outlawing these products then you should propose a blocker resolution that reserves to each nation the decision on the legality or otherwise of drugs. There's no call to pre-empt an attack on national sovereignty by means of an attack on national sovereignty.

OOC:

That may be a better option, but it would likely be deemed an obvious blocker, and thus illegal. I'm less concerned about prohibition efforts against cocaine, opiates and et cetera.

(Why is this OOC?)

As I understand the rules, there needs to be an active clause. Look at the recently debated GA #10 as a good example of a blocker with a bare minimum of active content.

In this case, how about:

The WA
1. Reserves to nations the decision on the legality or otherwise of drugs (suitably defined)
2. Urges member nations to provide their citizens with information on the health implications of drug use.

[Jarish Inyo]The Empire will not pay for provision of health information![/Jarish Inyo]

[Eriaroon Eugenic Republic]

The rarely seen Erialgos Rezalam Shurotoga Shumtuncha-Zelim, Diviner of the Great Beyond, appeared on a holographic communication.

"We are not of the organisation you call the World Assembly, yet we are intrigued by its affairs. It appears that as has been aforementioned by a demon of species #0002, not all anatomies are adapted to the substance of "nicotine" as you call it. Our own biology, for instance, treats such chemicals as potent neurotoxins. We are a carbon-based, water-solvent species using water for respiration. Other beings may see such substances are dangerous acids or bases. Furthermore, it is even in your kind a mind-altering substance which serves little purpose other than to satiate the cravings of the unfortunate who are addicted to it. If there is a validated medical application for the chemical, then it should be allowed only for such applications. Otherwise, should such legislation come to pass, it will only reaffirm our belief that the World Assembly is far too lenient on allow poison to enter the bodies of all."

[Separatist Peoples]

"So nations can still tax nicotine products at a rate of 1000%? No complaints, then."

Ser Dawrin Stone: "Taxation on nicotine products, or any other product for that matter, is a national prerogative in our view. As such, if the nation of Separatist Peoples wish to tax nicotine products at an absurdly high rate, that would be their business. Dragonslund has abolished all taxes except for a national tithe (it is a 10% flat tax on all income from land, labor, and capital), so we would not be taxing nicotine products or any other product."

"So, why bother legalizing it when it can be positively taxed to the point of an effective ban? If yourngosk was to make it available for use, you've rather failed."

[Araraukar]

in fact nicotine is present in detectable quantities in the following vegetables: eggplant, tomatoes, and related species.

OOC: I know this is a scientific fact, but all I could think of was this...

[Ledaj]

How would this clause not violate Resolution 30, Freedom of Expression?

OOC:
I will have to review GAR#30; however, the intention behind section 5 is to permit member states to prohibit advertiments by corporations or companies which produce nicotine and/or tobacco products as defined by this proposal. For example, a member state may wish to prohibit cigarette advertisements on television and/or radio, as many RL countries do.

Ronald Helmsworth opened the most recent minutes of the proceedings, and turned to the record of something he had said not long ago:

I agree that in its current wording the quoted portion of the proposal could reasonably be construed to apply to advertisements made by individuals as well as organizations. However it could also be construed to address the presumably much more common advertisements by organizations only, not advertisements made by individuals. The proposal could be amended to make this distinction clear.
Therefore I recommend to the author of this proposal that [section 5] be clarified so as to ensure it does not contradict GAR #30, assuming that my interpretation of GAR #30 is correct.

"I believe that the respected delegate might be well served by clarifying his 'intention' and making it assume the force of law."
-Ronald Hemlsworth, delegate of Ledaj to the General Assembly
Edit: Fixed parallel structure

[Dragonslinding WA Mission]

OOC:

That may be a better option, but it would likely be deemed an obvious blocker, and thus illegal. I'm less concerned about prohibition efforts against cocaine, opiates and et cetera.

(Why is this OOC?)

As I understand the rules, there needs to be an active clause. Look at the recently debated GA #10 as a good example of a blocker with a bare minimum of active content.

In this case, how about:

The WA
1. Reserves to nations the decision on the legality or otherwise of drugs (suitably defined)
2. Urges member nations to provide their citizens with information on the health implications of drug use.

[Jarish Inyo]The Empire will not pay for provision of health information![/Jarish Inyo]

OOC:

It is OOC because it is a question of category. I'm unsure if Dawrin Stone or Aegon Snow know about them.

If your amenable to letting me steal that, I can probably dress it up some and come back with a proposal. However, the question is does it prohibit drugs, legalize them or promote them. I can see a ruling as to illegality on the nature of category.

[Uan aa Boa]

If your amenable to letting me steal that, I can probably dress it up some and come back with a proposal. However, the question is does it prohibit drugs, legalize them or promote them. I can see a ruling as to illegality on the nature of category.

Steal away. I could certainly get behind this, albeit for opposite reasons to yours. In my nation the Party has banned drugs, alcohol and tobacco and would welcome some reassurance that the WA won't be overruling it in the direction of legalisation.

In terms of category, this is healthcare (mild) because it promotes providing information on health risks.

Probably better trawl the archives to make sure this doesn't contradict any existing rulings.

[Bananaistan]

GAR#30 is utterly irrelevant. The advertising of any product or service is not the expression of one's personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views.

- Ted

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

Giulia Maccini: After analyzing the project, we see that it does not infringe anything of individual, since nicotine is harmful, so it is necessary an awareness campaign and later, regulate its use and sale. Therefore, I with my team of accessors declare that we will support the law of the way that is. But in case of change, we will review again.

[Bears Armed]

"You're presuming that Nicotine has comparable effects in all sapient species, then?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

"Would it be safe to assume that your species does not consume any plants from the nightshade family? Nicotine is present in more plants than just tobacco, in fact nicotine is present in detectable quantities in the following vegetables: eggplant, tomatoes, and related species."

"Oh, that doesn't bother urrs particularly, I was just thinking that in the diversity of this organisation's membership..."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

______________________________________________________________________________________

GAR#30 is utterly irrelevant. The advertising of any product or service is not the expression of one's personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views.

- Ted

OOC: Agreed, and that's how I'd vote if there was a legal challenge on the point.

[Christian Democrats]

GAR#30 is utterly irrelevant. The advertising of any product or service is not the expression of one's personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views.

- Ted

I disagree. Product advertisement is instrumental and even indispensable to the expression of many moral, political, and cultural views.

[Ledaj]

GAR#30 is utterly irrelevant. The advertising of any product or service is not the expression of one's personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views.

- Ted

I disagree. Product advertisement is instrumental and even indispensable to the expression of many moral, political, and cultural views.

"Sir, your statement is absolutely correct. If product advertisement was not part of an individual's right to expression, then by consequence, neither would comments against products. This would result in a situation where governments could prevent citizens from telling each other about scams. Obviously it could also present the helpful practice of friends recommending restaurants and much more.
However, I take issue with your example. The celebrity endorsement of products is not an expression of that celebrity's individual beliefs when it is broadcast by the endorsed organization. This provides an unfair advantage of expression to those connected to corporations. Therefore I believe that the concerned clauses of GAR#30:" Helmsworth circled two clauses in green pen.

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

"Do not extend the freedom of expression beyond the means of an individual.
Both these arguments are founded on the phrase 'all available media' which would indicate that advertising is absolutely allowed. However this clause specifically applies only to 'individuals'.
Therefore I believe that GAR#30 protects personal advertisement as a means of free speech, but it does not protect advertisement by corporations, or advertisement by any organisations of an individual's view."
-Ronald Helmsworth, delegate of Ledaj to the General Assembly

[Christian Democrats]

The celebrity endorsement of products is not an expression of that celebrity's individual beliefs

Because celebrities aren't individuals?

This provides an unfair advantage of expression to those connected to corporations.

Resolution 30 is titled "Freedom of Expression," not "Fairness of Expression."

Therefore I believe that the concerned clauses of GAR#30:" Helmsworth circled two clauses in green pen.

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

"Do not extend the freedom of expression beyond the means of an individual.
Both these arguments are founded on the phrase 'all available media' which would indicate that advertising is absolutely allowed. However this clause specifically applies only to 'individuals'.

The former clause, however, says "all people." A corporation, or an association of individuals, is a person. The fact that the latter clause emphasizes individual expression does not restrict the former clause's broader application.

Therefore I believe that GAR#30 protects personal advertisement as a means of free speech, but it does not protect advertisement by corporations, or advertisement by any organisations of an individual's view.

If your interpretation were correct, it would lead to absurd results.

Example A: Resolution 30 would not stop a nation from imprisoning a citizen for a letter to the editor that he wrote criticizing the nation's monarch because said letter was published by a newspaper, which is not an individual but a corporation.

Example B: Resolution 30 would not stop a nation from censoring the communications of a televangelist contrary to the national religion because said communications were being spread by a television network, which is not an individual but a corporation.

Example C: Resolution 30 would not stop a nation from censoring the platform of an opposition political party because said platform was published by a political party, which is not an individual but a corporation.

[Ledaj]

The former clause, however, says "all people." A corporation, or an association of individuals, is a person. The fact that the latter clause emphasizes individual expression does not restrict the former clause's broader application.

Helmsworth, after hearing these words, assumed an unhappy look on his face.

If your interpretation were correct, it would lead to absurd results.

Example A: Resolution 30 would not stop a nation from imprisoning a citizen for a letter to the editor that he wrote criticizing the nation's monarch because said letter was published by a newspaper, which is not an individual but a corporation.

Example B: Resolution 30 would not stop a nation from censoring the communications of a televangelist contrary to the national religion because said communications were being spread by a television network, which is not an individual but a corporation.

Example C: Resolution 30 would not stop a nation from censoring the platform of an opposition political party because said platform was published by a political party, which is not an individual but a corporation.

"Sir, your eloquence is in danger of swaying me from an important point. It seems that I am left groping for a fair distinction that extends freedom of expression to individuals and not organizations (all people as you term it). I wish I could say more than that I disagree, but since I cannot at this time, I am reluctantly forced to accept your argument, and interpret GAR#30 to protect the rights of individuals and organizations, meaning that this proposal would be illegal. (section 5 contradicting GAR#30) Thank you for your consideration and thorough refutation of my arguments,"
Helmsworth, for the moment, retreated from the room, and to the stingy office that had been assigned to him as one of the most junior delegates.
-Ronald Helmsworth, delegate of Ledaj to the General Assembly
EDIT: Also thanks for not completely nailing me by saying 'by your definition there is no freedom of the press, because a newspaper is an organization'.

[Araraukar]

OOC: In real life, it's entirely possible for progressive nations like the western countries to have both freedom of expression and a ban on advertizing certain kinds of products, like anything that you're not allowed to sell to minors, either at all, or on tv/radio until after a certain "watershed" time limit. Since that's possible in RL, it's reasonable to expect it to work in NS as well.

[Ledaj]

OOC: In real life, it's entirely possible for progressive nations like the western countries to have both freedom of expression and a ban on advertizing certain kinds of products, like anything that you're not allowed to sell to minors, either at all, or on tv/radio until after a certain "watershed" time limit. Since that's possible in RL, it's reasonable to expect it to work in NS as well.

OOC: I think that falls under the 'incitement to commit illegal actions' exemption though. Maybe not all of it though...

[Christian Democrats]

OOC: In real life, it's entirely possible for progressive nations like the western countries to have both freedom of expression and a ban on advertizing certain kinds of products, like anything that you're not allowed to sell to minors, either at all, or on tv/radio until after a certain "watershed" time limit. Since that's possible in RL, it's reasonable to expect it to work in NS as well.

*takes off the judicial hat, puts on the political hat*

I agree. Resolution 30 does not include enough exceptions to its free expression mandate. It should have said something like this:

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials; and any other communications that cause an objective and substantial threat to public health or safety.

A person could reasonably argue that tobacco advertising "cause[s] an objective and substantial threat to public health."

*dons the judicial hat again*

Technically, Resolution 30 restricts only national action and "national laws" and not international action and international laws, so the General Assembly could circumvent Resolution 30 by directly regulating tobacco advertising -- bypassing the "middle man" of member states. Under GenSec's recently released thread from the Open Internet Order case (4-2 vote), the Operative Clause Rule does not require the General Assembly to act through member states (the implementation view); it can legislate on citizens directly (the IntFed view).

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The former clause, however, says "all people." A corporation, or an association of individuals, is a person.

OOC: Is there a GA resolution supporting this statement?

[Araraukar]

The former clause, however, says "all people." A corporation, or an association of individuals, is a person.

OOC: Is there a GA resolution supporting this statement?

OOC: This seems to be his only "proof" to support that statement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Labour_parties

A labor union is not an individual, but it is a person as that term is ordinarily used in legal contexts.

Ditto with a tobacco company.

[Ledaj]

OOC: Is there a GA resolution supporting this statement?

OOC: This seems to be his only "proof" to support that statement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Labour_parties

A labor union is not an individual, but it is a person as that term is ordinarily used in legal contexts.

Ditto with a tobacco company.

OOC: I found the three examples he gave to me as convincing as to why it should be interpreted that way in the context of GAR#30. However I agree that it seems odd to define organizations as 'people'.
WA#20 isn't fully clear but:

1. Defines the term ‘Pirates’, for the purpose of this resolution, as meaning people who are not formally recognised agents of any government (although some of them may have informal links to governments, from whom they receive support in exchange for various considerations, or may be at least partly motivated by loyalty to a cause), unlike ‘Privateers’, and who operate in groups to use threats and force to seize vehicles and their cargos — and possibly their passengers, and/or crew, as well — for personal gain, and who may also use ships or other vehicles as transportation for raids against settlements,

It seems to classify 'people' as individuals through the use of personal pronouns and it talks about 'people' operating in groups, albeit somewhat indirectly.
WA#23 also uses 'people' synonymously with 'persons' (Clause 10)
WA#27 gives the right of free assembly to 'peoples' and I am not sure that organizations can assemble... (clause APALLED)
WA#31: I) Strongly encourages nations to make spending commitments to achieving decent health standards for their people;
I don't think that organizations can have 'health' in that context...
WA#52 gives food donations to 'people' (Clause ENACTS)
WA#111 talks about 'quality of life' for 'all peoples'. I don't know if organizations have quality of life... (clause RECOGNIZING)
CD's own WA#160 says: "4. Requires each member state to offer to annul all forced marriages of people in its jurisdiction; and"
WA#200 also refers to married 'people'
WA#205: "AFFIRMING that all people have a fundamental right to liberty, which includes the freedom to choose, think, and act as an individual within the confines of socially acceptable behavior;"
WA#224 talks about 'people's diets'
WA#255 talks about POWs as 'people'
WA#267 talks about people requiring hunted meat, as well as 'epidemics in people'

Well I think it can be clearly established that the resolution history has many examples of clauses where 'people' cannot be referring to 'organziations'. However, this does not necessarily mean that 'people', meaning individuals, does not also refer to organizations.
In the 267 resolutions I went through before getting bored, about a third used the word 'people' to describe something that organizations could do as well as individuals. I apologize for being too lazy to go through and bring out comprehensive examples but here's one:
WA#199 refers to fishing by 'people' and 'people' that rely on fishing. But it never says in what way people rely on fishing, and fishing companies certainly rely on fishing as much as fishermen. So of resolutions 1 to 267, about two thirds use 'people' to mean individuals and the remaining third are unclear. Nowhere in the resolutions I covered is 'people' used to talk solely about organizations.
Despite being very convincing otherwise, this doesn't legally prevent the word 'people' from being used for organizations. That is still a reasonable interpretation if a minority one.
EDIT: typos...
EDIT2: CD also uses 'people synonymously with 'citizens' in WA#310
WA#331 talks about 'people' creating monopolies and entering markets, so could be talking about organizations and not individuals
So I went through all resolutions and 331 was the best support for CD's argument that I could find.
Also I just want to say that about 1/4 of the ctrlf results were either 'authored by Separatist Peoples' or a co-author so consider me very impressed.

[Christian Democrats]

The former clause, however, says "all people." A corporation, or an association of individuals, is a person.

OOC: Is there a GA resolution supporting this statement?

First, the dictionary definition of the word "person," as used in legal contexts, is "one (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Second, it is clear in a number of resolutions that both natural persons and artificial persons are supposed to be covered. Here are some examples:

• Resolution 2 says that member states have authority over the persons in their jurisdictions.
• Resolution 25 describes terrorists as persons in its definitions and later specifies "terrorist individuals or organizations."
• Resolution 110 prohibits the theft of financial information from persons.
• Resolution 205 declares that all persons who are legally competent have the right to make contracts.
• Resolution 213 prohibits the government from infringing on a person's right to privacy.
• Resolution 247 defines crime victims as persons who have suffered "physical, emotional, or financial harm."

The meaning of the words "person," "persons," and "people" necessarily depends on their context. In a number of resolutions, it is only reasonable to give the words "person," "persons," and "people" their broadest meaning in order to accomplish the resolutions' goals.

I don't believe anybody could reasonably insist, for example, that an individual would be free, under Resolution 110, to steal financial information from a corporation; that the government, under Resolution 205, could prohibit corporations from making contracts for lawful purposes; that the government, under Resolution 213, could raid a corporate headquarters without a warrant; or that the government, under Resolution 247, could deny a corporation that suffered property damage the right to seek restitution from the wrongdoer.

As much as natural persons, artificial persons, such as businesses, churches, unions, and other corporate bodies, should have their rights protected when a resolution uses broad language (e.g., "all people"). If a resolution uses narrow language (e.g., "all individuals") or if its provisions are not reasonably applicable to artificial persons, the resolution should be read to cover only natural persons.

OOC: Is there a GA resolution supporting this statement?

OOC: This seems to be his only "proof" to support that statement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Labour_parties

A labor union is not an individual, but it is a person as that term is ordinarily used in legal contexts.

Ditto with a tobacco company.

You missed the important part of that quote.

[Frisbeeteria]

I don't believe anybody could reasonably insist, for example, that an individual would be free, under Resolution 110, to steal financial information from a corporation; that the government, under Resolution 205, could prohibit corporations from making contracts for lawful purposes; that the government, under Resolution 213, could raid a corporate headquarters without a warrant; or that the government, under Resolution 247, could deny a corporation that suffered property damage the right to seek restitution from the wrongdoer.

I'm not buying your argument. Under #110, you're assuming that the corporation, not the individual, 'owns' the financial information. Under #205, you're making an inclusion where none exists: corporations need to be explicitly permitted to make contracts. Ditto for 213 and 247: corporations and other entities don't have any rights until given those rights.

While corporate personhood may be recognized in the so-called real world, it's never been addressed by the WA. Until it is, I don't believe it's correct to grant those rights as an adjunct decision by a single GenSec member in an otherwise unrelated proposal. We need case law, and there isn't any ... yet.