by New Min » Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:16 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:48 am
by New Min » Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:59 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Great. Kids can't drink soda now."
by New Min » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:06 am
Erithaca wrote:As per convention, number your clauses instead of using letters.
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:21 am
by Kenmoria » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:34 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:44 am
Kenmoria wrote:"This proposal is very human-centred, despite the many non-human species in the WA, change “human” to “sapient being” in the draft to remedy this."
by New Min » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:46 am
Kenmoria wrote:"This proposal is very human-centred, despite the many non-human species in the WA, change “human” to “sapient being” in the draft to remedy this. You also have banned all food, as that has the physiological effect of providing energy to the body."
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:50 am
New Min wrote:I have tried to use both pieces of feedback given:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Soda contains caffeine. Caffeine has a physiological effect. Your proposal includes caffeine. In fact, it also includes chocolate, sugar, and water. Bad proposal is bad."
I hope that the exemption made in 3.3 has solved this problem.Kenmoria wrote:"This proposal is very human-centred, despite the many non-human species in the WA, change “human” to “sapient being” in the draft to remedy this. You also have banned all food, as that has the physiological effect of providing energy to the body."
I hope the problem is solved now.
Thanks for the feedback and don't hesitate to give more feedback.
by New Min » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:51 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:New Min wrote:I have tried to use both pieces of feedback given:
I hope that the exemption made in 3.3 has solved this problem.
I hope the problem is solved now.
Thanks for the feedback and don't hesitate to give more feedback.
"You've still banned water and food, both of which have physiological impacts on the body."
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:05 am
by New Min » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:24 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:27 am
New Min wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Ok, so we can give children small amount of cannabis, mushrooms, and LSD. I hope you see the problem inherent in your regulatory scheme?"
First of all, I personally do not consider those drugs as being 'non-dangerous'. In the end, every country has its responsibility to decide which drugs they consider non-dangerous. And even though some countries might misuse this part, I think most won't. Considering that a lot of countries do not abide by all resolutions, I personally think this problem with countries interpreting words in a way they like it is something which happens with many resolutions, and the most important thing we want to achieve is making the current situation in which children may use recreational and dangerous drugs better, not making it perfect. I know the resolution gives nations more space to decide how to interpret it, more than in an ideal situation, but I do think this resolution is important and I do believe it's good enough to bring to vote.
If you have any idea how to phrase the definition of drugs better, I am happy to hear it!
by New Min » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:32 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:New Min wrote:First of all, I personally do not consider those drugs as being 'non-dangerous'. In the end, every country has its responsibility to decide which drugs they consider non-dangerous. And even though some countries might misuse this part, I think most won't. Considering that a lot of countries do not abide by all resolutions, I personally think this problem with countries interpreting words in a way they like it is something which happens with many resolutions, and the most important thing we want to achieve is making the current situation in which children may use recreational and dangerous drugs better, not making it perfect. I know the resolution gives nations more space to decide how to interpret it, more than in an ideal situation, but I do think this resolution is important and I do believe it's good enough to bring to vote.
If you have any idea how to phrase the definition of drugs better, I am happy to hear it!
"Then you've accomplished nothing. Nations that believe such drugs are harmful would already have regulated their access by minors. Nations that do not would not. The law would have accomplished literally nothing. So, why bother?"
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:35 am
New Min wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
"Then you've accomplished nothing. Nations that believe such drugs are harmful would already have regulated their access by minors. Nations that do not would not. The law would have accomplished literally nothing. So, why bother?"
You show the importance of such regulations by making a resolution. Forcing countries doesn't work. For example, there is a ban on slavery (WAR #23), but still, a lot of countries have slavery. You could say it hasn't had any effect, but still, the WA made clear that it finds slavery a bad thing, and I do believe it influenced slavery regulations in many countries.
by New Min » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:46 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:New Min wrote:You show the importance of such regulations by making a resolution. Forcing countries doesn't work. For example, there is a ban on slavery (WAR #23), but still, a lot of countries have slavery. You could say it hasn't had any effect, but still, the WA made clear that it finds slavery a bad thing, and I do believe it influenced slavery regulations in many countries.
"The World Assembly ought not waste it a time wot h virtue signalling. If you are not enacting policy and enforcing it, you waste resources by passing it.
"That some nations ignore WA laws is a poor reason to pass more that will be ignored. Might as well pass a law that bans Bad Things. Do or do not."
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:51 am
New Min wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
"The World Assembly ought not waste it a time wot h virtue signalling. If you are not enacting policy and enforcing it, you waste resources by passing it.
"That some nations ignore WA laws is a poor reason to pass more that will be ignored. Might as well pass a law that bans Bad Things. Do or do not."
Do you know any way in which this resolution could be written in a way it actually is enforceable?
by Christian Democrats » Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:02 pm
New Min wrote:Bans the use of drugs by minors
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Kenmoria » Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:03 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:New Min wrote:Do you know any way in which this resolution could be written in a way it actually is enforceable?
"I doubt it. As I said, any nation that feels mnor drug use is bad will have banned or regulated it. You could tighten up the language to exclude subjective standards. But there isn't much benefit to internationally enforcing this."
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:23 pm
Kenmoria wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
"I doubt it. As I said, any nation that feels mnor drug use is bad will have banned or regulated it. You could tighten up the language to exclude subjective standards. But there isn't much benefit to internationally enforcing this."
"I disagree that there is no point in continuing this draft. Whilst there are some problems regarding over-applicability and one size fits all legislation, the idea isn't by itself doomed. You could say that a nation believing something's bad will ban it about most topics the WA has covered, such as FGM, but that doesn't stop the resolutions from being good ideas."
by New Min » Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:59 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:52 pm
New Min wrote:Illegal selling of drugs is already banned by another resolution.
by Kenmoria » Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:48 am
by Attempted Socialism » Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:36 am
"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.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.
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Tigrisia
Advertisement