NationStates

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?

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.)

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?"

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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?

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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

"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."

I have tried to fix the issues with the proposal, please let me know if anything should be changed.

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.

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."

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.

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?