NATION

PASSWORD

[SUBMITTED] Minors and Recreational Drugs

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3765
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:44 am

Araraukar wrote:
New Min wrote:OOC: EDIT: I know there is a separate "Outlaw Recreation Drugs" category, but, as far as I know, this can only be used for completely.. outlawing drugs.

OOC: To my knowledge it can also be used for restrictions. It's basically just badly named.

GA compendium wrote:Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will impose a drug ban, ... "Outlaw" will instantly impose total government control on drugs,

(OOC: The compendium appears to suggest the outlaw subcategory can only outlaw drugs, not restrict them)
Last edited by Kenmoria on Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire 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 nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts 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: 159
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby New Min » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:18 am

Kenmoria wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: To my knowledge it can also be used for restrictions. It's basically just badly named.

GA compendium wrote:Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will impose a drug ban, ... "Outlaw" will instantly impose total government control on drugs,

(OOC: The compendium appears to suggest the outlaw subcategory can only outlaw drugs, not restrict them)

OOC: Unfortunately, Game Moderators and GenSec members use different definitions (apparently?) and the proposal currently considered illegal. It has a lot of approvals already, so I hope that some of the members of the GenSec will change their mind, or give some further explanation.
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
Senator
 
Posts: 3765
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:30 am

New Min wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:
(OOC: The compendium appears to suggest the outlaw subcategory can only outlaw drugs, not restrict them)

OOC: Unfortunately, Game Moderators and GenSec members use different definitions (apparently?) and the proposal currently considered illegal. It has a lot of approvals already, so I hope that some of the members of the GenSec will change their mind, or give some further explanation.

(OOC: Not necessarily, it could be that neither "recreational drug use - outlaw" nor "moral decency - significant" fit the proposal. The former wouldn't work because this restricts rather than bans drugs, but the latter wouldn't work because this proposal, although it restricts civil rights, does so in the name of health rather than moral decency. However, I can't find a category that works better than the options above at present.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire 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 nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts 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: 159
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby New Min » Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:52 am

Now a 3rd member of the GenSec voted for illegal, but he/she considers the category to be right, but the strength not. Which strength​ should I have used instead?

I mean, I know this is a game, but the fact that staff members have completely different view regarding the rules than other staff, really annoys me. Also, this proposal has been on this forum for 3 weeks and no-one even talked about the category, including a GenSec member who made various comments.
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
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17654
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:51 am

OOC

Regardless of Category, there's also the clash with GA Resolution #299's clause 4:
4). Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of political matters, criminal responsibility, sexual matters, access to and operation of weapons or vehicles or other devices, participation in hazardous activities, use of drugs, and gambling), and that in these cases a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.


My apologies about not pointing this out earlier, but somehow this thread slipped past my attention...
:blush:
Last edited by Bears Armed on Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12326
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:02 am

Bears Armed wrote:OOC

Regardless of Category, there's also the clash with GA Resolution #299's clause 4:
4). Acknowledges the right of member nations to set reasonable thresholds of maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions (including but not limited to, whatever is legal there in terms of political matters, criminal responsibility, sexual matters, access to and operation of weapons or vehicles or other devices, participation in hazardous activities, use of drugs, and gambling), and that in these cases a single government can assign different thresholds for different rights or responsibilities.


My apologies about not pointing this out earlier, but somehow this thread slipped past my attention... :blush:

OOC: I always thought that meant age limits (or mental capacity) and that's why using "minors (or mental equivalent)" was allowed? But if reading your way as a total ban for any further limiting by WA, then that makes that the biggest loophole in history, thanks to the "including but not limited to" in the clause. Totally makes me not needing to worry an iota about Araraukar not being totally compliant with stuff, if I can just set whatever tresholds on whatever actions or activities... And also means that the gambling legalization proposal is in trouble.
"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
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13759
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:16 pm

New Min wrote:Now a 3rd member of the GenSec voted for illegal, but he/she considers the category to be right, but the strength not. Which strength​ should I have used instead?

I mean, I know this is a game, but the fact that staff members have completely different view regarding the rules than other staff, really annoys me. Also, this proposal has been on this forum for 3 weeks and no-one even talked about the category, including a GenSec member who made various comments.

1. GenSec is not a hivemind. We all have different readings of the rules.

2. GenSec doesn't have an affirmative duty to weigh in on drafting threads to pick through legality issues. Many of us have very busy real lives to balance against active site work.

3. There are three strengths for a category: Mild, Significant, and Strong. If it isn't Significant, and it definitely isn't Strong...well, you do the deduction.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9977
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:26 pm

In my view, outlawing recreational drugs for minors is a form of outlawing recreational drugs. And behold: we have a category and subcategory precisely fitting this circumstance.
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
New Min
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 159
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby New Min » Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:48 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:l
1. GenSec is not a hivemind. We all have different readings of the rules.

2. GenSec doesn't have an affirmative duty to weigh in on drafting threads to pick through legality issues. Many of us have very busy real lives to balance against active site work.

3. There are three strengths for a category: Mild, Significant, and Strong. If it isn't Significant, and it definitely isn't Strong...well, you do the deduction.

OOC:
1. How are new members supposed to understand the rules if there are different readings of the rules?
2. I never said so.
3. Ok.
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
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13759
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Jul 02, 2018 3:35 am

New Min wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:l
1. GenSec is not a hivemind. We all have different readings of the rules.

2. GenSec doesn't have an affirmative duty to weigh in on drafting threads to pick through legality issues. Many of us have very busy real lives to balance against active site work.

3. There are three strengths for a category: Mild, Significant, and Strong. If it isn't Significant, and it definitely isn't Strong...well, you do the deduction.

OOC:
1. How are new members supposed to understand the rules if there are different readings of the rules?
2. I never said so.
3. Ok.


Reading them gets you the basics. But its impossible to have a subjective standard like strength codified. We consider impact, but there isn't an objective point where a mild proposal becomes significant or a significant one becomes strong, since policy cannot be reduced to numeric values.

GenSec is pretty good at assessing those differences, but it's always possible to have dissent in the ranks. That's why there are six of us.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3092
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:36 am

OOC: Yeah, not a hivemind. I've tended to a certain degree of hard-assedness with regard to category, but this one is less simple IMO. Since the "Outlaw Rec. Drugs" category flat-out prohibits drugs, full stop, but this proposal only enforces controls for minors, I think the category is reasonable.

I agree the strength is wrong as submitted - keeping children from using psychoactive substances is not an inherently draconian or unexpected interest for a state or international body to advance, so Mild would be best. And I don't agree that #299 can be read so expansively as to stop the WA from being able to effectively legislate as B.A. alleged.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Petty Officer, The Red Fleet
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,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
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: 12326
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:37 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Since the "Outlaw Rec. Drugs" category flat-out prohibits drugs, full stop

OOC: Does it, though? Or does it just hit the Pineapple Fondness Rating statistic? Like, if a resolution passes in that AoE, does that literally drop that stat to zero, no matter how high a nation might have it at? If it doesn't, then it's not a true ban but a restriction.

I know I'm not from GenSec, but like with the guns category, instead of Outlaw/Legalize, it should be something like Restrict/Unrestrict.
"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
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 3046
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Aclion » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:40 am

Araraukar wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Since the "Outlaw Rec. Drugs" category flat-out prohibits drugs, full stop

OOC: Does it, though? Or does it just hit the Pineapple Fondness Rating statistic? Like, if a resolution passes in that AoE, does that literally drop that stat to zero, no matter how high a nation might have it at? If it doesn't, then it's not a true ban but a restriction.

I know I'm not from GenSec, but like with the guns category, instead of Outlaw/Legalize, it should be something like Restrict/Unrestrict.

Should be but isn't. Gambling is the same way.
Weiner - Cummings 2020
The left-right spectrum; an analogy.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO member
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12326
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:47 am

Aclion wrote:Should be but isn't. Gambling is the same way.

OOC: Do you know the stat effect it has?
"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
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 3046
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Aclion » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:05 am

Araraukar wrote:
Aclion wrote:Should be but isn't. Gambling is the same way.

OOC: Do you know the stat effect it has?

My understanding is that they change a policy(gambling/drug use is legal/illegal) and that carries on to stat change. So it depends where the nation is to begin with.
Last edited by Aclion on Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Weiner - Cummings 2020
The left-right spectrum; an analogy.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO member
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12326
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:10 am

Aclion wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Do you know the stat effect it has?

My understanding is that they change a policy(gambling/drug use is legal/illegal) and that carries on to stat change. So it depends where the nation is to begin with.

OOC: Well yeah, but is it an actual ban (aka the recreational drug use stat goes to zero) or just a restriction (it drops, probably certain percentage)?
"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
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 3046
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Aclion » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:15 am

Araraukar wrote:
Aclion wrote:My understanding is that they change a policy(gambling/drug use is legal/illegal) and that carries on to stat change. So it depends where the nation is to begin with.

OOC: Well yeah, but is it an actual ban (aka the recreational drug use stat goes to zero) or just a restriction (it drops, probably certain percentage)?

It's an actual ban, but i'm not sure if that means recreational drug use goes to zero or just to a number that reflects the now illegal drug use. I know if you ban gambling that doesn't mean your gambling industry is locked at zero.
Last edited by Aclion on Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Weiner - Cummings 2020
The left-right spectrum; an analogy.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO member
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12326
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jul 02, 2018 3:01 pm

Aclion wrote:It's an actual ban, but i'm not sure if that means recreational drug use goes to zero or just to a number that reflects the now illegal drug use.

OOC: It's only an actual total outlawing ban (like proposal rules describe the category) if it actually kills the stat entirely. If it's just a percentage drop, then it's just a restriction, like all the other categories, and can be used for things that don't completely ban 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
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3092
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:03 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Aclion wrote:It's an actual ban, but i'm not sure if that means recreational drug use goes to zero or just to a number that reflects the now illegal drug use.

OOC: It's only an actual total outlawing ban (like proposal rules describe the category) if it actually kills the stat entirely. If it's just a percentage drop, then it's just a restriction, like all the other categories, and can be used for things that don't completely ban it.


OOC: There are freedoms issues that IMO are dire enough to warrant MD/Mild if only children are being stopped from using drugs. If adults were being prohibited or even just broadly restricted, I would insist on RD/Outlaw. Here, they are not.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Petty Officer, The Red Fleet
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,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
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
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19493
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:20 pm

Restrictions on Child Labor wrote:Defines a 'minor' as a person below the legal age of majority as defined in their nation.

Minors and Recreational Drugs wrote:Defines a 'minor' as a sapient being under the legal age of majority as defined by in their nation for the purpose of this resolution.

Well, ain't that something!
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12326
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:56 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There are freedoms issues that IMO are dire enough to warrant MD/Mild if only children are being stopped from using drugs. If adults were being prohibited or even just broadly restricted, I would insist on RD/Outlaw. Here, they are not.

OOC: That's besides the point. The point was, "Can you use RD/Outlaw to restrict drug use rather than completely ban 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
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13759
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:39 am

Araraukar wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There are freedoms issues that IMO are dire enough to warrant MD/Mild if only children are being stopped from using drugs. If adults were being prohibited or even just broadly restricted, I would insist on RD/Outlaw. Here, they are not.

OOC: That's besides the point. The point was, "Can you use RD/Outlaw to restrict drug use rather than completely ban it?"


Ooc: not based on the text of the category description. A shame, really. It's not a terribly flexible category.

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12326
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:22 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: not based on the text of the category description. A shame, really. It's not a terribly flexible category.

OOC: Could you guys contact the Admins about it? You got the Mild and Strong added to Environmental. :lol: (Though they still need to be added to the proposal rules.)
"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
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13759
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:12 am

Araraukar wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: not based on the text of the category description. A shame, really. It's not a terribly flexible category.

OOC: Could you guys contact the Admins about it? You got the Mild and Strong added to Environmental. :lol: (Though they still need to be added to the proposal rules.)

Ooc: we are looking at adjusting some categories, but we have bad schedules. You know how the vacation months are. Doubly so when GenSec, Editors, and Admins are scattered all over the globe! And tripley so when you move at the glacial pace of GenSec to debate every facet. We really are looking into it!

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BlackLight Covenant, Hatzisland, The New Nordic Union, Tinfect

Advertisement

Remove ads