[CHALLENGE] Legalisation of Gambling

[United Massachusetts]

Proposal thread here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=34201539#p34201539

General Assembly Proposal

Legalisation of Gambling

A resolution to legalize gambling.

Category: Gambling

Legalize/Outlaw: Legalize

Proposed by: Jebslund

The General Assembly

KNOWING that Gambing is, by its nature, risky and can lose a person their entire life's savings,

KNOWING that Gambling is potentially addictive,

KNOWING that Gambling can be particularly dangerous to those of limited mental capacity and/or tendencies toward addiction,


HOWEVER,


RECOGNISING that Gambling can provide a much-needed source of income for some governments and persons,

UNDERSTANDING that, with the proper education and resources, the problem of gambling addiction, defined as a psychological and/or physiological dependence on Gambling such that the afflicted person must gamble in order to feel 'normal', can be minimized or even mitigated entirely,

BELIEVING that the benefits of Gambling can outweigh these risks if and only if instituted correctly,

FURTHER BELIEVING that it is the place of governments to protect the rights of their citizens from the government and from other citizens, not to protect citizens from all possible risks,

HEREBY MANDATES that Gambling be legalised under the following conditions:

1: That measures be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of gambling addiction
2: That businesses wishing to offer Gambling-related services be required to undergo training to recognise signs of gambling addiction, in addition to/accordance with any other such WA mandate
3: That such education be required as part of the licensing requirements for such businesses
4: That no such business may serve alcohol to those who are currently gambling or can reasonably be expected to be gambling.
5: That no such business may loan money to any persons for any reason, nor accept any loan-based method of payment (such as a credit card or addition to a hotel bill).
6: That no such business may admit any persons who have been declared legally incompetent/have had criminal charges dropped or punishments reduced by reason of insanity.

And HEREBY RECOMMENDS the following:

1: That no bank be permitted to loan money if said bank's personnel have reasonable grounds to suspect the money may be used for gambling.
2: That no facility with a casino be permitted to serve alcohol, not admit any clearly intoxicated persons
3: That any gambling facility be required to keep odds of winning above a percentage based on the member nation's population where reasonably possible and/or post highly visible and legible disclaimers in any languages of likely patrons of the odds of winning and risk of losing money, particularly in forms of gambling involving games of luck with no significant skill element
4: That any business which holds a gambling license be subject to random inspections/retesting on pain of revocation of license.

Rule Broken: Contradiction of 68 GA, National Economic Freedoms

Reasoning: For the sake of this challenge, we call into question the legality of what we shall, for the sake of this resolution, refer to as "Clause One," and, in particular, the sections highlighted in red:

HEREBY MANDATES that Gambling be legalised under the following conditions:

1: That measures be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of gambling addiction
2: That businesses wishing to offer Gambling-related services be required to undergo training to recognise signs of gambling addiction, in addition to/accordance with any other such WA mandate
3: That such education be required as part of the licensing requirements for such businesses
4: That no such business may serve alcohol to those who are currently gambling or can reasonably be expected to be gambling.
5: That no such business may loan money to any persons for any reason, nor accept any loan-based method of payment (such as a credit card or addition to a hotel bill).
6: That no such business may admit any persons who have been declared legally incompetent/have had criminal charges dropped or punishments reduced by reason of insanity.

In GA 68, we point out the following:

ALLOWS national governments to regulate commerce within their jurisdiction,

...

REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless:

1. Restricted by prior legislation, or
2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations

Our line of reasoning is as follows:

1. The regulation of gambling, and all laws associated therewith, are a matter of internal commerce within a member nation. Excepting those cases where the monetary transfer occurs across national boundaries, we believe this point to be abundantly obvious. A regulation of a casino frequented only by Bay Staters, for instance, is clearly a matter of internal commerce.
   
2. Per GA 68, the right to regulate purely internal commerce is reserved only to member nations themselves. This point, we contend, should also be clear, given that the "ALLOWS" clause reserves to member nations the right to regulate internal commerce, and the "REQUIRES" clause prohibits the GA from regulating matters pertaining to commerce except where doing so is a means of combatting an extreme hazard to national populations (or is restricted by prior legislation.
   
3. Two forms of regulation exist within legalisation of gambling, both of which regulate purely internal commerce. The resolution both legalises gambling (a form of regulation on gambling, since legalisation is a form of regulating) and restricts certain activities regarding gambling.
   
4. Since the two forms are unique, in order to comport with the mandates of GA 68, both forms of regulation must be justified individually. Now, the justification must take the form of proving that gambling poses an extreme risk to national populations.
   
5. In order to justify the legality of the clause highlighted in red, it must be proved that the illegalisation of gambling poses an extreme risk to national populations. For, in order for this to be a response to an extreme hazard, there must be proof that without a policy in place, said extreme hazard would occur. Otherwise, the policy is not a response to the extreme hazard posed.
   
6. This resolution does not do such. I'd challenge anyone who disagrees with me to point to any extreme hazard that the illegalisation of gambling poses, as listed in this resolution. There is none.
   
7. Ergo, the legalisation of gambling (the part highlighted in red) contradicts 68 GA.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Allowing national governments to do things doesn't mean someone else cannot also do those things. Why? Because Sedge is right.

Allowing me to drive a car doesn't mean that nobody else can drive cars. Hell, now with Tesla and BMW's braking programs, allowing me to drive just that car doesn't even mean that nobody else can drive the car I'm driving while I'm driving it. Similar is a self-driving car or those training cars with two sets of controls.

When the US government allows the FDIC to regulate commerce of the Banking Act of 1933, it didn't make it impossible for the OCC and the Fed to similarly regulate banks. When the US government allows the FDIC to regulate banks, it doesn't mean that state banking regulatory agencies disappeared. When the UK government allows the Bank of England to regulate Santander, it doesn't mean that the ECB, Fed, and FDIC can no longer do anything when Santander constantly fails stress tests. When the US government authorised federal courts to hear diversity cases, it doesn't mean that persons across state lines can no longer sue in state courts.

When Harvard is allowed to set admissions criteria, it doesn't mean they can set quotas on Asians and Jews. When Elizabeth Holmes has freedom of speech, it doesn't mean she can commit fraud and tell everyone false things about Theranos.

But on the Discord, Sanctaria brings up something else interesting. I've copied it verbatim here:

NEF was passed under the old rules where no resolution could essentially stop any resolution within a category
so I'm not sure how it could have therefore closed off Gambling:Legalise . . .
Right, blocker, that's the word I was thinking of
so prima facie, UM's challenge should be thrown out
since GenSec will have to rule it doesn't block the category

The idea that this resolution eliminates the category also seems prima facie ridiculous. It would also have similar category-eliminating effects on the legalisation of recreational drugs. Or Advancement of Industry's labour deregulation and tort reform areas of effect. Insofar as free press also requires sale of materials or commercial activity in procuring those materials to be sold and distributed, such a ruling would also eliminate the ability for the Assembly to protect free speech.

This idea is quite similar to, possibly derived from, but not the same as Seemingly, this idea emerges from CD's plainly logically incoherent¹ post here, where he takes a position clearly inspired by the US constitution's interstate commerce clause. Just, UM's claim of such a legislative rule doesn't exist. Nowhere does it say that the Assembly can only deal with interstate commerce. If NEF in fact wanted that to happen, it wouldn't include language like the famous "extreme hazard" exception or a statement that nations can regulate. For, if it in fact wanted that nations had exclusive ability to regulate, one would expect that it would say that.

¹

He says that member nations are given an asserted right to govern regulations and that right is infringed by requiring them to create regulations or subsume their regulations to an international plan, which infringes upon their ability to regulate on their own accord. That's just plainly in the text.

Yet, he also claims that the comparatively greater harm, comparatively larger impact, and altogether textually better-linked action of prohibiting those regulations altogether is not covered by that same justification. That is incoherent. It's like saying that compelled speech is not fine because it infringes one's right to free speech. But prohibiting speech altogether is totally okay, even though it infringes that same right to a greater degree. And forcing everyone to convert to, say, Anglicanism is impermissible because it violates religious freedom. But forcing everyone to be atheist is alright, even though it does that same thing, infringing that same right to a greater degree.

Moreover, how can it conceivably be possible for member nations to have exclusive rights to regulate commerce, as claimed in the first sentence, if that right is directly infringed by entirely being prohibited from making such regulations?

Substantive edits in yellow highlighter

[Christian Democrats]

Seemingly, this idea emerges from CD's post here, where he takes a position clearly inspired by the US constitution's interstate commerce clause. Just, such a legislative rule doesn't exist. Nowhere does it say that the Assembly can only deal with interstate commerce. If NEF in fact wanted that to happen, it wouldn't include language like the famous "extreme hazard" exception or a statement that nations can regulate. For, if it in fact wanted that nations had exclusive ability to regulate, one would expect that it would say that.

Reread my 2013 post. I have never held that NEF prohibits the liberalization of domestic commercial activities.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Uh huh. You said:

In my view, this resolution basically grants exclusive authority to member states to regulate economic activities within their jurisdictions

Meaning that there is no place for the Assembly to change those regulations, eg liberalise them. That's what "exclusive authority" means.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The "extreme hazard" language refers to a "general restriction" of commerce. The target proposal does not prohibit gambling outright, nor even place a heavy burden on gamblers; rather it merely requires gambling to take place under the auspices of national authority - something which can in theory be done in a heavily regulated fashion by a private contractor, similar to how certain functions that are theoretically government-run are technically carried out by private contractors under a closely-overseen state monopoly (e.g. public transportation, utilities, etc.).

Requiring legalization of a certain industry, even under heavily-regulated state authority, categorically does not count as generally restricting commerce.

As for planks 1-3 of the challenge, IA has it basically right. The ALLOWS clause of GAR #68 is there to prevent the WA from denying member states the ability to issue their own regulations (e.g. West Bigtopia has a serious bribery problem not seen in other jurisdictions, so they want to issue regulations on gift-giving that don't rise to the level of an international issue). It is NOT there to devolve all regulatory powers to member states. If it were, then at least the following resolutions would be illegal: 205, 209, 232, 233, 256, 300, 307, 333, 371, 376, 394, 399, 401, 403, 407, 413, and 421 - all of which supersede national commercial regulatory regimes for some benefit impossible to produce or unlikely to come about naturally through the 'marketplace' of disparate national actions. Such a result is fundamentally absurd and I reject it. I don't see enough of a question here to justify issuing a full opinion on this challenge.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Even if it the Allows clause did apply to all commerce and create an exclusive jurisdiction, it still doesn't matter. When I say "The World Assembly requires that member nations issue regulations to do X, Y, Z, containing provisions that meet or exceed the following . . .", that nation is still doing the regulation and therefore, is still regulating the matter.

Any way you want to spin this, the lack of the word 'all' or 'exclusive' means that all reasonable interpretations point towards this challenge being dismissed on those grounds. I disagree with SL in that I think it would be very clarifying to issue an opinion so to 'complete', if you will, the recent challenge on NEF's other clause. That would clarify exactly what the boundaries are vis-à-vis NEF and set ground rules for challenges on it into the future.

[Bananaistan]

The ruling on "Legalizing Prostitution" is still active precedent and results from a similar proposal and question. This is in addition to the more recent precedent IA linked to. This precedent seems clear enough to me. The WA instructing member states to legalise something does not take away the state's right to regulate it.

Informed by the notes on the Free Trade category, I view all regulations and laws on commerce or a specific economic activity to be restrictions of commerce unless such a law is basic one liner "people can do X here". Any law or regulation beyond such a basic legalisation of an activity or product is a restriction.

In light of this and despite the ye olden times debates on whether a restriction was general or specific, I always took the second requires clause in GAR#68 to mean that in general the WA may not restrict (or regulate, legislate on or any other synonym you may think of) commerce unless the exceptions apply. I saw comments elsewhere referring to my flippant use of the term "necessary handwave to hazards". This is informed by the history of GAR#68 and what it was meant to do and what it does. It is meant to require the WA to justify why it should wade into regulating commerce. The longstanding precedent established by the moderators and reinforced by GenSec is that we let the voters decide whether the justification is sufficient and we do not assess unless it is an obviously trivial risk such as pointy desk corners. But it is still necessary to include such a justification and it is now such a fundamental principle of how the GA works that I trivialise it by calling it a "handwave".

The precedent on the matter should be sufficient to inform authors. I agree with SL that this challenge does not require a formal ruling and that the challenged proposal is legal.

[Jebslund]

[OOC: You couldn't have waited until I'd at least gotten the second draft up, UM?]

[Sciongrad]

I also think GenSec should reject this challenge on the grounds that, according to active precedent, the proposal in question is legal, prima facie. Ruling on this challenge would not provide any new insights into how the rules function or how GAR#68 will be interpreted. First, as a matter of clarification, GAR#68 was not designed to devolve all regulatory power to member nations. As SL rightly notes, that interpretation would invalidate a litany of resolutions on the books right now. The only relevant questions are: 1. does the resolution "regulate" some aspect of domestic commerce, and does it justify that regulation in terms of "extreme hazards to national populations?" and 2. does the interpretation of GAR#68 that you offer necessarily foreclose any use of an entire category? On the first question, possibly, but as I noted, as long as the regulation (in this case, regulation to the extent that member nation governments are charged with overseeing a liberalized industry) is justified, the proposal is legal, at least vis-a-vis GAR#68. GenSec has never established any test for determining whether some justification is legitimate — that is for the voters to decide. Regarding the second question, the logical conclusion of your argument is that GAR#68 blocks off the entire gambling category. Any regulation on this issue must be devolved to national authorities, according to your challenge. That would force us to assume that GAR#68 forecloses an entire category, which would make it illegal. Because there is a reasonable interpretation of GAR#68 that does not make it illegal, we must choose that one.

[Separatist Peoples]

What scion said.

Also, general note for all players: challenges are all totally OOC! Write them as such!

[Jebslund]

What scion said.

Also, general note for all players: challenges are all totally OOC! Write them as such!

Ah. My bad.

[United Massachusetts]

Very well. I appreciate the legal clarification. If GenSec would like to continue the challenge, they may, I guess, though I have been convinced.

[Christian Democrats]

Seemingly, this idea emerges from CD's post here, where he takes a position clearly inspired by the US constitution's interstate commerce clause. Just, such a legislative rule doesn't exist. Nowhere does it say that the Assembly can only deal with interstate commerce. If NEF in fact wanted that to happen, it wouldn't include language like the famous "extreme hazard" exception or a statement that nations can regulate. For, if it in fact wanted that nations had exclusive ability to regulate, one would expect that it would say that.

Reread my 2013 post. I have never held that NEF prohibits the liberalization of domestic commercial activities.

Uh huh. You said:

In my view, this resolution basically grants exclusive authority to member states to regulate economic activities within their jurisdictions

Meaning that there is no place for the Assembly to change those regulations, eg liberalise them. That's what "exclusive authority" means.

Reread the last sentence.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So square this circle for me: What's the justification in your reading for the Asserts clause if the Assembly cannot impose new regulations on domestic commerce? And if that deals with this idea that member nations have an asserted authority to regulate, how can member nations possibly regulate if they are prohibited from doing so by the WA's liberalisation requirements?

[Christian Democrats]

The post cited was poorly worded to be sure, but it's not that difficult to understand.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's very difficult to understand. You don't provide any justification for the interpretation. You simply quote it and then assert that it is that way. Now, I have arguments for why a justification based on this claimed immunisation from international regulatory compliance is incoherent, but I don't want to mischaracterise what your justification is, in case it is something else.

[Christian Democrats]

Member states and the General Assembly may deregulate purely domestic commerce. Member states alone may regulate such commerce, except in cases where commercial activities are extremely hazardous to people's welfare.

[Imperium Anglorum]

How does that interact with the ability for member states to regulate commerce? If international legislation requires that members legalise, by way of example, credit-default swaps, you have necessarily prohibited those members from regulating them out of existence.

[Christian Democrats]

You ascribed a position to me that I do not hold, and now you're quibbling over the way I worded something more than five years ago.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'll edit my post then.

[Liberimery]

Can I piggyback on this with an additional challenge under WA68 or would it be better to right a new one?

[Separatist Peoples]

Can I piggyback on this with an additional challenge under WA68 or would it be better to right a new one?

Considering UM has dropped it? Post a new one.