[DRAFT] Repeal GA Resolution #429 "Traditional Medicine"

[Varanius]

Draft 1:

General Assembly Resolution # 429 Traditional Medicine (Category: Health; Area of Effect: Research) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the worthy intentions of General Assembly Resolution #429 "Traditional Medicine" to improve medicine and medicinal practices throughout World Assembly nations,

Worried about the undue amount of stress the resolution may place on poorer nations without adequate funding for proper testing,

Bothered with the provided definition of Traditional Medicine and it’s implication that popular belief and verifiable effectiveness are mutually exclusive,

Troubled by the fact that the resolution places the burden of testing on member nation’s governments and the World Assembly instead of the companies that design and produce traditional medicines,

Concerned by the effect this may have on communities with alternative belief systems in which such traditional medicine is important culturally,

Further concerned by the absolute bans the resolution places on traditional medicines they are unable to test under the seemingly arbitrary restrictions (such as that requiring substances be retrieved from farmed organisms as opposed to wild ones),

Apprehensive of the fact that that same restriction (that dictates materials must be retrieved from farmed animals) may be difficult or in humane for animals that don’t survive well in captivity, the latter explicitly goes against clause 3.g),

Disquieted that the resolution further unnecessarily bans traditional medicines even if they are proven safe but have not been proven effective (clause 3.e) except under certain conditions,

And overall unhappy with the unreasonable restrictions and bans infringing on possible cultural traditions:

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 429

Draft 2:

General Assembly Resolution # 429 Traditional Medicine (Category: Health; Area of Effect: Research) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the worthy intentions of General Assembly Resolution #429 "Traditional Medicine" to improve medicine and medicinal practices throughout World Assembly nations,

Worried about the undue amount of stress the resolution may place on poorer nations without adequate funding for proper testing,

Troubled by the fact that the resolution places the burden of testing on a member nations’ governments and the World Assembly instead of the companies that design and produce traditional medicines,

Concerned by the effect this may have on communities with alternative belief systems in which such traditional medicine is important culturally,

Further concerned by the absolute bans the resolution places on traditional medicines they are unable to test under the seemingly arbitrary requests (such as that requiring substances be retrieved from farmed organisms as opposed to wild ones),

Disquieted that the resolution further unnecessarily urges against traditional medicines even if they are proven safe but have not been proven effective (clause 3.e) except under certain conditions,

And overall unhappy with the unreasonable restrictions and bans infringing on possible cultural traditions:

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 429

Draft 3:

General Assembly Resolution # 429 Traditional Medicine (Category: Health; Area of Effect: Research) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the worthy intentions of General Assembly Resolution #429 "Traditional Medicine" to improve medicine and medicinal practices throughout World Assembly nations,

Worried about the undue amount of stress the resolution may place on poorer nations without adequate funding for proper testing,

Troubled by the fact that the resolution places the burden of testing on a member nations’ governments and the World Assembly instead of the companies that design and produce traditional medicines,

Concerned by the effect this may have on communities with alternative belief systems in which such traditional medicine is important culturally,

Further concerned by the absurd policies the resolution urges regarding traditional medicines they are unable to test under the seemingly arbitrary requests (such as that requiring substances be retrieved from farmed organisms as opposed to wild ones),

Disquieted that the resolution further unnecessarily urges against traditional medicines even if they are proven safe but have not been proven effective (clause 3.e) except under certain conditions,

And overall unhappy with the unreasonable restrictions and bans infringing on possible cultural traditions:

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 429

Draft 4:

General Assembly Resolution # 429 Traditional Medicine (Category: Health; Area of Effect: Research) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the worthy intentions of General Assembly Resolution #429 "Traditional Medicine" to improve medicine and medicinal practices throughout World Assembly nations,

Worried about the undue amount of stress the resolution may place on poorer nations without adequate funding for proper testing,

Troubled by the fact that the resolution places the burden of arranging testing on a member nations’ governments and the World Assembly instead of the companies that design and produce traditional medicines,

Concerned by the effect this may have on communities with alternative belief systems in which such traditional medicine is important culturally,

Disquieted that the resolution further unnecessarily urges against traditional medicines even if they are proven safe but have not been proven effective (clause 3.e) except under certain conditions,

And overall unhappy with the unreasonable restrictions and bans infringing on possible cultural traditions:

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 429

OOC: First draft, please post any and all suggestions

[WayNeacTia]

"How's about we don't and say we didn't?"

Wayne

[Tinhampton]

OOC: Your accusations about the supposed requirements of Articles 3e-g are incorrect: if I strongly urge you to buy me a can of beer at the local supermarket, then you are under no obligation to actually buy me that beer. Your accusations about Articles 3a-b are also incorrect: if I strongly urge your government to arrange driving lessons for somebody who wants to learn to drive, that does not mean that your government actually has to arrange those driving lessons, nor does it prohibit private driving instructors from teaching that person as normal, but that somebody is only forbidden from driving if somebody else (not necessarily the government or the WA) fails to teach him how to do so. What you have left is NatSov.

This is the third repeal draft I've seen from a TWPer in the past 24 hours or so. Is your region holding some sort of internal Best Repeal contest, or is the timing somehow coincidental?

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: Your accusations about the supposed requirements of Articles 3e-g are incorrect: if I strongly urge you to buy me a can of beer at the local supermarket, then you are under no obligation to actually buy me that beer. Your accusations about Articles 3a-b are also incorrect: if I strongly urge your government to arrange driving lessons, that does not mean that your government actually has to arrange those driving lessons, nor does it prohibit private driving instructors from carrying on as normal. What you have left is NatSov.

This is the third repeal draft I've seen from a TWPer in the past 24 hours or so. Is your region holding some sort of internal Best Repeal contest, or is the timing somehow coincidental?

Not quite Tin. "Urges" clauses are actually enforceable, otherwise they would carry no weight in a pure blocker resolution. Probably best to think of it as back room diplomatic threatening taking place. The Gnomes drag government officials into a plain, unmarked van and hit them with a shoe until they agree to pass national laws on whatever the urges clause "urges".

[Varanius]

OOC: Your accusations about the supposed requirements of Articles 3e-g are incorrect: if I strongly urge you to buy me a can of beer at the local supermarket, then you are under no obligation to actually buy me that beer. Your accusations about Articles 3a-b are also incorrect: if I strongly urge your government to arrange driving lessons for somebody who wants to learn to drive, that does not mean that your government actually has to arrange those driving lessons, nor does it prohibit private driving instructors from teaching that person as normal, but that somebody is only forbidden from driving if somebody else (not necessarily the government or the WA) fails to teach him how to do so. What you have left is NatSov.

This is the third repeal draft I've seen from a TWPer in the past 24 hours or so. Is your region holding some sort of internal Best Repeal contest, or is the timing somehow coincidental?

OOC: see clause 4

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: Your accusations about the supposed requirements of Articles 3e-g are incorrect: if I strongly urge you to buy me a can of beer at the local supermarket, then you are under no obligation to actually buy me that beer. Your accusations about Articles 3a-b are also incorrect: if I strongly urge your government to arrange driving lessons for somebody who wants to learn to drive, that does not mean that your government actually has to arrange those driving lessons, nor does it prohibit private driving instructors from teaching that person as normal, but that somebody is only forbidden from driving if somebody else (not necessarily the government or the WA) fails to teach him how to do so. What you have left is NatSov.

This is the third repeal draft I've seen from a TWPer in the past 24 hours or so. Is your region holding some sort of internal Best Repeal contest, or is the timing somehow coincidental?

OOC: see clause 4

And?

[Deacarsia]

I support this proposal.

[Varanius]

OOC: see clause 4

And?

It strongly urges member nations to do something previously, then bans them. So either the original proposal is contradictory, or it’s a bit more then just strongly urging

[WayNeacTia]

And?

It strongly urges member nations to do something previously, then bans them. So either the original proposal is contradictory, or it’s a bit more then just strongly urging

Maybe you had better read it again.

[Varanius]

It strongly urges member nations to do something previously, then bans them. So either the original proposal is contradictory, or it’s a bit more then just strongly urging

Maybe you had better read it again.

I see. Thank you!

[Attempted Socialism]

I don't get your reading of the definition.
We have some substance that, by traditional belief, cures an ailment. Let's take two examples, willow bark and crystals, both against aches. Originally, we don't know anything about their effectiveness, so people use both purely out of belief. Then both are tested, willow bark is shown to work (And is used in the development in aspirin) while crystals are shown to be bogus. At which point were the traditional belief in and verifiable effectiveness of willow bark mutually exclusive? Or do you read it in the sense that the stuff we know don't and can't work in any way shape or form (In this example, the crystals) is mutually exclusive to actual knowledge, because in that case yes (By definition, knowledge and the negation of knowledge are mutually exclusive), and that's a very good thing. I strongly oppose the notion that some cultures should be allowed to use traditional "medicine" just because they've always done this exceedingly dumb thing. People have always committed genocide and warcrimes, should we allow them to do that out of tradition?

[Varanius]

I don't get your reading of the definition.
We have some substance that, by traditional belief, cures an ailment. Let's take two examples, willow bark and crystals, both against aches. Originally, we don't know anything about their effectiveness, so people use both purely out of belief. Then both are tested, willow bark is shown to work (And is used in the development in aspirin) while crystals are shown to be bogus. At which point were the traditional belief in and verifiable effectiveness of willow bark mutually exclusive? Or do you read it in the sense that the stuff we know don't and can't work in any way shape or form (In this example, the crystals) is mutually exclusive to actual knowledge, because in that case yes (By definition, knowledge and the negation of knowledge are mutually exclusive), and that's a very good thing. I strongly oppose the notion that some cultures should be allowed to use traditional "medicine" just because they've always done this exceedingly dumb thing. People have always committed genocide and warcrimes, should we allow them to do that out of tradition?

That’s in reference to clause 2, specifically that “ that is used because of popular belief rather than scientific proof for its effectiveness”. The wording would seem to imply that something used simply out of popular belief can’t also be proven effective

[Isaris]

Troubled by the fact that the resolution places the burden of testing on member nation’s governments and the World Assembly instead of the companies that design and produce traditional medicines,

OOC: This is a little awkward grammatically. I would suggest either changing nation's to nations' or adding an "a" before the word member and dropping the "s" from governments. Right now you're using the plural governments after the singular possessive nation's, implying that one nation owns multiple governments.

[Varanius]

Troubled by the fact that the resolution places the burden of testing on member nation’s governments and the World Assembly instead of the companies that design and produce traditional medicines,

OOC: This is a little awkward grammatically. I would suggest either changing nation's to nations' or adding an "a" before the word member and dropping the "s" from governments. Right now you're using the plural governments after the singular possessive nation's, implying that one nation owns multiple governments.

OOC: Thank you! And please note, the next draft is updated by suggestion, but the one posted won’t be edited.

[Attempted Socialism]

I don't get your reading of the definition.
We have some substance that, by traditional belief, cures an ailment. Let's take two examples, willow bark and crystals, both against aches. Originally, we don't know anything about their effectiveness, so people use both purely out of belief. Then both are tested, willow bark is shown to work (And is used in the development in aspirin) while crystals are shown to be bogus. At which point were the traditional belief in and verifiable effectiveness of willow bark mutually exclusive? Or do you read it in the sense that the stuff we know don't and can't work in any way shape or form (In this example, the crystals) is mutually exclusive to actual knowledge, because in that case yes (By definition, knowledge and the negation of knowledge are mutually exclusive), and that's a very good thing. I strongly oppose the notion that some cultures should be allowed to use traditional "medicine" just because they've always done this exceedingly dumb thing. People have always committed genocide and warcrimes, should we allow them to do that out of tradition?

That’s in reference to clause 2, specifically that “ that is used because of popular belief rather than scientific proof for its effectiveness”. The wording would seem to imply that something used simply out of popular belief can’t also be proven effective

Not at all. It simply distinguishes between the reasons. You can use willow bark today (Properly treated, of course) to dull some pains and aches. It was used for centuries out of popular belief before effectiveness was proven. The definition uses the reason for using some medication (Or traditional "medication", as it may be), it doesn't posit any necessary relationship between the two. Since governments are urged to actually test the defined traditional medicines for potential effectiveness, a definition that implicitly or explicitly claimed any such cannot be effective would be extremely counterproductive. Luckily, it doesn't.

[Varanius]

That’s in reference to clause 2, specifically that “ that is used because of popular belief rather than scientific proof for its effectiveness”. The wording would seem to imply that something used simply out of popular belief can’t also be proven effective

Not at all. It simply distinguishes between the reasons. You can use willow bark today (Properly treated, of course) to dull some pains and aches. It was used for centuries out of popular belief before effectiveness was proven. The definition uses the reason for using some medication (Or traditional "medication", as it may be), it doesn't posit any necessary relationship between the two. Since governments are urged to actually test the defined traditional medicines for potential effectiveness, a definition that implicitly or explicitly claimed any such cannot be effective would be extremely counterproductive. Luckily, it doesn't.

I see your point. Thank you!

[Earthly Heaven]

OOC:
This is the third repeal draft I've seen from a TWPer in the past 24 hours or so. Is your region holding some sort of internal Best Repeal contest, or is the timing somehow coincidental?

OOC: How is this in any way, shape or form actually contributing to the repeal resolution? From an OOC perspective, if you want people to actually participate, proposals should be scrutinized, stand up to the test of time and encouraging people to repeal the thousands of resolutions already existing to create better ones or not impact nations just creates a challenge for authors to write GA resolutions that are worthy of being introduced. The answer here isn't to ask why are there so many repeals, if many do end up being repealed, that is a reflection on the quality of the resolutions themselves. If GA wants to be more than just a badge hunter and actually matter, then why are these comments even being thrown in?

The other question I have: what does it matter what region are people from? If people are met with hostility because they are seeking to understand, participate in GA, you should help them with criticism rather than their motive. That is the way people drive people's motivation out of games. I see no issue of regions encouraging their members to write proposals, if anything, this should be more common. Whether it is repeals, resolutions or commendations or condemnations.

[LollerLand]

Further concerned by the absolute bans the resolution places on traditional medicines they are unable to test under the seemingly arbitrary restrictions (such as that requiring substances be retrieved from farmed organisms as opposed to wild ones),

This clause, which refers to 3(f) of the original proposal is reason enough for me to support this repeal. Even though the original proposal only suggests making it a requirement, this is enough reason for governments that have poor regard for rights of tribal communities to further infringe on those rights. Especially, considering that many tribal communities depends on forests for their needs, including medicinal.

[Big Bad Badger]

This looks like a great repeal! Let's get it out to the Delegates to put in the queue!

[Varanius]

This looks like a great repeal! Let's get it out to the Delegates to put in the queue!

Thanks Badger! Was just waiting for any more critiques

[Maowi]

Troubled by the fact that the resolution places the burden of testing on a member nations’ governments and the World Assembly instead of the companies that design and produce traditional medicines,

OOC: Tin mentioned this earlier, but this clause is still incorrect ... "to arrange x" doesn't have to mean "to do x" - it just means "to make sure that x happens".

Further concerned by the absurd policies the resolution urges regarding traditional medicines they are unable to test under the seemingly arbitrary requests (such as that requiring substances be retrieved from farmed organisms as opposed to wild ones),

The requested requirement you use as an example is not arbitrary; it is justified in the same clause. Furthermore, I don't think it's an "urges member nations to require that substances be retrieved from farmed organisms as opposed to wild ones", but it's an "urges member nations to make sure they don't endanger species for traditional medicine, which where relevant may include requiring that substances be retrieved from farmed organisms as opposed to wild ones". Obviously that's paraphrased but I don't think that clause of the target is doing what you say it's doing.

Disquieted that the resolution further unnecessarily urges against traditional medicines even if they are proven safe but have not been proven effective (clause 3.e) except under certain conditions,

Certain conditions being when it's actually not detrimental to use them ...

[Imperium Anglorum]

This was submitted.

[Kenmoria]

“I strongly disagree with this repeal. I find your ‘concerned’ and ‘disquieted’ clauses uncompelling. Firstly, the ‘concerned’ clause is just, in my opinion, silly. We can’t let an incorrect belief stand in the way of medicine. Secondly, the ‘disquieted’ clause doesn’t actually present a flaw, as a traditional medicine that is proved safe but has no use whatsoever in treating the actual ailment isn’t something that ought to be promoted. You also have a grammar mistake in the ‘troubled’ clause.”

[Honeydewistania]

“I strongly disagree with this repeal. I find your ‘concerned’ and ‘disquieted’ clauses uncompelling. Firstly, the ‘concerned’ clause is just, in my opinion, silly. We can’t let an incorrect belief stand in the way of medicine. Secondly, the ‘disquieted’ clause doesn’t actually present a flaw, as a traditional medicine that is proved safe but has no use whatsoever in treating the actual ailment isn’t something that ought to be promoted. You also have a grammar mistake in the ‘troubled’ clause.”

"Strong agree to this. Also the poor nations funding can be arranged by the WA, so those points are moot. I also lament the lack of a full stop at the end, but that's just me being pedantic."