[Draft] Convention on Gambling

[Charlotte Ryberg]

It would in our opinion to still consider gambling addiction as an international issue because maybe member states have banned gambling due to excessive addiction?

What about a Social Justice type proposal that deals with addiction in general? (Drug addiction, alcohol addiction, gambling addiction, etc.) Obviously, you'd have to set some limits ("I'm addicted to wearing the color pink!) since some are not worthy of our attention. Thoughts?

Gambling still stands equally as important as drugs in our opinion, but it is possible to group the other two (drug and alcohol addiction) into a single topic as Charlotte Ryberg considers alcohol as a type drug, albeit not controlled. Being new to the topic of gambling addiction, Ms. Harper is doing some research to develop a standalone gambling addiction resolution.

[Mousebumples]

Gambling still stands equally as important as drugs in our opinion, but it is possible to group the other two (drug and alcohol addiction) into a single topic as Charlotte Ryberg considers alcohol as a type drug, albeit not controlled. Being new to the topic of gambling addiction, Ms. Harper is doing some research to develop a standalone gambling addiction resolution.

There are many possibilities about what could be included, and I would suggest some sort of "including but not limited to" line within the proposal. There's sex addiction, shopping addiction, nicotene dependence (i.e. assistance on helping citizens to quit smoking) ... among others.

There are other ideas that may be worth considering for inclusion, but I would think that a separate thread would be more appropriate for such brainstorming and such. In fact, if you're so inclined, you may want to see if a mod would be will to split off part of this thread - although with the wonkiness of the forums, that may not be the safest avenue to pursue.

[Quadrimmina]

We must agree with our distinguished colleague Ambassador Eberhart in imploring the delegation from The Canadian Pacific to strengthen this legislation by allowing for it to expand and include other kinds of addiction. This would increase the significance and the relevance of this resolution.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Added a bit, ready to submit?

No. The proposal still covers far more than gambling. The current definition covers everything from slots to the stock market. Like I said, please leave financial markets out of the definition.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Embolalia]

Added a bit, ready to submit?

No. The proposal still covers far more than gambling. The current definition covers everything from slots to the stock market. Like I said, please leave financial markets out of the definition.

Not only does it cover way too much, it simultaneously doesn't cover anything. Like I said before, it doesn't keep nations from setting arbitrary limitations on gambling, so long as the "right" is preserved. Minimum or maximum wagers of preposterously high or low value? Can do. Ban on casinos, OTB, or slot machines? Good to go.

The fact that there are no gambling resolutions is a warning, not a challenge.

[Embolalia]

What would constitute a "reasonable standard"? And how do you know that a reasonable gambling standard would be the same thing in every country? In some countries, they'd be fine with just about anything. Plenty of other countries don't want gambling at all. And a good sized helping (Embolalia included), think the WA does not need to get involved at all. Long story short, NatSov. NatSov NatSov NatSov; NatSov NatSov. NatSov NatSov!

[Glen-Rhodes]

Added and changed.

Not sure what you changed, but it certainly wasn't the overly broad definitions.

[Mousebumples]

Long story short, NatSov. NatSov NatSov NatSov; NatSov NatSov. NatSov NatSov!

Once more with feeling: NAT SOV!

As previously stated (and perhaps missed): Approximately 33.3% of nations will support this proposal as it legalizes gambling!!
Approximately 66.7% of nations will vote against this proposal, and they will be divided into two separate groups.
-33.3% of those will be opposed as they would rather outlaw gambling.
-33.4% of those will be opposed as they will be crying at the top of their lungs, "NAT SOV!!!"

Further, I doubt gambling can be cured. Few addictions (if any) can be cured. Certainly, if you have conflicting evidence, I'd be interested to see that.

[Mousebumples]

Gambling is a mental addiction, like marijuana. It can be broken much easier then tobbaco or alchohol.

There's a distinction between being able to "quit" something and being "cured." It's not like, say, strep throat where you take some antibiotics (or whatever analogy you want to make to gambling, etc.), and you're "all better."

Addiction of all sorts can be a vicious cycle that may seem all but inescapable. Those that are able to manage their addiction should be aware that they need to work to minimize their exposure to gambling or ... whatever they were addicted to. But again, I see that you have not offered any evidence of your statement - merely an assertion to the contrary. I'm curious to see if you have any factual basis for the unfounded statement you just made.

[Intellect and the Arts]

The burden of proof lies on the individual making the initial claim. Only after said claim has been properly substantiated does the burden shift to those opposing the claim, and only insofar as is required to refute each piece of evidence brought forth in support of the claim. As an atheist who professes to be so due to a lack of substantial proof on the part of those supporting religious faith, I should think you would be aware of this. That, or you may not have gotten into many fundie arguments. I'll allow for the latter.

[Intellect and the Arts]

There was no claim made that kicking an addiction is impossible. The claim was made that gambling is not easier to kick, and that addiction in general is not a simple task by any means. If gambling were so easy to kick, as you suggest, then why are so many "ex-gamblers" prone to financially crippling relapse?

[Meekinos]

Once more with feeling: NAT SOV!

As previously stated (and perhaps missed): Approximately 33.3% of nations will support this proposal as it legalizes gambling!!
Approximately 66.7% of nations will vote against this proposal, and they will be divided into two separate groups.
-33.3% of those will be opposed as they would rather outlaw gambling.
-33.4% of those will be opposed as they will be crying at the top of their lungs, "NAT SOV!!!"

Further, I doubt gambling can be cured. Few addictions (if any) can be cured. Certainly, if you have conflicting evidence, I'd be interested to see that.

Gambling is a mental addiction, like marijuana. It can be broken much easier then tobbaco or alchohol.

It may be psychological, but Cannabis is infinitely less addictive than gambling and far less destructive.

[ALMF]

sentient is wright; "sapient" wold exclude the liserd men species on ns. As to horses the conventional working definition of sentient is 'can learn to understand and respond in the language of others.'

As someone who has on several occasions argued for the rights of non-human sapients in these realms, I respectfully disagree. Sapient would be the correct wording, as it would include ALL dominant species throughout the multiverse. Your illustrative "liserd men" would be covered.

sapients is a biological term for primates with certen characteristics like walking upright. liserd men are reptiles, thus not mamels, so not primates, and hence not sapients.

PS. sory I initially missed the reply.

[Eireann Fae]

sapients is a biological term for primates with certen characteristics like walking upright. liserd men are reptiles, thus not mamels, so not primates, and hence not sapients.

PS. sory I initially missed the reply.

(OOC: Dictionary entry for 'sapient', and the Etymology for the word. It is not synonymous with 'primates' or any other mammals, or any specific creature.)

[Ethel mermania]

DEFINING
- Gambling as wagering currency or items on the outcome of a random or semi-random event,
- Betting as the wagering of currency or items on the outcome of an event that is not random,

Please refine your definition so that it doesn't cover the entirety of the financial market...

Greetings from the Peoples republic of Ethel Mermania, a small country with a love of broadway musicals

The nameless drones of the ethel mermanian foreign service wish ask: Whats wrong with betting on the markets? It is no less gambling then owning stock. At least a bookie hall in our nation serves drinks; only some of our brokerage houses do.

[Mousebumples]

OOC: I'm a pharmacist, I have a Doctor of Pharmacy degree, and I deal with drug and alcohol abuse and "substance" addiction - i.e. food addiction - on a semi-regular basis. I have ACTUAL experience with this stuff, so here are some links - even though I do agree with I&theA that the burden of proof is on you since you were the one to make the first assertion.

I fully acknowledge that there isn't as much information out there about Gambling Addiction, but I see no reason to treat this sort of addiction different from your typical alcohol/tobacco/drug addiction unless you provide detailed evidence explaining why they should be treated differently. They're all addictions, are they not?

Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in the individual pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors. The addiction is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships. Like other chronic diseases, addiction involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.

I've emphasized what parts of that definition that I consider to be particularly relevant to this discussion. And, unless you can prove otherwise, I will be lumping in all sorts of addiction (smoking, alcohol, drug, AND gambling - among others) into one big ol' pile of data.[/OOC]

I've known plenty of people who have quit from various addictions. The ludicrous claim that it's impossible to kick an addiction is a claim against demonstrated facts. E.g, ex-smokers.

Yes, people can quit. However, it's not a matter of saying, "I quit!" For example, when it comes to quitting smoking, it generally takes at least 7 quit attempts before one is successful - and, even then, "relapse" is more than possible. As a "real life" (numbers) example, only about 10% of people who quit smoking without help (no pharmacological help, no nicotene replacement therapy (NRT), etc.) will remain non-smokers for at least 12 months. (Source) Further, a study found that 93% of over-the-counter NRT users relapse and return to smoking within six months. (Source)

People who have problems with alcohol (i.e. alcoholics) generally steer clear of alcohol (long term sobriety) after they are successful in recovering. They know that if they continue to drink alcohol - even if it's only "one drink" a night, for example, they are more likely to relapse and have problems again. One study found that total abstinence from alcohol was the most stable form of remission for recovering alcoholics. (Source)

Addiction issues (such as gambling, etc.) can be treated, but - again to give the alcohol example since it's more "real life" - I would never say that someone is "cured" of alcoholism. They may have it under control, but that doesn't mean that they will never relapse.

For example, as a part of the Alcoholics Anonymous 12 Steps program, the first step is "Admitting we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable." To me, that statement means that the alcoholics that participate in that program acknowledge that they are not stronger than the drug/substance (however you want to categorize alcohol) at this time. That doesn't mean that they can't be, or that they can't learn to control their reaction to alcohol. However, the easiest way that I know of to manage something, to reassert power over something, is to not engage with it - show your power by abstaining, not by continuing to engage with the substance in question.

[ALMF]

sapients is a biological term for primates with certen characteristics like walking upright. liserd men are reptiles, thus not mamels, so not primates, and hence not sapients.

PS. sory I initially missed the reply.

(OOC: Dictionary entry for 'sapient', and the Etymology for the word. It is not synonymous with 'primates' or any other mammals, or any specific creature.)

Bad dictionary.

One entry on OED (Second Edition ):
of or relating to the human species (Homo sapiens):our sapient ancestors of 40,000 years ago

[Eireann Fae]

Bad dictionary.

One entry on OED (Second Edition ):
of or relating to the human species (Homo sapiens):our sapient ancestors of 40,000 years ago

(OOC: I'm not going to get into a dictionary battle with you past this point. Suffice it to say, sapient is a suitable word, and nothing you dig up is going to change that. The definition you quote from the OED is not the primary definition of the word, which is as follows (formatted for clarity):

1 formal wise, or attempting to appear wise

We use words in their formal sense for our international legislation, and even if we did not, this definition is the primary entry of the word in your own cherished reference. Furthermore, the etymology of the word, as given by your OED, is as follows:

late Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin sapient- 'being wise', from the verb sapere

Again, no mention of any particular species or fauna branch at any level. You have no point. Kindly stop trying to push one on everyone else. As I said before, I'll not speak to more denials on your part, because at this point it would just be trolling.)

[Quelesh]

Long story short, NatSov. NatSov NatSov NatSov; NatSov NatSov. NatSov NatSov!

Also: Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

[Embolalia]

Long story short, NatSov. NatSov NatSov NatSov; NatSov NatSov. NatSov NatSov!

Also: Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

(Buffalo)^n is always a complete sentence. That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is. In case you were wondering.

Anyway, can someone remind me, because surely I must have missed it, what justification there is for this infringement of NatSov?