[Anti-Legality Challenge] Legalize Marijuana

[Excidium Planetis]

Legalize Marijuana

A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.

Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Legalize
Proposed by: Love Palace

Marijuana is a well known drug, commonly and wrongfully discredited. It is less addictive than coffee and has been known to treat many diseases such as Parkinson's Disease, glaucoma. It has many health benefits. It is also a core part of some religions such as Rastafarianism.

Acknowledging that Marijuana is not just a recreational drug but a medical drug that can treat; control; reverse effects and improves the symptoms of the following:

Cancer
Glaucoma
Epileptic Seizures
Parkinson's Disease
Tobacco smoking
Dravet's Syndrome
Multiple Sclerosis
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
Lupus
The Brain(after a stroke)

Recognizing the importance of marijuana in Rastafarianism.

Allowing the trade of Marijuana across the world.

Realizing that Marijuana is not a danger to humanity

Applauding the nations that have legalized Marijuana.

Allowing The use of Marijuana to everyone over the age of 18.

Hereby

LEGALIZING Marijuana and it's trade.

RECOGNIZING the Rastafarian beliefs and traditions

FREEING the weed smokers in jail that have been send to juvenile camps due to drug use

Let's be clear, this proposal is terrible. However, terrible is not necessarily illegal.

As of right now, three separate GenSec members have marked it illegal as a Real World Reference violation. For review, here is the current version of that rule:

Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein, so your proposal should not contain any real world references. This includes but is not limited to, world leaders, real world persons, places, organizations and/or events. Generic references, however, are permitted, such as religions, political philosophies, languages, general scientific terminology, and phenomena.

Rastafarianism clearly does not violate the above rule, as a religion/philosophy, which are explicitly allowed. Likewise, things such as "Parkinson's Disease" and "Multiple Sclerosis" are allowed as scientific terminology and phenomena.

I don't know what it is that GenSec considered to be the real world reference, but I argue that Marijuana itself is not a violation on account of Marijuana being a generic term. It's a species of plant, and being considered a real world reference would be like considering "bees" a real world violation (for some bizarre reason, the GA especially seems to like bees, as they have been mentioned in not one but two separate resolutions).

The only remaining possible violation I see is this:

FREEING the weed smokers in jail that have been send to juvenile camps due to drug use

However, it is not un reasonable to assume that in at least one WA member nation, this has occurred.

I would like Sierra Lyricalia, Sciongrad, and Bears Armed to explain why they believe this proposal to be a real world violation.

[Bears Armed]

I am using the definition of 'RL reference' that has been used by some Mods in the past: If it's an ordinary noun then it's okay, if it's a proper noun then it's a RL reference. By that reckoning Rastafarianism, Parkinson's Disease, and Dravet's Syndrome -- all of which take their names from RL people, and all of which are terms with which the people of NS nations IC can not be expected to have the same familiarity that we-the-players OOC have -- are RL references.

[Excidium Planetis]

I am using the definition of 'RL reference' that has been used by some Mods in the past: If it's an ordinary noun then it's okay, if it's a proper noun then it's a RL reference. By that reckoning Rastafarianism, Parkinson's Disease, and Dravet's Syndrome -- all of which take their names from RL people, and all of which are terms with which the people of NS nations IC can not be expected to have the same familiarity that we-the-players OOC have -- are RL references.

But Rastafarianism is a religion, and religions are specifically exempted. Political philosophies are too, so I would argue Marxism is allowed, and scientific terminology would include such units as the watt, tesla, and kelvin, all of which are named after real life people. For the same reason, Parkinson's Disease should be legal.

The rule does what the rule says. Religions, philosophies, and scientific terms are okay.

[Sciongrad]

I am using the definition of 'RL reference' that has been used by some Mods in the past: If it's an ordinary noun then it's okay, if it's a proper noun then it's a RL reference. By that reckoning Rastafarianism, Parkinson's Disease, and Dravet's Syndrome -- all of which take their names from RL people, and all of which are terms with which the people of NS nations IC can not be expected to have the same familiarity that we-the-players OOC have -- are RL references.

But Rastafarianism is a religion, and religions are specifically exempted. Political philosophies are too, so I would argue Marxism is allowed, and scientific terminology would include such units as the watt, tesla, and kelvin, all of which are named after real life people. For the same reason, Parkinson's Disease should be legal.

The rule does what the rule says. Religions, philosophies, and scientific terms are okay.

1. Rastafarianism isn't a religion. Rastafari is, but even if we accept that Rastafari is not a RL reference, Rastafarianism is a misnomer that we can only assume exists in the real world. Even if everything else in the resolution is legal, the reference to "Rastafarianism" makes it illegal.
2. Scientific terms =/= names of diseases. The names of diseases are distinct from scientific units named after other people (watts, kelvin, etc.) because it is significantly more disruptive to require players not to use scientific units than not to mention particular diseases.

I maintain that the resolution in questions violates the RL reference rule.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

References to philosophies generally (e.g. Communism) are quite different from references to personally-named or -driven schools of thought (e.g. Marxism). Socialism is a political/economic philosophy, while Leon Trotsky was a person. The equivalency with units of measurement like the farad, joule, and volt is a false one: the units are means of measuring observable physical phenomena and are defined entirely in terms of what they measure; the derivation of their names is irrelevant to their actual scientific use. Meanwhile it matters a great deal IRL historically what the ideological disagreements were between (say) Trotsky and Lenin, inseparably from their identity as people. Thus unit names do not count (not that we'd need to make a ruling on that, as I can't think of a single time a unit measurement wasn't replaced with a generic phrase like "...Within safety limits necessary to maintain the health of member states' inhabitants."), while historical political figures' schools of thought do count.

As to the proposal:

Nervous system diseases, including pediatric epilepsy and motor synucleinopathy, are a topic of medicine and medical research; James Parkinson was a person. Charlotte Dravet is a person.

The name Rastafari is taken from Ras Tafari, the title (Ras) and first name (Tafari Makonnen) of Haile Selassie I before his coronation. (source)

The proposal breaks the rule regarding references to real life people.

[Wallenburg]

The name Rastafari is taken from Ras Tafari, the title (Ras) and first name (Tafari Makonnen) of Haile Selassie I before his coronation. (source)

The proposal breaks the rule regarding references to real life people.

I suppose mentioning Christianity would be a RL reference then, since it is named after Jesus Christ?

[Separatist Peoples]

The proposal breaks the rule regarding references to real life people.

I suppose mentioning Christianity would be a RL reference then, since it is named after Jesus Christ?

Not to my mind. I won't speak to SL's position, but Rastafarian isn't the name of the religion, but a reference to a social phenomena in it's incorrect labeling. Rastafari would be legal to me, as would Christianity, because, as EP points out, the rule excludes religions.

/$.02.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I can concede that Rastafari is a more borderline case, but even ignoring that, the other references are enough to sink the proposal.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

I suppose mentioning Christianity would be a RL reference then, since it is named after Jesus Christ?

Not to my mind. I won't speak to SL's position, but Rastafarian isn't the name of the religion, but a reference to a social phenomena in it's incorrect labeling. Rastafari would be legal to me, as would Christianity, because, as EP points out, the rule excludes religions.

/$.02.

That seems like splitting hairs, like even as a reference to social phenomena it still relies on a base understanding that some spiritual components are necessary. Even if Rastafari distance themselves from isms, the popular usage is so intertwined that I am not sure that matters anymore. Like the whether Catholics are Christans, it doesn't matter what both sides think, the common usage is established enough to say yes. That Rastafarianism is used contrary to stated values of Rasta peoples is not enough to negate its common usage to refer to the same people, and their beliefs.

[Excidium Planetis]

1. Rastafarianism isn't a religion. Rastafari is, but even if we accept that Rastafari is not a RL reference, Rastafarianism is a misnomer that we can only assume exists in the real world. Even if everything else in the resolution is legal, the reference to "Rastafarianism" makes it illegal.

So typos are illegal now? We all know what the author meant by Rastafarianism. They even mention that it is a religion in their proposal. It's a religion. They got the name of that religion slightly wrong, but it's still a religion, and thus explicitly allowed by the rules.

2. Scientific terms =/= names of diseases. The names of diseases are distinct from scientific units named after other people (watts, kelvin, etc.) because it is significantly more disruptive to require players not to use scientific units than not to mention particular diseases.

I would argue that given the World Assembly has an entire category devoted to Health, and no such category for science, that it is actually more disruptive than requiring players to not use watt, tesla, etc.

References to philosophies generally (e.g. Communism) are quite different from references to personally-named or -driven schools of thought (e.g. Marxism). Socialism is a political/economic philosophy, while Leon Trotsky was a person. The equivalency with units of measurement like the farad, joule, and volt is a false one: the units are means of measuring observable physical phenomena and are defined entirely in terms of what they measure; the derivation of their names is irrelevant to their actual scientific use. Meanwhile it matters a great deal IRL historically what the ideological disagreements were between (say) Trotsky and Lenin, inseparably from their identity as people. Thus unit names do not count (not that we'd need to make a ruling on that, as I can't think of a single time a unit measurement wasn't replaced with a generic phrase like "...Within safety limits necessary to maintain the health of member states' inhabitants."), while historical political figures' schools of thought do count.

Even if we accept this as true, and I will for the sake of argument (as Marxism, etc. is not even mentioned), you immediately contradict your own reasoning:

Nervous system diseases, including pediatric epilepsy and motor synucleinopathy, are a topic of medicine and medical research; James Parkinson was a person. Charlotte Dravet is a person.

Parkinson's Disease, like the Watt, is named after a person, but very clearly refers to an observable physical condition, totally irrelevant to the person the disease is named after. Parkinson's Disease could be (and is) named any one of a million different things, and it still refers to the same disease, still would have the same medical use. The derivation of the name is irrelevant. For all we know, it could be named after Flambert Parkinson, famous medical researcher of Excidium Planetis, who happened to have discovered a disease with the exact same symptoms of the real life Parkinson's Disease

The name Rastafari is taken from Ras Tafari, the title (Ras) and first name (Tafari Makonnen) of Haile Selassie I before his coronation. (source)

The proposal breaks the rule regarding references to real life people.

And Christianity is named after Jesus Christ, a real world person. Buddhism is named after the Buddha, which I suppose isn't really a specific person, but is also another name for Siddharta Guatama, a real life person. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is named after Jesus too, and even if you refer to it as Mormonism, it's named after the angel Moroni, who may or may not be a real person but is definitely a real life reference. And Satanism is named after Satan, of course, who most certainly is a real life reference. And then we have Judaism, which I believe is named after the tribe of Judah, right, which is named after Judah, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham. Maybe Judah wasn't a real person, but he certainly is a real life reference.

And yet the rule specifically says that religions are legal references. On top of that, all these religions fail your little ideology test above. The name Jesus Christ is not irrelevant to Christianity, Jesus Christ, the actual person, is absolutely essential for the religion to have any meaning. The other religions also generally rely on the existence of real world people. In a way, they are even worse than Marxism, Stalinism, etc. because all those ideologies could be described in terms without referencing the real world people (Marxism, for example could be simply [and likely innaccurately] described as the idea that the oppression of capitalists will eventually result in an uprising of the proletariat to create a stateless society where workers control the means of production). But Christianity can never be described in terms without referencing the person commonly known as Jesus Christ. How can you describe a religion based on the idea that a person died to pay the price of human sin so that humanity could be forgiven, without referencing that person? Christianity is inherently tied to Jesus Christ and is inherently a reference to him, while most people don't even know the first name of the guy Parkinson's Disease is named after, much less anything about his life, even if they know what Parkinson's Disease is. James Parkinson himself didn't call it Parkinson's Disease (obviously), but "the Shaking Palsy", so it clearly isn't inherently tied to him.

However, relevance of the name to the term doesn't matter, as the rule makes no such mention of how relevant the name is to what the term describes. The rules says that generic references such as religions, philosophies, and scientific terms are allowed. GenSec's role is to interpret the rule, not make stuff up, and redefining the written rule to make Rastafari an illegal reference (despite being a religion and thus allowed) because it is named after a person steps outside of GenSec's role. If you want to rewrite the rule, go through some kind of formal process, don't just start ruling proposals illegal when they don't contradict the actual written rule.

but Rastafarian isn't the name of the religion, but a reference to a social phenomena in it's incorrect labeling. Rastafari would be legal to me, as would Christianity, because, as EP points out, the rule excludes religions.

If a proposal mentioned "Cristianity", would it be illegal?

Not to my mind. I won't speak to SL's position, but Rastafarian isn't the name of the religion, but a reference to a social phenomena in it's incorrect labeling. Rastafari would be legal to me, as would Christianity, because, as EP points out, the rule excludes religions.

/$.02.

That seems like splitting hairs, like even as a reference to social phenomena it still relies on a base understanding that some spiritual components are necessary. Even if Rastafari distance themselves from isms, the popular usage is so intertwined that I am not sure that matters anymore. Like the whether Catholics are Christans, it doesn't matter what both sides think, the common usage is established enough to say yes. That Rastafarianism is used contrary to stated values of Rasta peoples is not enough to negate its common usage to refer to the same people, and their beliefs.

^This, so much.
This (what GenSec's members are arguing right now) is like saying Mormonism is an illegal reference because the religion is not called Mormonism, and in fact that term was originally considered pejorative by Latter Day Saints (although they have now accepted the term).

[Araraukar]

is like saying Mormonism is an illegal reference because the religion is not called Mormonism, and in fact that term was originally considered pejorative by Latter Day Saints (although they have now accepted the term).

And that would be bad because...? If religions are only allowed by their real name, then "mormonism" would indeed be wrong. (And also I'd argue that "Christianity" would be illegal, while "christianity" wouldn't. The Proper Noun thing again...)

EDIT: Also, "Mormonism" sounds wrong anyway. "Mormon church" for the sect of christianity and "mormon" for a person of that religion, sure, but "mormonism"? Nah.

[Supreme Chancellor Trump]

This website has mentioned nazism a ton of times, is that not a real world violation?

[Separatist Peoples]

Not to my mind. I won't speak to SL's position, but Rastafarian isn't the name of the religion, but a reference to a social phenomena in it's incorrect labeling. Rastafari would be legal to me, as would Christianity, because, as EP points out, the rule excludes religions.

/$.02.

That seems like splitting hairs, like even as a reference to social phenomena it still relies on a base understanding that some spiritual components are necessary. Even if Rastafari distance themselves from isms, the popular usage is so intertwined that I am not sure that matters anymore. Like the whether Catholics are Christans, it doesn't matter what both sides think, the common usage is established enough to say yes. That Rastafarianism is used contrary to stated values of Rasta peoples is not enough to negate its common usage to refer to the same people, and their beliefs.

Judicial minimalism is a hard mistress. As the renowned scholar Sunstein would no doubt agree, sometimes judges, in an effort to keep their rulings as narrowly tailored as possible, have to distinguish on minute facts. We aren't judges, but our job is pretty analogous. Here, Rastafari and it's moods are a religion. Rastafarianism isn't. Religions get special exception. I don't see a reason not to apply a strict approach to Real World References when A) the moderators have had a historically strict policy, B) they provide little benefit to the game, and C) such references create a greater difficulty in reconciling the inherently IC nature of the GA with other, already difficult OOC factors.

At the risk of sounding unjust, there's really no reason not to be strict here. The proper nouns also fail this proposal, if that's a consolation.

^This, so much.
This (what GenSec's members are arguing right now) is like saying Mormonism is an illegal reference because the religion is not called Mormonism, and in fact that term was originally considered pejorative by Latter Day Saints (although they have now accepted the term).

Given your interest in arguing things to pieces, I'm not seeing much value in continuing. That's my take. My vote isn't moving.

[Tzorsland]

I suppose mentioning Christianity would be a RL reference then, since it is named after Jesus Christ?

No. There is no such person with the name "Jesus Christ." The technical name would be "Jesus of Nazareth, the Anointed One." It would be the equivalent of saying that since there was someone called "King David" that "King" is a RL reference. Moreover the term Christian is an interesting since it literally translates to "slaves of the anointed one." Likewise "The King's Singers" doesn't imply singers for a specific king (although that's probably a case when anything trademarked should be assumed to be a RL reference).

[Excidium Planetis]

Given your interest in arguing things to pieces, I'm not seeing much value in continuing. That's my take. My vote isn't moving.

Then I will be encouraging the author to resubmit the same proposal with Rastafarianism corrected to Rastafari.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Spelling mistakes should not factor into legality.

I suppose mentioning Christianity would be a RL reference then, since it is named after Jesus Christ?

No. There is no such person with the name "Jesus Christ." The technical name would be "Jesus of Nazareth, the Anointed One." It would be the equivalent of saying that since there was someone called "King David" that "King" is a RL reference. Moreover the term Christian is an interesting since it literally translates to "slaves of the anointed one." Likewise "The King's Singers" doesn't imply singers for a specific king (although that's probably a case when anything trademarked should be assumed to be a RL reference).

"King" is a generic term not associated with a specific person. "Christ", however, is associated with a specific person.

Would you say that Genghis Khan is a real life reference? It isn't the name of a person, but the title taken by Temujin, and is roughly translated "supreme ruler".

[The Central Outback]

CRIKEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111one!!

[Araraukar]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Spelling mistakes should not factor into legality.

Even if Christian wasn't a RL reference, Christiania certainly would be, and that's an easy 2-letter mistake. Would you still argue it shouldn't factor?

Can't seem to be able to post anything today without brainfarts...

[Separatist Peoples]

Given your interest in arguing things to pieces, I'm not seeing much value in continuing. That's my take. My vote isn't moving.

Then I will be encouraging the author to resubmit the same proposal with Rastafarianism corrected to Rastafari.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Spelling mistakes should not factor into legality.

Text first. You don't have to agree with it. I sure don't factor that into my analysis.


Also, the inclusion of Parkinson's Disease is an issue.

[Sciongrad]

Given your interest in arguing things to pieces, I'm not seeing much value in continuing. That's my take. My vote isn't moving.

Then I will be encouraging the author to resubmit the same proposal with Rastafarianism corrected to Rastafari.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Spelling mistakes should not factor into legality.

It's more than a spelling mistake, it's a widespread misnomer that only exists in the real world. But even then, the proposal is still illegal for the references to diseases by name.

Do not encourage the author to resubmit an illegal proposal.

[Excidium Planetis]

Even if Christian wasn't a RL reference, Christiania certainly I would be, and that's an easy 2-letter mistake. Would you still argue it shouldn't factor?

Being a real life town does not make it a real life reference. Accident is not a real life reference, even if it is a town in Maryland. Context is key, and if "Christiania" is used in a context where it is a clear misspelling of Christianity and the author was clearly referencing Christianity and not referencing a neighborhood of Copenhagen, then it is not a real life reference.

Text first. You don't have to agree with it. I sure don't factor that into my analysis.

First, Rastafarianism is an actual term used to refer to the Rastafari religion. The fact that it is not the correct term is irrelevant, the author was clearly referencing the religion and not something else.

Second, the rule is about references, and references to religions are okay. This was clearly a reference to a religion, and thus should be allowed. Even if the word used was not the religion, the author was clearly not referencing Ras Tafari Makonnen, but the Rastafari religion and beliefs.

Do you believe that any word which shares the real life name of a person or place should be prohibited, even if the word was not being used to refer to that thing?

Also, the inclusion of Parkinson's Disease is an issue.

It isn't a reference to James Parkinson, is is a reference to the disease. The disease is generic, and can exist in any number if RP realities.

[Separatist Peoples]

Text first. You don't have to agree with it. I sure don't factor that into my analysis.

First, Rastafarianism is an actual term used to refer to the Rastafari religion. The fact that it is not the correct term is irrelevant, the author was clearly referencing the religion and not something else.

Second, the rule is about references, and references to religions are okay. This was clearly a reference to a religion, and thus should be allowed. Even if the word used was not the religion, the author was clearly not referencing Ras Tafari Makonnen, but the Rastafari religion and beliefs.

Do you believe that any word which shares the real life name of a person or place should be prohibited, even if the word was not being used to refer to that thing?

Also, the inclusion of Parkinson's Disease is an issue.

It isn't a reference to James Parkinson, is is a reference to the disease. The disease is generic, and can exist in any number if RP realities.

Gave you my answer. Not arguing this further. Stop arguing things to death.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

Ok I have a sub-question. If a misunderstanding of the correct terminology for the proper name of a religion is enough to ding a resolution on a real world reference, then why do we even have the Religions exemption rule? Under what context would the GA need to write to the specifics of one faith and not to religions as a whole, in a general sense?

[Excidium Planetis]

Gave you my answer. Not arguing this further. Stop arguing things to death.

If you aren't even going to dialogue with players, how is GenSec any improvement over the moderators?

You gave your answer. I am attacking that answer... that because Rastafarianism is not the exact name of the religion, it is a real life reference. That is, as I said, ridiculous. The author was clearly referring to the religion, not referring to any real life person, place, or other prohibited reference.

[Separatist Peoples]

Gave you my answer. Not arguing this further. Stop arguing things to death.

If you aren't even going to dialogue with players, how is GenSec any improvement over the moderators?

You gave your answer. I am attacking that answer... that because Rastafarianism is not the exact name of the religion, it is a real life reference. That is, as I said, ridiculous. The author was clearly referring to the religion, not referring to any real life person, place, or other prohibited reference.

I'm willing to dialogue with players. Not you. Not when you do this. Every. Time.

Answer given. Vote registered.

[Sciongrad]

If you aren't even going to dialogue with players, how is GenSec any improvement over the moderators?

You gave your answer. I am attacking that answer... that because Rastafarianism is not the exact name of the religion, it is a real life reference. That is, as I said, ridiculous. The author was clearly referring to the religion, not referring to any real life person, place, or other prohibited reference.

I'm willing to dialogue with players. Not you. Not when you do this. Every. Time.

Answer given. Vote registered.

I don't want to sound mean, but I have to agree. EP, I know we (that is, all players, not just GenSec) would be more willing to have a dialogue with you if you did a better job of hiding your disdain for how GenSec interprets the rules. SP and I are not to first or the only players to tell you that you don't argue in good faith or that you just want to dissect the rules so you can catch us making a mistake. Well, frankly, we're players too and we don't want to deal with that. You've heard our argumentation, our decision won't be changing. The proposal is illegal. Encourage the author to resubmit it at your own peril.