[PASSED] Reducing Addiction (V.2)

[Havelte]

This draft is more then acceptable to us, therefore we will support this and will abide by its rules for a better future.

[Grea Kriopia]

OOC:
I don't usually look at the GA so I apologize for only raising this at submission - This only caught my eye after initiating our regional vote on the proposal.

1. ”Addiction” for the purposes of this resolution shall be defined as the persistent usage of a substance or repetition of behaviors by an individual, for which the rewarding effects provide a compelling incentive to repeat the activity despite such activities leading to severely detrimental impacts on their day-to-day functioning, relationships, and routines, as assessed by a relevant professional.

I have to chew on this definition a bit and question whether its definition is as well-developed as it could be when wading into psychological terminology.

For example, someone with OCD could have "the persistent...repetition of behaviors...for which the rewarding effects provide a compelling incentive to repeat the activity despite such activities leading to severely detrimental impacts on their day-to-day functioning, relationships, and routines" because they have compulsive symptoms. This does not make OCD an addiction. Someone could be assessed by a professional who would confirm their compulsions from OCD are persistent and detrimental yet rewarding in the sense it relieves the compulsive urge, but that is still not an addiction. Defining it as an addiction could impact how member states educate their citizens on addiction, seek rehabilitation/treatment, or establish preventative treatments under this broader definition.

My encouragement would be to take a much more researched, strict approach to psychological terminology when attempting to legislate on disorders. If the WA chooses to take the position that behavioral addictions exist*, I would suggest at minimum altering "rewarding" to "pleasurable", if not outright splitting substance addiction and behavioral/process addiction into two distinct definitions.

The primary issue here, to me, is that the definition phrases behavioral addiction as being centered around "rewarding effects" rather than "pleasurable effects" which can mean two very different things. In a psychological understanding of the brain reward system, pleasure is a component of reward but not all rewards are pleasurable -- to carry on with the OCD example, relieving one's compulsion from OCD could be considered a "reward" as in it provides relief but it would not be considered pleasurable because compulsions are highly stress-inducing and would be more like removing a punishing feeling (still a reward) rather than inducing an intense feeling of pleasure like what we would associate with addiction. In the context of a proposal mandating the education and treatment of addiction, these differences matter.

Also, on the asterisk above and why I'd consider splitting two definitions, is simply based off the fact that "behavioral addictions" or sometimes called process addictions are not technically recognized within psychology as their own thing. The DSM 5 references gambling disorder as a recognized disorder but does not recognize what it calls other "repetitive" behaviors such as sex addiction, gaming addiction, or shopping addiction because gambling is the only current behavior with research to demonstrate it actives the brain reward system in the same manner as substance abuse does. Acknowledging behavioral or process addictions is then a highly specific choice -- and one I'd be supportive of legislating on -- that does not yet have a standardized definition and as demonstrated above can result in a wide variety of meanings.

[Kenmoria]

Deputy Ambassador John Smith - “I, uh, would like to fully support this measure. It’s apparently a welcome step forward in the Assembly-wide standardisation and mandate of healthcare. The proposal has a cohesive, detailed set of provisions, which address the matter to the appropriate extent within one piece of legislation.”

OOC

(OOC: That’s a very good point. However, I’m wondering whether it would have much practical impact. The clauses don’t consider OCD or similar disorders at all, so a lot don’t work from a logical standpoint. However, there’s nothing that seems immediately unsuitable to me. Education is good, along with treatment, and access to medical facilities free of charge.)

[Net Cas]

"I do not support this. What happens if nations don't have enough finding? Will the WA pay for it? There are nations that need to put their budgets into more important things. We are one of those nations. Sure we have more than enough money to fund a project like this but our budget commission has found that this is a waste of money. We will change our vote in the WA agrees to pay for the rehabilitation facilities. Another reason I will not support this is because the service needs to be free. We will not and I repeat will not provide sufficient service if we have to cover the budget. The WA should conduct a survey to find out how much finding each nation needs and give it out for free. "

-Robert Demonte
King of Net Cas

[Grea Kriopia]

(OOC: That’s a very good point. However, I’m wondering whether it would have much practical impact. The clauses don’t consider OCD or similar disorders at all, so a lot don’t work from a logical standpoint. However, there’s nothing that seems immediately unsuitable to me. Education is good, along with treatment, and access to medical facilities free of charge.)

I would politely disagree that this is not impactful. These distinctions exist for a reason because they have implications for how a person is treated for a disorder and could impact the degree of success in their treatment.

The clauses in this proposal are contingent on a definition that lumps addiction and OCD/other compulsion-related disorders under the same umbrella. Are we intending to educate others then that addiction and OCD/compulsion-based disorders are the same or that their treatments and rehabilitation are the same when we know this is not the case? How do we offer the "accurate" treatment if entirely different disorders are classed as the same thing?

Disorders are not so shallow that we can say "Okay, any treatment = better than nothing". They have diagnostic criteria and scientific understanding that form their treatments in the same way you don't treat a burn the same way as you treat a broken bone. A medication that works for one disorder could do nothing or prove worse for another disorder, certain forms of therapy could be ineffective for one yet prove vital for another.

The aims of this proposal are, as you said, good. It simply needs more refinement to reflect an accurate understanding of the topic.

[Republic of Mesque]

I have to chew on this definition a bit and question whether its definition is as well-developed as it could be when wading into psychological terminology.

We believe your concerns are legitimate and concur with various points, notably the mention of OCD, to which We would also like to add ASD.
However, We further believe that the legislation is not compromised, nor does it lack research, at all. Indeed, even if the definition might be too broad for scientific taste, the saving grace lies at its end - "as assessed by a relevant professional".
This excerpt is a nod to any worried scientific communities, that the legislators are not aiming to be strict, or overwhelmingly technical, in its definition or terminology - it rightfully gives and respects the autonomy of medical and other health professionals to differential diagnosis and psychiatric/psychological assessments that may or may not classify, for each specific patient, an addiction.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: That’s a very good point. However, I’m wondering whether it would have much practical impact. The clauses don’t consider OCD or similar disorders at all, so a lot don’t work from a logical standpoint. However, there’s nothing that seems immediately unsuitable to me. Education is good, along with treatment, and access to medical facilities free of charge.)

I would politely disagree that this is not impactful. These distinctions exist for a reason because they have implications for how a person is treated for a disorder and could impact the degree of success in their treatment.

The clauses in this proposal are contingent on a definition that lumps addiction and OCD/other compulsion-related disorders under the same umbrella. Are we intending to educate others then that addiction and OCD/compulsion-based disorders are the same or that their treatments and rehabilitation are the same when we know this is not the case? How do we offer the "accurate" treatment if entirely different disorders are classed as the same thing?

Disorders are not so shallow that we can say "Okay, any treatment = better than nothing". They have diagnostic criteria and scientific understanding that form their treatments in the same way you don't treat a burn the same way as you treat a broken bone. A medication that works for one disorder could do nothing or prove worse for another disorder, certain forms of therapy could be ineffective for one yet prove vital for another.

The aims of this proposal are, as you said, good. It simply needs more refinement to reflect an accurate understanding of the topic.

(OOC: On reflection, I am inclined to agree with you. The legislative provisions for compulsive disorders and addiction ought to be different. Even if, as I would maintain, this proposal doesn’t cause any direct harms by including compulsive disorders within its provision, it does not do so particularly elegantly. And, as you say, the definition involves lumping two very distinct things together, which would make education, rehabilitation-centres, et cetera somewhat awkward. Of course, the author might have a very reasonable response but, for the moment, I am reconsidering my previous stance.

I have to chew on this definition a bit and question whether its definition is as well-developed as it could be when wading into psychological terminology.

We believe your concerns are legitimate and concur with various points, notably the mention of OCD, to which We would also like to add ASD.
However, We further believe that the legislation is not compromised, nor does it lack research, at all. Indeed, even if the definition might be too broad for scientific taste, the saving grace lies at its end - "as assessed by a relevant professional".
This excerpt is a nod to any worried scientific communities, that the legislators are not aiming to be strict, or overwhelmingly technical, in its definition or terminology - it rightfully gives and respects the autonomy of medical and other health professionals to differential diagnosis and psychiatric/psychological assessments that may or may not classify, for each specific patient, an addiction.

That’s a clever argument, but I don’t think that it applies here. The definition is written such that its criteria are to be assessed according to the judgement of a relevant professional, rather than the relevant professional having a discretionary power of inclusion or exclusion.)

[American Rockies]

I’d be so happy to favor this on a national level, but international governments should not have the right to intervene with duely-elected governments

[Kenmoria]

I’d be so happy to favor this on a national level, but international governments should not have the right to intervene with duely-elected governments

(OOC: That is the entire purpose of the GA. Fortunately for those who enjoy national sovereignty, the GA is an organisation into which nations are admitted on a solely voluntary basis. Therefore, it is those duly-elected governments which are deciding to implement all the legislation of the GA in the first place.)

[Republic of Mesque]

That’s a clever argument, but I don’t think that it applies here. The definition is written such that its criteria are to be assessed according to the judgement of a relevant professional, rather than the relevant professional having a discretionary power of inclusion or exclusion.)

Maybe We have a differing view over the scope of the World Assembly, or its resolutions, over other established principles, scientific or otherwise.
In this case, should we choose to understand that the relevant professional must tie their praxis to WA definitions, then this would cause problems to this resolution, and, certainly, many others. The extent of WA influence is already too large for it to tread implicit principles. Truly, nothing is sacred for bureaucrats!

As for the second interpretation, in the manner We had it conceived, granted the relevant professional their rightful duty and capability to decide, based on the extant scientific concepts, if the patient's diagnosis renders it compatible with an addiction, which would include the individual under the provisions of this resolution.
Should a primary care doctor receive a patient with OCD for a consult, they would certainly NOT send this patient to addiction rehabilitation programs, because, in this case, repetitive behaviors are due to a specific and already diagnosed disorder.
The author will probably clarify this issue further, but We still believe in this second line of thought.

[Istaska]

I feel Like this is infringement on Individual Nations and their Inherent Right to Self Determination. There were a few of the previous resolutions as well that I have voted against because of the infringement of the WA on what can be handled by Individual Nations. I feel as the WA is getting to big within local state matters.

[ObrimenjasWardenState]

While I could be misinterpreting this, there seems to be potential for a loophole that has me worried. The broad definition of addiction is beneficial to encompass more than drugs, but its wide definition would also encompass certain homicidal sociopathic conditions, along with more mild ones like kleptomania. Under section II.C, these people could potentially be immune to certain prosecution. If I’m a murderous sociopath who can’t help but murder people for my own enjoyment, I am by this definition addicted. I cannot be jailed for said addiction, so why am free to only go to rehab, which would be difficult since rehab centers are meant for drug users, not murderous maniacs. I hope I explained this well.
Other than this issue, this proposal is very well written, but I can vote for it in this state.

[Ordenstaat Indus]

The Third Indus Order hereby condemns this proposal as a violation of sovereignty.

Our army issues pervitin to ensure the vitality of the common soldiery in times of action. Furthermore, it would be unprofitable to the imperium ordo to put important money into schemes benefitting those who choose to use it in civilian life and choose to be damned.

If this moves forward and is accepted by the World assembly, then the imperium ordo reiterates that the Indus Order will not comply.

[New Falkarth]

While We mostly agree with this resolution, We must still vote against it, because this issue should be left in the hands of individual nations. We think that WA should mainly focus on issues that affect international community and basic human rights (which are internationally relevant). We think that people keep forgetting that WA is an international organization where many nations, some very different and even hostile to each other, try to make mutual agreements on issues that affect them all (OOC: like UN). For example: How we treat prisoners of war. If I agree that I won't torture enemy soldiers, I know that the enemy also won't torture my soldiers.
WA isn't some "federation", where the assembly dictates laws, that members have to implement, so that the citizens of the federation have the same conditions everywhere they go (OOC: like EU).

[Kenmoria]

While I could be misinterpreting this, there seems to be potential for a loophole that has me worried. The broad definition of addiction is beneficial to encompass more than drugs, but its wide definition would also encompass certain homicidal sociopathic conditions, along with more mild ones like kleptomania. Under section II.C, these people could potentially be immune to certain prosecution. If I’m a murderous sociopath who can’t help but murder people for my own enjoyment, I am by this definition addicted. I cannot be jailed for said addiction, so why am free to only go to rehab, which would be difficult since rehab centers are meant for drug users, not murderous maniacs. I hope I explained this well.
Other than this issue, this proposal is very well written, but I can vote for it in this state.

(OOC: I would argue that, for example, a kleptomaniac who is imprisoned for stealing, is not being punished for his addiction. Member-nations are forbidden from imprisoning someone solely for having the compulsion to steal, so they cannot imprison the kleptomaniac for his kleptomania. However, they can imprison a kleptomaniac for actions taken pursuant to his kleptomania, such as the stealing.)

[Pangurstan]

While I could be misinterpreting this, there seems to be potential for a loophole that has me worried. The broad definition of addiction is beneficial to encompass more than drugs, but its wide definition would also encompass certain homicidal sociopathic conditions, along with more mild ones like kleptomania. Under section II.C, these people could potentially be immune to certain prosecution. If I’m a murderous sociopath who can’t help but murder people for my own enjoyment, I am by this definition addicted. I cannot be jailed for said addiction, so why am free to only go to rehab, which would be difficult since rehab centers are meant for drug users, not murderous maniacs. I hope I explained this well.
Other than this issue, this proposal is very well written, but I can vote for it in this state.

(OOC: I would argue that, for example, a kleptomaniac who is imprisoned for stealing, is not being punished for his addiction. Member-nations are forbidden from imprisoning someone solely for having the compulsion to steal, so they cannot imprison the kleptomaniac for his kleptomania. However, they can imprison a kleptomaniac for actions taken pursuant to his kleptomania, such as the stealing.)

So member states can still imprison people addicted to drugs for using them as long as they don't criminalize the actual state of addiction?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I would argue that, for example, a kleptomaniac who is imprisoned for stealing, is not being punished for his addiction. Member-nations are forbidden from imprisoning someone solely for having the compulsion to steal, so they cannot imprison the kleptomaniac for his kleptomania. However, they can imprison a kleptomaniac for actions taken pursuant to his kleptomania, such as the stealing.)

So member states can still imprison people addicted to drugs for using them as long as they don't criminalize the actual state of addiction?

(OOC: The proposal means that people who are addicted to drugs cannot be imprisoned solely because they are addicted to drugs. If a person addicted to a drug were to murder someone, that person could still be imprisoned, even if the murder was, for example, in order to obtain heroin. However, the state of being addicted is, pursuant to this proposal, not criminalisable.)

[Ultrackia]

We worry that this will lead to harm to Ultrackian citizens abroad, who are merely trying to enjoy our specialized water for a nice taste of home, yet will be accused of "addiction" to the supplements in it

[Tinhampton]

Reducing Addiction was passed 13,327 votes to 2,580. (83.78% support)

For: 13,327: Hulldom (1,144), Tepertopia (782), Kethania (721), East Durthang (511), Imperium Anglorum (444), Fooooooooo (297), Lenlyvit (261), Le Libertia (238), Treadwellia (237), Sylh Alanor (221), Socialist Platypus (180), Mechanocracy (156), South Boston Irishmen (122), Dawsinian (109), The Glorious Hypetrain (105), Pantsville (88), Mally Piznoopia (75), Ramelia (75), Lesser Velutaria (69), Student Loan Debt (65), New United Common-lands (64), The Salaxalans (61), Staidear (60), Mikeswill (57), Bearded Dragones (49), Nulkia (48), Candensia (48), Mocha (46), Romanovskaya (40), Savonir (38), Ofiussia (35), Particle (32), Sanctaria (31), Malamute (30), Papacy Birds (28), Parkplace (28), Aerlion (27), Gideon (26), Tostandia (26), Sovereign State Of Khalistan (26), Kingdom of Englands (25), Gran River (25), Mlociniakik (24), Moukden and Kirin (24), Magical Girl Emi (24), Dabberwocky (22), Orioni 2 (22), Estonland (21), AJ Empire (20), Suter (20), Lamoni (20), Cruciland (18), Felix Femboi (17), DeMoNiC SaTaN (17), The Union of Costa Rica (16), Olinasha (15), Tinhampton (15), The Orwell Society (14), Korgonsk (13), The Bolivian Socialist Falange (13), Shanlix (13), Repolet (12), The United States of Naru (12), Middle Ibarthelastorosa (12), Xenofly (11), Equa Lib (11), Koranz (10), Ko-oren (10), Tubrita (10), Lennonia (10), Haaton Prime (10), Baloo Kingdom (10), Losconia (10), The Voltarum (10), Oi Barbaroi (10), Kwon Hoshi-R5 (9), Ghazi-Rahman Ammar (9), Josephtan (9), Isle of Westland (8), Draganisia (8), TheRuhr (8), Culuas (8), The Greastest Nation (8), Lycantine (7), Alcala (7), Wadelhelpia (7), Borayang (7), Ventus Prime (7), The Belacian States (7), Wolfs Brigade (7), Excidium Planetis (7), Broaryd (7), Hydroponic Nation (7), South-West China (7), OmegaShenron (7), Toriniall (7), Thunduria (6), Demonos (6), Orca and Narwhal (6), Finmany (6), Solariia (6), Fakenameland (6), The Village Society (6), The Grand Kingdom of Elsweyr (6), New Nationale Einheit (6), The Immortal Fire Nation (6), Shunhao (6), Aboruinianariteright (6), Eyrey (6), The Tree States (6), Tondoluland (6), Nytocho (6), Galateia (6), CampbellBm (6), Meercovo (6), San Lumen (5), South Sulphur (5), VykoNight (5), Greater Lankland (5), Radnia (5), Nothinggg (5), Chap Ven (5), Angladen (5), The United States of Azania (5), Merulla (5), Wabacha (5), Ulissebuerg (5), Sarzville (5), Domasian (5), Vipru (5), The 45 percent of pride republic (5), The Soviet state of Svalbard (5), Yesmanland (5), Comunist Land1 (5), Maogs (5), Golanchia (4), Imperialist Bonaparte (4), Social Democrats (4), Union of Soviet State Republics (4), Tricorniolis (4), Nikoland Piczi (4), The Campbell Nation (4), Olfasgesvet (4), Noldorin Oron (4), Ebrein (4), Apalo republican (4), Super Pakistan (4), Kaparthia (4), Lysset (4), Bruh LOL (4), Gehwerstaat (4), Santa Thereza (4), Alistia (4), Chob (4), Klean Kanteen (4), Greater Nam Thevonithr (4), Geckotania (4), Equizur (4), Vegaga (4), Kvysbekistan (4), Weirdiron (4), Voxija (4), West Korea LM3 (4), Lesser Newlandia (4), New Salmon Islands (4), Hellania (3), Cisona (3), Smiley Bob (3), Flor-Fina (3), The Imperial Kaiser of Greater Germany (3), Cas Maximum (3), Kostrotyevsk (3), Drozagburg (3), The Adeptorum (3), Firecon Lions (3), Kinkerland (3), Markus Sarasti-Varis (3), 11 Templar Knights (3), Communo-Slavocia (3), Verlos (3), Henrictus Colony (3), Imperial Felchah (3), Twitter sucks (3), The Govetian Rus (3), Fleroviam (3), Vaste (3), Gravia (3), Kierania (3), Imperial States (3), Chetoga (3), Great Libertona (3), People freedom China (3), The 2nd Facepunch Republic (3), Novimir (3), WA Clante (3), Utquiagvik (3), Tiber and Rione (3), Herby (3), Aura Banitia (3), Cy Avon (3), Russia Major (3), The 1000 barbarians (3), Apellidor (3), Republic of Dixie (3), Enderstan (3), Kolloquia (3), Loistavik (3), Pogaria (3), PAINFUL DEATHS (3), Chairman Cities (3), East Thule (3), Sarandy (3), Eemeria (3), Nationuraniume (3), Algeriz (3), Terosia (3), Norinka and Direin (3), Northern Seleucia (3), Cyrisk (3), Arazian (3), Lesbia (3), Ayodhyadesha (2), Kamohoali i (2), Potatolandia Nation (2), Right Crimea (2), Qudrath (2), Got7seas (2), Usual People In Life (2), Tritestan (2), Stukanyla Chouth (2), Machedonico (2), Moreannal (2), Banotte (2), Rubistan (2), Rezistenta (2), Technoco (2), Ladadia (2), Roylaii (2), Socialist Potania (2), North Truman (2), Oktotheio (2), NinjitsUtopia (2), Quiculin (2), Ronodin (2), Molson Iceland (2), Almerdonia (2), Maroiogogistan (2), Verddana (2), Heromerland (2), Joeobama101 (2), Tuqo (2), Whiskany (2), The United Earth Planet (2), New Huland (2), New Isman (2), Heliosland (2), Trafeigan (2), Brunis (2), Macari (2), Bernelia (2), Orifna (2), Union of Noovistian (2), Kingdom of Aurelia (2), Transgender Cats and Kitties (2), GoldSilver918 (2), Niskeku (2), Lehqhbraot (2), Muizzuddin (2), Zhensheng Xue (2), Rosefall (2), Lotieltan (2), The German Democratic State (2), Raccquesi (2), Canning (2), Northern Hawaii (2), Ameareia (2), Neutral Landland (2), Neemz (2), Greater Eireann (2), Kanaria NS (2), Gaiah (2), Southern Cascades (2), Hetairaea (2), Zuxenhavon (2), TheSovietUnion (2), The Gamers of Roblox (2), Port Ember (2), Zombiedolphins (2), Cracagovia (2), Thelskwaringica (2), Rivgalia (2), Ronimbonland (2), Dayuh (2), Saskau (2), Vitjov (2), Polotico (2), Transsobor (2), Suur-Gamerland (2), Mabanarlan (2), Stonlos (2), Bradyvilleia (2), Turkish deep state (2), Waldora (2), The Akasha Colony (2), Kevinia (2), Borken (2), Konia Astione (2), Old Pea (2), Island of Avalon (2), Diego Bendiego And Jesus YT (2), Deybava (2), The Terren Dominion (2), Renatus Roma (2), The Kingdom of the Kekistan State (2), Uvalor (2), Imperial Holia Myzkaaria (2), Toasteds (2), Eldenar (2), The Ancient World (2), Experience Eternal (2), Great Hann (2), Karliat (2), Etoile Arcture (2), Andibaz (2), Echo Cove (2), Maltitalerland (2), Masmura (2), Rostlandia (2), Tulamanapasatakalaha (2), Masapia (2), Harmonistan (2), Unnyanaveila (2), The frogs (2), Making Catgirls Real (2), Zommo (2), Theoscafia (2), Free Hats for Bob (2), Kigasan (2), Hampterlan (2), Fire Lord Azula (2), Tarlag (2), Turkisan (2), and (5,179) individual member nations.

Against: 2,580: Giovanniland (626), Malphe II (237), The AmbiS (139), West Fortinagrad (124), Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands (121), Ruinenlust (102), Vancouvia (79), The Litterbox (62), NewTexas (23), Lamplight (21), Ostopia (17), Densaner (15), Real Valeria (13), Thee Imperium 0f Man (12), Cheslezionia (7), Brocklandia (7), Russchratt (7), The Griddy (7), Wikitopia (7), Ancapitalist Wadiya (7), Madrocea (6), Mitzerland (5), The Palentine (5), Maltzia (5), Pooblic (5), United Anarchists of Earth (5), Not A Plant (5), The Good Nation Of Americana Christening (5), Kylarnatia (4), Matatic and The Principality of Surkis (4), ColdHeartedBastards (4), Gatchina (4), Lord Testiculus III (4), Rudnatia (4), Umbratellus (4), Davidtopia (3), Quing Nara (3), The Fallen Star (3), The Candy Of Bottles (3), Southern Bruchetta (3), Pirates and Buccaneers (3), United Banana Plantations (3), Hustlertwo (3), The Greater Rhine Nation (3), Wobbegong (3), Torslia (3), Minarchistaria (3), Sedgistan (3), Akiniad (3), Fahran (2), Adeiatic (2), Magna Franconia (2), Sow Bug (2), Djisland (2), Mitzvah (2), New New Chesapeake (2), Galactic Powers (2), GraySoap (2), The Communist Union of Soviet States (2), Free Woritanarbio Islands (2), NISTER KEDSULI (2), Minimark (2), Nouvel Acadie (2), Republic of Stratis (2), 1-502nd Airborne Inf (2), KaiserRegel (2), Brazil FS (2), North Texia (2), Australimia (2), Audaxpericulosum (2), Lacmhacarh (2), Vichtander (2), The Rising Aura (2), Yovagia (2), Nueva Belen (2), Dytarma (2), and (782) individual member nations.

[Contrarian Extraordinaire]

"Unfortunately, the Strange Reality is unable to comply with this resolution. This resolution obligates 'all member-nations' 'to educate their inhabitants about addiction and how to avoid developing it'. However, due to the biological nature of Contrarians, they cannot be educated about addiction; any knowledge they gain about addiction they immediately forget, making education on this subject impossible."

"Your resolution has been officially wanked."