Post by Asairia on Mar 11, 2019 16:36:27 GMT
WORLD ASSEMBLY GENERAL ASSEMBLY
REPEAL: ON TOBACCO AND ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES
DELEGATE IS VOTING: AGAINST ☒
FINAL RESULTS:
3,230 FOR
12,698 AGAINST
Overview
Repeal: On Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes seeks to repeal GAR#459, which establishes uniform standards and on tobacco and nicotine products.
About the Proposal
The author, I Came I Saw I Dominated of Westphalia, with the assistance of Imperium Anglorum of Europe, has proposed the following repeal:
The World Assembly,
Applauding the efforts of the target resolution to improve health by reducing smoking and related issues,
Reminding itself that passed resolutions cannot be amended to resolve errors,
Concerned that the recently passed resolution permits member nations to abide by its requirements without in fact translating warnings into a language understandable by the local populace, as the language used repeatedly in the target is inherently optional,
Further concerned that members with governments appropriately disposed to tobacco corporations can therefore abide by the text of the target while also taking little useful action towards teaching their populations the harms of tobacco and smoke inhalation,
Believing that interpretation of the word "should" by national or international tribunals to invoke requirement would be an unprecedented shift in the interpretation of World Assembly statutes that would fundamentally shift the relationship between the Assembly and its constituent members so to engender incredible overreach,
Further believing that this makes unavailable to the Assembly the ability to recommend which also also effectively eliminates the scope for discretion under WA resolutions,
Observing that not all member member nations are composed of species harmed by the targeted products and believing such to be an unnecessary overreach,
Further observing that the educational requirements would cause waste of resources in nations where tobacco use is low or non-existent,
Hopefully consigning to private essays rather than General Assembly resolutions titles starting with the word "On",
Certain that action will be taken by delegations committed to reducing smoking and similar issues in the eventuality of repeal,
Repeals "On Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes".
Applauding the efforts of the target resolution to improve health by reducing smoking and related issues,
Reminding itself that passed resolutions cannot be amended to resolve errors,
Concerned that the recently passed resolution permits member nations to abide by its requirements without in fact translating warnings into a language understandable by the local populace, as the language used repeatedly in the target is inherently optional,
Further concerned that members with governments appropriately disposed to tobacco corporations can therefore abide by the text of the target while also taking little useful action towards teaching their populations the harms of tobacco and smoke inhalation,
Believing that interpretation of the word "should" by national or international tribunals to invoke requirement would be an unprecedented shift in the interpretation of World Assembly statutes that would fundamentally shift the relationship between the Assembly and its constituent members so to engender incredible overreach,
Further believing that this makes unavailable to the Assembly the ability to recommend which also also effectively eliminates the scope for discretion under WA resolutions,
Observing that not all member member nations are composed of species harmed by the targeted products and believing such to be an unnecessary overreach,
Further observing that the educational requirements would cause waste of resources in nations where tobacco use is low or non-existent,
Hopefully consigning to private essays rather than General Assembly resolutions titles starting with the word "On",
Certain that action will be taken by delegations committed to reducing smoking and similar issues in the eventuality of repeal,
Repeals "On Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes".
My Decision
For being a repeal, this resolution certainly doesn't feel like one.
First of all, the claim that the target resolution requires a repeal because it is linguistically insensitive to every language but English is laughable at worst and frustrating at best. If the notion that all WA resolutions, requirements, and related material are only read and distributed in English is true, it's a miracle this body has continued to operate for as long as it has. I can't believe it's come to this, but yes, we are considering a new resolution stating the obvious: it's okay to translate WA material. I completely understand this from an in-character perspective considering the World Assembly is a 'multiverse' of humans, aliens, and other species, but still, you'd think permitted translation would be a common sense thing that didn't require us to legislate the obvious.
Secondly, why on earth is the opposition to, "Resolution titles starting with the word On," listed as a valid reason to repeal tobacco and nicotine regulation? The authors cite, "Incredible overreach," as a third reason to repeal the target resolution, but in all honesty, skirting around the 'no legislating in repeals' rule by trying to get the General Assembly to sign off on a repeal that includes a borderline condemnation of prepositions is the real overreach.
Another reason for a repeal, as claimed by the authors, is, again, a condemnation of the word 'should'. While this did raise some pretty important questions both among the Delegates and the General Secretaries, the claim that there is no way to interpret the word is utter nonsense. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 'should' as a word, "Used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency." Furthermore, it's synonyms include: 'must', 'ought to', 'have to', and 'shall'. Since 'shall' is the word typically used in WA resolutions, I'd argue that 'should' is a valid alternative, albeit less legislatively formal.
Now, the final arguments made in this resolution are possible loopholes and the fact that some 'species' are not harmed by tobacco and nicotine. Assuming the latter is true, every other regulation targeting products or other consumer goods would also warrant a repeal or future rejection because they, "Would cause a waste of resources," on the governments of immune species. As for the loophole concerns, you can never plug every hole; if you give someone enough time, they will always find a way to skirt around a law.
In synopsis, this repeal feels more like the 'private essay' the authors denounce the target resolution as. Repeals are supposed to be about constructive arguments detailing why flaws or oversights in current legislation make them ineffective and worthy of removal; however, this 'repeal in name only' is dominated by the authors' nitpickings oriented around tenuous claims that we should oppose legislation based on prepositions, synonyms of the word 'shall', and resolutions that don't include every version of every language in the multiverse. The only relevant arguments made, if you can even call them that, involve potential loopholes and information campaigns being too straining on national resources. If the authors truly believe tobacco and nicotine education is too expensive, perhaps they should look into drafting a better repeal targeting something more worthy of being called an 'incredible overreach' that would free up resources being 'wasted' by these educational campaigns designed to help people.
I have cast my vote against this resolution, and I encourage you to do the same.
Current Delegate support at time of publication.