NationStates Jolt Archive

If you want, please read my proposal on page seven and approve of it. Thank you.

...here's the proposal text, as cut and pasted from the NS page:

Ban on Alcohol

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


Category: Recreational Drug Use


Decision: Outlaw


Proposed by: Shantisthan

Description: RECOGNIZING the destructive nature of Alcohol on the cerebrum

ACKNOWLEDGING the widespread consumption and abuse of alcohol based products.

ACKNOWLEDGING that Alcohol is the leading killer of brain cells until the age of 60.

REGRETTING the rise in domestic violence and family breakups thanks to alcoholism

CONVINCED that the only way to prevent the abuse of alcohol is to eliminate its consumption

DECLARES that Alcohol ought to be banned in order to prevent its widespread consumption and hence eliminates the number one cause for domestic violence and child abuse.

REQUIRES that any nation producing alcohol products has a maximum of three months to close down its breweries and halt the further production of alcohol indefinitely.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 130 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Dec 19 2005

The Peaceful Idealist Utopia of Ceorana has not approved this proposal. [Approve]

You'll notice that I haven't approved it. Here's why:

CONVINCED that the only way to prevent the abuse of alcohol is to eliminate its consumption

I am not convinced. There's got to be a middle ground somewhere. Plus, I'm not sure that banning alcohol is under the UN's jurisdiction. If there was an emphasis on eliminating domestic violence, then you'd have a case. But banning alcohol seems pretty extreme.

REQUIRES that any nation producing alcohol products has a maximum of three months to close down its breweries and halt the further production of alcohol indefinitely.
Lemme see... alcohol used for religious purposes? Would be banned.

The alcohol wipes used to clean skin before drawing blood, to reduce the chance of infection? Banned.

The list goes on. :)

Wine has been known to have certain health benefits. Also banning alcohol could do more harm then good. Banning alcohol for consumption purposes could make a moonshine market, whereas people will make alcohol and sell it illegally. If not made properly moonshine can be extremely harmful. Plus we'd rather have our police force worry about more important things.

OOC: I have a question. How do I give approval to a proposal? I can't find it on the List Proposals page.

OOC: I have a question. How do I give approval to a proposal? I can't find it on the List Proposals page.
I think that is done by UN Regional Delegates.

Plus, I'm not sure that banning alcohol is under the UN's jurisdiction.

Tell me, is it the UN's jurisdiction to "Ban Single Hulled Tankers"? or to have "MANDATORY RECYCLING"? :rolleyes:

I think these resolutions stretch the jurisdiction of the UN too far, but, as such, Jey is against this proposal.

While we do regret the myriad ways in which alcohol and other drugs have deleterious effects upon society, alcohol has been such a part of Hou Mian's culture for so long that to ban it would be to ban our own history. We have elaborate ceremonies devoted to the different ways to serve our national drinks, and we will not give these up.

Fu Huangdi
Leader of Hou Mian

Ack!

If that isn't equvialent to a declaration of war on Mikitivity, I wouldn't know what is! Beer is an important part of the way of life in the Thuvian mountains, and for ages has also been called "Winter's Bread". It is easy to store, lasts for a long time, actually is nutrious, and tends to keep everybody happy!

1) Alcohol as a general sense - such as what is stated in this proposal - could be put under the UN's jurisdiction. There is no law against it.

2) Mik: war? Are we a bit jumpy right now?

3) I do not and will not support this proposal. The fact that the UN has not banned more harmful drugs that cause direct danger to the individual yet is a reason alone not to support it. Add on that we feel it is a failing of your nation that alcoholism is such a large problem in your nation, not because alcohol is available.

IMO:
#1 cause of alcoholism: poverty and poor education system
#1 cause of domestic violence: poverty and poor education system
#1 method of combatting alcoholism: universal education, programs for combatting poverty
#1 method of combatting domestic violence: ditto

I would not say that alcoholism is the main cause of domestic violence because I think they are only connected due to the fact they stem from the same thing. A man can still rant and rave on his wife and possibly beat her if the feelings that come out in alcoholism are there to begin with. Thus, you must first deal with the feelings - and dealing with poverty is the easiest way of dealing with those feelings, while education is the easiest way of teaching people to control those emotions. Certainly it won't solve all cases of domestic violence, alcoholism, disenfranchised members of society, etc. However, it will make much more impact than banning alcohol - which is more likely to just create crime than actually solve anything.

2) Mik: war? Are we a bit jumpy right now?


Sudwerks, is one of our many beer exporters. Beer itself is an important portion of our economy and culture. I'd be happy to share some with any ambassador willing, in order to "illustrate" why it is important to my government and that the idea of prohibition is something my government will *not* even consider.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sudwerks


-Howie Katzman

OOC: Though NSWiki might not show it, there actually are a number of nations that have made a point (in 2004) about creating beer labels and RPing rather significant alcohol industries. A year plus ago I was campaigning on regional forums for a Free Trade resolution to reduce beer tariffs.

Tell me, is it the UN's jurisdiction to "Ban Single Hulled Tankers"? or to have "MANDATORY RECYCLING"? :rolleyes:

I think these resolutions stretch the jurisdiction of the UN too far, but, as such, Jey is against this proposal.

The people of Cluichstan are pleased to see the representative from Jey realise that there are things beyond the jurisdiction of the UN. While we agree that mandatory recycling is outside the bounds of this austere body, we also would like to point out that the risks of using single-hulled tankers in international waters is certainly one that the UN can and should address.

That said, the people of Cluichstan do agree that this proposal goes far beyond the UN's mandate. Beer and whiskey (and the occasional Martini) are historically a large part of Cluichstani culture, and any attempt to ban these libations will be met with the fiercest of resistance.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

A year plus ago I was campaigning on regional forums for a Free Trade resolution to reduce beer tariffs.
We would likely support such a resolution.


To Shantisthan: No cheese for you!

We would likely support such a resolution.


To Shantisthan: No cheese for you!

HUGE loss for Shantisthan! Yelda has the finest cheeses in all of NS.

The Kingdom of Fourhearts severly opposes the idea on principal of national rights and what it would do to our regional economy. All the beer producing nations would resign from the UN and a very large black market would result. The implication of such a market would be devestating.

Titus Chain
UN Ambassador

HUGE loss for Shantisthan! Yelda has the finest cheeses in all of NS.

Beer and cheese always go together. ;)

interesting idea, but i dont think you are going to get it through. first of all, quite a few of the people from Frosbitaria, our northern province, would go on an angry rampage through out TLA if it was banned.... scratch few, change to all.

secondly, i tried a similar thing with tobbaco. that was met by some nasty responses, including war threats. i believe a state-funded education campain would be better, than an all out ban on alcohol

OOC: they tried it in the RL USA back in the 1920s/30s... take a look how long that lasted, and how it was recieved.

Sudwerks, is one of our many beer exporters. Beer itself is an important portion of our economy and culture. I'd be happy to share some with any ambassador willing, in order to "illustrate" why it is important to my government and that the idea of prohibition is something my government will *not* even consider.

-Howie Katzman



The government of St Edmund has just started considering the apppointment of an ambassador to Miktivity: There have been several applicants for the job...

HUGE loss for Shantisthan! Yelda has the finest cheeses in all of NS.


Have you tried any of the cheeses from Godwinnia yet? They do a very nice oak-smoked Blue Stilton... :)

Lemme see... alcohol used for religious purposes? Would be banned.

The alcohol wipes used to clean skin before drawing blood, to reduce the chance of infection? Banned.

The list goes on. :)

And not only would ethanol for consumption be banned, but all alcohol compounds (methanol, propanol, butanol etc.). This would deal a blow to chemical industries, as alcohols are useful intermediates in the synthesis of various organic compounds, notably ketones, aldehydes and esters.

Plus you've scuppered green hopes of using biologically and sustainably produced ethanol as a fuel.

My first urge is to scream:
"Bloody arrogant prohibitionists, this is an outrageous attack on our NatSov, and on common sense itself! I am not getting into your country telling you to legalise heroin, am I? Why don't you grow up and return the favour?"

But that is not polite, so I will just say:
"Please don't."

Allow me then...

Bloody arrogant prohibitionists, this is an outrageous attack on our NatSov, and on common sense itself! I am not getting into your country telling you to legalise heroin, am I? Why don't you grow up and return the favour?

Allow me then...

Bloody arrogant prohibitionists, this is an outrageous attack on our NatSov, and on common sense itself! I am not getting into your country telling you to legalise heroin, am I? Why don't you grow up and return the favour?

Naughty you. Although I agree with your opinion, I must vehemently condemn the tone of your speech. :p

Naughty you. Although I agree with your opinion, I must vehemently condemn the tone of your speech. :p

Stick around. I get worse. ;)

Hm, can I have three front row seats then? Yes, credit card. Thank you.

We rise in sobriety to oppose this proposed resolution. While the Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii is second to no nation in diligence against the harmful effects of "recreational chemistry", and indeed have strict--some would say even draconian--laws on the possession, sale, and use of alcohol, We also recognize its spiritual benefits. Indeed, alcohol is used in many HOCEK religious rituals--under strict spiritual guidance, of course.

We therefore say "nay" to this resolution, on the grounds that a blanket prohibition on alcohol is an infringement upon the religious practices of Our nation; practices the right to which has been guaranteed by NSUN resolutions.

Hmmm...

RECOGNIZING the destructive nature of Alcohol on the cerebrumGotta protect that cerebrum...

ACKNOWLEDGING the widespread consumption and abuse of alcohol based products.Fair enough, but all sorts of things are abused...

ACKNOWLEDGING that Alcohol is the leading killer of brain cells until the age of 60.Er... this smells of madeupfactitisis, or perhaps statisticsouttaassis. Both of which affect 35.3537974% of the population...

REGRETTING the rise in domestic violence and family breakups thanks to alcoholismAgain, "rise" is dubious. Also, issues of cause and effect. Family breakups could be the cause of alcoholism.

CONVINCED that the only way to prevent the abuse of alcohol is to eliminate its consumptionYou may be convinced, but I'm not.

DECLARES that Alcohol ought to be banned in order to prevent its widespread consumption and hence eliminates the number one cause for domestic violence and child abuse.Potentially more made-up facts. Also, without defining alcohol, there's some serious potential problems here, especially considering non-consumption uses of alcohol. Like, say, bio-deisel.

REQUIRES that any nation producing alcohol products has a maximum of three months to close down its breweries and halt the further production of alcohol indefinitely.Er, yeah, see above. Definition difficulties. Of course, this does imply that it's only beer that's being talked about. After all, you don't make spirits in breweries...

Martial breakups could be the cause of alcoholism.

Martial breakups are extremely violent and painful indeed... :p

Bah!

The Triumvirate of Enn could never accept this as a resolution. The Ennish shandy is pretty much the only thing keeping Enn in the black. We're not going to give up on our biggest export just because you don't like alcohol.

Quite frankly, putting that many people out of work would have far greater impacts on family life than responsible alcohol use ever could.

The nation of Zabuzani will never accept such a terrible resolution. As a supporter of the people, we believe that such an ruling would cause massive loss of jobs in all nations. This would lead to a cause and effect situation as the loss of a job could lead to depression. This could lead to the wanting of a drink...now this could lead to illegal breweries or it could not. But the chances of it are high and due to the lack of proper health care management we would not only see an increase in crime; But an increase of illnesses and death due to disease brought about by "tainted" alcohol. If this resolution is to be brought up, we will vote against it and I do believe my reigion delegate would agree with me.

With Respect,
Maochi Kenyan
The leader of The People's Republic of Zabuzani

i believe this sums up the majority viewpoint

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a354/nihongaz/bowel.jpg

Er, yeah, see above. Definition difficulties. Of course, this does imply that it's only beer that's being talked about. After all, you don't make spirits in breweries...
Wineries and vineyards are fine as well.

I'm not completely sure if I'm allowed to bring in Real-Life situations, but here I go. (It does have to deal with the topic...so...here I go...)

I remember the United States having an amendment to this effect. Let's all remember how well that turned out. Oh, yeah! Illegal breweries...illegal night clubs...and MORE alcohol abuse...

While I agree with the idea, that alcohol can be a source of negative consequences, it's not necessarily completely bad. Instead, maybe we should focus on more programs that help those who abuse alcohol and inform those who are under their countries respectful drinking age.

In fact, most countries (By this, I'm refering to the real world) have a very young drinking age, and many find this beneficial to controlling and becoming responsible to the consumption of alcohol.

I'm not completely sure if I'm allowed to bring in Real-Life situations, but here I go. (It does have to deal with the topic...so...here I go...)
if it has to do with the topic or argument, it is okay, but mainly as a reference point.

I'm not completely sure if I'm allowed to bring in Real-Life situations, but here I go. (It does have to deal with the topic...so...here I go...)

I think nobody minds RL examples, as long as they are relevant and don't drive the debate away from the NS world. Your examples are extremely relevant and make your point quite nicely. Thank you for putting it so eloquently, I totally agree with you.

I remember the United States having an amendment to this effect. Let's all remember how well that turned out. Oh, yeah! Illegal breweries...illegal night clubs...and MORE alcohol abuse...

Actually, the American experminent in Prohibition may have actually worked, in the sense that the rate of alcohol consumption went down during that time in its history. However, the unintended side-effects--liquor smuggling, organized crime, an increase in violence and a general disrespect for the law--outweighed whatever advantage was gained by getting people to drink less.

Actually, the American experminent in Prohibition may have actually worked, in the sense that the rate of alcohol consumption went down during that time in its history. However, the unintended side-effects--liquor smuggling, organized crime, an increase in violence and a general disrespect for the law--outweighed whatever advantage was gained by getting people to drink less.
that is going by probably the official statistics... there might have been a drop, but i dont think it would have been that big of one if there was

That is true but because people were doing it illegally maybe the statistics were effected slightly. People can hide it far more easily from the public eye when it is prohibited and that can then make it look like there is less.

As for banning it completely, I don't see the need. Most people are sensible about drinking and we can easily make the legal drinking age higher when people are more mature.

Er... this smells of madeupfactitisis, or perhaps statisticsouttaassis. Both of which affect 35.3537974% of the population...


Genius! :D

Let's be honest with ourselves, we all acknowledge that alcohol has the capacity to be bad for your health. Yet ultimately, ignoring arguments about cultural traditions, national sovereignty (especially) and economic impacts, the core reason for Compadria's opposition to this proposal is its restrictions on the individuals freedom.

The individual within society is entitled to be free to pursue his interests and leisures for the furtherment of his happiness and to be empowered to do so at all times, unless in doing so he endangers the welfare of others. Alcohol is consumed by one individual in each case and this individual is entitled to be informed about the risks, assisted in making the relevant lifestyle changes to limit or end his consumption of alcohol and to be entitled not to have to drink it in the first place. But to impose a health dogma upon him is to take away his right to determine his own health and happiness and demeans him by removing any trace of self-responsibility from his actions.

For these reasons, we oppose this proposal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

As for banning it completely, I don't see the need. Most people are sensible about drinking and we can easily make the legal drinking age higher when people are more mature.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No

Out here, the drinking age is 18. My brother who is 15.5 has been telling me all sorts of drinking stories he and his buddies have had. All you do by lowering the age is drive the binge drinking into the dark - so teenagers and college students have to worry both about the person being arrested while showing signs of alcohol poisoning. Additionally, states where the drinking age is 21 seem to have the same if not worse problems than places like....well.....where I live (Canada) where the drinking age is 18, or perhaps France (12?)

In fact, if you lower the drinking age enough, you remove the prestige effect that it has on kids. It no longer looks "cool" to the rebellious teenagers - something that you won't be able to change no matter how many different social policies you try to put in.

Er, yeah, see above. Definition difficulties. Of course, this does imply that it's only beer that's being talked about. After all, you don't make spirits in breweries...

Not to mention it only deals with production, not possession, purchase or consumption of alcohol......so basically it's saying we can't product alcohol, though apparently consuming it is ok......

Not to mention it only deals with production, not possession, purchase or consumption of alcohol......so basically it's saying we can't product alcohol, though apparently consuming it is ok......

OOC: That's actually the one intelligent thing about this proposal. Its author seeks to eliminate the consumption of alcohol, so he/she/it goes after production -- the source. He could've taken the silly RL path and gone after the consumer and crowded prisons with possession charges. That's not to say, of course, that the proposal, as a whole, is intelligent, however. It's not.

OOC: That's actually the one intelligent thing about this proposal. Its author seeks to eliminate the consumption of alcohol, so he/she/it goes after production -- the source. He could've taken the silly RL path and gone after the consumer and crowded prisons with possession charges. That's not to say, of course, that the proposal, as a whole, is intelligent, however. It's not.

OOC: Now, I think you are being unfair - my impression of the prohibition period is that law enforcement did concentrate on production and distribution, rather than arresting consumers. Of course, the approach completely ignores the possibility of creating alcohol in a bath tub. But alas, we stray.

OOC: With all due respect, my friend, your impression is incorrect. That said, my mention of crowded prisons referred to current US laws that have filled prisons with people on charges of ludicrously tiny amounts of marijuana and other drugs.

OOC: With all due respect, my friend, your impression is incorrect. That said, my mention of crowded prisons referred to current US laws that have filled prisons with people on charges of ludicrously tiny amounts of marijuana and other drugs.

OOC: I totally agree with you on the drug laws. And I totally accept that my impressions on Prohibition may be uninformed.

OOC: Actually, my point is that 3/4 of nations are not in the UN, thus not affected by the ban. The fact that this resolution doesn't even ban selling/trading/etc alcohol means that all you're doing is driving the production for the industry out of your country, getting a slight increase on the cost of alcohol to cover construction of the new factories and the additional transportation time, and nothing more.

I wouldn't ban alchohol, but restrict it's sales.

I wouldn't ban alchohol, but restrict it's sales.

Feel free to do so -- in your own country.

I'm not proposing he does it, but rather suggesting an idea. In optischer, most of our drinks aren't alchoholic, but for the few that are, we only drink on ceremonial or special occasions. Our laws might seem a bit strict, but that's how we live. I'm just wondering, what happens in Cluichstan? Hmmm?

I'm not proposing he does it, but rather suggesting an idea. In optischer, most of our drinks aren't alchoholic, but for the few that are, we only drink on ceremonial or special occasions. Our laws might seem a bit strict, but that's how we live. I'm just wondering, what happens in Cluichstan? Hmmm?

Cluichstan has no laws with respect to the consumption of alcohol. Indeed, Cluichstan has very few laws at all really.

So you're most likely an anarchy? Whats it like with no order? My citizens wouldn't be ablae to fuction properly. Seeing as we guide and control all of their lifes, except of course more personal matters.

So you're most likely an anarchy? Whats it like with no order? My citizens wouldn't be ablae to fuction properly. Seeing as we guide and control all of their lifes, except of course more personal matters.

Cluichstan is most certainly not an anarchy. We simply respect one another's personal freedoms.

What about political freedoms, seeing as you have such a good civil rights record?

Optischer, drop it please! He was quite specific in saying he didn't have any rules regarding ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION. That's not anarchy. Anarchy means he doesn't have ANY rules. That's not what he said. Regardless, it isn't even relevant to this thread.

Cluichstan has no laws with respect to the consumption of alcohol. Indeed, Cluichstan has very few laws at all really.

Let me guess: You have one law, stating it is illegal to legislate. :p

Let me guess: You have one law, stating it is illegal to legislate. :p

Not a bad idea... ;)

Not a bad idea... ;)

If you pass a law that says you can't legislate on anything, than would that piece of legislation be legal?

If you pass a law that says you can't legislate on anything, than would that piece of legislation be legal?

It depends how you write it, obviously. Usually law isn't retroactive, unless it is explicitly stated.

If you pass a law that says you can't legislate on anything, than would that piece of legislation be legal?

No ex post facto legislation. :p

Banning legislation with legislation would require legislation to ban the legislation when the legislation to ban the legislation banning legislation is banned by itself because you banned legislation but banned that legislation too so you could ban legislation but also not ban legislation since the legislation you wanted to ban was banned by the legislation that was banned by the original legislation.

Also, is your country an adhocracy? Because it has no structure and therefore cannot have any legislation, because any legislation on banning legislation would be void since your adhocratic country had no structure, meaning there would be no official government, or parliament.

I'm guessing the gnomes put the hookah back in the lounge...

I don't know but after trying to read this sentence,
Banning legislation with legislation would require legislation to ban the legislation when the legislation to ban the legislation banning legislation is banned by itself because you banned legislation but banned that legislation too so you could ban legislation but also not ban legislation since the legislation you wanted to ban was banned by the legislation that was banned by the original legislation.
I need a drink.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I need a drink.

I'll join you.

It was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a joke.

If you are commenting on my legislation piece, then I was just trying to figure it out. Because legislation banning legislation would be banned by itself so you w ould need tontorduce legislation to ban the banning of legislation, which would be banned by the previous legislation about legislation, so to ban legislation banning legislation banning legislation banning legislation you need to introduce legislation to retract the legislation which couldn't be retracted because it is banned by legislation banning itself. Whereas you banned the legislation originally banning legislation you would need to throw in a override or something but because legislation bans it from being introduced the override is illegal legislation, so you wouldn't want legislation banning legislation as it would cause problems for future legislation which m,ay want to be introduced to ban banning of legislation but can't because despite any overrides it would itself be banned for banning the banning of legislation.

At this point I would like to note I have a throbbing headache, my head is starting to sweel, and I think it's going to

BOOM

My heads just exploded, so therefore I need banned legislation to introduce necessities banned by legislation banning legislation so to ban legislation banning legislation bannin legislation times infinity you need to burn the legislation, claim it had no existence, was a fable and introduce new legislation allowing necessities to be carried out not banned by the burnt legislation banning legislation.

Did anyone understand that?

I don't know but after trying to read this sentence,

I need a drink.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm pretty sure this is exactly why legislation like this needs to be kept to the confines of one's own country...because I'm just ready to bang my head against a wall trying to read this...

i'm off to the strangers bar. Anyone want to join me? :)

i'm off to the strangers bar. Anyone want to join me? :)
I'm already there, I just haven't moved for a while.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

If you are commenting on my legislation piece, then I was just trying to figure it out. Because legislation banning legislation would be banned by itself so you w ould need tontorduce legislation to ban the banning of legislation, which would be banned by the previous legislation about legislation, so to ban legislation banning legislation banning legislation banning legislation you need to introduce legislation to retract the legislation which couldn't be retracted because it is banned by legislation banning itself. Whereas you banned the legislation originally banning legislation you would need to throw in a override or something but because legislation bans it from being introduced the override is illegal legislation, so you wouldn't want legislation banning legislation as it would cause problems for future legislation which m,ay want to be introduced to ban banning of legislation but can't because despite any overrides it would itself be banned for banning the banning of legislation.

At this point I would like to note I have a throbbing headache, my head is starting to sweel, and I think it's going to

BOOM

My heads just exploded, so therefore I need banned legislation to introduce necessities banned by legislation banning legislation so to ban legislation banning legislation bannin legislation times infinity you need to burn the legislation, claim it had no existence, was a fable and introduce new legislation allowing necessities to be carried out not banned by the burnt legislation banning legislation.

Did anyone understand that?

I could've sworn there was one ban too many in your explanation, but my head hurts to much to check thoroughly

How many bans is too many bans in writing bout legislation banning legislation being banned by itself because the legislation being banned by legislation means it is and isn't banned because legislation bans it, but that same legislation bans itself. So the best way to get rid of legislation banning legislation being banned by itself because it is legislation would be to burn the banned and unbanned legislation and put forth a new piece of legislation banning the banning of legislation which would ban itself because it is banning the bannig of legislation so burn that piece of banned unbanned legislation and create a law banning the banning of legislation except for this legislation for it is in every way supreme, but made out of paper so it is not banned by itself, but rather makes the country with the legislation banning the banning of legislation more liberal when it is conservative (or other) so it would need to be burned unless it is fireproof, of which it should be cast into space, forgot about and the people should create a new piece of legislation giving what they want.

!!BOOM!!

How many bans is too many bans in writing bout legislation banning legislation being banned by itself because the legislation being banned by legislation means it is and isn't banned because legislation bans it, but that same legislation bans itself. So the best way to get rid of legislation banning legislation being banned by itself because it is legislation would be to burn the banned and unbanned legislation and put forth a new piece of legislation banning the banning of legislation which would ban itself because it is banning the bannig of legislation so burn that piece of banned unbanned legislation and create a law banning the banning of legislation except for this legislation for it is in every way supreme, but made out of paper so it is not banned by itself, but rather makes the country with the legislation banning the banning of legislation more liberal when it is conservative (or other) so it would need to be burned unless it is fireproof, of which it should be cast into space, forgot about and the people should create a new piece of legislation giving what they want.

!!BOOM!!

Having had to listen to the delegate from Optischer rant on about the banning of bans for ages, Otterby finally lost his composure and jumped to his feet yelling:

"Will you STFU please, before all our heads explode.

And may the blessings of our otters be upon you".

Hearing the STFU and the blessings of the otters, the Optischerian representative revealed a new video explaining that the banning of bans would be banned because it bans itself because it is a ban which it is trying to ban and so forth is banned and does not take effect but does take effect rather like his two other videos for sale, the one about forcing compulsory voting would be voted against and the one about legislation banning legislation being banned by itself because it is the very legislation it is trying to ban while trying to be a piece of legislation in a bunny boiler suit.

WOW! Why banning bans is banning everything by Optischerian Representative Mr.Mann

Ooooh! Legislation banning legislation is banning legislation while trying to be a piece of legislation in a bunny boiler costume out now! Free with a dictionary of contradictory bans.

Aaaah!The video you've been waiting for!Compulsory voting is the end of your regime unless you're a totalitarian regime!

Out now at all high street supermarkets near you!

*Head explodes dramatically*

damn, he has found a new form of warfare :/

damn, he has found a new form of warfare :/

Fear the exploding heads of Compadria!

I have come to make all your heads explode!
Beware my boring explanations!
Beware my power of Boredom!
Especially when I start talking about legislation banning legislation being uneffective because it is banned by itself because it is legislation and it is trying to ban legislation so in effect it is legal and illegal and you're heads going to explode any time

BOOM

This shit really needs to stop.

okay. Exploding heads over. Is this ban already proposed?

Not officially, no.

Okay. Is it banning alchohol being used for ceremonial purposes?

Okay. Is it banning alchohol being used for ceremonial purposes?

Read the proposal. It makes no exceptions.

Okay. It's not that I'm an alchy, but just that some nations who need it for ceremonial purposes need this information.

Is it banned if it's used for enviromentally friendly fuel?

Okay. It's not that I'm an alchy, but just that some nations who need it for ceremonial purposes need this information.

Is it banned if it's used for enviromentally friendly fuel?

Again, if you read through the thread, the proposal would ban all alcohol. That would include liquor, beer and other spirits, which is presumably the author's intent, but it would also include rubbing alcohol and every other substance containing a hydroxyl (OH) group attached to a hydrocarbon group.

Ok. What about alchohol in essential medecines?
:plol:p

All alcohol.

What if you required medecine that contained alchohol, otherwise you would die?

What if you required medecine that contained alchohol, otherwise you would die?

Optischer - there are ZERO exceptions in this resolution. All forms of alcohol from every use on the planet for ethanol to methanol and proponal would be illegal from this proposal. It doesn't matter how badly you need it, it is illegal by this proposal.

Please don't feed the troll. If you really have tickly fingers, at least drowse the troll in banned alcohol and flame it.

If you want, please read my proposal on page seven and approve of it. Thank you.
You Shall Not PASS!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/gandalf.jpg

This doesn't sound bad, but perhaps a ban on alcohol at certain strengths such as hard liquor, or harsher laws on drinking & driving.

You Shall Not PASS!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/gandalf.jpg

OOC: Whoever created this puppet (and I've got a pretty good idea ;) ), to you I say...

GENIUS!

Oh, and you beat me to it. :p

:( As much as I would like to take credit, it wasn't me.

OOC: Hell, I wish I could take credit, too, as I've been meaning to create an Inflatable Gandalf puppet for weeks now.

The powers that be have constantly declared restricted access to many substances (natural and synthetic (and their pre-cursors and so on)). This, as far as I am concerned, is a blatent betrayal of our fundamental rights as people of the Earth to use any of the resources the planet affords us. People have long condoned and enforced these restrictions. This is a very single-minded and fascist attitude. We should be free to use, experiment, or do whatever we like with anything the planet offers as long as we do not enforce our wants and needs and desires on others. We have long been without this basic freedom and people seldom see the real relavence of this authoratitive denial. We are deluded that we are free. We shouldn't have people decide what we can and can't do as adult individuals.

The government of St Edmund couldn't possibly support this proposal. Leaving aside for one moment the facts that some of us & many of our people enjoy an occaisional drink, and that various alcohols are essential raw materials for our industries, ethanol is the main fuel used for land vehicles within our nation: Are we supposed to switch back to fossil fuels, despite the cuts in their usage that another resolution has already imposed, instead?

And let's not forget that we have a bar right here at UN headquarters...

And let's not forget that we have a bar right here at UN headquarters...

There's actually nothing in the proposal which would require closing that establishment, as far as I can see: The management would have to re-source its supplies of alcoholic beverages by getting all of them from nations that aren't members of the UN, but selling them would still be perfectly legal...

There's actually nothing in the proposal which would require closing that establishment, as far as I can see: The management would have to re-source its supplies of alcoholic beverages by getting all of them from nations that aren't members of the UN, but selling them would still be perfectly legal...

True, but doing so would be a slap in the face to the preceding clause. ;)