NationStates Jolt Archive

Some time ago, I had worked out a draft to follow the UN Drug Act, this one pertaining to gambling. Well, I had a strange urging to reintroduce the topic, and here goes:

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the differences of opinions among member nations regarding the legality of the practice of gambling by individuals;

HOPING to establish an agreement between member nations respecting the views of each country;

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, "gambling" as "wagering money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money or material goods";

REQUESTS that member nations take the following steps to ensure that other nation’s laws regarding the legality of gambling are respected within their own borders:

1) Prohibit access to electronic or similar types of gambling services controlled within member nations, such as internet gambling, for those in nations that have outlawed gambling,

2) Prohibit the advertisement of gambling services being displayed in nations which have outlawed gambling;

AFFIRMS the right of all member nations to control the legality of all practices, public and private, involving all types of gambling done by any individual or group of individuals within their jurisdiction;

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to take steps to ensure that all gambling that may occur within their borders is done in a fair and legal manner;

ENCOURAGES member nations to support organizations that assist individuals with rehabilitation from addictions or other disorders resulting from gambling.

Some slight revisions have been made to make it more understandable. Anyone, comments?

the wording seems to include such activities as playing the lottery or even in investments in the stock market or in futures tradings.

very broad outline. seems reasonable but i'm sure others can show me wrong on this issue...

OOC-->i think 1984 describes the lottery as a way to keep the poor in having hope and not to complain about their poverty because they may become rich. it would be unfortunate that gvts wish to maintain or perpetuate an industry that only gives false hopes. Its pretty much exploiting the poor's desire to be rich by taking even more money away from the poor.

Consider a gvt sells a ticket for a dollar and guarantees that if 100 tickets get sold then 3 tickets will be 10 dollar winnings. The gvt keeps 70 dollars and 3 poor people get 10 dollars each perpetuating the myth that anyone can win so the other 97 poor people play next week... Good business if you're on the right end of it.

We echo the concern of the ShogunKhan with the respect to the definition and its all-inclusiveness.

In addition, with respect to the active clauses of the proposal, we are not the law enforcement for other nations. If there are activities that they have deemed illegal, it is incumbent on them to "hide their nation's eyes" from whatever they've designated as evil.

If that nation wishes to prohibit advertising that's fine, that's in their sphere of control. But the big neon Ritty the Rat's Casino sign that sits on our side of the border and can be seen by the Stonedeepians stays.

We also don't see the need for legislating a statement that gambling laws are permanently devolved to the national level. To our knowledge, there has been no gambling resolution brought to the floor of the General Assembly, no rancorous debate, and as we've seen with UN Drug Act, the presence of such a resolution has no effect on the number of proposals submitted for consideration by this assembly.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

To our knowledge, there has been no gambling resolution brought to the floor of the General Assembly, no rancorous debate, and as we've seen with UN Drug Act, the presence of such a resolution has no effect on the number of proposals submitted for consideration by this assembly.

The purpose isn't really to prevent poor proposals being submitted--as with the UNDA, the purpose of this is really to prevent poor proposals from eventually passing. There have been some attempts in the past to pass Recreational Drug proposals, and they were deleted after quorum was reached because of the UNDA. While those weren't about gambling, I think it serves to prove the point that these types of proposals can be beneficial, if not now than perhaps some time in the future. It may not exactly be incredibly pertinent to pass this legislation right now, but the same purpose will be served by this legislation whenever it is passed. The UN doesn't seem to have a large amount to decide on currently, why not now?

With regard to the comments about the active clauses of the proposal, I would agree that it is the nation's job to enforce its own laws regarding gambling. The illegal activity would not result from internet gambling being available in a nation that has outlawed it, the illegal action would result from someone in that nation actually using it. So, I've lifted the requirement of nations to prevent access, but it will still be encouraged.

Okay the only problem I have is it's a little sketchy what we mean by "support" when we talk about helping addicts.

I am all for this resolution unless it is required that governments provide funds for addiction initiatives.

Okay the only problem I have is it's a little sketchy what we mean by "support" when we talk about helping addicts.

I am all for this resolution unless it is required that governments provide funds for addiction initiatives.

There is no requirement of governments to do anything by that clause. It simply encourages nations to support certain organizations, no mandate.

So is this legalizing or outlawing gambling? Seems to be doing both...

So is this legalizing or outlawing gambling? Seems to be doing both...

I was leaning towards outlaw until I lifted the mandate for nations to restrict access to certain people--so there's nothing really being specifically outlawed. Now, I'm leaning towards legalize.

Okay, seeing that I don't have to agree with the last clause, I'm for!

Well done on earning my vote, it's a good resolution.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp)

We look upon this draft proposal with concern. As a nation whose primary source of income comes from the gaming tables and the money foreign tourists lay down on them, we would see any attempt to discourage the international gambling industry as an attack upon our nation's economy. While we understand some nations may seek to discourage gambling within their own borders, we are distressed by the proposal to regulate and restrict international casino and lottery advertising. Without foreigner gamblers, how will our casinos earn money? And without advertising in foreign lands, how will these gamblers know where to test their fortune?

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp)

We look upon this draft proposal with concern. As a nation whose primary source of income comes from the gaming tables and the money foreign tourists lay down on them, we would see any attempt to discourage the international gambling industry as an attack upon our nation's economy. While we understand some nations may seek to discourage gambling within their own borders, we are distressed by the proposal to regulate and restrict international casino and lottery advertising. Without foreigner gamblers, how will our casinos earn money? And without advertising in foreign lands, how will these gamblers know where to test their fortune?

Myself, I do not see this resolution as harming the gambling industry in anyway, just not letting it fall into disrepair.

Okay, seeing that I don't have to agree with the last clause, I'm for!

Well done on earning my vote, it's a good resolution.

I still dislike the last clause, even though the resolution as a whole is fine.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp)

We look upon this draft proposal with concern. As a nation whose primary source of income comes from the gaming tables and the money foreign tourists lay down on them, we would see any attempt to discourage the international gambling industry as an attack upon our nation's economy. While we understand some nations may seek to discourage gambling within their own borders, we are distressed by the proposal to regulate and restrict international casino and lottery advertising. Without foreigner gamblers, how will our casinos earn money? And without advertising in foreign lands, how will these gamblers know where to test their fortune?

We understand your concern about your gambling industry, and that is part of the reason that the clauses in the proposal that concern you are no longer a requirement, just a recommendation. The only reason these requests are part of the legislation is to attempt to have nations' laws against gambling respected within their own borders--and this only applies to internet or other gambling services that could bypass borders, not physical in-person gambling. However, it will be the nations' responsibility now to ban advertisements and these types of gambling. This can already happen now without this legislation, surely you are having some problems with nations that have banned gambling and its advertisements?

If some decide to gamble on our competitions and battle contests, can our participants get a cut?

If some decide to gamble on our competitions and battle contests, can our participants get a cut?

Your government can allow for any rules of gambling they desire.

Your government can allow for any rules of gambling they desire.

perfect, send us our cuts as you gamble on our events! We can learn to accept this proposal after all.

The purpose isn't really to prevent poor proposals being submitted--as with the UNDA, the purpose of this is really to prevent poor proposals from eventually passing. There have been some attempts in the past to pass Recreational Drug proposals, and they were deleted after quorum was reached because of the UNDA. While those weren't about gambling, I think it serves to prove the point that these types of proposals can be beneficial,They can also be detrimental by preventing the passage of well-constructed and well-thought out proposals.

And as we're witnessing right now, such blocking legislation isn't really very good at preventing poor proposals from coming to the floor after all.

With regard to the comments about the active clauses of the proposal, I would agree that it is the nation's job to enforce its own laws regarding gambling. The illegal activity would not result from internet gambling being available in a nation that has outlawed it, the illegal action would result from someone in that nation actually using it. So, I've lifted the requirement of nations to prevent access, but it will still be encouraged.So what you have left are a few "encourages" and a blocker?

We also note you haven't addressed the problems with the overly broad definition. We'd be particularly interested in your thoughts on those concerns.

--L.T.

They can also be detrimental by preventing the passage of well-constructed and well-thought out proposals.

And as we're witnessing right now, such blocking legislation isn't really very good at preventing poor proposals from coming to the floor after all.

Quite frankly, if these "well-constructed and well-thought out proposals" required nations to either legalize or outlaw recreational drugs/gambling--which is exactly what these types of proposals are preventing--we would be against it.

To us, the legality of the resolution at vote is slightly dubious. The language of the UN Drug Act allowed such a proposal to get to vote--there's nothing that can be done about it.


We also note you haven't addressed the problems with the overly broad definition. We'd be particularly interested in your thoughts on those concerns.

Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what type of change you would like to see in the definition? Might you have any suggestions or revisions?

Maybe you should consider under-age gambling as an issue in your draft. In our country, you have to be 18 or over to gamble.

They can also be detrimental by preventing the passage of well-constructed and well-thought out proposals.

--L.T.

And let's be honest, how often do we see those in the "Gambling" category?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Quite frankly, if these "well-constructed and well-thought out proposals" required nations to either legalize or outlaw recreational drugs/gambling--which is exactly what these types of proposals are preventing--we would be against it.

To us, the legality of the resolution at vote is slightly dubious. The language of the UN Drug Act allowed such a proposal to get to vote--there's nothing that can be done about it.

Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what type of change you would like to see in the definition? Might you have any suggestions or revisions?And how likely is a pure legalize/outlaw proposal to get to quorum? If a blocker such as this achieves quorum and passes, then obviously the votes are there to keep legalize/outlaw proposals from passing.

The problem as we see it is that no blocker can be adequately written that doesn't prevent future, good legislation that neither requires outright legalization or criminalization. Such a step only becomes beneficial when this body has shown historically that it cannot come to a rational compromise and any further attempts will only continue to split the body asunder. Gambling has not been shown to be one of those topics. Ironically, a poor blocker has the weakness that it continues to let poorly constructed legislation through.

Changes to the definition of gambling should certainly start with exceptions for legitimate activities that can and should be conducted internationally, such as investment in stock markets.

And let's be honest, how often do we see those in the "Gambling" category?Are we so good at foresight that we can guarantee that nothing good will be written for the category in the future? We've seen little good written for the Artistic area of effect in the Education category. Should we then pass a resolution that essentially says no one should try?

--L.T.

And how likely is a pure legalize/outlaw proposal to get to quorum? If a blocker such as this achieves quorum and passes, then obviously the votes are there to keep legalize/outlaw proposals from passing.

We don't see why protecting the rights of nations through legislation should not be done simply because it is the opinion of the UN.

The problem as we see it is that no blocker can be adequately written that doesn't prevent future, good legislation that neither requires outright legalization or criminalization. Such a step only becomes beneficial when this body has shown historically that it cannot come to a rational compromise and any further attempts will only continue to split the body asunder. Gambling has not been shown to be one of those topics. Ironically, a poor blocker has the weakness that it continues to let poorly constructed legislation through.

Well, as you've said before, if this proposal achieves quorum and passes, then "the votes are there to keep legalize/outlaw proposals from passing." We don't see much of a harm in passing this legislation, because it is our belief that any resolution controlling the laws of a nation with regard to gambling is misguided. We don't really care how well the proposal is written, we would be against it.

Changes to the definition of gambling should certainly start with exceptions for legitimate activities that can and should be conducted internationally, such as investment in stock markets.

While your concern is understandable, surely a list of exceptions would inevitably be incomplete. We would not like to pick-and-choose activities that apply and those that don't. Might you have any ideas about what types of activities you think should be excluded?

Are we so good at foresight that we can guarantee that nothing good will be written for the category in the future? We've seen little good written for the Artistic area of effect in the Education category. Should we then pass a resolution that essentially says no one should try?

This is a poor comparison. The Artistic effect of the Education category has a significantly wide scope--the Gambling category doesn't. There is one issue, one concern of this category, while the Artistic effect of the Education category is left open to interpretation of extent. And we are of the belief that this one issue in the Gambling category should be left to the consideration of each nation.

Are we so good at foresight that we can guarantee that nothing good will be written for the category in the future? We've seen little good written for the Artistic area of effect in the Education category. Should we then pass a resolution that essentially says no one should try?

--L.T.

An intriguing idea, and one that would be a serious temptation, were the Federation still a member of this body.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

We don't see why protecting the rights of nations through legislation should not be done simply because it is the opinion of the UN.

Well, as you've said before, if this proposal achieves quorum and passes, then "the votes are there to keep legalize/outlaw proposals from passing." We don't see much of a harm in passing this legislation, because it is our belief that any resolution controlling the laws of a nation with regard to gambling is misguided. We don't really care how well the proposal is written, we would be against it.Those rights aren't, apparently, in danger. Were the UN to adopt this rampant fear that sometime in the undesignated future, a resolution will pass that someone doesn't like, then there would be no reason for this assembly to continue. We might as well shut the whole thing down and give in to this paralyzing fear. Surely, that's not an ultimate goal of yours?

The harm, however, comes from viewing gambling issues through the prism of ideology that says there are no international components to the issue and no facets that might in the future require action by this body. The harm comes from perceiving that the only resolutions possible are those that attempt to outlaw (or legalize) domestic gambling en toto. Though they aren't something I see myself proposing, or even see a pressing need at this moment, I can imagine good, solid proposals in the category. For example, fraudulent international gambling is deserving of regulatory action, if not an outright ban.

While your concern is understandable, surely a list of exceptions would inevitably be incomplete. We would not like to pick-and-choose activities that apply and those that don't. Might you have any ideas about what types of activities you think should be excluded?And surely you can identify characteristics that distinguish international stock investment from Keno and prevent such activities from being engulfed by an overly broad definition? The words "excepting legitimate business investment" come to mind.

This is a poor comparison. The Artistic effect of the Education category has a significantly wide scope--the Gambling category doesn't.The scope of the Gambling category is limited only by the imagination of a proposal author.

An intriguing idea, and one that would be a serious temptation, were the Federation still a member of this body.Everyone loves a challenge, Mr. Jones.

--L.T.

Those rights aren't, apparently, in danger.

And how do the rights being in danger make this proposal any more or less worthy? Whether or not, say the freedom of speech, is "in danger" does not make it any more or less worthy of being included in a constitution.

The harm comes from perceiving that the only resolutions possible are those that attempt to outlaw (or legalize) domestic gambling en toto.Though they aren't something I see myself proposing, or even see a pressing need at this moment, I can imagine good, solid proposals in the category. For example, fraudulent international gambling is deserving of regulatory action, if not an outright ban.

That is not what this proposal, nor I, am assuming. As we just saw with "Ban International Trafficking," proposals that are inherently international in scope can bypass these blocking legislations. This is just protecting the national rights of nations to control their own laws regarding gambling. Fraudulent international gambling, just like international trafficking of drugs, would be allowed in legislation after this proposal.

And surely you can identify characteristics that distinguish international stock investment from Keno and prevent such activities from being engulfed by an overly broad definition? The words "excepting legitimate business investment" come to mind.

And that lends the question of what is "legitimate."

The scope of the Gambling category is limited only by the imagination of a proposal author.

Or someone's assumption of the imagination of its author...

And how do the rights being in danger make this proposal any more or less worthy? Law written without necessity is inherently flawed, written as it is based on an incomplete comprehension of the parameters of the issue. Every proposal submitted to this body must show that it is relevant at the time of submission and the problem to be addressed actually exists.

That is not what this proposal, nor I, am assuming. As we just saw with "Ban International Trafficking," proposals that are inherently international in scope can bypass these blocking legislations. This is just protecting the national rights of nations to control their own laws regarding gambling. I believe your argument becomes ever more contradictory, to wit:To us, the legality of the resolution at vote is slightly dubious [ed. note: "Ban International Trafficking" in relation to UNDA]. And... it is our belief that any resolution controlling the laws of a nation with regard to gambling is misguided."Any resolution" would naturally include even those resolutions with an international focus as they still serve to control the laws of a nation regarding the over-arching issue. You seem to imply and it has certainly been the perception of others that UNDA would successfully block all drug related proposals, as I infer from your early statements regarding this proposal, you would prefer this one to act similarly as well.

And that lends the question of what is "legitimate."Considering "legitimate" modified "business" one would think the definition would be in that context. The inability of the proposal to distinguish between a fundamental institution of a capitalist society and sports betting continues to be its biggest flaw.

--L.T.

Law written without necessity is inherently flawed, written as it is based on an incomplete comprehension of the parameters of the issue. Every proposal submitted to this body must show that it is relevant at the time of submission and the problem to be addressed actually exists.

We completely disagree with this. Should this be the case, then any NSUN resolution passed without a specific reason concerning the time of its passage is "inherently flawed." We do not believe this to be the case. Could you inform us of the necessity of passing your own "Water Quality and Conservation" bill at that very time? What of some of the best resolutions in the history of this body? Do they all have a logical reason for being passed at that time? We would think not. We may disagree over whether this issue is a "problem," but those of us of the opinion that this specific issue should be a right left to nations would agree that protecting this right--at any given point in time--is important.

You seem to imply and it has certainly been the perception of others that UNDA would successfully block all drug related proposals, as I infer from your early statements regarding this proposal, you would prefer this one to act similarly as well.

Do not misconstrue our opinions and the effects of our legislation. They are different. We are of the opinion that the UN should not interfere with this issue, however our legislation allows for laws that are internationally important in terms of gambling. Our legislation only protects national laws.

Considering "legitimate" modified "business" one would think the definition would be in that context. The inability of the proposal to distinguish between a fundamental institution of a capitalist society and sports betting continues to be its biggest flaw.

We don't disagree that the definition can be flawed, however we find the phrasing "legitimate business practices" to be somewhat vague as well.