[Lord Warden] 51st Cosa, First Clark.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Any advice on how to vote on the first clark bills?

Currently I intend to vote PER on RZ1, RZ3 and RZ4 and CON on RZ2.

I'm especially interested in comments on RZ3. I don't think weed should be illegal, but I do wonder how to deal with the fact that law enforcement in the GTA doesn't care much about whether it's legal in Talossa or not.

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

This is insanely complicated, Lord. On the one hand, I really dislike weed in particular and the very idea of smoking anything at all in general. In me, a person with anarchist tendencies fights with a person with an impenetrable prejudice towards substances of any kind. To sum up, I hate weed, I would never smoke it myself, but I don't see it would be coherent to impose such a ban.

I have a problem with certain WHEREAS clauses there, too.

"WHEREAS Government exists to protect that right, and..."
In theory, yea. In fact, government's whole point is control, and control is incompatible with freedom. Well, just for the record :)

To sum up, I think it would be a good idea to reformulate RZ3 slightly before accepting it, to think it over once more. It's a pretty important one, after all. First of all, the amount of WHEREAS clauses is ridiculus. Breves Vibrantesque Sententiae. All those clauses belong more to an accompanying explanaition for the act, not the act itself. I would certainly skim through all of them because I want t o read the law itself, why the waste?

The most crucial point here is, though, the question of overlapping legal systems which naturally exist in our unrecognized nationette circumstances.

I'm not a huge fan of those BenArd shenanigans, of course, but take this into account. If we proceed to make a point that the government is to protect it's citizens, if the point is to make their life better, I sincerely doubt our citizen's lives will be better in prison. The fact that the prison isn't Talossan doesn't really make a lot of difference to the one imprisoned. What do we expect? Say, someone really implements RZ3 and smokes weed by being physically situated in a state where this is banned. Say he's being caught. What do we expect him to say? "Hey, I did that in accordance with Talossan law! I'm a citizen of Talossa!"

True that. He's also a citizen of USA, too. Or Russia, or anycountry else. He's also subject to _that_ jurisdiction.

I'm not a legal expert, so my question is:

Does Talossan law explicitly specify that Talossans, by the very temporary nature of unrecognition and multiple citizenship of 100% of our citizens, Talossans should only implement those parts of Talossan laws that are not illegal within their overlapping legal systems, just you know, for their own good?

If yes, it's probably fine to pass the law as it is. If not, it'd probably be a good idea. It'd probably be a good idea as well to add a specific clause to RZ3, that it's up to the citizen to understand the macroworld legal circumstances of himself and act accordingly.

This is true that USA has no say in what laws Talossa should implement.
Don't forget that the opposite is also true.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Nov 5, 2017 18:42:35 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

Any advice on how to vote on the first clark bills?

Currently I intend to vote PER on RZ1, RZ3 and RZ4 and CON on RZ2.

I'm especially interested in comments on RZ3. I don't think weed should be illegal, but I do wonder how to deal with the fact that law enforcement in the GTA doesn't care much about whether it's legal in Talossa or not.

I'm in favour of RZ1 and RZ4. I'm indifferent to RZ2.

Of course, RZ3 is the difficult one. I am in favour of legalization. I do think the verbiage before the meat of the bill is overly excessive. I am not worried about the overlap of jurisdictions. Come on, that's inherent in everything we do. We pass legislation establishing military units inside the USA and we're worried that saying on a slip of paper that it's OK to smoke weed, which hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites do every year, will create conflicts with the US of A? As for citizens living outside of Talossa that's irrelevant. I don't live in Talossa. I'm living on foreign soil and when living on foreign soil, the foreign country's laws apply. That's Foreign Law 101. Same thing for Ben Ard and basically all of us.

What does concern me, however, if the effect that this legislation might have on relatives and friends of citizens and prospective citizens. "Hon, these people seem to be doing drugs. I'm going to tell Junior that he can have nothing to do with them."

I'm still in favour, though.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

As an aside, I'm a little torn when it comes to the whole "asking one's constituents" thing. Of course it's considerate and nice, but you are supposed to vote according to your own opinions, not the way we think. How will we ever get contested elections if our elected politicians don't vote according to their own mind but instead listen in to what the electorate wants? If the Senator does that, then it doesn't matter who's the senator.

[Iac Marscheir]

I know, I'm not a Cézembrean, but there's a point I want to raise: historically, if you were in a country, but were a citizen of another, you had to follow the laws of the country you're in.

Our Big Sister, the United States, had quite a fair with this issue. Back when China was open season in the early 1900s (around the -LXXX's), American merchants tried to get special protection whereby they had to follow American law, even while they were in China. This was, of course, illegal, but the US had a habit of arm-twisting back then.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is don't toke if you don't live in the GTA. You're subject to the punishments of the jurisdiction you're in. If you're going to light a spliff in the GTA, as a piece of advice, do it on the low-down. The US is doing the same thing to us now as it was in the 1900s to China.

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

Nov 6, 2017 3:22:30 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

As an aside, I'm a little torn when it comes to the whole "asking one's constituents" thing. Of course it's considerate and nice, but you are supposed to vote according to your own opinions, not the way we think. How will we ever get contested elections if our elected politicians don't vote according to their own mind but instead listen in to what the electorate wants? If the Senator does that, then it doesn't matter who's the senator.

In defence of our Senator, I want to say that a Senator is meant to represent his state, province - you name it. Specifically, he represents people of his place. Of course a Senator has his own opinion and votes as he wills, but the idea is that the Senator knows and feels what is the best for his people. People vote for a Senator because they know he will represent them well; Senator votes the way he does because he knows what people want.

In this light, It's only wise when in difficult cases (such as this one) Senator does listen to his people. It's not about going an easy path or replacing the burden of responsibility, it's about being able to make a more balanced decision, a decision to better represent the people. It is good to understand a tough problem from all possible sides, so that to finally make - yes - his own, informed and thought-through decision.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

I'm not sure he needs defending. I see where he's coming from and understand it. I'm mostly speculating. With this (your) reasoning, then we don't need senator elections. Anyone can do the job, they will ask the people before voting.

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

I retain my right to pick sides and defend whomever I see fit! :)
It's not about asking them every time. It's about asking them when a senator sees necessary and fit. Honestly, we have bigger issues than a Senator wondering what his people think.