Legal question
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/marijuana/article242539891.html
So this legal process is based on interpreting the word "or" as it is settled among a bunch of other words. And it is based on something as a programmer we can obviously see is a poorly worded set of words. It seems like all these interpretations are based on poorly phrased Boolean logic.
To me it was obvious that the legislature simply wanted to list the variety of things that were possible as part of a marijuana business and didn't need to require it into a single vertical integrated business. They had no idea the implication of requiring a vertical business. Which in turn sets up tremendous barriers of entry so if anybody voted yes with that understanding they really didn't want it.
When they went from the constitutional amendment to implementing the law they converted an "or" to "shall". Which favors their rich buddies and disallows 99% of the competition.
So my question is why don't they just call the legislators in and quiz them on intent? We hear about the Supreme Court juggling original intent, and this is from a bunch of old dead people. They have the people who actually created the law, drag their ass in.
Another thing I just realized. The court system is a poorly designed language compiler. I know if I screw the Boolean logic in my code the logic of my program will screw up. But if I have a syntax error or something else that the compiler can figure out is wrong it will tell me. so when I code I have to design the logic first to get past the compiler and then actually do the job. If I have an obvious syntax error (which the vast majority of poorly phrased laws include) the compiler will find it.
We need a law compiler to catch this s*** early.
People who are creating laws are essentially designing the rules of our environment. But they have no idea if it actually will work in an environment until they are tested in the courts. And the courts are like compilers designed by different people. Different compilers produce different results and are in different ways. Different courts will do the same.
So this legal process is based on interpreting the word "or" as it is settled among a bunch of other words. And it is based on something as a programmer we can obviously see is a poorly worded set of words. It seems like all these interpretations are based on poorly phrased Boolean logic.
To me it was obvious that the legislature simply wanted to list the variety of things that were possible as part of a marijuana business and didn't need to require it into a single vertical integrated business. They had no idea the implication of requiring a vertical business. Which in turn sets up tremendous barriers of entry so if anybody voted yes with that understanding they really didn't want it.
When they went from the constitutional amendment to implementing the law they converted an "or" to "shall". Which favors their rich buddies and disallows 99% of the competition.
So my question is why don't they just call the legislators in and quiz them on intent? We hear about the Supreme Court juggling original intent, and this is from a bunch of old dead people. They have the people who actually created the law, drag their ass in.
Another thing I just realized. The court system is a poorly designed language compiler. I know if I screw the Boolean logic in my code the logic of my program will screw up. But if I have a syntax error or something else that the compiler can figure out is wrong it will tell me. so when I code I have to design the logic first to get past the compiler and then actually do the job. If I have an obvious syntax error (which the vast majority of poorly phrased laws include) the compiler will find it.
We need a law compiler to catch this s*** early.
People who are creating laws are essentially designing the rules of our environment. But they have no idea if it actually will work in an environment until they are tested in the courts. And the courts are like compilers designed by different people. Different compilers produce different results and are in different ways. Different courts will do the same.
