I don’t expect it to be exact or like code, but at the very least I expect it to be predictable and the “spirit of the law” fails that test often. I still reme

I don’t expect it to be exact or like code, but at the very least I expect it to be predictable and the “spirit of the law” fails that test often. I still remember GDPR coming out and I read til my head hurt, decided the lawyers would have to figure it out. Then legal shows up and says they don’t really know either, we’re going to do X and hope someone else gets sued first so they can see what the court thinks the spirit of the law is. Similar issues happened with opiates. They get overprescribed, DEA cracks down and says they’ll publish prescribing guidelines, then never does so everyone is left running on vague “as much as is necessary and justifiable” type verbiage. Can you keep raising levels to keep pace with a rising tolerance? Does that only apply to terminal patients where addiction is less of a worry? What’s the bar for them to be justifiable? Discomfort, pain, debilitating pain? Both cases end in people who are genuinely trying to comply with the law being unsure of what compliance even is. And the courts generally won’t take a hypothetical “is it a crime or not under this law if I did X?”. You have to just do it and accept it for the Schrodingers Cat it is. It’s both illegal and legal until the judiciary opens the box and decides it was one or the other for sure.