Then you find wood called "cellulose products" and the cycle starts again. It's impossible to limit creativity, and also why would a government want to pursue a ban as it impacts negatively woodworkers?
Actually it does. Consider "bribe" versus "campaign donor." "Execution" versus "murder". Many cases exist. But that is beside the point.
Laws have to be specific, and that is the issue. If you can perform a minimal treatment to the object under the law, then it can be transmuted under the law and the spirit of the regulation is sidestepped.
Reason, judgement, and consensus must be part of the process.
To ban the export of unprocessed domestic wood, is it preferable to pre-define and include every possible "process" or is it better to have judges who asses whether any given would-be export is "processed"?
Also, lets skip the argument of regulatory capture/neglect by just agreeing that government transparency/accessibility and voter enfranchisement are critically important to maintaining any reasonable consensus-based system.
I really want to agree with you; this is how law should work (and why "law is like software" analogies are so fundamentally wrong, software doesn't make judgement calls). The problem is that people are involved, which means some of the judges will show poor judgement, including possibly okay'ing something if their friends do it but not if other do, or other less obviously unfair things.
I don't see a solution; the obvious choice of trying to make the law more specific and thus less reliant on judgement gets us back to the idea you are opposing.
The points stand. Campaign donations can have undocumented quid pro quos. Legality is what we agree it is, so if some consider an execution unlawful then it is murder. Consider how many innocents given death penalty and exonerated earlier (for a simple case, Salem witch trials).
