In State v. Clowes, 310 Ore. 686, 801 P.2d 789 (1990), the Supreme Court articulated the analysis necessary to determine whether a choice-of-evils defense is available to a defendant. Under that analysis, we must first determine "if allowing the defense would be 'inconsistent with some other provision of law.'" If so, "it may not be asserted." Id. at 696. Although the phrase "inconsistent with some other provision of law" is not defined in ORS 161.200, the court in Clowes explained that that language means "'that the legislature's decision prevails if and when it makes specific value choices,' and that '"competing values which have been foreclosed by deliberate legislative choice are excluded from the general defense of justification."" Id. at 698 (quoting City of St. Louis v. Klocker, 637 S.W.2d 174, 177 (Mo App 1982)).