We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Smoking Prohibitions Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Exiled Centrist Coalition
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2356
Description[?]:
| Due to the potential dangers of second-hand smoke, we believe that locations citizens are allowed to smoke should be limited more than they currently are. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, but is illegal in government-owned buildings.
Current: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner. However, service/employer property owners that allow smoking must provide a separate non-smoking section.
Proposed: Smoking is legal outdoors and in private homes and clubs, but illegal indoors in places of employment, with the exception of places that primarily serve liquor.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:25:59, February 04, 2007 CET | From | Federalists Party | To | Debating the Smoking Prohibitions Bill |
| Message | We believe that this should be up to the property owner. If the company you work for allows smoking indoors, then change employment (or if your a customer, shop elsewhere). The market will pretty much ensure a smoke free area in places of employment without the iron fist of government enforcement. |
| Date | 15:08:38, February 04, 2007 CET | From | Royal Party | To | Debating the Smoking Prohibitions Bill |
| Message | The best way I think is to band smoking everywhere except for in marked areas no mater if it is a club, office or what place. |
| Date | 21:34:07, February 04, 2007 CET | From | Exiled Centrist Coalition | To | Debating the Smoking Prohibitions Bill |
| Message | We do not believe that whether a person smokes or not should be a major deciding factor in their choice of employment. If someone is physically irritated by cigarette smoke, then that should not prevent them from taking the job that will ensure their family has enough money to live on. Likewise, someone dependent on smoking should not be prevented from taking the same job if there is not a single place at their occupation for them get their fix. Though we consider smoking to be a detrimental habit, we would be willing to continue allowing its legality everywhere as long as businesses that allow smoking provide seperate non-smoking areas too. |
| Date | 17:04:21, February 05, 2007 CET | From | Social Conservative Party | To | Debating the Smoking Prohibitions Bill |
| Message | We are leaning towards approval. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 71 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 258 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 171 |
| Random fact: Before choosing a nation, you may wish to research it first. For more information on the cultural backgrounds of the nations, please see the Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6365 |
| Random quote: "Politics is the art of the possible." - Otto von Bismarck |