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: Cruelty Limitation Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Socialist Movement
Status[?]: passed
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: April 2084
Description[?]:
| This is a progression from the scandellous Bill condoning testing on animals for cosmetics use. We realise it will be hard to swing favouring parties to go for an out and out ban. However, keeping the industry unregulated is severely dangerous. If such atrocious behaviour is to be condoned, at least we can make the practice safer and more humane. Therefore the USM are calling for regulaions on animal cosmetic testing. What we need is strict regulation to ensure that there is no animal expoitation. It isn't unregulated for medicinal use, so it would be hypocritical for this to be different for cosmetics. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The use of animals in cosmetics research.
Old value:: The use of animals to test cosmetic products is unregulated.
Current: The use of animals to test cosmetic products is unregulated.
Proposed: The use of animals to test cosmetic products is regulated.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:57:53, July 21, 2005 CET | From |   Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | Sorry, but no. |
| Date | 16:58:39, July 21, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | Please tell me why? Is it just because of another opinion poll? You CANNOT have an industry or practice like this which is unregulated. It's absolutely shocking and it is exploitation. |
| Date | 17:03:41, July 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | No becuse cosmetics are not as cruel as medical research. The animals are well cared for and treated humanely. We just can't have a flood of untested cosmetics being used by humans without knowing what the effects are. Why don't you propose a bill that tests on humans instead of animals? |
| Date | 17:10:45, July 21, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | so in the real world when Head & Shoulders pours chemichals into rabbits eyes, and monkeys are pumped full of chemicals for weed killer, that is not as cruel as medical research? Rubbish - where's your proof, because mine is right there. Being unregulated, how do we know they are well cared for and treated humanely? We can have a flood of untested cosmetics if organic materials are used, and rational experiments are used instead of unnecessary cruel practices. What you proposed is nothing short of scandellous, and a majority USM government in the future will make sure these tests are outlawed. |
| Date | 17:11:02, July 21, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | Our newspaper, Unite!, also has an interesting article on this Bill. |
| Date | 17:31:04, July 21, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | We'll support this - there needs to be regulations to reduce the number of animals used and to keep them in good conditions. @LPU- This does not stop testing it just regulates it. |
| Date | 17:34:22, July 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | These aren't lunatics performing strange tests on these animals. There are restrictions to what they can do. Please read the description. This bill does no more harm ro animals then a regulated law. The testing is the same. |
| Date | 17:43:53, July 21, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | So why vote against? |
| Date | 17:45:22, July 21, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | We will support this. @L-PU - The regulations that were put in place in the previous bill were stated in the description, agreed. However, the proposal did not specify that these regulations would be enacted, as such any experimentation for cosmetic purposes could, in theory at least, be carried out by cosmetic researchers on animals. All this bill actually does is reafirm those regulations that you stipulated and places a law forcing said companies to abide by it. |
| Date | 17:53:28, July 21, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | "These aren't lunatics performing strange tests on these animals" How can you prove this without regulation? I hate to use real world references but secret videos from Huntington Life Sciences showed intolerable amounts of cruelty taking place. After that measures in the UK were restricted I believe. |
| Date | 18:34:58, July 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | I see your points and they make sense, but as you said all this does is reafirm the restrictions that are in place from the previous bill. So I can ask the same question, why vote for it? |
| Date | 18:43:15, July 21, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | I am voting for this over an outright ban because I know a Bill outlwaing the practice would probably be voted down. We can build on this and eventually restrict it. |
| Date | 18:44:01, July 21, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | There are no restrictions imposed if the proposal is said to be 'unregulated'. |
| Date | 18:48:52, July 21, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | This reafirms the restrictions and places them into a binding law, which the previous bill did not. |
| Date | 20:40:03, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | We will support this as a step to a complete ban on animal cosmetic testing, which we hope to develop with the USM and other parties in future. |
| Date | 21:58:21, July 24, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Cruelty Limitation Act |
| Message | SDLP: We will certainly unite with you om that one. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 239 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 161 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Selucia is Particracy's modern take on Ancient Rome, located on the continent of Majatra. |
| Random quote: "This country has far more problems than it deserves and far more solutions than it applies." - Ralph Nader |