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: Safe Health Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Democratic Party
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: October 2369
Description[?]:
| Currently, law states that the government stays out of alcohol measures. This is detrimental to the nation for several reasons. First off, right now the government is not active in alcohol. While that is not preferable by itself, it is even worse that this means the government won't impose laws that makes it illegal for children to consume alcohol. Letting children consume these substances is a terrible thing and crude helth for such a young human. Secondly, this measure to amend the existing law would make it so only adults may consume alcoholic substances. Third, this measure amends the law making sure that alcohol is sold at licensed vendors. If alcohol is sold anywhere and in any form, there is no need for health safety laws. If you've ever heard of Moonshine and White Lightning, you will agree. Moonshine and White Lightning are illegally produced (In the U.S.) alcoholic substances that are made from lighter fluid, to gasoline, to anything you can imagine. It's cheap and is unlicensed (popular for its low price in the Prohibition Era, but unpopular for its reputation to kill). Licensed vendors makes the alcohol certified and safe. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards alcoholic beverages.
Old value:: Alcoholic beverage regulations are not imposed by the government.
Current: Alcoholic beverages may be purchased only from licensed sales outlets, and can only be available to adults.
Proposed: Alcoholic beverages may be purchased only from licensed sales outlets, and can only be available to adults.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:53:59, March 05, 2007 CET | From |  Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Safe Health Act |
| Message | Why would the J.C.P. vote against this bill??? |
| Date | 00:56:01, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Independent party | To | Debating the Safe Health Act |
| Message | Do you want 7 year olds with liver cancer thanks to alcohol? |
| Date | 02:06:41, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Safe Health Act |
| Message | We oppose this as we believe alcohol, as with all drugs, involves a personal decision from the person who desires to use them. The individual should be able to weigh up the costs of taking such substances themselves, but the state should not dictate to them it is wrong off the bat. It would be good for the health of the nation, we freely acknowledge this, but it would come at a price of wresting a choice from our citizens and placing it with the state. With regards to minors, we do not believe a blanket-illegalisation is appropriate, but we would support a bill that demands parental consent before a minor does so; this would at least leave with the parents the choice to make the decision themselves as to whether their child can responsably take alcohol. We believe the state can play a role in spreading information about the dangers and downsides of drug and alcohol usage, and we believe we should do so (such as the anti-smoking and anti-drink-driving TV campaigns the british government produces); but ultimately we should be leaving our citizens informed with the final choice being theirs. |
| Date | 02:45:17, March 05, 2007 CET | From | United Democrats of Jakania | To | Debating the Safe Health Act |
| Message | Yes but when the LDP states that some vendors put harmful substances in, the consumer most likely does not know about these, so they are unknowingly putting harmful substances into there body |
| Date | 04:51:04, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Scientific Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Safe Health Act |
| Message | Alcohol is unhealthy to begin with (though apparently those of us who abstain completely have shorter lifespans than people who drink in moderation), why should we limit what goes into it on the basis of health/lethality concerns? If somebody wants to margo themselves up, why should we say that alcohol is fine but alcohol with something in it isn't? Extra-harmful substances will soon gain a reputation for being so, and reputable substances will tend to announce that they are comparatively safe in an attempt to wring a few more cents out of the buyer. If there are people out there who want to get extra-boxcarred, why should we prevent them from doing so? If there are people who don't care about what's in it, they just want booze as cheap as possible, why should we increase the price by regulating it? As for vending alcohol to children, JLS is right on the money with that bit. |
| Date | 18:04:59, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Safe Health Act |
| Message | If anyone sells anything to anyone without properly disclosing what is being sold, such is the case with the example the LDP and UDA quote, we would hope they would have the full backing of the law in prosecuting the vendor. But we do not believe such things are limited soley to the sale of alcohol, but to the sale of everything. Our current food and product labelling laws, which we support in full, allow the most direct manner of protection of our populace, but we would hope that even without this the law provides protection against vendors that attempt to mislead or "omit" important information from our citizens. We do respect the positions of the opposing parties, however. We do believe that our nation would be healthier and happier were our people to drink alcohol less or not at all. But if such a time is ever to come it should come from our citizens deciding to do this themselves. |
| Date | 00:28:53, March 06, 2007 CET | From | United Democrats of Jakania | To | Debating the Safe Health Act |
| Message | With the part about the alchohol to children, the JLS is most certainly not "right on the money". The childrens parents could tell the kids no alchohol, but since it is llegal to go and buy the alcholoic substance, they can still get it.... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 139 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 341 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When your party holds the foreign affairs department, you can create new treaties. However, before writing anything new, it is a good idea to search for existing treaties which already accomplish what you desire. |
| Random quote: "Sometimes democracy must be bathed in blood." - Augusto Pinochet |