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 Regulations
Details
Submitted by[?]: Independent 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: November 2369
Description[?]:
| Changing smoking regulations so that people dont get angry at restraunts because of smokeing |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking regulations are to be determined by local governments.
Current: Smoking is prohibited.
Proposed: Smoking is only allowed in private homes and clubs.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:42:56, March 05, 2007 CET | From | United Democrats of Jakania | To | Debating the Smoking Regulations |
| Message | The bill that just changed this recently passed. The LDP had given a good example of why that passed. The example was that in Ohio, we just recently passed the law forbiding smoking in public places. The way we have it now is just fine |
| Date | 04:56:38, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Scientific Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Smoking Regulations |
| Message | If people get angry at restaurants because of smoking, then they will choose a different restaurant, one that does not permit smoking. No-smoking establishments will naturally attract non-smokers, and smoking establishments will naturally attract smokers, presumably eventually reaching a ratio roughly equal to that of smokers versus non-smokers. This bill would effectively ban one of the two kinds of establishment, disenfranchising a portion of the populace, not to mention getting restaurant owners angry at us. |
| Date | 18:10:52, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Smoking Regulations |
| Message | Smoking is a particularly difficult issue, but our party bases are stance on the following arguements: Primarily, we must accept that smoking is harmful to those around us. There is sadly no way out of this; if you smoke any object you will affect the health of those around you, and this is a fact. We therefore feel it is important that people are able to choose whether they are exposed to smoke or not. We do share the SLP's view that private establishments, such as restaurants, should have an option as to whether they allow smoking or not. But we do not neccesarily support the SLP's view that the market will ensure adequate choice by itself. We do support a smoking ban in public areas; privately owned establishments we would compromise to leave the choice to themselves, but would prefer if organisations catering to members of the public, such as restaurants, could make provisions for smokers/non-smokers. Private homes and clubs, naturally, the choice should belong to the owner. We support this bill as it is more definitive than the current law, but we do note it is not quite ideal. |
| Date | 21:03:33, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Moderate Republican Party | To | Debating the Smoking Regulations |
| Message | We would support this bill if it permitted smoking outdoors. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 97 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 383 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The use of proxy servers makes it impossible to detect multiing and is therefore forbidden. Players who access Particracy through a proxy will have their accounts inactivated. |
| Random quote: "Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous." - William Proxmire |