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: Cannabis ban act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Imperialist Party
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: March 2373
Description[?]:
| Presently marijuana is legal for medicinal use - I believe this is problematic. Firstly, there are many alternatives to marijuana for use as sedatives. Secondly, considering that this nation has banned tobacco products, it would surely be consistent for us to ban cannabis, a substance even more damaging to the public health. Allowing the medicinal use of cannabis only increases the ability for it to be grown and trafficked illegally. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.
Old value:: Cannabis is legal as a sedative for patients in pain.
Current: Cannabis is legal as a sedative for patients in pain.
Proposed: The medicinal use of cannabis is illegal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:32:23, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Cannabis ban act |
| Message | No. People shouldn't be able to pay for different, and possibly better care. Healthcare, equal healthcare, is a right. |
| Date | 20:50:33, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Cannabis ban act |
| Message | I don't think that the government has to provide health care to its people. I government should be small and one step in when asked to. |
| Date | 04:58:14, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Cannabis ban act |
| Message | The people have repeatedly elected socialists, so one can assume that the people have actually asked the government to step in in this instance. We defend the Commonwealth's right, therefore, to maintain the sole dominion over the health industry. |
| Date | 11:53:57, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Conservative Alliance | To | Debating the Cannabis ban act |
| Message | Surely 'the people' have the right to change their minds? |
| Date | 00:31:38, March 12, 2007 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Cannabis ban act |
| Message | Of course they do. They just haven't yet, that's all. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 399 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 202 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." - Ralph Nader |