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: anti smoking bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: derrfe 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 2385
Description[?]:
| we,the derrfe party feel that smoking will cause death, which will cause less money for services |
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 regulations are to be determined by local governments.
Proposed: Smoking is prohibited.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:43:26, April 03, 2007 CET | From |  derrfe Party | To | Debating the anti smoking bill |
| Message | these are the measures to stop smoking and early death |
| Date | 18:56:02, April 03, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the anti smoking bill |
| Message | We support article 1, although we would rather article 2 be "There are certain restrictions on the sale of tobacco and only adults may purchase tobacco." purely as thus allows people to harm themselves (e.g. chewing tobacco) but stops the harm caused by passive smoking. |
| Date | 11:36:37, April 05, 2007 CET | From | Sebastian Flyte Party | To | Debating the anti smoking bill |
| Message | This Bill makes no sense whatsover. The First Article sets out to prohibit smoking. In other words, ban smoking completely and the Second Article prohibits the purchase of any tobacco products. The said intention of the derrfe Party is to prohibit smoking because "smoking will cause death, which will cause less money for services". Have the idiotic leadership, of this rather idiotic party, stopped to think of the income drop this Bill, if passed, will result in? No! There is no logical explanation, in fact there is no explanation at all, as to where the government will get the extra income lost by prohibiting smoking. |
| Date | 14:17:37, April 05, 2007 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the anti smoking bill |
| Message | "There is no logical explanation, in fact there is no explanation at all, as to where the government will get the extra income lost by prohibiting smoking." - No extra money is required, but with the banning of smoking comes a reduction in smoking related illnesses thusly reduced expenditure in those areas by the health service and so allowing for an increased expenditure in other areas. It is, in fact, logical. We, however, do not support for that reason, rather we support because smoking does harm to both the person who is smoking and those around them. In this way they are directly causing harm to those who, in any other circumstances, would not have come under such harm and so smoking constitutes an attack. Because of this we support banning smoking, however as we have pointed out, we have no problems with the sale of tobacco products per se. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 107 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 252 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 41 |
| Random fact: It is the collective responsibility of the players in a nation to ensure all currently binding RP laws are clearly outlined in an OOC reference bill in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation page. Confusion should not be created by displaying only some of the current RP laws or displaying RP laws which are no longer current. |
| Random quote: "Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening." - Ann Coulter |