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: Revised Smoking Regulations
Details
Submitted by[?]: Peoples Movement for an Obedient Society
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: December 2440
Description[?]:
This party recognises peoples right to smoke tobacco and other substances as party of being free citizens. However, non smokers also have the right to avoid passive smoking. Where smokers have the right to increase the chances of developing the cancers associated with nicotine, tar and tobacco, non smokers should also feel like they have the right to avoid escalating these risks. We propose a revised smoking bill as follows: |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, and is legal in government-owned buildings.
Current: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, but is illegal in government-owned buildings.
Proposed: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner. However, service/employer property owners that allow smoking must provide a separate non-smoking section.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 22:17:37, August 06, 2007 CET | From | St. George's Xtreme Coalition Party | To | Debating the Revised Smoking Regulations |
Message | If people want to frequent a business where there's no smoking (or separated smoking/non-smoking sections), such businesses would have already been established, without government intervention in people's lives and livelihoods. |
Date | 22:53:42, August 06, 2007 CET | From | Peoples Movement for an Obedient Society | To | Debating the Revised Smoking Regulations |
Message | While what you say has some validity, i would have to argue that the reverse is true also. Smoking only places are just as easy to set up, the government here is not banning smoking, just trying to regulate it fairly to make sure no one type of person is being exposed to health dangers unwillingly If you permit me to add to this argument, this bill protects the workforce in such establishments as much as the patrons. The long term benefits in the reduction in cost of health care for passive smoking related diseases cannot be ignored. |
Date | 01:32:15, August 07, 2007 CET | From | Supporters of Science in Design (IP) | To | Debating the Revised Smoking Regulations |
Message | We feel that this will cost businesses too much money. |
Date | 01:48:16, August 07, 2007 CET | From | Peoples Movement for an Obedient Society | To | Debating the Revised Smoking Regulations |
Message | Short term gains may suffer, but evidence suggests that over time business profits will more than likely normalise. Several countries ave complained about the loss of income, but generally it returns in a short time frame. In addition the potential health savings years down the line make this, to some at least, an appealing venture. External studies for your perusal 'Although one of the most common sources of resistance to bans comes from businesses concerned that they will suffer financial losses due to lost customers, research seems to offer them some reassurances. A review published of 97 studies on the economic effects of smoking bans on the hospitality industry shows that all the best designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bars laws on sales or employment' |
Date | 17:58:29, August 08, 2007 CET | From | Peoples Movement for an Obedient Society | To | Debating the Revised Smoking Regulations |
Message | OOC To the Xtreme Coaliition Party: I would have thought a healthier safer public place would benefit the athletic qualities a lot of your party represents. Ah well :( ;) :P |
Date | 05:13:32, August 16, 2007 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Revised Smoking Regulations |
Message | Our concern is for the smaller cafes and establishments. There may not be room to have two separate sections and thus they will be forced to ban smoking. |
Date | 05:14:14, August 16, 2007 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Revised Smoking Regulations |
Message | Though we apparently supported it anyway... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes |
Total Seats: 169 | ||||
no |
Total Seats: 223 | ||||
abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Moderation reserves the discretion to declare RP laws invalid if the players supporting them are doing so in an excessively confrontational way. |
Random quote: "In politics, you have your word and your friends; go back on either and you're dead." - Morton C. Blackwell |