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: Bill for the Protection of Non-Smokers
Details
Submitted by[?]: War is Peace 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: January 2452
Description[?]:
| Second hand smoke is both dangerous and disgusting and those who do not wish to be exposed to it should not be forced to. |
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 regulations are to be determined by local governments.
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 | 17:28:24, September 06, 2007 CET | From |  Imperial Cildanian Egoists | To | Debating the Bill for the Protection of Non-Smokers |
| Message | Government has no right to dictate that businesses "must" provide non-smoking areas. If citizens wish non-smoking areas, they can make it clear to service providers that they will pay extra for such a perk, and if enough care to do so, then such providers will decide it is economically efficient to do so. If people care so little for their health that they are not willing to choose to pay, then they do not deserve the non-smoking section. As to employers, employees can negotiate the addition of non-smoking areas as part of their compensation package. |
| Date | 19:35:37, September 06, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Cildanian Egoists | To | Debating the Bill for the Protection of Non-Smokers |
| Message | Interesting that those who claim to be for "the people" are so willing to render smokers second-class citizens. You wish smoking establishments to be required to have non-smoking areas, but make no provision for non-smoking establishments to be required to have smoking areas. Such a shining testament to equality...... |
| Date | 21:07:32, September 06, 2007 CET | From | War is Peace Party | To | Debating the Bill for the Protection of Non-Smokers |
| Message | You want to eliminate the union, so tell me exactly how an employee can negotiate for non smoking areas? Surely even the "strongest" and best working employee singly isn't worth it to a company to change the whole layout of their property. Isn't it only through collective bargaining that something like that could work? |
| Date | 21:08:40, September 06, 2007 CET | From | War is Peace Party | To | Debating the Bill for the Protection of Non-Smokers |
| Message | Government does have a rate to dictate that businesses must provide non-smoking areas if it is to protect the very lives of our citizens. |
| Date | 21:45:43, September 06, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Cildanian Egoists | To | Debating the Bill for the Protection of Non-Smokers |
| Message | Collective bargaining typically consists of some organizational representative claiming to represent the will of the individual workers. Let the individual workers speak for themselves, if enough indicate singly that non-smoking areas are of greater performance than other perks they seek, then the employer will take that into account. The "Collective" should not be allowed to claim it represents the opinions of its constituent members, when at "best" it represents a majority of them. 10 individuals singly coming forward with a concern is far more valid than some lobbyist coming forward claiming to represent 10 individuals. As to protecting the lives of the citizens, I already gave an example of how the citizens could take that issue into their own hands. If they have chosen not to, then they have essentially said they do not consider it a priority. Why should government protect people from those things which they have already chosen not to be protected from? |
| Date | 23:44:18, September 06, 2007 CET | From | Marxist-Leninist Happiness Front | To | Debating the Bill for the Protection of Non-Smokers |
| Message | We'd be in favor of banning smoking which provides little utility to workers except to destroy their healthy but this is certainly a good first step. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 182 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 176 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Doxxing", or the publishing of personally identifiable information about another player without permission, is forbidden. |
| Random quote: "A theory that seems to explain everything is just as good at explaining nothing"- Christopher Hitchens |