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: Freedom for Science Act #1
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei
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: July 2487
Description[?]:
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The use of animals in cosmetics research.
Old value:: Animals may not be used for testing cosmetics products.
Current: Animals may not be used for testing cosmetics products.
Proposed: The use of animals to test cosmetic products is unregulated.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:36:03, November 15, 2007 CET | From | Permissive Social Union | To | Debating the Freedom for Science Act #1 |
| Message | The LFF are testing animals in secret. We stick dynamite in them, to see if the blood spatter pattern is worthy of being marketed as an express makeup kit. Results have been disappointing so far, but we will keep trying. |
| Date | 15:29:01, November 15, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom for Science Act #1 |
| Message | What possible benefit is being obtained from testing cosmetics on animals? Their responses are little like ours, so they are basically only any use for testing fatal toxicity on... like anyone is going to poison themselves with lipstick. |
| Date | 17:14:56, November 15, 2007 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom for Science Act #1 |
| Message | If there is no benefit, there is no need to make it illegal as there will be no testing being done. |
| Date | 20:08:40, November 15, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom for Science Act #1 |
| Message | OOC: Why? It hasn't happened in real life, why should it be reflected here? |
| Date | 20:51:14, November 15, 2007 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom for Science Act #1 |
| Message | Companies do not spend money to do unnecessary things and still stay profitable. If there were no benefit to animal testing, there would be companies which would market a product without this step and thereby be enabled to charge less, taking market share. Since that has not happened, there must be some benefit to animal testing. |
| Date | 21:24:18, November 15, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom for Science Act #1 |
| Message | OOC: You're kidding, right? Maybe it's an English thing... there's a whole chain of stores founded on EXACTLY that principle. There is little advantage in animal testing for medicine OR cosmetics. The fact that it is still done in both arenas is a sop to powerful lobbies, the supposed 'assurance' that you can market in a 'safe' product (which is an illusion, as pointed out) and sheer momentum. It's true in real-life that animal testing is a holdover from a barbaric age, and has little to no value. There's even less reason to perpetuate it in a virtual environment that we control. |
| Date | 22:06:10, November 15, 2007 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Freedom for Science Act #1 |
| Message | OCC - really? What is it called? I am not a big cosmetics buyer, but in my limited experience those products marketed as not tested on animals are more expensive than those not so marketed. It would seem to me that eliminating an unnecessary step should result in a cheaper product and, as I said, more market share. |
| Date | 22:47:05, November 15, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Freedom for Science Act #1 |
| Message | Animal testing IS beneficial to American products and safety standards b/c the testing is ONLY done to other mammals like CHIPANZEES and monkeys that share 99.99% of our (human) DNA!!! |
| Date | 23:19:38, November 15, 2007 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Freedom for Science Act #1 |
| Message | OOC: Lush (http://www.lush.com.au/catalog/info.php?page=webelieve) is a big chain that doesn't animal test, the Body Shop (http://www.thebodyshop.com/bodyshop/company/index.jsp?cm_re=default-_-Footer-_-About_Us) also follows that ethos. |
| Date | 10:31:05, November 16, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Freedom for Science Act #1 |
| Message | CORRECTION: The CWFP made a faux pas; we mean Animal testing IS beneficial to LIKATONIAN products; we were drunk and a "dream" of some land call 'america'(haha)!!! |
| Date | 08:55:35, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom for Science Act #1 |
| Message | OOC: Thanks to Immeressence, Inc. My main though was about Body Shop, mainly because the founder died earlier this year, I think. The chain was founded pretty much on the premise that animal testing is cruel, unnecessary and irrelevent. They also have a strong ecological platform... they have been solidly commited to things like recycling their packaging for decades. IC: One of the favoured testbed critters is the rat. Often used as a test animal for toxicity. You can use rats for toxicity testing, because they aren't cute and cuddly, and people don't care if they die in swathes. So - what's the problem? Rats can't vomit. Basing human toxicity results on rat toxicity results is worse than misleading, it's actively flawed as a research model - there is no parallel in the models. |
| Date | 12:12:22, November 17, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Workers' Party and CTUL List | To | Debating the Freedom for Science Act #1 |
| Message | We point out to the CWFP that we also share 50% of our DNA with a banana. That is not to say that testing any product on a banana will produce vaguely related results to its results on a human being. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 11 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 66 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 23 |
| Random fact: Periodically, it is a good idea to go through your nation's Treaties and arrange to withdraw from any that are unwanted. |
| Random quote: "The key to understanding the American system is to imagine that you have the power to make nearly any law you want, but your worst enemy will be the one to enforce it." - Rick Cook |