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: Smoking Regulation Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rutanian Democratic Forum
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: November 2556
Description[?]:
| A bill to regulate smoking policy. |
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 outdoors and in private homes and clubs, but illegal indoors in all places of employment.
Proposed: Smoking regulations are to be determined by local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:31:31, April 01, 2008 CET | From | Rutanian Democratic Forum | To | Debating the Smoking Regulation Act |
| Message | We believe that this is a matter which can be left to local governments. RDF, of course, plans to make an initiative in the province parliaments to introduce heavier regulations to smoking, because we believe it's an important public health issue. |
| Date | 22:00:53, April 01, 2008 CET | From | Commonwealth Party | To | Debating the Smoking Regulation Act |
| Message | Wouldn't support. If the person who owns the property doesn't want smoking then thats what they can do. There are other health issues to worry about, or just other issues in general like having the right to strike with reason without getting fired and a minimum wage...hell, these people should find some way to relieve their stress and if smoking is one, then go right ahead...do it anywhere you wanna. |
| Date | 23:39:19, April 01, 2008 CET | From | Rutanian Democratic Forum | To | Debating the Smoking Regulation Act |
| Message | We do not oppose smoking, everyone has a right to kill him self :)) But smokers often tend to endanger the health of non- smokers. And the solution is not just "let the non- smokers go there where's no smokers" . That's hypocritical. Government and public buildings are one notable example. If there's just one (for example) city hall in the city (and normally there is), then non-smokers cannot just "go to another city hall". It's for protection of health. And concerning the issue of personal liberty, "Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently". So, if non- smokers want not to smoke, then smokers cannot just endanger their health by smoking in the same areas (public areas). Smokers have a right to smoke and a right to do with their body and life what they want, risk their health if they want, but they cannot risk other people's health who don't think the same as they do. |
| Date | 08:22:37, April 02, 2008 CET | From | Socialist Green Party | To | Debating the Smoking Regulation Act |
| Message | I disagree with the fact that the local governments should decide as it may be confusing to those smokers who cross local government boundries unless regulation is in a place that can be easily signposted like public buildings therefore the local governments should have juristiction with in set of guidelines. |
| Date | 10:21:09, April 02, 2008 CET | From | Federal Rutanian Libertarian Union | To | Debating the Smoking Regulation Act |
| Message | We will not support this. |
| Date | 18:51:23, April 02, 2008 CET | From | Rutanian Democratic Forum | To | Debating the Smoking Regulation Act |
| Message | @DSGP: oh, poor smokers who cross the local boundaries...We feel just pity for them. It's so sad...:( |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 269 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 330 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: You can view who's online (i.e. been active the last 10 minutes) at the bottom of the menu (either at the top or the side). |
| Random quote: "The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved." - Confucius |