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: Health Reforms
Details
Submitted by[?]: Anarcho-Atheist League
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: February 2582
Description[?]:
| Changes to the Health System of the Federal Republic. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the legality of abortions
Old value:: All abortions are illegal.
Current: Abortion is allowed during the first and second trimesters.
Proposed: Abortion is allowed during the entire course of the pregnancy.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking regulations are to be determined by local governments.
Current: Smoking is legal outdoors and in private homes and clubs, but illegal indoors in all places of employment.
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 | 03:54:10, May 25, 2008 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Health Reforms |
| Message | We strongly support Article One, however, we do not support Article Two. We believe it is the local government's jurisdiction to settle issues regarding where and when the populous can smoke. A federal law for this category is too widespread and may conflict with local citizens' wishes. FIP Ranking Senator Richard Lydon |
| Date | 04:04:19, May 25, 2008 CET | From | Anarcho-Atheist League | To | Debating the Health Reforms |
| Message | Indeed. But regarding article two, the local government may rule to allow smoking everywhere, with little to no regulations. Smoking not only harms the user, but harms others around the user. A person who chooses not to smoke should not be harmed because another does. The proposed will potentially make everybody happy. Those who do not wish to smoke or be harmed by another person's want to smoke can choose to go to a place that does not allow smoking, and if a person wants to smoke, they can go to a place that does allow smoking. |
| Date | 04:45:18, May 25, 2008 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Health Reforms |
| Message | I understand the point that a local government may potentially rule to allow smoking legal in all places. However, that would be the most democratic initiative possible because in most cases it allows citizens to vote on a city/statewide ballot that would ban or allow smoking in select vicinities. If the majority of the populous rules in a particular way, it makes sense to allow them that choice. In a government based on the majority, that still holds immense respect for the minority, law should rule off of their choosing. Even if it were not an issue on a voting ballot, citizens that are displeased with a ruling government's choice to legislate in a particular direction on smoking legalities will have the opportunity to express themselves by voting out an administration that did something of that dealing. The proposed law is faulty in several manners. While non-smoking sections do assist in allowing a separate vicinity for non-smokers, they will ultimately suffer from second hand smoke which can travel to their determined area. Secondly, this federal law is seemingly unfair to the local governments in another fashion. In the Federal Republic, we attempt to try and allow local governments to have a sense of jurisdiction over their constituents. With this law, the local authorities and populous are stripped of their right to legislate on this issue. This proposed law does not allow the local government to craft smoking laws in regard to environmental issues such as littering, which many smokers simply discard of their used cigarette on the pavement or elsewhere. The argument made proposed that a local government's decision may harm others who are not practicing the habit. However, that is an argument that may be applicable to many situations. Consumption of alcohol places its users at risk of becoming intoxicated, which may cause them to perform dangerous actions around their peers. It may also harm our economic situation by causing a lack of systematic control and productivity. This is the same for drugs that may seriously hurt an individual and cause them to weaken other members of society by causing peers to become addicted as well. It costs our tax dollars to treat their medical problems. It may be used in the case that allowing an abortion is harming the fetus within the mother and that is not the civil right of the woman to do such a thing. In the end though, there remains but one similar trait connecting these situations: they are all rights the citizens have. They are things the government may not limit, unless fellow citizens make the motion to do so. It can be argued that these liberties are all harmful in some form or way, regardless of it being physical, mental, or emotional, but it all sorts out to one common issue of rights procured by Solentians. Ultimately, I see this issue as something that cannot be determined by a federal entity and must play into the hands of a local municipality of some sort. We cannot allow the federal government to expand in every issue, and this remains a well-established example of why. FIP Ranking Senator Richard Lydon |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 121 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 248 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 56 |
| Random fact: Terra, the fictional world in which Particracy is set, consists of 8 continents: Artania, Dovani, Keris, Makon, Majatra, Seleya, Temania and Vascania. |
| Random quote: "Sometimes democracy must be bathed in blood." - Augusto Pinochet |