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 Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Bolshevik 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: February 2627
Description[?]:
| 1 |
Proposals
Article 1
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, but is illegal in government-owned buildings.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:10:43, August 25, 2008 CET | From | Dranland First Party (CC) | To | Debating the Smoking Bill |
| Message | Again, the NBP needlessly strips local govenments of their right to self-determination, strengthening central government control. We see no reason why this should be dealt with at a federal level rather than a local level. |
| Date | 06:46:43, August 25, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the Smoking Bill |
| Message | Because the NBP feels this bill allows for a case of "super-localization", right down to an individual and his property, instead of letting the majority of your neighbors have carte-blanche over everything from where you can smoke to who you can love. |
| Date | 12:55:03, August 25, 2008 CET | From | Dranland First Party (CC) | To | Debating the Smoking Bill |
| Message | We understand the NBP's concerns, but we would argue that prioritizing the importance of the individual over the importance of community, family, and locality will often be at the expense of many facets of a civilized society. If local communities and families are overwhelmingly opposed to smoking or homosexuality in their societies, for reasons of culture, morality, health, or tradition, why should their will be completely disregarded by a unifying, centralized policy - a policy which may only represent a small selection of individuals in any given community? We shouldn't favour smokers over non-smokers. We shouldn't favour homosexuals over heterosexuals. This is essentially social engineering. We should let local governments decide on policies in these areas that best represent their respective communities. This local sentiment is completely lost in central, uniform policies such as the one proposed by this legislation. |
| Date | 17:22:15, August 25, 2008 CET | From | National Bolshevik Party | To | Debating the Smoking Bill |
| Message | We find the appeals to "reasons of culture, morality, health, or tradition" essentially circular in that these appeals are only legitimate, in the Reform Party's eyes, if they constitute a majority bloc in a community. The other side of the issue is homosexuals and drug users don't require that Christians become gay or smoke everyday when they live in 'their' regions, they live let live -- something these traditional moralities cannot cope with because they need the state to act as personal vanguard against their dying creeds. The NBP strives to give communities the power to act out their specific varying cultures and beliefs freely, regardless of how many they constitute as a percentage of population. Traditionalists are allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, different races, shun all types of drugs, etc. within their own private property -- just not enforcing them on others using the state as their petit-dictator to pummel their social views on others. What will this legislation do in communities with majorities vehemently against smoking, even in one's private property? Maybe some specialty restaurants will spring up that allow smoking. and perhaps some apartment complexes will allow their tenants to smoke in them. Private enterprise will cater to these minorities while obviously keeping the vast majority of their services geared toward the average consumer i.e. the majority of the population. This is the most direct democracy imaginable. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 157 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 108 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not accept Cultural Protocol updates which introduce, on a significant scale, cultures which are likely to be insufficiently accessible to players. In particular, for all significant cultures in Particracy, it should be easy for players to access and use online resources to assist with language translation and the generation of character names. Moderation reserves the right to amend Cultural Protocols which are deemed to have introduced significant cultures that are not sufficiently accessible and which are not being actively role-played with. |
| Random quote: "The streets are safe in Philadelphia, it's only the people who make them unsafe." - Frank Rizzo |