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 (again)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Deadly Buzz 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: June 2136
Description[?]:
| Lets try again. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, but is illegal in government-owned buildings.
Current: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, but is illegal in government-owned buildings.
Proposed: Smoking is legal outdoors and in private homes and clubs, but illegal indoors in places of employment, with the exception of places that primarily serve liquor.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:49:20, November 04, 2005 CET | From |  Deadly Buzz Party | To | Debating the Smoking (again) |
| Message | Why do some parties continue to discriminate the non-smoker? Why sould their rights be infinged because of someone else's habit? This proposal is a compromise to try give both parties what they want. Non smokers cant exactly leave their work because someone fancies a ciggarette, so why then, should a smoker force their habit on someone else? |
| Date | 12:01:02, November 04, 2005 CET | From | Restoration Party | To | Debating the Smoking (again) |
| Message | We vote yes, holding our noses...simply to thank an old friend. (cough) |
| Date | 12:43:10, November 04, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Valruzia | To | Debating the Smoking (again) |
| Message | The non smoker's rights are not being infringed on. We don't exactly know what rights you are actually referring to because these anti-smoking bills are forcing coercion against smokers. Non smokers have had no legislation pushed against them and they're free to leave or stay in the area. |
| Date | 18:27:05, November 04, 2005 CET | From | Deadly Buzz Party | To | Debating the Smoking (again) |
| Message | -The non smoker's rights are not being infringed on.- The right to work and be in a smoke free environment. Why must a non smoker suffer because of the ignorance and lack of consideration of a smoker. -Non smokers have had no legislation pushed against them and they're free to leave or stay in the area.- They shouldnt have to have legislation pushed against them. They're doing NOTHING. Why should I have to move because of someone else's disgusting habit? Why do you always brush past the rights of a non smoker and dismiss it with "if they dont like it the can move". The bottom line is they should not have to move. I dont bother someone else with my 'habits' so why should I be bothered by others. |
| Date | 18:28:33, November 04, 2005 CET | From | Deadly Buzz Party | To | Debating the Smoking (again) |
| Message | RP, Thank you for your valued support. |
| Date | 19:51:02, November 04, 2005 CET | From | Social-Liberty Party | To | Debating the Smoking (again) |
| Message | Possibly yes....just because people need to work for a living, and they shouldn't have to inhale smoke to do so...I'm kind of borderline on this though |
| Date | 21:09:30, November 04, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Valruzia | To | Debating the Smoking (again) |
| Message | There is no such right as the "right to work in a smoke free" environment - that's ridiculous, and are you working when you are at a place that serves liquor? Oh yes they can get piss drunk, but hey if they smoke it's evil, right? And another point, you are the one who is offended by the smoking, thus yes you should have to move because you're the one that has the problem with it. Should we ban anything that irks someone? What about drunks on the street? What about people talking about subjects that you don't like on the bus? What about the roar of a baseball game for someone nearby? If people don't like these things, then perhaps they should be banned too? Or, you can take it like a man live with it. |
| Date | 21:11:12, November 04, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Valruzia | To | Debating the Smoking (again) |
| Message | I misread the bill's stance on liquor I think, but nevertheless the argument still stands. And why is it okay to annoy someone outside with smoking but not inside? Are we not a capitalist nation? Why can't we let the PRIVATE companies decide what to do instead of enforcing crippling and petty regulations? |
| Date | 23:17:44, November 04, 2005 CET | From | Deadly Buzz Party | To | Debating the Smoking (again) |
| Message | Does noise get stuck in everybodies clothes? Does noise aggrevate asthma in people? Is noise bad for your health? No - There is no such right as the "right to work in a smoke free" environment - Is there no such thing as a safe working environment? Do people not deserve to go to work and leave without smelling your ashtray? Since when did smokers become superior citizens to non-smokers -And why is it okay to annoy someone outside with smoking but not inside?- There is a huge differance between someone smoking outside and inside. Yes? -Or, you can take it like a man live with it. Or maybe you can stop shoving your habit down peoples necks (literally!), stop being so lazy and live with it. |
| Date | 16:16:45, November 05, 2005 CET | From | Social-Liberty Party | To | Debating the Smoking (again) |
| Message | I'm saying yes and hears why....... If you work in a place that allowed smoking, you'll be inhaling smoke, screwing your blood pressure, raising heart attack rates, causing cancer. And you can't realistically avoid it. You are at work, and you may not be able to find another job. We don't want someone out there trying to support their family being forced to develop lung cancer in order to do it. |
| Date | 17:47:10, November 05, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal Democrats | To | Debating the Smoking (again) |
| Message | When in doubt, go with the minority :) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 126 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 75 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, it is the responsibility of players to ensure the candidate boxes on their Party Overview screens are filled in with appropriate names. If a player is allotted seats in a Cabinet bill and has not filled in names for the relevant candidate position, then the program will automatically fill in the positions with names which might not necessarily be appropriate for the Cultural Protocols. |
| Random quote: "Because democracy is not a spectator sport." - 2004 Democratic campaign slogan |