Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: March 5461
Next month in: 02:33:23
Server time: 01:26:36, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): albaniansunited | hexaus18 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Personal Consumption Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM)

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: November 2939

Description[?]:

This Act deregulates personal consumption.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date15:41:02, May 13, 2010 CET
From Hutorian Conservative Party
ToDebating the Personal Consumption Act
MessagePeter McCullum MP, HNP Leader,

Mr Speaker, this Act could see the people of our nation descending into drug addicts with the support of the government. An unethical act by the CLP member, who probably wants to make drug use legal so they can cut the crime rates because drug offences will no longer be accounted for.

Date16:44:08, May 13, 2010 CET
From Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM)
ToDebating the Personal Consumption Act
MessageMr Speaker, more blinkered comments from the Leader of the Opposition. We thought he would offer a new start, where such unfounded accusations would become a thing of the past? Mr Speaker, the law already allows people to take drugs, so long as they grow naturally. So this is hardly going to suddenly lead to a vast increase in drug addicts! Mr Speaker, all it will do is make any other sort of drug legal. Mr Speaker, the HNP should respect that we come from two very different traditions. They believe in maximum control, we believe in maximum freedom. So long as it only affects oneself, we believe that the government should not interfere in the actions of individuals. Government should only intervene when another individual is harmed. And then you act on the action, not the cause of the action. Mr Speaker, the individual should have sovereignty and autonomy over his own body, and government should not stop an individual from taking a substance of his choice.

Date17:00:16, May 13, 2010 CET
From Hutorian Conservative Party
ToDebating the Personal Consumption Act
MessagePeter McCullum MP, HNP Leader,

Mr Speaker, the CLP claim that only the taker of these drugs is affected. What about our health services that have to clean up after this addict whenever they take so much they need medical help? What about the workers in these hospitals that have to deal with these people?

Mr Speaker, the government has to interefere in these matters because if we dont, it has knock-on effects throughout our society and we hope the CLP member can acknowledge that it doesnt just affect the user.

Date17:19:34, May 13, 2010 CET
From Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM)
ToDebating the Personal Consumption Act
MessageMr Speaker, naturally-occuring drugs are subject to taxation, just like alcohol and tobacco. I am sure that my colleague, the Finance Secretary, will be considering taxation for other forms of legalised drugs. This, Mr Speaker, will partially cover any health costs. Of course, had we a private health care system, no company in their right mind would insure a regular drug-user, and so there would be a clear incentive for people not to take drugs. Mr Speaker, the government should not limit the individual's right to consume whatsoever he likes.

Date12:31:04, May 14, 2010 CET
From Hutorian Conservative Party
ToDebating the Personal Consumption Act
MessagePeter McCullum MP, HNP Leader,

Mr Speaker, whilst the CLP are right about taxing these awful products to cover health costs - what they did not answer however was how these drugs can lead to crime and how these people treat the staff in these hospitals? It is the governments duty to do what is best for its citizens and allowing them to essentially poison themselves we would consider as bad governance.

Date13:42:05, May 14, 2010 CET
From Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM)
ToDebating the Personal Consumption Act
MessageMr Speaker, if the individual wants to poison himself then so be it. No external authority should interfere with a sovereign decision, unless such a decision is intended to directly end one's life.

Mr Speaker, it is wrong to claim that the taking of drugs leads to crime. Statistics generally show that drugs only lead to crime when they are restricted, regulated or illegal. And that happens, Mr Speaker, because people will always attempt to get hold of the forbidden fruit, whatever the cost. When people are addicted, they need more, and so they commit crime to get it. Mr Speaker, if we legalise it, then there is no need whatsoever to commit the crime. Individuals can purchase them without breaking the law, and for many, because they are legal, the temptation of breaking the rules will lead them not to even bother.

More importantly, Mr Speaker, legalising these substances allows us to treat the problem in an adult way. It will allow us to highlight the problems of drug-taking entirely in the open, without using the usual tactic that one should not take drugs because it will lead to prison. No, instead, we will be able to tackle the problem by highlighting the health implications, and the cost. Bringing things into the light, Mr Speaker, tends to be a terrific cure.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
 

Total Seats: 168

no
 

Total Seats: 120

abstain
 

Total Seats: 103


Random fact: When your party holds the foreign affairs department, you can create new treaties. However, before writing anything new, it is a good idea to search for existing treaties which already accomplish what you desire.

Random quote: "In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up." - Pastor Martin Niemoller

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 52