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: Consumer Protection Act 2138
Details
Submitted by[?]: RSDP - Democratic Front
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: October 2139
Description[?]:
| An Act to enhance the protection and to guarantee the rights of the Rutanian consumer. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards alcoholic beverages.
Old value:: Alcoholic beverage regulations are not imposed by the government.
Current: Alcoholic beverages are regulated by local governments.
Proposed: Alcoholic beverages may be purchased only from licensed sales outlets, and can only be available to adults.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Food and beverage labeling regulations.
Old value:: Companies are required to label food and beverage products somewhere on the package.
Current: Companies must clearly label food and beverage products, in a manner that can be easily understood.
Proposed: Companies must clearly label food and beverage products, in a manner that can be easily understood.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Listing of controversial ingredients, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (if food labelling is applied).
Old value:: There is no requirement to disclose GM ingredients, or chemicals used in agrigulture or processing.
Current: Any chemicals used in agrigulture or processing must be listed. There is no requirement to disclose GM ingredients.
Proposed: Any chemicals used in agrigulture or processing, and any GM ingredients must be listed.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change
Scope of food ingredient labeling (if present).
Old value:: Only the major ingredients and those with specific labelling requirements must be listed.
Current: All ingredients and corresponding nutritional information must be listed.
Proposed: All ingredients and corresponding nutritional information must be listed.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Licensing of food sales.
Old value:: Anyone may sell food, but shelf lives of foods are enforced.
Current: Food may be sold by licensed vendors only, and shelf lives of foods are enforced.
Proposed: Food may be sold by licensed vendors only, and shelf lives of foods are enforced.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning genetically modified (GM) crops.
Old value:: invalid choice
Current: All activities related to production, selling or researching of GM crops are allowed.
Proposed: Production and selling of GM crops is banned. Research is allowed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:26:04, November 09, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Alcoholic Party II | To | Debating the Consumer Protection Act 2138 |
| Message | We fought long and hard for freedom of alcohol production and sale. That proposal alone guarantees our non-support, but we'll just give a quick run down of the other problems with this bill. Article 2 would jeapordize LD's popular "whiskey-ingredients-in-a-riddle" scheme. Article 3 isn't too awful, but we'd rather things stayed more unregulated so this hardly adds to our love of this bill. Article 4 is ok, but not wonderful. Article 5 really sucks. We fought hard to let unlicensed vendors sell their goods. Article 6 is pure, steaming authoritarianism. There is nothing to suggest that GM crops are in any way harmful, and the burden of proof lies on the kooks who want them banned. Research into the field is useless if it has no practical application, and GM technology offers cheap solutions to crisis relief by providing robust, above-average yields at a low cost. |
| Date | 19:26:32, November 09, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Consumer Protection Act 2138 |
| Message | Against. |
| Date | 21:05:07, November 09, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Consumer Protection Act 2138 |
| Message | LIP, two words: which and why? |
| Date | 23:51:22, November 09, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Consumer Protection Act 2138 |
| Message | The FP Members say; All of them, because they suck. We share the concerns of the LAP |
| Date | 18:52:00, November 10, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Consumer Protection Act 2138 |
| Message | So the rights of the consumer are secondary to the rights of the corporations? It really says a lot about you. |
| Date | 19:30:01, November 10, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Consumer Protection Act 2138 |
| Message | "LIP, two words: which and why?" All of them because they're illiberal / stupid / both. |
| Date | 20:52:37, November 10, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Consumer Protection Act 2138 |
| Message | How does preventing them from buying alcohol protect the rights of the consumer? Same with GM Crops |
| Date | 10:10:22, November 11, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Consumer Protection Act 2138 |
| Message | Preventing them from bying alcohol with methanol in it IS protection of their rights. ;-) |
| Date | 10:10:48, November 11, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Consumer Protection Act 2138 |
| Message | And the technology used for GM crops has not been conclusively proven to be safe. |
| Date | 14:00:12, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Consumer Protection Act 2138 |
| Message | Evolution has not been conclusively proven to be true The big bang has not been conclusively proven to be true |
| Date | 15:00:30, November 11, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Consumer Protection Act 2138 |
| Message | Evolution has been, and the big bang is the best theory we've got. But you're avoiding the true question: namely that you want companies and corporations to be able to put whatever they want in food, including things that have not been conclusively proven to be safe. If GM foods are conclusively proven safe, I'll be the first to favour the removal of the ban on them, but the thing is that they haven't been proven safe, and that there is a lot of evidence suggesting they are in fact damaging to nature and man. |
| Date | 18:34:09, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Consumer Protection Act 2138 |
| Message | "Preventing them from bying alcohol with methanol in it IS protection of their rights. ;-)" Why would anyone sell alocoholic drinks containing methanol? Wouldnt that just kill / severely maim their customer base? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 94 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 505 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Cultural Protocols should generally be reflective of RP conducted within the nation and should not significantly alter or modify the ethnic, religious or linguistic composition without considerable and reasonable role-play or other justification. |
| Random quote: "God has cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand tempests and floods. But he cannot save them from fools." - John Muir |